So the ambition with this initiative is to provide readers with a realistic view of what Public Affairs is really about: honest and hard work! It is about learning from good or bad habits from some of the best in the business.

So remember to subscribe to the blog, so you don’t miss out on the upcoming guest blogs.

Subscribe now

The January blogger was Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso, which you can read here.

The February blogger was Vera Heitmann, Head of Public Affairs, IKEA Germany, which you can read here.

The March blogger was Milos Labovic, the author of “EU Superlobby: Winning in Brussels”, which you can read here.

The April blogger was Germana Barba, Public Affairs advisor, University lecturer and Machiavelli “admirer”, which you can read here.

The May blogger was Benedicte Staalesen, Director, Communication & Public Affairs at Northern Lights, which you can read here.

The June blogger was Jernej Vernik, Public Affairs Pro, fencing master and EU-expert, which you can read here.

So, the July blogger is… Paul Ploberger, Public Affairs Lead, refurbed.

For how long have you worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

Seven years in total. I studied Political Science and always felt drawn to international politics, which is what took me to the UN, the Austrian Foreign Ministry, and eventually the Austrian Permanent Representation to the EU. At the PermRep I covered a wide portfolio, from transport and mobility to energy and beyond. After six years in ministerial and institutional settings, I realised that path wasn’t for me long-term and that I wanted to move into the private sector.

I’ve now been at refurbed for almost four years, where I lead Public Affairs across all our markets, with most of my time and effort going into EU politics, Austria, and Germany. I joined refurbed because I believe in the vision of transitioning our economy into a circular one and making our consumption sustainable. Being able to use my skills and knowledge every day to do something I perceive as the right thing gives me a sense of purpose and motivation that I value highly. Circular economy is a fascinating field to work in, as it sits at an unresolved intersection of environmental ambition, industrial policy, product legislation, consumer law, and digital regulation, and it’s a highly innovative field that spurs new ideas and technologies very rapidly.

How big is your PA department, and where is it placed in your organization?

Up until now, our PA department has been just me, though another PA professional will be joining me shortly. I report directly to a co-founder, and I really appreciate having that direct line into the founding and leadership team. In my opinion, this close contact to leadership is essential for PA to function well. Since I also advise internally on positioning, compliance, and similar matters, it’s really crucial to get high-level decisions quickly, and for that you need direct access.

What is the split between internal and external meetings for you?

Hard to say precisely, as it fluctuates a lot. I’m based in Vienna but travel regularly to Brussels or Berlin, and during those trips I’ll often have entire weeks of nothing but external meetings. Overall, I’d estimate it’s roughly 50/50. I see Public Affairs as having a genuinely important internal function too, when it comes to strategy, positioning, and compliance, which is why I also have a lot of internal meetings with leadership and senior management.

What is your take on the AI buzz in PA?

AI is genuinely useful for the unglamorous 80% of PA work: drafting talking points, structuring consultation responses, keeping track of legislative timelines, prepping briefings before a meeting with an MEP’s office. It hasn’t replaced the actual judgment calls: reading a room in a Commission meeting, knowing when a “grow the pie” framing lands versus falls flat, or deciding which of twelve possible asks to actually make. The risk I see in the industry is people using AI to produce more content faster without more insight, which just adds noise to an already noisy Brussels information environment. Used well, it’s a research and drafting accelerant, not a substitute for relationships or judgment.

Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

A mix of newsletters, news portals, the associations we’re part of in Brussels, Berlin, and Vienna, and my direct contacts and network on LinkedIn. And, like probably everyone else in our industry, I read the Playbooks by Politico.

Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why

I’ve met a lot of really great and talented people from whom I’ve learned a great deal, so it feels a bit odd to single out one person in particular. I’d rather share some of the insights I’ve picked up along the way and apply day to day.

The first is that PA is much more about listening than talking. Some people think you have to speak a lot to convince others, whereas I often find the opposite to be true. I always try to find out what drives the other person and what problem they’re actually trying to solve.

That’s closely tied to the second insight: to convince someone, I try to show them how what I’m proposing helps solve their problem. Once they understand that I’m proposing something mutually beneficial, they’re far more likely to take it on.

The third is that you have to be able to let your ideas go and be fine with someone else promoting them as their own. I try to keep my ego out of it as much as possible, because decision-makers need to be able to prove their worth too. Since I’m convinced I’m working on a good cause, the transition to a circular economy and more sustainable consumption, I take it as a compliment when my ideas get taken up by someone else.

What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

I hold regular internal PA workshops for colleagues who are interested in the topic, and I always recommend Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. It’s quite old, but it’s a classic, and many of its principles still hold true. I find it a great and useful read for anyone who wants to understand more about the world of PA.

Who do you follow on social media in relation to Public Affairs (if any)?

To be honest, I try to consume as little social media as possible, so I don’t follow any PA professionals specifically. The one exception is LinkedIn, though I’m not particularly active there either, and the people I follow are mostly personal contacts rather than industry accounts.

Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

I’d love to read one from some of the truly dedicated and driven PA professionals I know, people like Inés Alberico from Right to Repair Europe or Alex Braley from Sustainable Public Affairs. What I’d also find extremely interesting is to get insights from the Head of Patagonia’s PA team, or to hear someone talk about PA who is often “on the other side of the table,” like someone from a Commissioner’s cabinet.

What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

I think the biggest challenge for PA is PA itself. Our discipline often gets a bad reputation, and to be honest, that’s often rightfully so. When people hear “lobbying,” they think of shady backroom deals, of big pharma, oil, or tobacco companies pushing for regulation that ultimately undermines the environmental and social conditions we depend on to live. That does still exist, driven by PA professionals looking only for their own short-term financial gain without considering the wider implications of their actions.

I believe we PA professionals hold a real responsibility: we sometimes have the ability to influence legislation that has a huge impact on people, the environment, and our societies, yet unlike politicians, we’re not held publicly accountable for it. That gap creates an incentive for egotistical, short-term behaviour.

But we are all part of the problem as much as we are part of the solution. If more of us held ourselves to the same high moral standards we expect of politicians, I think Public Affairs professionals could have a genuinely positive impact on the way we live.

So the ambition with this initiative is to provide readers with a realistic view of what Public Affairs is really about: honest and hard work! It is about learning from good or bad habits from some of the best in the business.

So remember to subscribe to the blog, so you don’t miss out on the upcoming guest blogs.

Subscribe now

The January blogger was Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso, which you can read here.

The February blogger was Vera Heitmann, Head of Public Affairs, IKEA Germany, which you can read here.

The March blogger was Milos Labovic, the author of “EU Superlobby: Winning in Brussels”, which you can read here.

The April blogger was Germana Barba, Public Affairs advisor, University lecturer and Machiavelli “admirer”, which you can read here.

The May blogger was Benedicte Staalesen, Director, Communication & Public Affairs at Northern Lights, which you can read here.

So, this months blogger is… Jernej Vernik: Public Affairs Pro, fencing master and EU-expert.

For how long have your worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

I’ve been working in Public Affairs for 20+ years now, across the European Parliament, industry associations, and corporate roles. What originally drew me in was a mix of curiosity and timing. During my university years, I was particularly interested in political geography, the functioning of the EU, and environmental protection—especially where it intersects with energy. I also had a strong desire to work abroad and get closer to where decisions are made. My entry into Public Affairs was quite organic. I joined the European Parliament as a parliamentary assistant to a very active MEP working at the intersection of energy, innovation, and business. That experience really “hooked” me—it gave me a front-row seat to how policy is shaped and how it translates into real-world impact. What has kept me in Public Affairs ever since is exactly that: the ability to operate at the intersection of policy and business, and to help bridge the gap between political ambition and practical realities on the ground. I’m particularly motivated by the complexity of the topics we deal with—especially in energy and climate—and the fast-paced, constantly evolving environment. Over time, my role has evolved, and today I would describe myself as a strategic corporate Public Affairs leader, focused on aligning business priorities with policy developments and enabling meaningful trustworthy engagement with policymakers.

How big is your PA department (PA employees), and where is the PA department placed in your organization?

