Brussels | Edelman

Context: why connectivity policy is back at the centre of EU strategy

Connectivity has moved from being a sectoral concern to a strategic foundation of Europe’s economic, security and industrial agenda. Gigabit networks, advanced 5G, cloud computing and satellite connectivity are now critical enablers of competitiveness, underpinning everything from AI deployment and industrial transformation to public services and crisis response.

This shift has been reinforced by recent high-level policy thinking. Both Enrico Letta’s report on the future of the Single Market and Mario Draghi’s analysis of European competitiveness set out a high level of ambition for the telecoms sector, calling for deeper integration, greater scale and stronger investment conditions to overcome fragmentation.

Against this backdrop, the European Commission’s proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA) represents the most consequential rethink of EU connectivity regulation in over a decade, not as a full-scale overhaul, but as a targeted effort to streamline the framework, improve coordination and bring greater uniformity across Member States, while stopping short of the more far-reaching reforms envisaged in those reports.

Digital Networks Act

What the DNA is trying to fix

The Commission’s diagnosis is clear. Despite years of harmonisation, Europe’s connectivity markets remain fragmented along national lines, with divergent authorisation regimes, spectrum conditions and regulatory practices increasing compliance costs and limiting cross-border expansion.

This fragmentation increasingly clashes with how digital networks operate. As networks become software-driven, cloud-based and integrated with data and AI infrastructure, scale becomes a prerequisite for competitiveness. The DNA is designed to reduce structural friction and make it easier for providers to operate and invest across borders.

From national silos to a more integrated market: The DNA aims to reduce persistent fragmentation by consolidating key telecoms instruments into a single Regulation and introducing a single market authorisation framework, including a Single Passport, to simplify cross-border operations while preserving national regulatory oversight.
Fibre, spectrum and investment certainty: The proposal tackles two long-standing investment bottlenecks by establishing a coordinated transition from copper to fibre, based on national plans and conditional switch-off, and by reforming spectrum policy through longer or open-ended licence durations, enhanced EU scrutiny of assignments and stronger incentives for spectrum sharing.
Resilience, satellites and strategic autonomy: By formally recognising digital networks as critical infrastructure, strengthening EU-level preparedness and resilience coordination, and introducing a more centralised framework for satellite authorisation and spectrum management, the DNA aligns connectivity policy more closely with the EU’s economic security and strategic autonomy objectives, including crisis response and reduced dependence on non-EU infrastructure.

What this means for businesses

The Digital Networks Act is not just a telecoms file. It reshapes the conditions under which cloud providers, AI developers, infrastructure investors, industrial users and public authorities rely on connectivity.

The direction is clear: fewer regulatory barriers, stronger coordination and a more strategic view of networks as critical infrastructure. For companies operating across borders, the legislative process ahead will be a key moment to assess how future network regulation could affect investment decisions, service models and resilience planning.

Next steps to watch

The proposal now enters the legislative process, where Member States and the European Parliament will test the balance between EU-level coherence and national flexibility. Key areas to watch include how far harmonisation goes in practice, how spectrum safeguards are framed, and how resilience obligations are operationalised.

For stakeholders across the digital ecosystem, the coming months present an opportunity to engage early on how Europe’s connectivity framework should support competitiveness, innovation and security in the next decade.

For additional information, reach out to Diana.Angelova@edelman.com and Francisco.Herrera@edelman.com.

Understanding what’s really at stake in the growing discussion on food processing

The term “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) has recently attracted increased attention from scientists, media, civil society and governments. Once nutrition jargon, the term now appears in media and official announcements almost daily. Why is that so? What is at stake in those discussions? How could “UPFs” reshape the discussions on food systems and health, and what can the food and beverage sector do about it? Ultimately, growing concern and discussions about “UPFs” reflect an erosion of public trust in food, and further damage this trust. Food and beverage leaders who transparently explain food processing, engage with credible experts, and drive evidence-based reformulation will be ahead of the curve and will more easily navigate an increasingly polarized landscape.

Hard-to-process health data

Coined by Brazilian scientist Carlos Monteiro in 2009, the term “UPF” started spreading like wildfire just before 2020.

