“What!? More new requirements and regulations from the start of next year? Why am I just hearing about this now?”  

Despite government ministries’ increasingly effective engagement efforts, this kind of startled reaction when reading the news is not uncommon. Small business owners and startups, in particular, often focus all their energy on building their businesses or managing day-to-day operations that keep the lights on. Unfortunately, this isn’t just a concern for beginners—overlooking new regulatory processes happens even in the best-run companies. It’s entirely fair to admit that staying on top of everything isn’t always possible, nor is it necessary. But it’s undeniably frustrating when surprises like these arise.  

Wouldn’t it be more practical if experts kept an eye on regulatory changes—just as they do with climate change? Whether it’s an in-house legal advisor, an industry association, or an agency that specializes in tracking sector-specific developments, these professionals have the tools and methods to monitor important updates effectively.

“There’s a draft bill in Parliament that directly impacts us—we need to act quickly and bring in some help! (P.S. Who even voted for these people!?)”  

Many can relate to discovering a critical update in their inbox—perhaps an overlooked notification from an industry association or an alert about a bill in Parliament. Worse still, it might significantly impact current business operations, whether it’s a new obligation, regulation, or tax. By the time a bill is under parliamentary review, it’s often too late to amend or reverse it.  

While META Advisory has seen successful last-minute advocacy efforts, effective government relations require a longer-term, well-thought-out strategy. Scrambling at the last stage of the process can do more harm than good, particularly when considering future relationships. In Estonia—a democratic country with relatively straightforward legislative procedures—there’s enough time and opportunity to communicate clear messages to decision-makers, ideally at earlier stages. These messages can be critical or supportive, depending on whether the legal framework needs more clarity or stricter rules to ensure a level playing field.

“Sure, the ministry is at it again, but as long as the same rules apply to everyone, it doesn’t matter—they don’t listen to us anyway.”  

Estonian entrepreneurs (and people in general) tend to be highly tolerant. Most will endure hardships as long as competitors face the same challenges. Protests and flipped cars aren’t standard methods for expressing dissatisfaction here. However, passive indifference isn’t constructive, either. While rules may apply equally to everyone, the starting points and competitiveness vary significantly.  

Estonia is also characterized by its horizontal structure. Along with its relatively flat geography, the country’s power structure is remarkably accessible. With enough determination and reasoning, anyone can secure a meeting with a minister or high-ranking official. The real question is whether this opportunity is used effectively. Many META consultants have previously worked in government roles, giving us a deep understanding of who to approach, when, and how to ensure entrepreneurs’ legitimate interests are heard.  

“I heard the EU imposed yet another set of pointless regulations on our industry. At least we get subsidies from them.” 

Our expertise isn’t limited to Estonia. We are well-versed in European Union processes and the institutions involved. No EU rule or regulation appears overnight, leaving local officials scrambling to adapt them to Estonian law. Yes, there’s been a lot lately, and our small country’s administrative capacity has been put to the test. However, every EU legislative act goes through a lengthy process before approval, during which stakeholders can participate and voice their opinions. The best time to engage is when the EU calls for public consultation.  

EU decision-making can seem complex, and it often feels like decisions are made in a “black box,” impossible to understand or influence. This isn’t true. It’s worth remembering that many officials in Europe or Estonia lack practical field experience. That’s why government relations are essential—not just for advocacy’s sake but for creating a better legal framework overall.

“My team at META handles that!”  

Ultimately, there’s another option: delegate. It’s most efficient when entrepreneurs focus on running their businesses, leaders ensure the execution of business plans, and government relations consultants ensure that the correct information reaches the right decision-makers at the right time. Every business is unique, and competition in an open world is fierce. That’s why people should focus on what they do best—whether running a company or navigating these seemingly vague processes. One thing is sure: we’re ready to tackle any challenge head-on. Contact us! 

Government relations, simply put, is the interaction between businesses and organisations with government institutions and legislators. Such regular dialogue plays a crucial role in today’s democratic process, bridging the public, private sector, and government institutions. Engaging stakeholders enables lawmakers to develop effective policies and promote balanced regulation. Regular communication between decision-makers and businesses or organisations facilitates informed decisions on both sides.

Representing stakeholders’ interests is better known as lobbying, although due to the negative connotation of the word, alternatives like “advocacy” or broader terms like “influencing politicians” have been sought.

“Regular communication between decision-makers and businesses or organisations facilitates informed decisions on both sides.”

Indeed, even the Estonian explanatory dictionary defines lobbying as “informal influencing of parliament members or other decision-makers through gifts, bribes, etc., in hopes of receiving favourable decisions for one’s interest group.” Such a condemning definition is likely why democratic countries and organisations have attempted to regulate lobbying for years.

As lobbying has become more prevalent, the rules in this field have tightened at the EU level in recent years. This, of course, has been driven by incidents that unfortunately deepen the negative perception surrounding lobbying. The latest scandal to shake Europe’s political landscape, “Qatargate,” involved an investigation into whether Qatar unlawfully influenced or even bribed European Parliament members to achieve foreign policy goals. This case prompted a wave of new laws.

Just a few mandates ago, Members of the European Parliament were relatively free in their meetings’ schedule; now, MEPs and their advisors are required to disclose all meetings with lobby groups regularly.

European countries have adopted different practices and regulations to manage lobbying and ensure transparency. In many countries, lobbying disclosure is voluntary, but both businesses and the public sector increasingly understand the growing pressure to act more transparently.