I’ve worked across very different setups over the years—from building corporate Public Affairs functions from scratch to leading teams in more structured environments. Today, I’m in a slightly different and very interesting model: a lean, high-impact consultancy setup. The core team consists of two senior founders and a small support structure, working closely with a group of senior advisers (myself included), each leading on specific client portfolios and advocacy priorities. It’s a model that combines flexibility with deep expertise. In this context, Public Affairs sits right at the heart of decision-making. We’re involved very early on—often helping to frame the issue before it becomes a formal policy discussion. That’s something I’ve increasingly come to see as critical. More broadly, I think the perception of Public Affairs is evolving. While monitoring and intelligence remain core, the role is increasingly about helping organisations navigate a much more complex landscape—where geopolitics, industrial policy, and regulation are all deeply interconnected. In that sense, PA is becoming less of a support function and more of a strategic enabler—and that’s exactly where it should be.

What is the split between internal and external meetings for you?

The split has changed quite significantly over the years. Earlier in my career, I probably spent too much time in internal meetings—some useful, many less so. Today, my model is much more operational and externally focused. I’d say roughly 80% of my time is spent in external meetings—engaging with policymakers, stakeholders, or directly advancing client priorities—and about 20% on internal coordination. That internal time is very targeted. It’s mainly about aligning with clients, managing expectations, and making sure we’re set up to deliver concrete outcomes—whether that’s influence on policy or, in some cases, securing funding opportunities. Where I add the most value is really in bridging the two. It’s about having the right strategy, being present in the right conversations, and engaging at the right moment. That’s largely external-facing, but it only works if you can translate that into clear internal narratives and selling points for your organisation or clients.

What is your take on the AI buzz in PA?

I tend to look at AI as an essential sparring partner rather than a replacement for what we do. In practice, I use it to test different angles when approaching a problem—combining personal experience and strategic judgement with AI’s ability to surface perspectives, patterns, and developments that might sit outside my immediate field of view. In a fast-moving environment like Public Affairs, that’s incredibly valuable. The biggest opportunity, in my view, is exactly that: AI helps you get out of your own “bubble.” It can bring in examples, comparisons, and ideas from other sectors or geographies, which is often where the most interesting policy insights come from. The main risk is not the tool itself, but how it’s used. If people don’t apply critical judgement, you can quickly end up with weak or even misleading conclusions. AI can sometimes produce outputs that sound convincing but don’t actually hold up, so the ability to challenge, filter, and interpret is more important than ever. Overall, I’d describe my stance as optimistically pragmatic. AI is already a powerful addition to the PA toolkit—but it only creates real value when combined with experience, context, and sound judgement.

Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

For day-to-day information flow, Politico is definitely a staple. It gives a solid overview of what’s moving and why. Beyond that, a big part of my input comes from internal intelligence sharing within the consultancy—exchanges with other advisers who are plugged into different sectors, as well as insights coming from associations and think tanks. That said, the most valuable information often comes from informal networks. Regular exchanges with peers—whether through calls, WhatsApp groups, or simply meeting for a coffee—tend to give you a much better sense of what’s really happening behind the scenes and where things are heading. At the end of the day, staying informed in Public Affairs is less about reading more and more sources, and more about building and maintaining trusted relationships. If you have that network in place, the information flow becomes much more open, relevant, and actionable.

Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why?

One Public Affairs professional I’ve always looked up to is Marco Mensink, Secretary General of Cefic. What stands out to me is his ability to combine strategic, out-of-the-box thinking with a very strong sense of credibility towards policymakers. He has a clear way of building trust at a personal level, which is ultimately what makes public affairs effective. At the same time, he manages to navigate highly complex issues—particularly in industrial and energy policy—while keeping a very down-to-earth approach to people and leadership. That balance between strategy, credibility, and pragmatism is something I find particularly inspiring.

What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

Two books that I’ve recently found particularly relevant—also in the context of public affairs—are “The Lord of the Screws” by Reinhold Würth and “My Way” by Josef Ackermann. Both are very different in style, but what I take from them is a strong sense of how leadership, business strategy, and engagement with policymakers are deeply interconnected. Reinhold Würth’s story is a great example of long-term thinking, entrepreneurial instinct, and building a company with a very strong culture and identity. What stands out is the ability to take bold, sometimes unconventional decisions while staying grounded in a clear strategic vision. For Public Affairs, that translates into the importance of authenticity and consistency when engaging with policymakers—knowing what you stand for and sticking to it. Josef Ackermann’s “My Way” offers a different but equally useful perspective. It reflects a leader operating at the highest level of global finance, constantly navigating regulatory pressure, political scrutiny, and market expectations. What I find particularly relevant is the understanding that engaging with policymakers is not an add-on, it’s part of core business strategy. It requires clarity, discipline, and the ability to manage complexity under pressure. Across both books, the key takeaway for me is that successful interaction with policy environments is never reactive. It’s about being proactive, strategic, and fully integrated into how a business operates and positions itself.

Who do you follow on social media in relation to Public Affairs (if any)?

I mainly use LinkedIn, and my feed is a mix of peers in Public Affairs, industry leaders, and policymakers. I tend to follow people who consistently share relevant, first-hand insights rather than generic commentary. For example, Kurt Vandenberghe at DG CLIMA is a great reference point—his updates give a very direct sense of priorities and ongoing work within the Commission. I also follow Commissioners and key figures in portfolios like energy, climate, trade, and transport. It’s a good way to stay close to the policy narrative as it evolves. More broadly, I find social media most useful when it complements—not replaces—direct exchanges. It’s a good way to spot signals and trends early, but the real value still comes from engaging directly with people behind those posts.

Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

I’d be very interested in reading a guest blog from Aaron McLoughlin. What I particularly appreciate is his ability to cut through the noise and focus on what actually works in Public Affairs. His writing is sharp, precise, and very much grounded in real tactics and strategies—not just theory. If I could pick a topic, I’d be interested in his take on which Public Affairs approaches genuinely deliver impact today, especially in a more complex and fast-moving EU policy environment. There’s a lot of discussion in our field, but not always enough clarity on what works in practice.

What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

The biggest challenge for Public Affairs today is a combination of trust and credibility, set against an increasingly complex environment. We are operating in a context where EU policymaking is becoming more intertwined with geopolitics, industrial strategy, and global competition. At the same time, the speed of developments is accelerating, while decision-making processes often remain slow and fragmented. Add to that the growing presence of misinformation and competing narratives, and it becomes much harder to establish clear, trusted positions. On top of this, there is still often a disconnect between business and policy. Many organisations engage too late or without a fully integrated strategy, which limits their ability to shape outcomes in a meaningful way. The solution is not one single fix—it’s about getting several fundamentals right, and making them work together. It starts with embedding Public Affairs directly into business strategy and engaging much earlier in the policy cycle. From there, it’s about building stronger, evidence-based narratives—combining solid data with clear, credible storytelling that resonates with policymakers. Equally important is coalition-building. In today’s environment, individual voices rarely carry enough weight on their own. Bringing together aligned stakeholders is often what makes the difference between being heard and actually having impact. If we get these elements right—early engagement, integrated strategy, strong narratives, and effective coalitions—Public Affairs can move beyond being reactive and become a real driver of influence and value.

Follow or connect with Jernej Vernik here.

The book is titled “From Backroom to Boardroom: How to Organise and Elevate Your Public Affairs Function” and is about the theoretical and practical implications of organizing the Public Affairs function, as well as how to make it a business enabler and not only a firefighter function. How to create a modern PA function for modern organizations.

The book is only available through my blog for paying subscribers, and by signing up you will get:

• The only book only about the organisational side of Public Affairs

• Data from more than 150+ interviews with PA Pros from across Europe

• +100 pages, 20 chapters, 4 cases and more than 40 models and figures,
  and much much more…

• See the chapters below…

Subscribe now

Find it below here - only for paying subscribers.

Read more

So the ambition with this initiative is to provide readers with a realistic view of what Public Affairs is really about: honest and hard work! It is about learning from good or bad habits from some of the best in the business.

So remember to subscribe to the blog, so you don’t miss out on the upcoming guest blogs.

Subscribe now

The January blogger was Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso, which you can read here.

The February blogger was Vera Heitmann, Head of Public Affairs, IKEA Germany, which you can read here.

The March blogger was Milos Labovic, the author of “EU Superlobby: Winning in Brussels”, which you can read here.

The April blogger was Germana Barba, Public Affairs advisor, University lecturer and Machiavelli “admirer”, which you can read here.

So, this months blogger is… Benedicte Staalesen, Director, Communication & Public Affairs at Northern Lights.

