Structuring for Influence: Rethinking Brussels Public Affairs Teams. The Internal Side of Public Affairs (52)

Alan Hardacre, PhD

Co-Founder Advocacy Academy, Advocacy Strategy

In Public Affairs the structure of a team is critical. I have, in the past looked at the importance of clear (outcome focused) objectives and the subsequent alignment with other adjacent functions to ensure smooth internal operations. This week I want to look at something that has come up with a few people in the last weeks – the structure of a Brussels Office Public Affairs Team. I should add that, whilst Brussels is the example here, the core of this discussion is one for almost all local / regional Public Affairs teams.

So, Public Affairs teams operating at the EU level face a challenge: how best to organize themselves to engage effectively with the three core institutions (European Commission, Parliament, and Council) and beyond. These three institutions have distinct roles, rhythms, and access points. Two of them are obviously in Brussels but the Council is a more member State / local institution. How do you structure an EU Public Affairs team to deliver influence in this complex, multi-stakeholder environment? As I said I have had several conversations about this recently so I wanted to set out what I have observed.

The Traditional Model: Institutional Leads

Many Brussels teams mirror the EU’s institutional architecture by appointing dedicated leads for each of the “Big Three”:

• Commission lead: Focused on policy formulation and early-stage agenda setting.

• Parliament lead: Manages the dynamic and political debates during legislative review.

Council lead: Navigates member state interests and builds alliances across national representations and/or coordinates local markets or associations.

At first glance, this makes intuitive sense—each institution requires specialist knowledge and relationships. However, this model often creates fragmentation and silos:

• Siloed efforts: When each lead runs their own playbook, the narrative can become disjointed or even contradictory.

• Internal competition: Prioritization becomes a challenge when institutional timelines and needs conflict.

• Reduced agility: Cross-functional campaigns struggle when team members are overly tied to institutional remits rather than shared objectives.

To be honest many of my recent conversations have been about the limitations and problems with this approach to Brussels teams. Before further comment let’s look at probably the biggest other model that offices use.

The Holistic Model: Campaign-Based Structuring

Many organisations now structure their teams around issues or campaigns rather than institutions. These teams:

• Have a clear issue / file / campaign lead.

• Set strategic goals tied to policy outcomes.

• Develop coordinated messaging and engagement plans across all three institutions.

• Leverage institutional touchpoints as part of an integrated strategy, not as isolated activities.

This approach enhances alignment, flexibility, and often, effectiveness. However, it also comes with challenges:

• Knowledge depth: Campaign teams need to maintain institutional expertise without defaulting to generalism.

• Coordination demands: Strategic coherence requires strong internal governance and shared performance metrics.

• Talent model: Hiring and training must support versatility, not just institutional know-how.

So What’s the Right Answer?

From my experience I think many Brussels teams used to be structured by institution – but many have moved towards the project-campaign lead model. This is perhaps also part of the move away from hiring ex-institutional people to hiring more Public Affairs experts who know how to project manage a campaign. Ultimately however, the best structure reflects the nature of your issues, the scale of your operations, and the maturity of your Public Affairs team. 

As a general rule from what I can see campaign-based structuring with embedded institutional expertise is much more likely to be effective – and is less prone to internal politics and problems. This hybrid model combines the strategic coherence of issue-based teams with the tactical advantage of institutional fluency. It allows Public Affairs functions to:

• Advance narratives that make sense across the policy lifecycle.

• Build relationships that serve broader objectives—not just individual touchpoints.

• Measure success based on policy outcomes, not activity by institution.

Why It Matters

Brussels teams often struggle to find a place in organisations given that they do not link to a market (in the way country teams do). This means use of resources, effectiveness and impact are all much more scrutinized – and the structure of the team is critical to all of this. This choice is a driver of influence. Brussels is too complex—and too strategic—for outdated or siloed approaches. As Public Affairs continues its internal evolution, how we organise ourselves may be the difference between being present in Brussels and being effective in Brussels.

I am curious what others see this challenge – how do you experience this structural question? What has worked for you – and are there any other models that work well?