Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32569303›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Stakeholder analysis with regard to a recent European restriction proposal on microplastics.

Lauge Peter Westergaard Clausen, Oliver Foss Hessner Hansen, Nikoline Bang Oturai, Kristian Syberg, Steffen Foss Hansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Montreal Protocol and the fate of environmental plastic debris.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2023
    Article
  4. Mechanism and characterization of microplastic aging process: A review.Frontiers of environmental science & engineering · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lauge Peter Westergaard ClausenDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9710-2588
Oliver Foss Hessner HansenDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.
Nikoline Bang OturaiDepartment of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Kristian SybergDepartment of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Steffen Foss HansenDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

MicroplasticsStakeholder ParticipationEuropeJudgmentPsychometricsMicroplastics

Identifiers

PMID32569303
PMCPMC7307934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.