Ana Almansa-Martínez
Antonio Castillo-Esparcia
Álvaro Serna-Ortega
Lissette Marroquín-Velásquez- 1Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
- 2School of Collective Communication Sciences, University of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica
Editorial on the Research Topic
The global impact of lobbies and think tanks on democracy and policy
Today, interest representation is heavily shaped by how digitalization has transformed communication, the increasing demand from citizens for greater transparency, and the pressure institutions face to respond to global challenges. These factors have made the role of lobbies and think tanks in democratic governance and policymaking more complex than ever before (Ihlen et al., 2020; Gorostiza-Cerviño et al., 2023; Serna-Ortega et al., 2025). The Research Topic presented in this editorial aims to deepen the scientific literature in this area. It brings together 12 studies that examine how lobbies and think tanks operate, communicate, and exert influence across multiple geographical settings.
Digitalization is a core theme running through many of the contributions. Six studies can be broadly framed within this theme, as they explore—albeit with varying levels of specificity and scope—how lobbying groups and think tanks use social media and digital platforms. On these platforms, organizations can develop dialogic communication strategies with interested audiences and enhance citizen activism (Castillo-Esparcia et al., 2023).
Two of these six studies focus on international scenarios. On the one hand, Smolak-Lozano examines the digital lobbying strategies within the European Union, offering a methodological framework to monitor online advocacy actions. This article is particularly relevant given the institutional complexity of the European Union. On the other hand, Castillero-Ostio et al. delve into the digital interactivity of think tanks in the United States. Their study assesses the degree of engagement and participatory communication adopted, and is part of a broader body of research. The authors have replicated their methodology across different continents (Castillero-Ostio et al., 2024, 2025), making it possible to carry out comparisons on how think tanks around the world are adapting to the demands and opportunities of digital communication.
The remaining four studies within the digitalization theme are centered in the Spanish context. Among these contributions is the one by Pineda et al., who analyze how Andalusian interest groups interact with citizens through X (Twitter), revealing a predominantly unidirectional use of the platform—characterized by limited interactivity and a tendency toward self-promotion rather than dialogue. Something similar can be seen in the work of Gómez de Travesedo-Rojas and Gil-Ramírez, who analyze the presence of Spanish think tanks on YouTube. Their findings reveal an imbalance between visibility and engagement: while organizations maintain an active presence on the platform, there is still room for improvement in audience interaction and content adaptation.
Distinct from these institutional or organizational approaches, Godoy-Martín investigates grassroots activism. His study describes how citizen pressure groups in Spain mobilize against touristification through social media. Unlike the more controlled and often unidirectional communication strategies of formal organizations, these grassroots strategies demonstrate a spontaneous and dynamic use of digital platforms—highlighting a different form of digital lobbying, which, while less structured, can exert indirect influence on public debate and policy.
Besides that, in a divergent yet complementary direction, Nicolás Ojeda et al. study the social communication strategies of major Spanish banking brands and their alignment with the narratives produced by sector-specific think tanks. Using a phase-based framework in their analysis, the authors trace the evolution of the corporate discourse of financial institutions since the 2007 crisis, incorporating interesting elements of social legitimacy and digital dialogue.
Transparency constitutes another crucial theme addressed in several contributions. In that line, the study by Ridao Martín and Galcerà is particularly relevant, offering a legal and jurisprudential review of the European Union's Transparency Register. Their article analyses the functioning and challenges of the system following its consolidation as a mandatory mechanism in 2021, and reflects the institutional implications of a model that seeks to balance participation, integrity, and traceability in lobbying activities.
Alongside this contextualizing study on transparency, three other contributions approach the theme from more specific angles. The first, by Fernández-Torres and Chamizo-Sánchez, takes the Qatargate scandal as a case study to reveal the weaknesses in the European Union's lobbying regulations. The findings emphasize the need for stronger oversight mechanisms. The second, by Roger-Monzó and Castelló-Sirvent, explores how environmental policy think tanks influence academic research, raising questions about how to balance making knowledge, pushing for policies, and staying truly independent. The third contribution, by Guerra-Heredia et al., focuses on the profiles of lobbyists—a relevant issue in the debate on transparency. Through a comparative analysis of Spain and France, the authors define who the lobbyists are.
Finally, two theoretical contributions are also included, introducing disruptive ideas into the field of study. The work by Castillo-Esparcia et al. proposes a renewed paradigm of convergence in lobby-state interactions. Chatzistavrou, for her part, offers a reinterpretation of the concept of political capitalism within the context of the digital economy.
Together, the contributions included in the Research Topic provide a broad, interdisciplinary look at the changes reshaping the world of political advocacy and influence. The insights they offer can inform academic debates, inspire reflection, and help advance discussions on how democratic systems can make the most of the positive roles that lobbies and think tanks play—while also managing the risks they pose. Furthermore, the findings can be useful for guiding reforms that aim to create more transparent, inclusive, and accountable ways of representing interests.