Part of the reason is that none of the various policy measures put in place to date to reverse the inexorable global rise in obesity have delivered. Once more circumscribed to rich countries, obesity now spans all countries and income levels. By 2022, adult obesity had more than doubled since 1990 and exceeded 1/3 of adults in the UK, US, Chile, and Mexico. Among 5- to 19-year-olds, obesity more than quadrupled, with 1 in 10 children worldwide living with obesity by 2022. Obesity increases noncommunicable disease (NCD) risk and premature deaths and imposes visible societal costs estimated at about £126bn per year in the UK alone.

In response, civil society, scientists and even WHO have pointed fingers at several factors, including growing UPF consumption. Yet the only evidence is associational, and the role of processed food is still hotly debated. Given this lack of consensus, why is industrial food processing given so much attention?

Trust at the core

Trust in the food and beverage industry and its practices are the common factor in discussion of UPFs—and this trust is marked by contradiction. Edelman’s latest Trust Barometer shows that overall trust in the food and beverage industry has steadily increased from 67% in 2020 to 73% in 2025, making it one of the most trusted industries globally. However, global consumer acceptance of food processing is low and tainted with skepticism. Over the past year alone, 53% of consumers reported viewing UPFs less favorably than they used to, and 43% have shifted opinions, underlining the pace of change. Despite this growing aversion, consumer understanding of UPFs is low and most cannot identify them in supermarket aisles. General confusion underpins consumer avoidance.

Consumers’ heightened sensitivity to “UPFs” has also raised the interest of various stakeholders, whose action is further eroding overall trust in the food and beverage sector. Media headlines are eye-catching. Communications campaigns are mistakenly guiding consumers to avoid food processing by choosing food options perceived as more “natural.” Scientists and publishers are riding the UPF wave and increasingly writing on the issue. Public authorities within and across countries disagree whether food processing is a sound basis to target dietary changes and whether there is already sufficient evidence linking processed food consumption and NCDs.

Trust is local, and so are the discussions on food processing. Data shows that trust in food processing varies across demographics and regions. Skepticism and avoidance score highest in Europe, while Asian consumers tend to be more open to food innovation. Older consumers are more skeptical and avoidant, while younger consumers are more open and likely to accept the role that processed foods can play in a balanced diet if formulated well.

Where is this headed? Food for thought

Three key trends in the current UPF debate are worth noting, as their evolution will be key in determining the longer-term trajectory of the issue:

Defining UPFs. Questions have been raised about the robustness of the NOVA classification, with calls for a more precise scientific definition to inform policymaking. Whether UPFs and their key markers are defined in terms of nutrients (e.g., fat, salt & sugar), ingredients (e.g., additives) or attributes (e.g., palatable, addictive), or a combination of these will have substantial bearing on public perceptions and policy options. But stakeholders disagree about the shape of the definition, as illustrated by various research projects and policy initiatives in recent years. WHO’s upcoming UPF definition and planned UPF dietary guidelines (expected by around 2027) could help build common ground to cut across disagreements. Yet WHO may not achieve global consensus on either, since the US is leaving WHO and is currently working on a federal-level definition, which should subsequently underpin the recommendations of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) Commission.
Health vs. affordability. Modern food processing has provided people with more affordable and shelf-stable products, enabling them to cut their grocery spending. This implies a tension between health equity and food accessibility: policies aiming to reduce the share of processed foods in diets risk exposing lower-income groups to more food and nutrition insecurity, unless fresh produce is simultaneously made more affordable. This tension might increasingly shape upcoming discussions given the background of a lingering cost-of-living crisis.
Rising UPF-related litigation, especially in the US. In the recent Martinez case in Pennsylvania, a young adult sued several companies alleging their products caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes. The judge dismissed the claim for failing to identify specific foods, amounts consumed and a direct causal link. Yet the amended case is already being re-filed, and similar suits will surely emerge, building on the lessons of the Martinez case. The risk such cases pose to food producers would rise further if WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer proceeds with its planned assessment and classifies UPFs as carcinogenic. Class actions targeting UPFs in the US would likely ripple out into global negative perceptions.