For how long have your worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

I have worked in and with Public Affairs for almost two decades. My journey started with studying politics, which led me into a role as a political adviser. I then moved into the energy industry, working with political and public affairs, before returning to national politics. After about four years as an adviser in the Solberg government, I transitioned back to the industry and trade side, focusing on lobbying, advocacy, strategic communication and broader public affairs.

My motivation has always been on succeeding as a society with the energy transition, whilst also creating value and jobs. Over time, I realised I wanted to work in business, as close as possible to where that is created. My experience from politics also highlighted the critical importance of public–private cooperation and the need for strong “translators” to bridge and align business and political perspectives. Also, providing intelligence to companies in their strategizing by bringing in Public Affairs perspectives, can make a difference between those succeeding with their market strategies and those who do not.

How big is your PA department (PA employees), and where is the PA department placed in your organization?

My department, which covers Communications and Public Affairs, consists of myself and my colleague, Morten. While we are a small team, I am fortunate to have many highly experienced colleagues across the organisation who contribute significantly to this work.

I am also part of the Leadership Team, which I believe is crucial to succeeding in Public Affairs, as the function is so closely tied to overall strategy and key decision-making. Having the CEO and board engaged and recognising the importance of this work, is a prerequisite for success of the business capitalizing on this work.

What is the split between internal and external meetings for you?

I believe it is essential not to get “lost” in internal processes and meetings, particularly in Public Affairs roles where much of the value lies in external engagement and understanding the broader landscape. At the same time, without strong internal alignment and a clear link to the company’s direction and overall purpose, it’s easy to lose focus and impact. To capitalise on the intelligence found via external engagement, it is also important to have a feed-back loop into the strategy work. Striking the right balance between being externally oriented and internally aligned is a crucial skillset!

Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

LinkedIn is a good place to stay updated. I like to follow Public Affairs content from different markets and geographical areas to get inspiration and maybe new ideas on approaches and engagement. I also like to follow content from other disciplines such as brand and business, especially female entrepreneurs, to get inspiration on approaches and ideas to integrate into my work, thinking and leadership.

Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why

I have been really fortunate to connect with a lot of different PA Pros within the wider global CCS industry, from Asia, to Northern America and in Europe. Inspiring and fascinating and a reminder of how important deep local understanding of political, cultural and stakeholder dynamics is for an organisation and business to succeed in their Public Affairs work. On the Norwegian arena I would have to say Gine Wang, whom I have learned a lot from! She has had executive PA roles in Equinor, DNB and Tine and is a true PA Pro.

What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

Maybe not a favourite per see, but one that made a huge impressions was “The Blair years” by Alastair Campbell from 2008. One gets compellingly close descriptions on decisions, affecting millions of life and world events, took place. I am also excited about former Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solbergs’ biography being published later this year!

Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

I would love to read one from a CEO with maybe a more technical background, having experienced how Public Affairs work in his or hers organisations has been a success criteria for them.

What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

I see two challenges, where one is about where the discipline of Public Affairs is located inside an organisation and how the function is integrated, or not, in the overall decision-making. It needs to be next to where the decision on direction is taken, and that is next to the CEO within the leadership team.

Unfortunately it is still often the case that the Public Affairs function is only seen relevant when there is urgency and/or crisis. However, well conducted public affairs is about engaging well before you have any “asks” for change or that you need to adjust to some unforeseen events taking place on the external landscape.

The second is about an increasingly complex world that require even more nuanced approaches and “fingerspitzengefühl” in how a company engages. This I however also see as a great opportunity for the field of Public Affairs, where this function can play a decisive role!

The book is titled “From Backroom to Boardroom: How to Organise and Elevate Your Public Affairs Function” and is about the theoretical and practical implications of organizing the Public Affairs function, as well as how to make it a business enabler and not only a firefighter function.

By signing up you will get:

• The only book only about the organisational side of Public Affairs

• Data from more than 150+ interviews with PA Pros from across Europe

• Best practices on subjects like Public Affairs integration, best/worst ways to organize the Public Affairs function, the Public Affairs Performance Model, invisible restraints, decoupling, isomorphism, good and bad examples etc. etc.

• 100 pages, 20 chapters, 5 cases and more than 40 models and figures,
  and much much more…

The book will only be available through my blog for paying subscribers.

So be sure to sign up now or switch to become a paying subscriber before the price increases on Monday.

Subscribe now

The book is titled “From Backroom to Boardroom: How to Organise and Elevate Your Public Affairs Function” and is - not surprisingly - about the theoretical and practical implications of organizing the Public Affairs function, as well as how to make it a business enabler and not only a firefighter function.

150+ interviews, 100 pages, 20 chapters, 5 cases and more than 40 models and figures to support the key points.

It is the only book only about the organisational side of Public Affairs, and it’s based purely on real insights and data from the European Public Affairs industry.

The book will only be available through my blog for paying subscribers.

So be sure to sign up or switch to become a paying subscriber.

/Kopp

So the ambition with this initiative is to provide readers with a realistic view of what Public Affairs is really about: honest and hard work! It is about learning from good or bad habits from some of the best in the business.

So remember to subscribe to the blog, so you don’t miss out on the upcoming guest blogs.

Subscribe now

The January blogger was Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso, which you can read here.

The February blogger is Vera Heitmann, Head of Public Affairs, IKEA Germany, which you can read here.

The March blogger was Milos Labovic, the author of “EU Superlobby: Winning in Brussels”, which you can read here.

So, this months blogger is… Germana Barba, independent Public Affairs consultant & University lecturer in Public Affairs and Business Ethics. Read her interesting perspectives on Public Affairs below.

1. For how long have your worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

I’ve been in the Public Affairs world for 21 years. Since a very young age I was interested in the intersection of business, politics, and societal debates. After studying political science in Italy, France, and the UK, and spending a few years in journalism, I joined the Government Affairs team of Philip Morris International in Italy and later the Corporate Affairs function in the company’s HQ.

Over the past four years, I have worked as an independent Public Affairs consultant, primarily supporting non-profit organizations on sustainability-related policy change. Alongside this, I teach Public Affairs and Business Ethics at the University of Pavia and at the Rome Business School, and I have recently started a PhD focused on the ethical conditions under which lobbying can serve democracy. I’ve also co-founded Public Affairs & Careers, a start-up offering coaching and orientation to young and mid-career professionals interested in undertaking or transitioning to a Public Affairs career.

2. How big is your PA department (PA employees), and where is the PA department placed in your organization?

Earlier in my career, in corporate environments, Public Affairs teams typically ranged from 7 to 35 people, with the head of function reporting directly to the CEO both at market and HQ level. Today, as an independent consultant, I work alone but in close collaboration with clients and broader ecosystems of stakeholders. In that sense, the “department” becomes more fluid: less about hierarchy and more about networks.

3. What is the split between internal and external meetings for you?

As an independent consultant, most of my meetings are external by definition. Earlier in my corporate career, the split varied significantly. At affiliate level, internal and external meetings were roughly balanced. At headquarters level, internal coordination could exceed 80%, given the need to align across markets. However, external meetings, with regulators, policymakers, or advocacy groups, were fewer but significantly more demanding and high-stakes.

4. How many external lunches do you have per week?

Not many, typically one or two. They are usually with clients, prospective clients, or long-standing professional contacts. I tend to prioritize depth over frequency when it comes to relationship-building.

5. Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

A mix of sources: media (social and traditional, covering different geographies and political orientations), LinkedIn, podcasts, etc. Recently, I have been focusing on AI as both a Public Affairs issue, and a Public Affairs tool. On the former, I closely follow regulatory and multilateral developments, from the UN’s Independent International Scientific Panel on AI national frameworks such as those being currently explored in Switzerland. On the latter, I actively experiment with large language models and other tools, and follow leading AI practitioners to understand how these technologies are changing advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and campaigning. The potential is significant, particularly in campaigning, but so are the risks.

6. Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why

There are many, but if I were to mention just a few, they would be Anne Edwards (Head of Corporate Affairs at Glencore), for her ability to navigate complex environments with consistency, composure, and sound judgment, Michele Ziosi (Chief Global Affairs & Sustainability Officer at Iveco), for his political and institutional acumen, and Mariella Palazzolo, one of the most accomplished lobbyists in Italy and a pioneer as a female founder in the field. They represent different models of excellence, but all combine strategic clarity with credibility.

