Table 3. Assessed stakeholder importance and influence according to the following three applied methodologies: Scale from low to high, psychometric scale and qualitative ranking.
Values given are importance/influence. Stakeholders are listed in alphabetical order.
| Stakeholder | Scale from low to high | Psychometric scale | Qualitative ranking |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMAP | Medium/ Medium | 4/5 | 8/13 |
| CEFIC | High/High | 9/8 | 24/21 |
| EC | High/High | 9/10 | 27/27 |
| ECHA | High/High | 10/10 | 28/28 |
| Ecouncil | Medium/High | 5/10 | 13/25 |
| EEA | Low to medium/Low to medium | 3/4 | 6/7 |
| EFSA | Low to medium/Medium to high | 3/7 | 7/20 |
| EOSCA | Medium/ Medium to high | 7/7 | 15/17 |
| EP | Medium/High | 3/10 | 14/26 |
| EuPC | High/Medium | 9/5 | 23/10 |
| IC NGOs | Low/Low | 1/2 | 3/4 |
| IE NGOs | Medium/Low to medium | 5/3 | 12/6 |
| IOGP | Medium/ Medium to high | 4/7 | 9/19 |
| IPEC Europe | Medium/Medium to high | 5/7 | 10/18 |
| IUCN | Medium to high/Medium | 7/5 | 16/14 |
| L companies | High/High | 9/8 | 25/16 |
| NCM | Low to medium/Medium | 2/4 | 4/12 |
| NE NGOs | Medium/Low | 5/1 | 11/3 |
| NEGB | Medium to high/Medium to high | 8/8 | 21/22 |
| NEP | Low/Low to medium | 1/5 | 1/9 |
| NG | High/High | 7/9 | 19/24 |
| NSA NGOs | Medium to high/Low | 8/2 | 20/5 |
| ON NGOs | Low/Low | 1/1 | 2/2 |
| RA | Medium to high/ Medium | 7/5.5* | 18/11 |
| Researchers | Low to medium/ Low to medium | 3/5 | 5/8 |
| SME | High/Low | 10/1 | 26/1 |
| UEFA | Medium to high/Medium | 7.5*/5 | 22/15 |
| UN | Medium to high /High | 7/8 | 17/23 |
* Corrected by 0.5 to avoid any overlap in the matrix mapping.