UPFs - a tough nut to crack

The heated debate over UPFs is exposing the food and beverage industry to reputational, regulatory and litigation risk. Navigating this increasingly hostile landscape calls for business to make strategic shifts. What companies can do:

Communicate more clearly and forcefully about health and other benefits of food processing, especially to more open-minded consumers. The vast majority of consumers have heard of “UPF” but are still ignorant about what the term means. There is room to educate consumers and increase their understanding and acceptance that food processing can fit into a healthy diet. It is also important to communicate about the other benefits of food processing (e.g., shelf stability, convenience).
Drive reformulation to assuage concerns, especially of the ingredients consumers perceive most poorly. Most major companies have been on a “clean label” drive for some time. The UPFavoidance trend that is taking shape among significant sections of the consumer base no doubt strengthens the case for accelerating that journey. The recent announcements on the voluntary phasing out of synthetic dyes in the US will likely have ramifications for other markets. Clean label drives should, however, be done sensitively, without casting doubt on ingredients that are proven safe.
Unlock opportunity in partnership with credible experts and NGOs. Although business is most trusted, industry messaging alone lacks authority. Co-messaging with experts and NGOs who are seen as moral authorities in food and health can help close the credibility gap for business.

Simply demonizing food processing or UPFs is simplistic and counterproductive, but so is failing to pay more attention to the health impact of unbalanced diets. UPF does not stand alone; it is inextricably intertwined with environmental, scientific, economic and political issues. Only engagement with all stakeholders can build trust, reduce confusion and reduce the likelihood of sub-optimal policies. The onus is on the food industry to drive that engagement and communications effort; it is very much in its interest to do so, as left unattended, the current debate will only result in the increasing stigmatization of its most loved brands and products.

According to this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer Health Special Report, when it comes to addressing health needs and concerns, trust in traditional institutions (government, media, NGOs, and business) has declined since 2023. People are increasingly turning to non-credential sources that feel authentic, relatable, and grounded in personal experience. These are precisely the qualities that define patient advocates, positioning them as some of the most trusted figures in Europe’s health ecosystem.

This shift carries important implications for policymakers. At a time when public trust is fragile, EU institutions have a valuable opportunity, and responsibility, to engage more meaningfully with the voices that embody transparency, legitimacy, and inclusion.

Having once served in a patient advocacy group (PAG), I have seen firsthand how advocates help bridge the gap between policy intent and lived experience. If this vital connection is weakened, we risk missing opportunities for more effective health policy, resilient health systems, and better patient outcomes.

Patient advocacy: a trusted force in health

What makes patient advocates so trusted is not formal credentials (though many have relevant expertise), but their proximity to the realities of illness and care. They combine personal experience with deep understanding, enabling them to offer empathy, clarity, and practical guidance.

But PAGs do more than inform. As Anca Toma, Executive Director at the European Patients’ Forum (EPF) remarked at our Edelman Trust Barometer event, PAGs provide a public service: they translate complex health information into actionable guidance for citizens and decision-makers. They also connect with underserved communities, and represent perspectives often overlooked in institutional settings.

During my time in advocacy, my colleagues and I regularly made the case that genuine patient engagement and empowerment do not just improve individual care, they lead to health systems that are more responsive, sustainable, and equitable. In the EU, where diversity and complexity define the health landscape, this kind of input is not optional, it is essential.

Shrinking Space for Patient Representation

Despite their trusted role, patient advocates seem to be increasingly pushed to the margins of EU health policymaking.

This year, EPF and EURORDIS, launched a campaign to protect the role of patients in decision-making at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), a feature they describe as a hallmark of the agency’s participatory model, now potentially under threat. Concretely, according to the PAGs, policymakers should ensure that patient voting rights are maintained in the key EMA Committees¹.

At the same time, EU institutions are introducing new constraints on funding that risk impacting PAGs. The European Parliament recently voted to establish a working group to scrutinise EU funding to NGOs, and the European Commission’s Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) has begun to limit health NGOs’ use of EU operating grants for any advocacy-related activities.

As a result, PAGs, already operating with limited resources, are being told that core advocacy activities such as organising meetings or sending letters to officials, are no longer eligible for funding. It is worth noting that initiatives like EUPATI, which was originally supported through EU programmes, have helped equip patient advocates with knowledge and tools to engage in exactly these kinds of policy and regulatory processes. Restricting support for such activities now, directly undermines their ability to participate meaningfully in the policy process.