7. What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

One of the best books I’ve ever read on the topic is Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why by Frank R. Baumgartner et al., because it offers a rare data-driven and realistic perspective on lobbying. Currently I am engaging with academic work mostly, a very good one is the Research Handbook on Public Affairs edited by Arco Timmermans, particularly the contributions on the analytical and normative foundations of Public Affairs (by Timmermans himself), and on public accountability of lobbying in democracies by Alberto Bitonti and Jean-Patrick Villeneuve.

8. Who do you follow on social media in relation to Public Affairs (if any)?

Lately I am following Tina Fordham (Fordham Global Foresight). Her work is a strong example of how to translate geopolitics into actionable insights for business audiences, something I see as fully within the scope of modern Public Affairs.

9. Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

If we stretch the definition a bit: Niccolò Machiavelli. Few thinkers have been as lucid (and honest) about power, influence, and the realities of political engagement. His perspective would probably still feel uncomfortably relevant.

10. What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

Public Affairs is still fighting a legitimacy battle. The debate is often framed in simplistic terms: corporations are either portrayed as corrupting democracy or as indispensable partners compensating for state failure. Neither narrative is sufficient. The ‘villain’ narrative cannot explain why some forms of corporate engagement are clearly legitimate. The ‘partner’ narrative cannot explain why others are clearly problematic. The real issue I think is that we still lack a widely accepted framework to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate forms of corporate engagement with public institutions. Other professions have this. We don’t. As long as that gap exists, Public Affairs will remain vulnerable to suspicion, regardless of how many transparency registers we create. To address this, we need stronger 1) formalization of the discipline, which means more structured academic pathways and clearer standards to access the profession, and 2) a more honest conversation about power and responsibility. Until then, we will keep debating symptoms instead of addressing the core issue.

But what causes or influences the establishment of a PA function?

Before we dive in, please remember to subscribe to the blog and support my work. Besides the blogposts, paid subscribers also get exclusive access to my books and surveys (full versions, not extracts) as well as case studies.

Subscribe now

Environment or individuals as drivers for establishing a PA function?

The most common understanding is that either a big crisis from the outside leads to the birth of a PA function or that management decides to establish the function (Mahon, 1983).

There is without question a lot of truth to these drivers, but also insufficient to describe the new dynamics of modern organizations. Further, as Meznar and Nigh (1995) point out, bridging (the organization adapts to the environment) or buffering (the organization tries to change the environment) explains some of the dynamics at play, when organizations face different environments.

But organizations don’t face a static environment. On the contrary, they are dynamic and everchanging. What seemed to be the right organizational structure last year, might not be sufficient in the present.

A new model for understanding both motivation & drivers

Based on interviews in The Public Affairs Manager Survey, the decision to either establish or “rotate” a PA function to a new scope, is sometimes driven internally by determined individuals in management or employees further down across the organization. E.g. in regard to the latter, several PA functions were cultivated in corners of the Communications Department or Regulatory Affairs as increasing workload required new skillsets.

However, determined individuals – whether in the top or at the bottom of the organization – cannot fully explain the organizational drivers. External factors can of course shape behaviour e.g. like aggressive competitors or a media crisis, but also, sometimes overlooked, internal structures e.g. a new corporate strategy or product line, that require changes to the organization, despite how the outside world might turn – neither a CEO nor employees initiate the establishment of a PA function without motivation.

A model for a more nuanced organizational decision-making process for the establishment of a PA function might be illustrated as in this model below.

Read more

So the ambition with this initiative is to provide readers with a realistic view of what Public Affairs is really about: honest and hard work! It is about learning from good or bad habits from some of the best in the business. So remember to subscribe to the blog, so you don’t miss out on the upcoming guest blogs.

Subscribe now

The January blogger was Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso, which you can read here.

The February blogger is Vera Heitmann, Head of Public Affairs, IKEA Germany, which you can read here.

This months blogger is Milos Labovic, the author of “EU Superlobby: Winning in Brussels”. Read his interesting perspectives on Public Affairs below.

For how long have your worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

It depends a bit on how you see it. I think it all started when I was coordinator for a work council on European Affairs of the Dutch National Youth Council. It was the first time that I had to write a position paper and I delivered it to the European Commission. It was an unpaid job, and everything was really amateurish, but I consider that the moment I somewhat started in Public Affairs.

What is the split between internal and external meetings for you?

I would say 30% internal meetings and 70% external, that would be my ideal, but lately it leans more into the internal meetings.

I think in general you should spend about 20% internally, 20% strategizing and planning, and 60% on execution.

How many external lunches do you have per week?

About 1 or 2. This used to be much more, but I am in my efficient years.

When I started in the profession I was the king of lunches and receptions.

Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

Linkedin is really the go to place. It is amazing how many people share great content. I think of course on your own (Anders Kopp edi.) rapports on Public Affairs, but also Alan Hardacre’s Inside Side of Public Affairs or Aaron Mcloughlins valuable advise. The list is endless and the quality is very high.

So it is really a great ring of people on Linkedin which I keep my eye on.

Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why

In the Netherlands it is Jeroen Steusel, who is a seasoned veteran and really knows his stuff. In Brussels I like the works of Aaron Mcloughlin. Whenever I google information about inner workings of the EU, Google directs me to his blogs.

What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

Woef, there are too many. When it comes to Public Affairs I liked Lobbyist by Daniel Guegen and basically anything that comes from the John Harper stable like How to work with the European Institutions. I haven’t found a good book on campaigning yet. In terms of politics I love reading memoirs.

Who do you follow on social media in relation to Public Affairs (if any)?

Aaron Mcloughlin, Anders Kopp, Erik van Venetie, Fabian Bohnenberger, Andras Baneth, Sebastián Rodríguez.

Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

Someone young, who is just starting out in Public Affairs.

What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

I think making the next quality step. Too much of the work still boils down to sending out positionpapers, organising events and impacting texts. However, we don’t really do anything with data yet. For example have we ever checked open rates when we send positionpapers? Or organize something wildly beyond a panel discussion. I think as a profession we are still a bit stuck.

Sometimes they have an idea about the solution, but you can also sometimes agree on their analysis, but not the conclusion. “We do not do Public Affairs” is also a statement I have heard in the past, which btw incapsulates perfectly the defintion challenge that Public Affairs as a discipline has. For some, Public Affairs is perhaps just a fancy word for lobbyism. For others, it is the same as PR. For some its just irrelevant academic semantics, and they just want the job done.

Positioning is sometimes a better term, at least in the phase while you are doing the diagnosis of a problem. How to position yourself as an organization. How to position yourself as a CEO. Also, because positioning is what gives the strategy oxygen.

The sweet spot

When talking about positioning, it is in its essence about finding the strategic sweet spot.

Inspired by Collis and Ruksta you can illustrate this like in the model above. Positioning is not about spinning something to fit your narrative, but finding out how to act - and in which order - based on a balance between the company’s capabilities, what the customers need, while you also look at what the competition does. All this of course happens in specific context or environment that shapes these three factors.

As advisors first and foremost, we need to reply to the companys needs, and also not be afraid to interfere with other disciplines - communications, sales, marketing, legal etc. - and maybe even slow things down if needed, if its not aligned with the positioning of the organization.

Sometimes I hear CEOs or founders talk about the need of a certain action or counter-measure due to competitors moving fast with something or a consensus has formed about a new topic that everybody just has to adjust to (like AI). Without even considering if it all applies to your specific situation.

Strategy professor Michael Porter talks about hypercompetition as a “self-inflicted wound, not the inevitable outcome of a changing paradigm of competition.” The root to this problem - Porter says - is to distinguish between operational effectiveness and strategy. And remember: Positioning is the heart of strategy.

/Kopp

Subscribe now

A national election is under way end of March here in Denmark, where I am based, and I have already talked to two PA Pros, who approach this election campaign very differently: One cool and calm, the other more like Malcolm Tucker.

I usually preach that 1) you should not need to be that surprised of an election, because 2) you should have a plan in place for how your organization will approach the election phases before, during and after. PA Pros often forget one or two of these phases.

One a side-note, I have experienced a few elections from the inside of organisations the past 15 years, and it of course changes the dynamics and focus, at least for a while. Being asked 5 times a day for almost three weeks about the outcome of the elections can drive you a bit crazy, but on the other hand, it is also a window internally to inform curious colleagues about what you have actually already worked, prepared and planned for, no matter of how the final result will look.

But this particular blog will be more about the other side - the election and campaign trail and what we in PA might learn from it. As a former campaigner (many years ago), I have participated in and observed quite a few campaigns, both the succesful and the very unsuccessful.

