This Op-Ed by Lea Schewe, Simon Otto, and Sebastian Oberthür first appeared in EU Observer on 20 May 2025.
The EU's strategic dialogues — are they just 'participation washing'?
Strategic Dialogues, the European Commission’s latest effort to engage stakeholders, target contentious issues like the green transition and agricultural reform. It is a promising step — but risks falling flat without deeper reform.
To avoid becoming a missed opportunity for EU democratic strengthening, these dialogues must embrace greater inclusivity, transparency, and genuine deliberation. With key initiatives ahead, the Commission now has a chance to turn them from symbolic exercises into meaningful democratic tools.
The promises…
Since 2023, the European Commission has launched several Strategic Dialogues to involve stakeholders in shaping EU policies on critical issues — from the future of agriculture and the clean industrial transition to the car and metal industries.
The pace has picked up in 2025, with further dialogues planned.
These dialogues hold real promise. Research consistently shows that public participation — especially when introduced early — can improve the quality of policies and boost their legitimacy.
The 1998 Aarhus Convention, a cornerstone of environmental democracy, makes this clear: involving the public at the agenda-setting stage is crucial. Strategic Dialogues could offer just that — a way to open up EU policymaking before decisions are set in stone.
… and pitfalls
But for that promise to translate into real impact, quality matters. Effective participation requires three things: broad and balanced representation, transparency and accountability, and space for meaningful discussion.
So far, Strategic Dialogues have fallen short on all three fronts — undermining both their credibility and their potential.
First, stakeholder representation has been strikingly unbalanced. Industry voices have dominated the discussions, while civil society organisations and independent experts have been sidelined. As a result, the dialogues have missed the opportunity to fully reflect the public interest and integrate scientific evidence.
Second, the process has lacked transparency and accountability. Most dialogues have taken place behind closed doors, with minimal public information about the agenda, participants, or outcomes. With no detailed records and no clear reporting, the public is left in the dark — unable to follow discussions or assess how stakeholder input shapes EU strategies.
Third, genuine debate has been largely absent. Many dialogues have been one-off events with little room for interaction. Rather than fostering two-way deliberation, they have operated as a one-way input collection exercise. This undermines their potential to strengthen policy quality, encourage dialogue between opposing views, and build consensus.
One exception proves what is possible.
The 2024 Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture offered a more balanced, transparent, and deliberative model. It included a wide range of voices, unfolded over multiple meetings, and resulted in a largely consensual and generally well-regarded final report. Yet, despite its success, it has not been used as a blueprint for future Dialogues — a missed chance to institutionalise best practices.
Risk of 'participation washing'
Poorly-executed Strategic Dialogues risk turning into what critics call 'participation washing': using stakeholder engagement as a symbolic gesture to legitimise pre-decided outcomes. Without a real commitment to meaningful participation, these dialogues become tools for optics, not substance.
Their true value lies in filling a gap — bringing in early public input where it is often lacking in EU policymaking.
But if they are used to justify political decisions retroactively, or worse, to bypass established mechanisms like the commission’s public consultations or proper impact assessments, they risk eroding trust instead of building it.
A recent example highlights this concern.
The commission’s legislative proposal to relax CO₂ standards for cars referenced a preceding Strategic Dialogue that had produced no agreed outcome. Meanwhile, the commission ignored its own Better Regulation Guidelines by skipping both broader consultations and an impact assessment. It is little wonder this raised suspicions of undue industry influence and damaged the proposal’s credibility.
For Strategic Dialogues to fulfil their potential, the EU Commission must clarify their purpose and process.
Vague formats and unclear roles discourage meaningful engagement and risk turning participation into a box-ticking exercise. By specifying how these dialogues complement existing mechanisms and committing to robust participation standards, the commission can enhance public trust and its credibility.
The commission now has a chance to integrate Strategic Dialogues with its broader participatory agenda, including initiatives like the European Democracy Shield and the "EU Strategy to support, protect and empower civil society”. A commission communication, based on thorough public consultations, could provide the foundation for transforming these dialogues into a real asset.
Done right, Strategic Dialogues could become a vital tool for inclusive, solution-oriented engagement and a powerful driver of deeper EU democracy — both symbolically and substantively.
About the Authors
Lea Schewe is a PhD Researcher in the Centre for Environment, Economy and Energy (C3E) of the Brussels School of Governance (BSoG), part of the Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB). Her PhD is funded by the research programme on Enhancing Democratic Governance in Europe (EDGE). Lea’s research focuses on topics at the intersection of democratic and climate governance, with a specific focus on public participation in EU-level policies. Her PhD explores the conditions driving and/or hindering high-quality public participation in European climate policy, through the case study of the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). She worked previously as an Associate at the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and as a research associate at the University of Guadeloupe. Lea holds a master’s degree in political Ecology from Sciences Po Lille and a master’s degree in European studies from the BSoG/VUB.
Simon Otto is a researcher in the Centre for Environment, Economy and Energy at the Brussels School of Governance. As part of the NDC ASPECTS project, his research focuses on advancing international climate policy, with a specific focus on the decarbonisation of the industry sector. Additionally, Simon has expertise and practical experience on EU climate policy, with an emphasis on the EU's role in international climate politics.
Prof. Dr. Sebastian Oberthür is the Co-Director of the Research Centre for Environment, Economy and Energy, and Professor for Environment and Sustainable Development at the Brussels School of Governance (BSoG). He is also Professor of Environmental Policy and Law at the Centre for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law at the University of Eastern Finland.
He has extensive expertise on European and international environmental governance, policy and law, including climate governance, with an emphasis on institutional issues and perspectives.