Before closing this editorial, it is necessary to acknowledge the thematic limitations of the Research Topic. Notably absent are contributions that explore the role of fossil fuel lobbies and the powerful influence they continue to exert over climate and public policy. For decades, these actors have helped shape political agendas, stalled regulation, and hindered democratic responses to the climate crisis worldwide (Brulle et al., 2024; Ekberg et al., 2022). Their omission here—especially the think tanks and transnational networks that sustain them—is a significant gap. To address this omission and complement the findings presented, readers are encouraged to consult the extensive body of scholarly literature that deals with these issues (see e.g., Almiron et al., 2020, 2023; Busch and Judick, 2021; Graham, 2024; Moreno-Cabanillas et al., 2024; Plehwe, 2022).
Another thematic limitation relates to the mechanisms of access that lobbies and think tanks use to reach authorities. Although transparency is addressed in various contributions, none of the articles focus on how such access is operationalized in practice. The ways in which organizations leverage formal and informal channels to build relationships with decision-makers, gain privileged information, or influence institutional agendas remain underexplored. This is also a crucial omission, as access is not merely a procedural issue but a key factor shaping lobbying effectiveness and the equity of interest representation (Bouwen, 2002, 2004; Serna-Ortega et al., 2024).
Author contributions
AA-M: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AC-E: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ÁS-O: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LM-V: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by “Lobby y Comunicación en la Unión Europea” of the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain), the State R+D+I Programme for Proofs of Concept of the State Programme for Societal Challenges, the State Programme for Scientific, Technical, and Innovation Research, 2020–2023 (PID2020-118584RB-100) and by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (Spain) FPU/02553.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Almiron, N., Boykoff, M., Narberhaus, M., and Heras, F. (2020). Dominant counter-frames in influential climate contrarian European think tanks. Clim. Change 162, 2003–2020. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02820-4
Almiron, N., Moreno, J. A., and Farrell, J. (2023). Climate change contrarian think tanks in Europe: a network analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 32, 268–283. doi: 10.1177/09636625221137815
Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: the logic of access. J. Eur. Public Policy 9, 365–390. doi: 10.1080/13501760210138796
Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: a comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 43, 337–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x
Brulle, R. J., Roberts, J. T., and Spencer, M. C. (2024). Climate Obstruction Across Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780197762042.001.0001
Busch, T., and Judick, L. (2021). Climate change—that is not real! A comparative analysis of climate-sceptic think tanks in the USA and Germany. Clim. Change 164:18. doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-02962-z
Castillero-Ostio, E., Moreno-Cabanillas, A., and Castillo-Esparcia, A. (2024). Communication and think tanks: web interactivity assessment of Latin American think tanks. Palabra Clave 27:e2732. doi: 10.5294/pacla.2024.27.3.2
Castillero-Ostio, E., Moreno-Cabanillas, A., and Serna-Ortega, Á. (2025). Comunicación política en el entorno digital. Evaluación de las estrategias de interactividad de los think tanks europeos. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación 16:e26338. doi: 10.14198/MEDCOM.26338
Castillo-Esparcia, A., Caro-Castaño, L., and Almansa-Martínez, A. (2023). Evolution of digital activism on social media: opportunities and challenges. Prof. Inf. 32:e320303. doi: 10.3145/epi.2023.may.03
Ekberg, K., Forchtner, B., Hultman, M., and Jylhä, K. M. (2022). Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction are Heating the Planet. London, UK: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003181132
Gorostiza-Cerviño, A., Serna-Ortega, Á., Moreno-Cabanillas, A., and Castillo-Esparcia, A. (2023). Navigating the digital sphere: exploring websites, social media, and representation costs—a European Union case study. Soc. Sci. 12:616. doi: 10.3390/socsci12110616
Graham, N. (2024). Think tanks and climate obstruction: atlas affiliates in Canada. Can. Rev. Sociol. 61, 110–130. doi: 10.1111/cars.12467
Ihlen, Ø., Valentini, C., Davidson, S., and Shavit, A. (2020). Lobbying, the public interest, and democracy: communication perspectives. J. Public Aff. 20:e2091. doi: 10.1002/pa.2091
Moreno-Cabanillas, A., Castillero-Ostio, E., and Serna-Ortega, Á. (2024). Digital disinformation strategies of European climate change obstructionist think tanks. Front. Commun. 9:1470343. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1470343
Plehwe, D. (2022). Reluctant transformers or reconsidering opposition to climate change mitigation? German think tanks between environmentalism and neoliberalism. Globalizations 20, 1277–1295. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2022.2038358
Serna-Ortega, Á., Almansa-Martínez, A., and Castillo-Esparcia, A. (2025). Influence of lobbying in EU policy process phases. Front. Polit. Sci. 7:1511918. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1511918
Keywords: lobbying, think tanks, communication, democracy, policy, international
Citation: Almansa-Martínez A, Castillo-Esparcia A, Serna-Ortega Á and Marroquín-Velásquez L (2025) Editorial: The global impact of lobbies and think tanks on democracy and policy. Front. Polit. Sci. 7:1663345. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1663345
Received: 10 July 2025; Accepted: 22 July 2025;
Published: 13 August 2025.
Edited and reviewed by: Daniele Conversi, Ikerbasque Basque Foundation for Science, Spain
Copyright © 2025 Almansa-Martínez, Castillo-Esparcia, Serna-Ortega and Marroquín-Velásquez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Álvaro Serna-Ortega, YW1zb0B1bWEuZXM=