But, before you read on, please remember to subscribe to the blog and support my work. Besides the blogposts, paid subscribers also get exclusive access to my books and surveys (full versions, not extracts) as well as case studies.

Subscribe now

1. Polarization can drive your agenda

One cold observation, not particularly visible from the Danish election yet, but more generally from modern elections is, that polarization drives agendas. So if your message or communication is too nuanced, perhaps too nice or consensus-seeking, it often just drowns in the sea of noise.

The divide and conquer approach is very much a symbol of the zeitgeist. Movements spreading overnight like a wildfire taking over the entire media landscape - and then a few weeks later, they are gone. To some extent you try to ride or exploit what Belgian researcher and historian Anton Jäger calls Hyperpolitics, a situation in which everything can become political, and there is almost an unsaturable hunger for being anti-something. “Tax the rich”, “foreigners out”, “America first” etc.

Navigating these waters, a political candidate, should be extra careful of two things:

Firstly, you cannot ignore polarization. Period. It is just a part of any election, perhaps even in the nature of human interaction. So you might as well embrace it.

Secondly, a professional campaign setup has to be flexible and agile, and ready to ride these waves. In a three week long election campaign, every week is different, sometimes even every day is different, so your setup has to reflect this new reality. I like the term “dynaxity” coined by Heijo Rieckmann in the 80s, incapsulating how organizations are forced to efficiently design an organizational structure that can manage changing environments, but also how actors inside act and communicate.

So in short, the campaign has to be ready to act from hour to hour in a polarized election environment.

2. Candidates know too little about their target groups

A few weeks ago, I asked a political leader - of one the aspiring parties here in Denmark to form a government - about how he knew, the issues he described as their coming election issues for the party, that these were also something that could get the voters out.

I asked because to me, it sounded like there was a “perception gap”, something most campaign managers fear, between what he and the party on one side felt was important in an election campaign, and on the other side, what the group of potential voters meant. The party leader said, they didn’t have any data or proof points, but he wasn’t worried they were out of touch. We will see in a few weeks, who will be right.

Currently I am seeing this party leader - and many others - being very focused on channels with different messages, and this first week it is especially Tik Tok - even the Prime Minister of Denmark, has joined this platform. But I often think, that candidates get too “channel focused”. I am no expert in Tik Tok at all, but channels are not the interesting part for me, but more what you communicate to the target group in that specific channel, and if it is worth the hassle - as everything has an opportunity cost in an election. You can only answer those questions if… you know what your target group thinks, what moves them, where they are and how their opinions evolve during a long election.

Can you combine these two observations?

Yes, you can. If you acknowledge that polarization can change the election and if you have an agile campaign team with intensive knowledge about your target group - of course formed by hard data based on demographics, psychographics, buying habits, online behaviors etc. - then you actually have the ingredients of a strong cocktail.

On a final note, if you want to stir this cocktail even more, it is also my opinion, that candidates - and even many corporations - should consider negative campaigning. Before you think that I now finally have crossed completely to the dark side, try and read “Hardwired to attack. Candidates’ personality traits and negative campaigning in three European countries” by Alessandro Nai, Anke Tresch and Jürgen Maier. For some candidates, it can be very effective.

For me, this supports my own sense e.g. from analyzing post-launch data after clients use sentiment analysis to launch campaigns tailormade for certain target groups in certain (niche) media or channels. It can be extremely effective without being misinformation, hurtful or unpleasant. Going negative on an issue can be informing, factbased, it can even be done with a sense of humor. Not all campaigns have to be boring, you know?

PS: I might do a round 2 of observations from the election here in Denmark if something new and intersting appears - in the meanwhile feel free to reach out to discuss campaigns, election positioning or other Malcolm Tucker quotes.

/Kopp

Subscribe now

The January blogger was Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso, which you can read here.

The February blogger is Vera Heitmann, Head of Public Affairs, IKEA Germany. Read her reflected and aspiring takes on Public Affairs below.

For how long have you worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

I have worked in and around Public Affairs for more than 30 years.

I became a political scientist because of a very simple, very German question: how do we make sure that democracy remains resilient? Growing up in a country with our history, you cannot take democratic institutions for granted. I wanted to understand how political systems actually work in practice, and how decisions are made, influenced, and sometimes quietly prevented.

Over time, that curiosity shifted from pure politics to the space where politics, society and business meet. Today, what keeps me in Public Affairs is exactly that intersection. The pressure on democratic systems is increasing, polarisation is growing, and yet companies have more influence than ever. Helping to navigate that tension responsibly, balancing business interests with long‑term democratic stability, is what still drives me.

What is the split between internal and external meetings for you – and how many external lunches do you have per week?

My time is probably more internal than many people expect, often closer to two thirds internal and one third external, depending on the week.

Public Affairs is often perceived as a very outward‑facing discipline, and it is, but a lot of the work happens inside an organisation: understanding the business impact of political developments, aligning on risk appetite, testing positions and avoiding unintended signals. If that homework is not done, external meetings are rarely productive.

When it comes to lunches, the answer is: fewer than you would expect. What I value about them is that they create a different kind of space, a bit like the coffee‑machine conversation internally. You can listen, compare perspectives and build rapport without having to work through a strict agenda.

For me, the balance between internal and external time shifts with context. The key is to be conscious about it: to know when you need to invest in alignment inside the organisation, and when it is more important to be out and present with others.

Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

I use a mix of primary sources, journalism, and conversations.

On the formal side, I follow legislative and regulatory developments as directly as time permits: government documents, parliamentary debates, consultation papers, and communications from ministries and European institutions. I still think it is important to read the original text before the commentary.

I also rely on a few trusted media outlets and specialised newsletters for politics and business, and I try to balance German, European and international perspectives. No single source is ever enough.

Equally important for me are peers. Some of the best insight comes from short calls or coffees (and lunches) with people who sit in other sectors or institutions and see the same development from a different angle. Public Affairs is still, to a large extent, a conversation discipline.

In practice, it is less about one platform or format and more about staying curious and comparing how different actors frame the same issue.

Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why

I hesitate to name a single individual.

Public Affairs sometimes rewards visibility, but the most effective practitioners are often the least visible. They are not performing influence, they are building understanding. They listen more than they speak, translate complexity across systems, and open doors quietly without claiming credit.

They are trusted because they don’t seek the spotlight. They absorb tension, prevent escalation, and enable progress without branding it as their achievement.

If you look at some of the world’s most respected negotiators, whether in diplomacy, conflict mediation or long and complex political agreements, their work is rarely theatrical. It is patient, disciplined and grounded in trust built over time.

The same is true in Public Affairs. Success is often invisible, measured by what did not become an issue.

What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

One book has shaped how I think about Public Affairs, even though it is not specifically about the profession.

The Art of Explanation by Ros Atkins reflects a discipline that is essential in Public Affairs: the ability to distil complexity into clear, concise language. Whether you are drafting a position paper, preparing for a formal meeting, articulating your stance on a broader societal issue, or briefly crossing paths with a decision‑maker in a corridor: every word matters. Clarity is not accidental, it is deliberate.

Just as important as being clear in communicating is being an active listener, and there are several thoughtful books on this topic. In Public Affairs, entering a discussion with a ready‑made answer can close doors before they open. Progress often starts with genuine curiosity: understanding the interests, constraints, and motivations of the other side before advancing your own position.

Public Affairs requires both: expressing your stance precisely and listening openly enough to refine it. This is where Public Affairs earns its credibility – and where it really makes the difference.

Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

There are several figures I would genuinely be curious to hear from, particularly those who have experienced influence from the receiving end.

I would be fascinated to read reflections from Margrethe Vestager on what differentiates credible advocacy from noise. Few decision‑makers have been exposed to lobbying at such scale, especially in the tech and competition space. What makes an argument land when billions are at stake? And what immediately disqualifies it?

I would also value insights from Angela Merkel on how trust is built over time. During her years in office, she encountered constant pressure: from industry, from European partners, from global actors. Which forms of engagement strengthened her ability to govern? Which weakened it?

And someone like Henry Kissinger would bring a different perspective altogether: the discipline of preparation, the management of leverage, the patience required in long negotiations.

What connects them is not ideology or fame, but the view from the other side of the table: how influence really feels in practice, what helps, and what gets in the way. Public Affairs could learn a lot from that perspective.

