Damage Control in Brussels

The Challenges of Crisis Communication in EU Institutions

The European Commission (EC) plays a central role in EU governance, acting as both the executive body and a regulatory authority. Its legitimacy is built on trust, transparency, and adherence to ethical norms. However, political scandals can severely damage this legitimacy, triggering crises that require strategic communication and reputation management.

This paper examines the EC's crisis communication strategy through two high-profile scandals: the Dalli Cash-for-Influence Scandal (2012) and the Barroso Revolving Doors Scandal (2016). Using five key crisis management indicators—speed, openness, rule application, tone, and reform engagement—this analysis assesses the effectiveness of the EC’s response and extracts key lessons for political crisis management.

1. Scandal, Reputation, and the European Commission’s Crisis Response Model

Understanding Political Scandals and Institutional Reputation

A political scandal is an event that attracts significant media attention due to allegations of unethical or illegal behavior by public officials. Scandals can lead to reputational damage, loss of public trust, and institutional delegitimization. The EC, as a bureaucratic entity, faces unique challenges in responding to scandals due to its intergovernmental structure and the necessity of balancing legal compliance with political legitimacy.

The EC’s Accountability Framework

To mitigate reputational risks, the EC operates under an accountability framework that includes:

• Ethical Guidelines: The Code of Conduct for Commissioners (revised in 2018) governs ethical behavior and conflicts of interest.

• Investigative Bodies: The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigates cases of corruption or fraud within EU institutions.

• Media and Civil Society Oversight: Public watchdogs and investigative journalism play a crucial role in exposing unethical behavior.

Despite these safeguards, scandals still emerge, challenging the Commission’s ability to uphold credibility and legitimacy.

2. Case Study 1: The Dalli Cash-for-Influence Scandal (2012)

Overview

In 2012, Health Commissioner John Dalli was accused of involvement in a bribery scheme concerning EU tobacco regulations. A lobbyist allegedly solicited €60 million from the Swedish tobacco company Swedish Match in exchange for favorable policy influence.

Crisis Response Effectiveness

• Speed: The EC acted quickly, referring the case to OLAF within months. The investigation was completed within five months.

• Openness: The EC and OLAF initially withheld the investigation details, fueling speculation and criticism from civil society groups such as ALTER-EU and Corporate Europe Observatory.

• Rule Application: The Commission applied its ethics rules strictly, forcing Dalli’s resignation despite inconclusive evidence.

• Tone: The EC distanced itself from Dalli, attempting to minimize political fallout rather than fully engage in transparent crisis communication.

• Reform Engagement: While the case spurred discussions on lobbying transparency and OLAF’s oversight, concrete reforms were minimal.

Key Takeaway

Legal compliance alone does not ensure public trust. A lack of transparency can exacerbate reputational damage and erode credibility.

3. Case Study 2: The Barroso Revolving Doors Scandal (2016)

Overview

In 2016, former EC President José Manuel Barroso accepted a high-profile job at Goldman Sachs, sparking allegations of conflicts of interest. The scandal was especially damaging due to Goldman Sachs' role in the 2008 financial crisis and the EU's post-crisis regulations, which Barroso had previously helped shape.

Crisis Response Effectiveness

• Speed: The EC responded sluggishly, only addressing concerns after sustained pressure from media and civil society.

• Openness: Initially, the EC dismissed the controversy, then reluctantly referred the case to the Ad Hoc Ethical Committee.

• Rule Application: The EC focused on the narrow 18-month cooling-off period, rather than broader ethical concerns about conflicts of interest.

• Tone: Defensive at first, the EC later adopted a neutral stance after significant public backlash.

• Reform Engagement: The Commissioners’ Code of Conduct was revised in 2018, extending the cooling-off period and strengthening ethical oversight, but changes were largely reactive.

Key Takeaway

Public perception matters as much as legal technicalities. Failure to act decisively can damage institutional credibilityand prolong crises.

4. Lessons from the European Commission’s Crisis Management Strategy

1. Proactive Transparency Reduces Backlash

• Delayed or opaque communication fuels conspiracy theories and distrust.

• In both scandals, the EC's reluctance to disclose full details amplified public skepticism.

2. Speed Matters, But Strategic Framing is Essential

• Swift action without clear messaging can allow misinformation to thrive.

• While the EC acted quickly in the Dalli case, its failure to control the narrative worsened public perception.

3. Legal Compliance ≠ Public Trust

• Ethical crises require moral leadership, not just procedural adherence.

• The Barroso scandal exposed a disconnect between formal rules and public expectations.

4. Stakeholder Engagement Shapes Crisis Outcomes

• Civil society groups, media, and EU institutions play a critical role in shaping public narratives.

• The EC’s dismissive approach to stakeholder concerns prolonged both scandals.

5. Institutional Reforms Must Be Substantive, Not Symbolic

• The 2018 Code of Conduct revision was reactive and failed to address broader lobbying concerns.

• Proactive ethics enforcement is necessary to prevent future reputation risks.

5. Conclusion: Building a More Resilient Crisis Communication Strategy for the EC

The European Commission’s reputation is a strategic asset—its management of scandals directly impacts its legitimacy and authority. The two case studies reveal that while the EC is adept at legal rule application, it struggles with transparency, stakeholder engagement, and proactive reform.

To enhance its crisis response, the EC must:

• Prioritize transparency from the outset to prevent speculation and misinformation.

• Frame crises strategically, ensuring that public messaging aligns with ethical commitments.

• Adopt a stakeholder-driven approach, acknowledging civil society and media concerns.

• Institutionalize stronger ethics enforcement to prevent future reputation risks.

Further Reading

Cini, M. (2024). Organizational responses to scandals: How effective is the European Commission? Comparative European Politics, 22, 557–573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00373-1