Policy paradox: Trust vs. regulation

This moment reveals a troubling paradox: just as citizens place growing trust in patient advocates, policy trends risk excluding them. This disconnect can have tangible effects, including policy blind spots, reduced transparency, and citizen disengagement.

Several major EU health initiatives, such as the pharma legislation, Critical Medicines Act, and disease-specific strategies, would benefit immensely from the insight of PAGs. At the same time, long-standing priorities championed by the patient community, like the call for a European Action Plan on Rare Diseases, remain unfulfilled despite momentum at Council and WHO level².

If space for advocacy narrows, patient-led priorities may be delayed, and the perspectives of those most affected will be lost. In essence, without PAG involvement, policymaking risks becoming less inclusive, less effective, and disconnected from the real-world needs that drives equity and innovation.

Safeguarding the patient voice

As the EU shapes the future of health policy, it must create the conditions for patient voices to thrive. This means ensuring meaningful involvement in regulatory and legislative processes, supporting funding models that enable advocacy and participation, and fostering transparent, inclusive engagement across the policy lifecycle.

In a climate of low institutional trust, aligning health policy with the voices that people already trust is not just good governance, it’s a strategic necessity. As the saying goes, “trust isn't given, it's earned”, and those who have earned it through lived experience, deserve a seat at the table.

¹EPF and EURORDIS urge EU member states to uphold voting rights for patient representatives in Articles 148 and 149 of the EU General Pharmaceutical Regulation proposal.

²The call for a comprehensive European Union Action Plan on Rare Diseases has been led by EURORDIS and gained significant momentum in recent years. Presidencies of the Council of the EU, have somehow echoed this call since 2022, including France, Czechia, Spain, Hungary and Poland. At global level, a significant milestone was reached in May 2025, with the adoption of the World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolution on Rare Diseases.

Clara Hervas is Vice President for Health & Wellbeing at Edelman Public & Government Affairs Brussels. She previously worked in the patient advocacy space and now advises clients on trust, engagement, and inclusive health policy.

According to this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer Health Special Report, when it comes to addressing health needs and concerns, trust in traditional institutions (government, media, NGOs, and business) has declined since 2023. People are increasingly turning to untraditional sources that feel authentic, relatable, and grounded in personal experience. These are precisely the qualities that define patient advocates, positioning them as some of the most trusted figures in Europe’s health ecosystem.

Patient advocacy: a trusted force in health

But PAGs do more than inform. As Anca Toma, former Executive Director at the European Patients’ Forum (EPF) remarked at our Edelman Trust Barometer event, PAGs provide a public service: they translate complex health information into actionable guidance for citizens and decision-makers. They also connect with underserved communities, and represent perspectives often overlooked in institutional settings.

Shrinking Space for Patient Representation

Despite their trusted role, patient advocates seem to be increasingly pushed to the margins of EU health policymaking.

Policy paradox: Trust vs. regulation

Safeguarding the patient voice

¹EPF and EURORDIS urge EU member states to uphold voting rights for patient representatives in Articles 148 and 149 of the EU General Pharmaceutical Regulation proposal.

A lack of faith in societal institutions triggered by economic anxiety, disinformation, mass-class divide and a failure of leadership has brought us to where we are today – deeply and dangerously polarized.

Business is the only institution seen as competent and ethical, with 53% trusting business to do what is right, a full per cent 9 points ahead of government which sits at 44%
62% of European respondents say that their countries are more divided today than in the past.
European CEOs are expected to take more action on employees, climate, and discrimination.

Trust study finds that Europeans are increasingly polarised and pessimistic about their futures.

Faced with a sequence of overlapping crises, Europeans are becoming disenfranchised, with only 20% believing that they and their families will be better off in five years. This is 9 points lower than in 2022, and 14 points lower than in 2019.

The 23rd annual trust study finds Europeans have become deeply pessimistic about their economic prospects, and don’t believe that politicians can bring change. The survey, which measures trust in government, business, the media, and NGOs, paints a bleak picture of Europe, highlighting falling trust in government and its institutions, with a majority feeling believing that the social fabric is weakening.

