Stakeholder analysis with regard to a recent European restriction proposal on microplastics
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 15, Issue: 6 June, Page: e0235062
2020
- 21Citations
- 85Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations21
- Citation Indexes21
- 21
- Captures85
- Readers85
- 85
Article Description
Stakeholder involvement is pivotal EU governance. In this paper, we complete a stakeholder analysis of the European Chemicals Agency's recent Annex XV restriction proposal process on intentionally added microplastics. The aim of this study is to map the interests, influence and importance of active stakeholders in order to understand the arguments being put forward by different stakeholders and provide recommendations to policy-makers on how to ensure a balanced consideration of all stakeholder perspectives. Stakeholders were identified through niche media analysis and by scrutinising comments from the public consultation on the restriction proposal. Their importance and influence were mapped using three approaches: “scale from low to high”, “psychometric scale” and “qualitative ranking”. We identified 205 different stakeholders out of which 77 were industry and trade associations, 25 were large companies and only four were small and medium-sized enterprises. National authorities and researchers did not comment on the restriction proposal, whilst large companies were very active providing comments. Industry trade associations and sports-related non-governmental organizations articulated anxiety about the costs associated with the implementation of the restriction proposal. Among environmental non-governmental organizations, there was consensus that plastics should be handled like other substances under EU's chemical regulation. Primary stakeholders identified exhibited high importance, but varying degrees of influence, while the opposite applied to the major European institutions. Based on our analysis, we recommend that: The European Chemicals Agency implement measures to include “silent” stakeholders and invite guest experts to participate in their committees on Risk Assessment and Socio-Economic Analysis; Researchers should be more active in the public consultation; and that special emphasis should be put on helping small and medium-sized enterprises. With regards to stakeholder consultation, we find that media analysis is a good supplement to stakeholder analysis and that a more objective top-down measure of stakeholder importance and influence is needed.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0235062; 10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.g001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089883124&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32569303; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235062; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235062&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know