What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

This is a big one, and I will use the space to elaborate because it is very dear to my heart: I think the biggest challenge for Public Affairs is to stay credible while the ground under democracy is shifting.

We are working in a time when political systems are under pressure, polarisation is increasing, and some leaders are more willing to test the limits of institutions than to strengthen them. At the same time, companies have more influence than ever. Public Affairs sits exactly in that tension: between business interests on one side and the long‑term health of democratic systems on the other.

At its best, Public Affairs is an integral part of democracy. When I worked as a chief of staff in Parliament, I relied on hearing from those who were affected by the decisions ‘my’ member of parliament had to take: workers, businesses, associations, civil society. Their input helped us see consequences we would not have understood from legislation alone. The question is not whether interests should be heard, but how transparently and responsibly that happens.

If our work is perceived as “just lobbying”, we become part of the problem. But if we ignore business realities, we are not doing our job either. The challenge is to navigate that space honestly.

How do we solve it? With how we work every day:

• by being clear about what we are asking for and why,

• by making sure our positions are consistent with what the organisation does in practice, and

• by accepting regulation when it creates fair and predictable rules for society.

Public Affairs is only one small part of how the political system works. But we can choose whether we add to the noise and mistrust, or whether we contribute to stability and trust in how decisions are made. That choice is where our responsibility starts.

But before we get to that, this challenge around motivation and performance made me think of an old, but still very relevant model called the “job characteristics model” published by J. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham in 1980. The model is quite illustrative in terms of understanding what often goes wrong in (PA) teams, and result in lower motivation, but also lower performance.

Anyways, before you read on, please remember to subscribe to the blog and support my work. Besides the blogposts, paid subscribers also get exclusive access to my books and surveys (full versions, not extracts) as well as case studies.

Subscribe now

A model for understanding the dynamics in PA teams

In the model by Hackman and Oldham, which you can see below, the logic is that the core job characteristics affect the psychological states of the team members, which then affects the outcome (and in the end the performance).

The core job characteristics consists of three variables that for the individual means:

• Skill variety: To work and apply different skills and abilities, and not be reduced to work monotonously on the same types of tasks all the time.

• Task identity: The degree to which a job requires completion of a “whole” and identifiable piece of work with a visible outcome.

• Task significance: To do work that has a meaningful impact on others.

These three variables form how meaningful the PA team members experience their work.

But the job characteristics also consist of two other variables:

• Autonomy: The individual has great influence on the way the work is conducted incl. autonomy to chose and decide when and how to approach the tasks.

• Feedback: Providing the individual with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance - this can e.g. be if the individual can observe that the effort creates a concrete result that matters for the organization.

These two variables form the sense of responsibility and the awareness or knowledge of the results of the work. Below these variables in the moderator box, the authors stress three sub-factors that can moderate (or disrupt) the flow of the model.

All in all, how the team members perceive these five variables aggregated, will form the outcomes and in the end performance.

So the million-dollar question is then where it goes wrong specifically in PA?

It’s almost always the same

Based on close to 150 interviews with PA Pros across Europe it is in my view in the feedback box we find the trigger or cause of most problems. This is not meant as a lack of feedback from the department lead or maybe even c-level, but rather feedback from the organization . So basically the frustration from PA Pros is often described like the following: “I know that Public Affairs matters, I know I am good at it, I know stakeholders outside of the company acknowledge my effort, but I don’t know if and where my work affects or enables others internally - and if its being recognized as a part of the pursuit of our objectives.”

Now, of course the PA Pro has the responsibility and duty to seek out these answers, or lack of information loops. I have stated many times both on the blog and publicly that PA Pros need to be more proactive about how their work is being used and integrated in the rest of the organization. We cannot just lean back and expect everyone else in the organization to magically understand what we do and how it affects or enables others to leapfrog from.

But what many PA Pros experience is a natural consequence of a PA function not being fully integrated in the organization. And what stresses PA Pros further is that this sometimes requires changes to the organizational structures - which are out of their control.

Just to end on a more encouraging note: I have seen PA teams actually address this challenge with feedback loops by implementing C-level approved KPIs. So by having clear KPIs - in this case quantitative - the PA team members gained a sense of organizational confirmation, that their work mattered and they could see where it fitted in the bigger picture.

Not necessarily possible to do all places, but maybe a combination of new initiatives can increase the organizational feedback or confirmation that PA Pros need - but my gut feeling is however, that any new initiatives will have to come from the PA Pros themselves.

/Kopp

The character Trishka experiences that his coat sleeves are torn and to fix this problem, he cuts some fabric from the skirts to mend them, resulting in a coat with no sleeves and a very short hem. So the story is about solving a problem by creating an even bigger problem.

Trishka’s Coat came to mind when facilitating a PA team day last year, when a PA team lead was trying to fix an immediate problem in the team - and then just created an even bigger one.

The context or situation of course matters, but there are in my view some factors that always, as in always, causes permanent problems, and thus it is actually very often possible to identify the drivers for good or bad Public Affairs.

It can of course be uncomfortable to address the deeper root cause of a challenge. But this is also why it sometimes can be healthy to get an outside view on the behaviour and problems in a PA team.

When facilitating these types of PA team days I have (inspired by Brockhaus et al.) identified 6 factors that often causes the PA efforts to fail or at least not lead to the intended results.

However, before you read on, please remember to subscribe to the blog and support my work. Besides the blogposts, paid subscribers also get exclusive access to my books and surveys (full versions, not extracts) as well as case studies.

Subscribe now

6 lessons from PA team days

1. No link to the organizations’ objectives

If the activities of the PA function are not linked to and aligned with the objectives of the organization, then there is no clear direction for the PA function, and it will most likely underperform. Also, no link to the overall objectives will make it almost impossible for the rest of the organization to assess, if the PA function is contributing to the organizations’ success – or not.

2. No expectation management

No understanding, identification or agreement of expectations with other departments and functions. This lack of expectation management can quickly result in unclear responsibilities, “cross-stepping” and suboptimal performance.

3. No ambassadors internally

Through informal dialogues across the organization, internal stakeholders can be engaged and involved in Public Affairs activities. By positive word of mouth, sometimes described as the internal glue, ambassadors are engaged and help the PA function to earn legitimacy – without the use of formal channels and hierarchies. However, if no ambassadors are present, the opposite is of course the case, limiting legitimacy further.

4. No impression management

Impression management is typically focused on self-promotion, informal signals and ingratiation of the PA function, and is conducted to advance in the internal hierarchy and increase legitimacy. With no impression management done by the PA function, there is no joint effort to influence how other functions and internal stakeholders perceive both Public Affairs as well as the function’s contribution to the organization.

5. No relation to power sources

The PA function is cut off from the organizational power sources, which can be in the form of key people, positions/forums, or even being left out of certain meetings. This also includes not being able to “push back” towards other stakeholders or functions that try to exercise or increase their influence.

6. No competence management

Competence management is pivotal in regards to creating a strong PA function with ability, willingness, and entitlement. But the pre-requisite to optimal competence management is of course knowing which direction the PA function is working towards, and how the PA function internally interacts with other departments and functions. Without these factors in place, the competence management of the PA function will at best be arbitrary, and at worst damaging for the overall position of the function.

PS: If you are interested in hearing more about how I approach and facilitate PA team days, then you can read a bit more about it here.

/Kopp

Subscribe now

The first guest blogger is Mette Kahlin McVeigh, Senior Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Stora Enso.

1. For how long have you worked in/with Public Affairs, and what drove you in this direction?

I have worked with communications and/or public affairs for over 20 years, in Brussels, London, across the Nordics, and also globally. I actually started my career in politics in the UK, but fairly quickly realised that what fascinated me most was not ideology, but the processes, systems, structures, tactics, and strategy behind how political decisions are made.

That interest naturally led me towards Public Affairs, with detours in government and a think tank at certain points. Understanding how policy develops over time, how institutions interact, and how influence really works in practice felt more impactful to me than party politics. Public Affairs sits at the intersection between politics, strategy, and real-world outcomes.

2. How big is your PA department (PA employees), and where is the PA department placed in your organisation?

We are around 10 people, spanning the full range of disciplines and skills within Corporate and Regulatory Affairs (CARA), including strategic content, monitoring and impact analysis, stakeholder engagement, and guidance on implementation and compliance. The breadth of expertise is deliberate – effective Public Affairs requires a plethora of skills and competencies.