Overall, Edelman’s research indicates that Europe is deeply divided into many critical issues, but united in its negative economic outlook, its distrust of government, its disdain for CEOs and politicians, and its belief that business should be doing more to address key societal issues like climate change, healthcare, economic inequality, energy shortages and trustworthy information.

amaia 23trustagaina

After a year of economic uncertainty linked to rising inflation and high energy prices linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, trust in Governments continues to remain low. As recently as the May 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer: Spring Update, Government was the most trusted institution when the world sought leadership capable of tackling a global pandemic. Now, after a bungled response to the pandemic and perceived inaction on economic issues, only 44% of Europeans trust government to do the right thing, a full 9 points less than business, at 53%.

A deepening sense of pessimism

When asked whether they or their family will be better off in 5 years, only 20% of Europeans agreed. The French were especially pessimistic, with only 12% believing that they will be better off, a full 6-point drop since last year’s survey. This comes despite the fact that France had some of the lowest inflation rates in the EU running at 5.9% in 2022, well below the EU average of 9.2% - indicating that the issues in France go well beyond simple cost-of-living issues.

The economic malaise is however not restricted to France, and most concerningly also affects all three of the European Union’s top economies, including Germany and Italy, where only 15% and 18% respectively think that they will be better off in five years. On the other end of the scale, 31% of the Irish think that they will be better off – a number which is nonetheless 11 points lower than this time last year. With that in mind, 84% of Europeans worry about job loss, with Italians the most concerned at 95%. A further 74% are worried about inflation, with Spanish respondents feeling the most impacted at 84%.

Personal anxieties also preoccupy Europeans to a large extent, with climate change leading the pack at 75%, just ahead of concerns over nuclear war (73%) and energy shortages (70%)

Trust in Government and politicians lags well behind trust in business

The study find that business remains more trusted than government by a good margin, with 53% of European respondents trusting business to do the right thing, as compared to only 44% for government, a full 9 points behind business. In Europe, trust in government is at its lowest in Germany where only 34% trust it, a stat which does not bode well for Europe’s largest economy. On the other end, Ireland is the most likely to trust its government, at 47%. Finally, trust in government leaders is also low across the continent, with only 35% of Europeans saying that they trust government leaders to do what is right.

Underlying this dire view of government and government leadership is the fact that a large percentage of Europeans consider that government is a key source of misleading information. In fact, more people believe that government is a source of false or misleading information (47%) than those who consider it a reliable source of trustworthy information (37%). This contrasts with business, where 41% consider it to be a trusted course of information compared to only 33% who believe it to be a source of misleading information.

The past few weeks have once again served as stark reminders of the importance of trust. The global banking system has been creaking under the weight of two banking collapses, first in the United States with Silicon Valley Bank (and several smaller institutions), and then here in Europe with Credit Suisse having to be rescued by its old rival UBS. If trust in Europe’s banking institutions erodes further, the situation could spiral out of control and put more banks at risk as investors and consumers alike might move their money to institutions or into assets deemed more trustworthy.

Just like a lack of trust in the banking system places other banks at risk, the same can be said of trust in any system. And an erosion of trust affects everyone. As with any system, maintaining high trust depends on strong institutional pillars – from businesses, NGOs, governments, and media. If even one of these core institutions falters, the entire system could unravel.

This underlying threat is reflected in our European trust data. Across the continent, citizens are increasingly divided over whether our current systems – whether they be political, economic, governance or otherwise – are fit for purpose. Without the safety net that a trusted system provides, people are beginning to fear for their economic future. Only 20% of respondents now expect that they and their families will be better off in five years, a 9-point decline from 2022. This is especially acute in Europe’s largest countries, with only 12% in France, 15% in Germany and 18% in Italy believing that their families will be better off five years from now.

We can see how this general distrust and pessimism leads directly to a more polarised society, where now very few would help (30%), live near (20%), or work (20%) with someone who disagreed with their point of view. Amongst European states, both Spain and Sweden are considered severely polarised, while France, the UK, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are in danger of reaching severe levels of polarization. This trust divide is also driven by income levels; people who are among the top 25% of earners live in a different trust reality than those in the bottom quartile, with an 18-point gap in Germany and Ireland, and a 16-point gap in The Netherlands.