The number of lobbyists registered in the EU Transparency Register has grown significantly since its creation in 2021, rising from 5,500 to approximately 12,500 in 2024. It is important to note though that being listed in the transparency register is a prerequisite for a lobbyist to obtain an access badge to the European Parliament. In the UK, the number of members in the lobbying registry increased sharply in 2022 when the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists conducted a broad campaign promoting transparency.

In France, since 2018, lobbyists have been required to disclose their activities in considerable detail in a dedicated registry. Lobbying activities are categorised as “principal” and “regular”, and general information about the type or level of public official (such as minister or cabinet) met with and even approximate lobbying expenses must be provided. If legal requirements are not met and the registrant does not comply, sanctions can reach up to a €15,000 fine or a year’s imprisonment.

In Sweden, as in the Nordics more broadly, lobbying is not regulated. A different approach is used, focusing on ethical guidelines and self-regulation. The system relies on the commitment of lobbyists and organisations to follow ethical practices. Emphasis is placed on public accountability. Illegal lobbying is subject to influence-peddling regulations.

In Estonia, in 2021, the government approved a code of good practice for officials’ communication with lobbyists, prepared by the Ministry of Justice. This code requires senior officials to disclose meetings at least once a quarter. While there are no written rules for advocates in Estonia, consultants are under increased pressure to follow higher transparency standards and maintain expertise in their work.

Honest lobbying is essential for democracy – involving companies and organisations in the creation of new legislation strengthens our policy-making processes. The contributions of many participants provide access to specialised knowledge and data that may otherwise be inaccessible, which, in turn, helps create better laws.

“Honest lobbying is essential for democracy – involving companies and organisations in the creation of new legislation strengthens our policy-making processes.”

Effective lobbying remains a critical component of the democratic process, ensuring well-informed decisions. A culture of openness and transparency surrounding lobbying is, therefore, key. At META, we advocate transparent and proper conduct and expect the same from our clients.

Government relations are an important part of a company’s strategic management but managing them successfully and openly requires knowledge and skills. META’s Political Risk Management Seminar provides managers with practical tools to understand the dynamics of the political environment, assess risks and manage them effectively. The seminar focuses on how to maintain relationships with decision-makers, time messages and create opportunities, not just react to changes.

If you want to protect your company and use regulatory changes to your advantage, contact us today: kairi.uustulnd@metaadvisory.ee 

For the first time in Estonia, a party leader’s torch will be passed from father to son this weekend. There is nothing illegal about this, but it is an excellent opportunity to discuss political dynasties in a democracy.

More generally, the informality of the decision-making process is a crucial feature of political dynasties, and this brings with it a number of specific features. By the way, the informality of decision-making is not necessarily a family phenomenon. It can also be linked to a situation in which a person, who is not adequately placed in the decision-making hierarchy, can perform a certain level of functions. An interesting example in this respect is Margaret Thatcher’s press secretary, Bernard Ingham, who was the envy of members of Thatcher’s cabinet because it was by allegation he whom Thatcher listened to for advice on various sectoral policies (Ingham served Thatcher for 11 years and was knighted at the same time as Thatcher resigned).

There are political families in Estonia, but it is questionable whether we can speak of political dynasties in Estonia as in general, in democracy, a political dynasty would require a bloodline of at least three generations. So the Kallas, the Helmets, and the Savisards have another generation to work on. Of course, there are countries where the bar is much higher. For instance, in the United States, there are thought to be four political dynasties in all. These are the Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, and the Bushes – all of whom have had at least two presidents in their own families. In American terms, the total number of political dynasties is thought to be around 40, the most famous of which are undoubtedly the Kennedys, the Clintons (Bill Clinton’s uncle was a member of the Arkansas State House of Representatives). Or, for example, the Cheneys, in whose family Dick Cheney is known to have been Bush Jr.’s vice-president and whose daughter is now a member of the US House of Representatives.

As expected, in European terms, political dynasties have a completely different meaning than the countries of South-East Asia, where combating them is, one might say, a discipline in itself. The most striking example is the Philippines. The political environment there is described as being controlled by totally different dynasties, controlled by seven families. This bizarre mix results from a corporatist political culture, widespread corruption, and a highly corporatist social model rooted in the colonial era. The political systems there have gone so far that, in the case of Indonesia (the world’s third-largest democracy), for example, a particular law has been passed banning close relatives of members of parliament from holding any public office for more than four years.

But in general, the emergence of political families is a socio-cultural phenomenon that is relatively fruitless to combat.

But in general, the emergence of political families is a socio-cultural phenomenon that is relatively fruitless to combat.

What causes this phenomenon? In environments where campaigning is extremely expensive, money certainly plays a significant role (USA). In Southeast Asian and Latin American societies, where we are talking about high levels of corruption and caste systems, the problem of hierarchical societies plays a role not only because of money but also because access to public decision-making is minimal. Even everywhere in the European Union, there is a principle that access to public decision-making is better for graduates of specific schools.

In the case of France, for example, it is the alumni of the École Nationale d’administration. A large number of French presidents, including Chirac, Hollande, Macron, and Giscard d’Estaing, not to mention prime ministers, a large number of whom are alumni of this school. Even though France has the most etatist tradition of national governance, educational background is always vital in political dynasties. And, of course, the individual’s brand always plays a major role in politics. In this sense, a person whose surname is, for example, Meri or Rüütel will always have an advantage over someone whose name is, for example, Kuusk or Kask. I know this first-hand, as I was involved in an experiment almost 20 years ago when I was asked to stand as a candidate for one of the first names of the President of the Republic of Estonia, who, without any campaigning, received around 400 votes in local elections.

By the way, there is also a considerable risk with political families – sons and daughters may not always be as successful as their parents.