The function sits within Group Strategy and Sustainability. That reflects how we work – close to the business, focusing on where the company is heading, and with sustainability firmly embedded in everything we do. This also allows us to ensure that our political and regulatory analysis directly informs long-term business decisions.

3. What is the split between internal and external meetings for you?

Roughly 50 percent of my time is spent internally and 50 percent externally. When I first explained this split to my current CEO, he was genuinely surprised. There is still a widespread assumption that Public Affairs is primarily outward-facing. Yet, internal work is just as critical to effectiveness and success.

Spending time understanding the business and helping internal stakeholders to understand the political landscape and policy winds, enables us to identify opportunities and mitigate risks. We exist to support Stora Enso’s long-term growth, competitiveness and value creation by anticipating and shaping political and regulatory developments, and by translating external policy dynamics into clear strategic choices for the business.

Internal communication and briefing are therefore just as important as external engagement. Several of us in the team have government backgrounds, and we use structured briefing formats inspired by diplomatic and public-sector practice, with clear lines to take, solid background, and concise reporting. Explaining complex issues, their business impact, and how we plan to mitigate or leverage them internally is a core part of effective Public Affairs. If the function fails to communicate in a way the business can easily act on, even the most successful external engagement risks having little real impact.

4. How many external lunches do you have per week?

Not that many, actually. The idea that influence is built primarily through informal lunches is an outdated world view. Relationships matter, but what matters more is understanding the political process, knowing where your issue sits within it, and feeding in the right information at the right time, supported by credible evidence and concrete, constructive proposals.

Some of our most influential work has materialised without ever meeting anyone. During one Council Presidency, for example, we repeatedly sought meetings on a specific legislative file but received no response from the Member State. But we kept on reaching out to them and other decision makers where we focused on providing detailed, evidence-based written input, clearly explaining the problem, backing it up with data, and suggesting concrete solutions and draft legislative text. A couple of months later, we saw our reasoning reflected in a Presidency paper asking Member States to comment on those exact proposals.

That experience, and many more like it, has reinforced a golden rule for me. Well-written, well-evidenced, and constructive texts often outperform meetings. If your input is credible and genuinely helpful, it will gain traction, be circulated and inspire others, even if the ultimate decision-maker never opens your email or responds to your meeting request. Instead, with the right approach, in due time once your credibility and reputation has been established, you will find that decision-makers reach out to actively request your input.

5. Where do you keep up to date on Public Affairs?

A variety of sources. I value sparring with old colleagues and friends enormously; these informal conversations often provide the sharpest insights. On social media, LinkedIn is my main platform, where I follow people who share practical, experience-based insights into how Public Affairs really works in practice. Concrete examples of the work behind the scenes attract my attention much more than a photo of who someone met (although I must admit I am sometimes guilty of this).

6. Name a PA Pro in the industry you respect and why

I respect Public Affairs professionals who are generous with their knowledge and transparent about “what’s cooking”, so to say. The people I admire most are analytical and willing to challenge within their own organisation when a position is not credible or realistic.

7. What is your favourite book in relation to Public Affairs, campaigns or politics?

I do not really have just one. My job entails a lot of daily reading, from news to policy documents to internal information. For professional learning, I am also an avid podcast listener, covering EU politics, geopolitics, and communications, and that is actually how I came across your (Anders Kopp’s) work. The pods range from current affairs, domestic politics in various countries, specific policy/sector themes, through to general climate and green-focused podcasts. I also enjoy communication-focused ones such as The Little Questions Podcast.

8. Who do you follow on social media in relation to Public Affairs (if any)?

Primarily practitioners rather than commentators. On LinkedIn, I enjoy thoughtful and practical posts from people like Aaron McLoughlin, Mathias Kirkegaard, and others who focus on how Public Affairs/ decision-making actually works, rather than on hot takes.

9. Who would you love to read a guest blog from?

My daughter’s godfather, Matthew Hanney at Flint Global in the UK. He has analysis and strategy firmly at the forefront of everything he does. While he is deeply engaged and enjoys discussing issues in private, he has little need to display that engagement publicly. That said, it would still be worth trying to tempt him into responding.

10. What is the biggest challenge for the discipline of Public Affairs? And how do we solve it?

Public Affairs sometimes overpromises influence internally and underestimates complexity externally. We solve this by being honest internally about what is achievable, grounding positions in solid evidence, and building long-term trust externally. We always take a constructive approach and avoid chasing short-term wins that can undermine credibility and effectiveness over the longer term.

I cover the Nordics closely and talk to PA pros in these markets every week and thereby get a lot of insights, so I thought it might be interesting to do quarterly updates on the job market for PA pros. The blog now also gets thousands of views each month, so perhaps it can help some readers who might be thinking about moving.

So if you want to be updated on this topic once a quarter, remember to subscribe - you can either become a free or paid subscriber. Besides all the blogposts, paid subscribers also get exclusive access to my books and surveys (full versions, not extracts).

Subscribe now

Q4 update

My observations from the PA job market in the Nordics - some to be expected, others might be new trends:

• Elections coming up in the Nordics: Sweden and Denmark have elections coming up later this year. The Swedish election is set for the 13th of September, while the Danish is up to the Prime Minister, but no later than the 31st of October. This seems to have two consequences currently: 1) companies are holding back to hire new PA Pros for their teams, as they want to see the result (or at least contours) of the election(s), and hire accordingly, and 2) political/special advisors to ministers, who are facing a hard time to get re-elected, already seem to be looking for new jobs outside of the political ministeries or parties. Here is the kicker: Salary expectations might surprise these advisors, as political experience and corporate experience aren’t valued the same way.

• Many PA Pros not getting bonuses for 2025: I have heard several PA Pros mention that they are not getting bonuses for 2025. This is perhaps not breaking news that bonuses can come and go, but what has been a bit peculiar to me is, that several PA Pros have mentioned (and complained), that they have no direct influence on the objectives prompting bonuses as these are tied to revenue or profits, and some have actually delivered 100% on all their own PA objectives or plans (according to themselves at least). This has some places resulted in internal discussions about how PA teams are measured or assessed. The never ending discussion of our discipline it seems…

• Industry and trade associations complain about members stealing their PA employees: I have talked to and heard of a few industry or trade associations having their top talents or experienced regulatory sector experts hired by members of the particular association for senior corporate PA roles. It seems that corporates like that their new hires have a lot of deep sector expertise, maybe even about their competitors, and that this “training” or sector “education” the association gave them, is valued higher than other skills as they can hit the ground running. But of course this causes a lot of frustrations internally in the associations - a frustration they have to keep to themselves if they still want a good relationship with their members. I wonder if we at some point will see attempts at creating membership rules of associations trying to address this increasing problem?

• Lay-offs and cost cutting driven by revenue and geo-politics: Several large companies in the Nordics have laid off big parts of their PA functions (responsible for or driven from the Nordics) in Q4, with the reasoning that it doesn’t makes sense to have several FTE’s - responsible for or placed in these markets - when the revenue generated in this region is minimal compared to other places. Net-net this some places mean that the budgets for PA is status quo, but that the PA Pros are cut from the Nordics and then placed in Brussels or used in a more geo-political challenged area in Europe.

• Quiet quitting - and quiet firing(!): Quiet quitting is a fairly new term that simply describes the situation in which an employee for various reasons gets so tired of their employer and work, and mentally quits and only delivers a bare minimum at work. I have in 2025 met a few PA Pros who was in this situation, but I sensed they did see it as temporary approach. But have you heard of quiet firing? For me it was a new term I first heard of in Q4, but the meaning is probably not that new, as it describes a state in which the employer isolates or freezes out the employee. Neither state is sympathetic or sustainable, and usually ends the same place: the employee leaves. But what is also relevant to think about is the root causes for these situations, and I have to say, that misalignment and unclear objectives are often the driver - in the PA functions at least.

That’s it for my observations from the Nordic PA job market in Q4. Remember to subscribe so you don’t miss the Q1 2026 update. Also, feel free to reach out to discuss any of the above.

/Kopp

But enough with the rant, instead lets scratch all the run-ups to the new year, and just get straight back in to the grind, which is more my approach to work. So, what better way of doing this than by writing a bit about what I am up to in January.

However, before you read on, please remember to subscribe to the blog and support my work. Besides the blogposts, paid subscribers also get exclusive access to my books and surveys (full versions, not extracts) as well as case studies.