Normally it would be up to the media to pierce these differing trust realities, but the media no longer seems to be playing this role. In fact, many believe that journalists actively drive polarization. Where societies once lived in a shared media environment, they have now splintered into to live in echo chambers full of like-minded people, which makes it harder to solve problems collaboratively. This, in turn, is another reason why media – and especially social media – are not trusted anymore. In Europe, 45% of those polled now believe that media organisations are a key source of misleading information, just behind the government – which is seen by nearly half of all people (47%) to be spreading misleading information.

No wonder that trust in government continues to deteriorate. In democracies, extreme polarisation naturally undermines the ability to legislate, slowing the process of consensus-building and limiting a government’s ability to meet the expectations of its electorate. Pleasing one side of a polarized world only serves to anger the other side even more. This distrust of government is particularly acute in Spain and in the UK, where Brexit continues to divide and where political turmoil has become all too common. Today only 36% of Spaniards trust their government; in the United Kingdom, it is 37%. Across Europe, only 44% trust their government leaders to do what is right.

amaia 23 trust

Business is now the sole institution seen as competent and ethical, and as a result, companies are expected to step into the void left by many governments. Yet when businesses do step in, most Europeans do not expect them to avoid politicisation – meaning that businesses risk becoming embroiled in difficult societal debates which could alienate and further divide major segments of the population. This has led to a leadership vacuum on many issues where neither businesses nor governments are willing nor able to step in.

The combination of economic anxieties, institutional imbalances, mass-class divisions and media-fuelled echo chambers makes people – especially Europeans – believe that their countries are now more divided today than in the past. The numbers are startling: In the Netherlands, 80% agree with that statement, followed by Sweden (73%), France (70%), Germany (66%) and the UK (65%). Amongst European countries polled, only Ireland was a minority (42%) convinced that their nation was more divided than before.

The polarization of society results in more than political antagonism. Across Europe, 71% now believe that the lack of civility and mutual respect today is the worst they have ever seen. 64% also say that the social fabric that once held their country together has grown too weak to serve as a foundation for unity and a common purpose.

In a time of poly-crisis, where multiple crises – war, pandemic, economic uncertainty and more – are stretching the very fabric of society, this is very concerning.

Having said that, the fundamental trust issues identified in the Edelman Trust Barometer can be overcome, provided institutions act quickly and effectively.

So what needs to be done?

Collaborate with government. The best results come when business and government work together, not at a cross purpose.
Build consensus and collaborate on policies and standards to deliver results that push us toward a more just, secure, and thriving society. Businesses must continue to step up. As the most trusted institution, business holds the mantle of greater expectation and responsibility. Businesses should therefore leverage comparative advantages to inform debates and deliver solutions across key issues, from climate to skills training.
Restore economic optimism. A grim economic view is both a driver and outcome of polarization.
Invest in fair compensation, training, and local communities to address the mass-class divide and the cycle of polarization.
Advocate for the truth. Business also has an essential role to play in the information ecosystem. Be a source of reliable information, promote civil discourse, and hold false information sources accountable through corrective messaging, reinvestment, and other action.

All institutions – governments, media and NGOs need to raise their game, but it is business that has the biggest opportunity to heal the rift in European society.

In honour of this year’s International Women’s Day, we had the pleasure of interviewing several of our Brussels colleagues to better understand what diversity and inclusion mean to them, the progress they’d still like to see when it comes to gender equality, and their best advice for our future female leaders.

The power of diversity

Recognising the power of diversity is key to truly creating an innovative and creative culture at work. This is a strongly shared sentiment throughout Edelman and our interviewed colleagues often pointed to its importance. Teams thrive when comprised of people with a multitude of diverse backgrounds and experiences. As Jeremy Bossu, the Head of Corporate Communications, underlines, “people have to be confronted with the beauty of differences in a positive and frequent way in order to understand that change can be beneficial.”

The value of diversity can also be considered from a business standpoint; only a diverse set of people looking at the same issue but from different perspectives can develop truly original and innovative solutions. Amaia Betelu, the Managing Director and Acting President of EGA Brussels, points to this added advantage, saying that “our clients can benefit from multiple points of views, experiences, skills, backgrounds to get better at what we do, and who we are, by learning from each other, understanding the other side.”

