20/01/2026
Two months after its launch, the European Parliament’s Scrutiny Working Group on NGOs (SWG) has done little to establish its legitimacy. Instead, it has confirmed what many political groups and civil society organisations stated from the outset: this is a politically driven exercise that adds no value to transparency or accountability and should not be engaged with.
The working group is scheduled to meet again tomorrow on Wednesday, 21 January. Yet most of the European Parliament will once again be absent. The Left, Greens/EFA, S&D, and Renew Europe have all confirmed they will not attend, a position they intend to maintain in the months ahead. Meetings are expected to take place at every parliamentary session until May, but without broad political participation, the process risks becoming entirely irrelevant.
A transparency exercise without transparency
Despite repeated concerns, the SWG continues to operate without meeting basic transparency standards. Agendas are not published in advance. The full composition of the group remains unclear. Its mandate and working methods have never been properly made public. A body that scrutinises others while refusing to apply the same standards to itself cannot credibly claim to strengthen transparency.
Duplicating oversight that already exists
The EU already has well-established systems to monitor and audit the use of public funds. The European Commission, the European Parliament’s discharge procedure, and the European Court of Auditors all oversee EU spending, including funding received by NGOs. These mechanisms have found no evidence of systemic misuse of funds by civil society organisations. Creating a parallel structure does not improve accountability — it weakens existing, treaty-based oversight by politicising it.
A partial and misleading focus
The SWG’s exclusive focus on NGOs produces a distorted picture of EU funding. Civil society organisations represent only a small share of beneficiaries. Corporations, consultancies, think tanks, and private contractors receive significantly larger amounts of EU money and exert far greater influence on policymaking, yet they are excluded from scrutiny. This selective approach is not neutral; it reinforces a misleading narrative that singles out NGOs while leaving more powerful actors untouched.
An outcome that will lack relevance
A final report produced by a group dominated by a narrow political spectrum, without the participation of most democratic political groups and without meaningful engagement with civil society, cannot credibly inform policy. Its conclusions will carry little institutional or political weight. For these reasons, the boycott of the Scrutiny Working Group on NGOs is both justified and necessary. Participation would only legitimise a process that is opaque, redundant, and politically skewed. The Good Lobby will continue to support those political groups and civil society organisations that refuse to engage in a process that undermines rather than strengthens democratic accountability in the European Union.