Subscribe now

My January

Besides continuing to be on the road presenting the Public Affairs Manager Survey 2026, I also work for two family offices. I love working with family offices and close to the entrepreneurs or business owners, of course also due to my own background as an entrepreneur. There is just something about these family offices, their culture and mindset that is inspiring to be around.

One is a family office (FO) that owns several companies in different industries and sectors. This is a complex organisation, and quite challenging at times as the companies they own are so different. On one hand the FO wants to leave the operators of the different companies alone and give them space and autonomy to execute (as these companies have often been acquired). On the other hand, in certain situations they also want to help their companies as much as they can with new challenges, especially in areas, which they might not know that much about. And Public Affairs often falls under this latter category.

My role is to provide advice to the Director of Communications (DoC) on ad hoc challenges, and here in Q1 it is especially prevalent as there are some challenges caused by a guy across the Atlantic Ocean, who has done some odd import/export calculations that have resulted in tarif challenges in Europe.

The question is specifically how we can support these companies from the FO, especially as we have limited resources in terms of head counts. So we have to support, encourage or nudge the operators on what to do (and not to do) on specific challenges related to new tarifs. Typically - which is very common for sales-driven operators - they complain about the new regulatory challenges… and then they just adapt. This is of course a very good attitude - and why they are world class operators - but what the DoC and the family behind are concerned about, is that we are in a new regulatory regime, that will leave permanent changes to the playing field in these particular sectors. This is something new, which they haven’t tried before, and which calls for new counter-measures.

So how can we create a room for input and inspiration, and occasional tactical assistance, facing an experienced operator? Without saying too much, the FO has previously engaged both esteemed communications and Public Affairs agencies, but this has only resulted in resistance from the operators. The reason has been that the consultants have had a bit of “know-it-all” approach when meeting these operators, while presenting some generic slide deck. This is not how you should approach a seasoned market lead with decades of experience.

So, what I have provided some input on to the DoC, is to approach this from a different angle, more structure focused, and specifically on how to create a flexible (and agile, but I hate that word) forum (structure) for exchange of ideas with these operators and their teams, that makes sense for the business also, and not just because it sounds good from a PA perspective. My conversations with the DoC was initially sparked by my blog post series “Should you centralize the Public Affairs function or not? Maybe just temporarily?” Find Part I here and Part II here.

How we approach the operators

What we have discussed is how centralized we need to run this process, and the two main factors that most often lead to resistance from the operators are 1) the forum in which we meet with an operator, as this is quite important in terms of how receptible they are to input, and 2) our suggestions and advice for the operator, while business aligned, they are strictly in regards to Public Affairs & regulatory, and should be manageable to integrate in an easy way simultaneously with what they had planned themselves. (It is important to stress that the FO can of course always bring these things up more formally with the operators at a board level, but the analysis is, that it is better that these operators and their teams find motivation to engage in more PA activities by themselves, instead of us using more “direct” power.)

Theoretically we have discussed our approach based on this model, which I put forward in my blog series on the topic.

So the notion of this model is that a (PA) team should of course always strive to reach high collective effectiveness and this can happen both in a highly decentralized and centralized structure. As issues are not static phenomenons, they wary in urgency, so this should also reflect how you organize, so during the course of a year you can actually slide up and down the “blue channel” in the model.

Concretely we are planning to go from a setup similar to b:

And in Q1 26 closer to d, as regulatory things get a bit more urgent and thus needs to be more centralized:

Of course we never show these models to the operators, as they would probably roll their eyes of yet another consultant with a polished slide deck. Instead, we try carefully organize the forums, reporting and communication lines with the operators and involve other people from their teams to also participate.

Lets see how it goes in January when we shift towards a more centralized structure - I might do a follow up in Q2 if there is an interest from the subscribers (all this is of course done with the blessing of the DoC).

/Kopp

If we can’t even as a profession agree on a definition, how can we then expect other professions to understand what we do and don’t do – and how we create value for organizations?

The guest on this episode is the “lobby-professor”, Arco Timmermans, Public Affairs researcher, writer, and speaker.

Together we look under the hood of Public Affairs, and among other things talk about:

• How Arco approaches the field of Public Affairs in his research

• Differences between PA and PR

• Cultural shifts and the meaning of polarization in the public and political debate

• Why businesses cannot stay in reactive mode – and they will lose to the proactive

• Medias negativity bias towards lobbying

• Why there aren’t that many national Public Affairs associations

• Comparing PA with diplomacy, discretion is key

• Does the DNA of PA make it impossible to create more transparency and thereby openness to what do and can do?

• How do we speak the language of the organization? Should we even learn it?

• The lack of resources spend on Public Affairs education and training

From Plato over Machiavelli and into the future, we discuss Public Affairs.

Hope you will enjoy the episode as much as we did.

Link to the episode on Apple Podcast here.

And remember to subscribe to the blog, so you don’t miss out on the latest trends from the world of Public Affairs.

Subscribe now

And Merry Christmas to all subscribers, thank you for supporting the blog!

Subscribe now

But, Sandra Bullock aside, this particular blog post is about a challenge, that Public Affairs Pros seem to find themselves facing over and over again:

Crisis as a driver for legitimacy.

I have written about this phenomenon before in my book from 2020, the Public Affairs Engine (which can be downloaded here), and essentially the logic is, that legitimacy increases when there is a crisis, and disappears when peace (re)appears for the organization.

So in essence, every time your organization faces a crisis, the legitimacy of the PA function increases, and once the danger is over and its back to normal, then the legitimacy declines.

Most PA Pros have experienced this development in their careers - on the way up, the feeling of increasing legitimacy and influence internally is intoxicating. But once legitimacy starts to decline then it is sometimes too late. This is a dangerous position to be in. And most often it is a consequence of PA Pros underprioritizing the internal side, and integration of Public Affairs, for too long.

A horror story: The elevator

As I have covered a few times on this blog - e.g. in my two blog post series called “From a Firefighting Cost Center to a Business Enabler?” Part I here and Part II here - there is a genuine and increasing interest among many PA Pros to develop PA from a reactive Firefighter to a more proactive Business Enabler. And for good reason, as many in our discipline have learned, that without legitimacy, the function becomes marginalized, and worst case, cut from the organisational chart. And if you are only a firefighter, then you will face this challenge sooner than later.

I have met companies in “peace-time”, where PA Pros still desperately try to paint a dim picture to management, about the organization facing various threats, and PA budgets therefore should be increased (or at least not cut). This is rarely a good approach.

But what happens internally for the PA function in situations when peace-time comes back after a period with a crisis?

A reallife example from a PA Pro - interviewed as part of the Public Affairs Manager Survey 2026, which can be downloaded here - revealed a transition that looked like the following:

When the crisis occurred, the PA function was almost catapulted from the bottom of the Communications department to weekly meetings with several members of C-level, providing input on core decisions for the company. A comfortable spot for the PA function.

However, then things started to clear up for the company, and the PA Pro told me, that over the course of roughly a year and a half, the PA function sled from reporting directly to management, back to its initial position, at the bottom of the Communications department. Doing events, setting up ad-hoc meetings by orders from Comms and representing the organization in secondary business associations. What happened?

What to do about it? Look at the Triangle of Legitimacy

Based on hundreds of interviews I have conducted the past 5 years, my conclusion has been, that the solutions to the challenge of reduced legitimacy lies somewhere in what I have defined as the Triangle of Legitimacy:

PA Pros need to spend more time in and on this triangle if they want to escape the elevator down to the bottom of the organisation - and avoid only being the brand of crisis.

/Kopp

So make sure you don’t miss brand new insights on:

• The organizational reality - where PA functions most often are placed, the relationship with Communications and new functions “pressuring” PA

• The people in the function - the average size of the function, educational background, average number of issues covered

• Recruiting, employability & salaries - recruitment and skills in demand, challenges with HR, salaries in PA and bonus levels

• Management buy-in & integration - budget trends in PA, C-level access, board involvement

• Social media & tactics - which SoMe channels do PA Pros use and why, differences between B2Bs and B2Cs, and which app you should download instantly if you want influence

• Measuring & AI - the temperature on quant or qual in PA measuring, tech stacks, and AI adoption

• Public Affairs in the future - top 3 skills needed to succeed in PA in 10 years

This an much, much more. Download the free abstract below the picture.

Want the full survey? Find the full survey with 38-slides including my hot takes, case-studies and what to make of the Public Affairs scene in Europe right here!

Abstract Public Affairs Manager Survey 2026

468KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download