On June 19, 2025, the European Parliament’s political leaders reached a consensus to establish a working group within the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) aimed at examining the funding practices of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by the European Commission. This initiative comes in light of controversy surrounding allegations that the Commission had covertly allocated up to €700,000 to environmental NGOs to promote its climate policies. The group, which will consist of 13 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), is chaired by German lawmaker Niclas Herbst, and will feature two co-rapporteurs representing both the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The allegations surfaced through a report by Welt Am Sonntag, prompting discussions about potential hidden contracts between the Commission and NGOs involved in environmental advocacy.
In response to the claims, the European Commission has firmly denied any wrongdoing or the existence of “secret contracts,” asserting its commitment to transparency in funding procedures. This situation has catalyzed right-wing and far-right factions within the Parliament to call for an inquiry committee to deeply investigate these funding practices. However, their proposal was ultimately rejected during the Conference of Presidents (CoP), which is convened weekly by political group leaders. Instead, support for the working group emerged from the EPP, which is the largest political faction in the chamber. Further backing came from the ECR and the Patriots for Europe (PfE), despite opposition from left-of-center parties such as the Socialists, liberals, and Greens. These parties were against both the formation of an inquiry committee and the establishment of the working group but found themselves outvoted by what has been termed the ‘Venezuela majority,’ an alliance favoring right-wing collaboration.
The newly formed working group is designed to be a temporary structure enabling the European Parliament’s committees to monitor the execution of existing legislation while conducting inquiries into specific issues within a designated timeframe. This particular working group has a mandate lasting six months, after which it will compile a final report that may propose regulatory changes regarding NGO funding practices. Carlo Fidanza, an ECR lawmaker, emphasized the group’s role in meticulously reviewing every funding contract between the Commission and NGOs to determine whether there had been any undue influence or lobbying directed at MEPs. He characterized this working group as a less invasive measure compared to a full-scale inquiry committee, expressing satisfaction with the group’s establishment despite it not having the full investigatory powers typically associated with an inquiry.
Internal discussions within the EPP revealed that a working group was favored over an inquiry committee, primarily because the former focuses on scrutinizing the European Commission’s future conduct rather than uncovering historical failings. The drive toward establishing this working group aligns with a broader push for accountability regarding how EU funds are disseminated and ensures some level of oversight of NGOs, which are often criticized for their roles in policy advocacy and lobbying. The political dynamics within the Parliament are also indicative of the shifting allegiances and coalitions among various political groups, as both the EPP and far-right factions rally around accountability in funding practices.
In conjunction with the formation of the working group, the CoP also made a significant decision to cease negotiations concerning the “Green claims directive.” This directive was initially designed to protect consumers from greenwashing by requiring businesses to provide evidence substantiating their environmental claims. The European Parliament had initially adopted its stance on the directive in March 2024 and was positioned to negotiate its final text with member states. However, the recent pivot, supported by both the EPP and right-wing groups, now calls for the Commission to withdraw the directive altogether, indicating a potential shift in focus away from consumer protection measures in favor of other political priorities.
Ultimately, these developments reflect the contentious interplay between transparency, accountability, and the complex political landscape of the European Parliament. The establishment of the working group marks a purposeful step towards examining NGO funding practices, driven by both the need for scrutiny and the interests of right-wing factions seeking to redefine the framework around EU financial oversight. As the working group embarks on its mandate, the implications of its findings could reverberate throughout the European Union’s policy-making environments, adventuring into how NGOs operate and how public accountability is upheld in the face of alleged misuse of funds.
