The European Union’s internal structure under Ursula von der Leyen is facing growing criticism from campaigners who say it has become harder to influence policy, especially on climate and equality issues.
Green groups and civil society organisations say the current setup inside the European Commission has made it more difficult to identify who is responsible for key policy decisions.
They argue that the restructuring of portfolios under von der Leyen’s second term has created confusion over which departments handle specific legislative areas.
Advocates say this has made lobbying and policy engagement more complex, particularly for environmental and human rights organisations that rely on clear access points within EU institutions.
According to several Brussels-based stakeholders, the system now favours industry groups, which they claim have a more direct route to decision-makers.
Some lobbyists say the shift reflects a broader change in EU priorities, with less emphasis on climate policy compared with previous years and more focus on competitiveness, defence, and economic security.
The EU’s earlier “Green Deal” agenda, which dominated von der Leyen’s first term, is seen by many activists as having lost influence in the current structure.
Campaigners say the fragmentation of responsibilities across multiple commissioners has made it harder to track policy development and engage effectively.
Sven Harmeling said that unclear division of responsibilities among departments is creating confusion for civil society groups trying to follow policy discussions.
He noted that the lack of a single clear lead on major climate issues is making advocacy work more difficult.
Under the revised structure introduced in late 2024, the Commission now includes multiple executive vice presidents who are responsible for coordinating policy across different areas.
However, critics say this system has created overlapping responsibilities and blurred lines of authority.
In the previous structure, climate policy was more clearly centralised under a single leadership team, making engagement simpler for external stakeholders.
Now, responsibilities are spread across different portfolios, including competition, industry, and climate transition roles.
Some policy consultants say this has made it harder for non-industry actors to keep up with decision-making processes.
They argue that corporate stakeholders often have more resources and established channels to navigate the system effectively.
Green campaigners also say consultation processes have become less open in some cases, with fewer stakeholders being included in early-stage discussions.
They claim this reduces transparency and limits the influence of civil society in shaping legislation.
A European Commission official defended the current system, saying the structure was designed to improve cooperation and reduce rigid departmental barriers.
They said commissioners work more closely together under a coordinated leadership model and maintain equal responsibility for delivering policy priorities.
However, critics argue that in practice, decision-making power appears more concentrated at the top level, particularly within the President’s office and close advisory teams.
Some Members of the European Parliament have also expressed concern that the new structure allows too much central control over policy direction.
The debate comes at a time when the EU is balancing competing priorities, including economic competitiveness, security concerns, and climate commitments.
Advocacy groups working on equality issues have also raised concerns about reduced visibility for social policy within the Commission’s broader agenda.
They say equality initiatives risk being overshadowed by economic and defence-related priorities.
Despite criticism, the Commission maintains that equality remains a key policy area, pointing to ongoing initiatives and stakeholder engagement efforts.
Officials say consultations, policy dialogues, and inclusion programmes continue to be part of the Commission’s work across member states.
As internal restructuring continues to shape how EU policy is made, debate is expected to intensify over transparency, access, and the balance between political leadership and institutional processes.
For now, campaigners say the challenge remains the same: knowing who to speak to to influence decisions that affect millions across the European Union.