Edelman is committed to encouraging an environment that is both safe and conducive for women of all backgrounds to enjoy equal opportunities to grow. Paula Garcia Almonacid, Senior Analyst, notes that ‘’it is important that big corporations, such as Edelman, lead the way implementing initiatives that empower not only women but also other sectors in society. As a multinational company, we have the right tools to start a change’’. That’s why our Global Women’s Equality Network (GWEN) is continuously at work. Founded in 2011, this internal initiative was created with the goal of achieving gender parity within our firm’s most senior levels. And while this milestone was achieved in 2020, we are still committed to consistently maintaining these levels within our network and to achieving new goals supporting our mission.

The importance of passion and drive

While progress is underway in most industries, younger women starting their careers can sometimes find the process daunting. We asked our colleagues what advice they would give to the next generation, and most stressed the importance of having passion and drive for what you do. Amaia’s advice for someone starting their career “is to choose something you really feel passionate about (otherwise it will be a nightmare) and work as hard as you can.”

To ensure women feel motivated and empowered to become company leaders, our GWEN teams have put in place mentorship and sponsorship opportunities for women at all levels to support diverse talent and help them grow in their field of expertise.

But this shouldn’t just stop at work. Inspirational female role models are everywhere. Amaia shares her admiration for her mother and the challenges she had to overcome 60 years ago running her own business: “A full-time working mum of four in the Basque Country, running her own business (for which the bank needed her father’s signature!) and promoting, as much as she could, women’s economic independence.”

And Jeremy beautifully shares how the women in his life inspire him daily: “I admire my mum for instilling fantastic values in me and for dealing with cancer without impacting the lives of those around her. My foster daughter for overcoming hardships that she does not yet comprehend. My wife for juggling several lives in one: a mother, a wife, a teacher, a neuropsychologist, a friend and a woman above all.”

How can we move forward?

While there is much to be proud of regarding advancements in gender parity and women’s empowerment, our work in gender representation is far from over. One important example is the pay gap women still experience, Amaia shares that “the ‘equal pay principle’ for example has been enshrined in the Treaties since 1957 (for ‘only’ 65 years) and still there is a 14% pay gap in the EU and this increases to 30% when it refers to pensions. Why is this still happening? Why are women paid less when doing the same work as men?”

To remedy these current inequalities, Amaia suggests “more education, more empowerment, in particular for girls and young women, and better role models. But I would also like to see more fines and sanctions as it seems that companies and countries have not complied with existing rules.”

On our end, we’ve been working to increase transparency when it comes to diversity in our workforce. Since 2018, we measure our workforce representation at all levels in the firm, as well as pay equity by race and ethnicity, in addition to gender. A deeper look into this data helps us see if and where changes need to be made. 

In light of International Women’s Day, we look back at our achievements, but more importantly, we need to look at what is yet to come. We will continue to foster a truly inclusive work environment with equal opportunities for everyone. This is the foundation of a workplace where everybody can thrive!

25 Years of Trust

Europe's digital connectivity ambition

Context: why connectivity policy is back at the centre of EU strategy

What the DNA is trying to fix

What this means for businesses

Next steps to watch

Taking the debate on “Ultra-Processed Foods” with a pinch of salt

Understanding what’s really at stake in the growing discussion on food processing

Hard-to-process health data

Trust at the core

Where is this headed? Food for thought

UPFs - a tough nut to crack

Our Expertise

Why the EU Must Safeguard Patient Advocates: Health Policy’s Most Trusted Voice at Risk

Why the EU Must Safeguard Patient Advocates: Health Policy’s Most Trusted Voice at Risk

Our Sectors

Europeans are polarized and pessimistic about their futures

A deepening sense of pessimism

Trust in Government and politicians lags well behind trust in business

Related Content

Politics & Government

Businesses must step up to help rebuild trust in a better future

2023 Edelman Trust Barometer - Europe Report

Businesses must step up to help rebuild trust in a better future

Related Content

2023 Edelman Trust Barometer - Europe Report

2023 Edelman Trust Barometer - Europe Report

The power of diversity and passion

The power of diversity

The importance of passion and drive

How can we move forward?