Table I

Brokerage scores in the GMO policy network

Type of organizations	Organizations¹	Coordination	Gatekeeper	Representative	Consultant	Liaison	Total
EU institutions	Commission	0	13	13	4	78	108
	European Parliament	0	9	9	2	36	56
	National rep.	0	0	0	0	2	2
Scientific advisors	Independent scientific advisor A	0	0	0	0	2	2
Scientific advisors	Independent scientific advisor B	0	0	0	0	0	0
Agricultural organizations	COPA-COGECA	0	10	10	2	34	56
	IFOAM	0	3	3	0	6	12
	Demeter	0	1	1	0	2	4
Industrial organizations	COCERAL	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Euro-commerce	2	10	10	0	0	22
	Europabio	2	14	14	0	12	42
	FEDIOL	0	1	1	0	0	2
Consumer organizations	Euro Coop	0	1	1	2	52	56
Consumer organizations	BEUC	0	1	1	0	54	56
Environmental organizations	EEB	0	1	1	0	10	12
	Friends of the Earth	0	2	2	0	22	26
	Greenpeace	0	5	5	0	40	50
Aid NGO	X-minus-Y	0	0	0	0	0	0

¹The scores of "liaison" are not included in this relative weighting because they might distort the position in terms of strong or weaker forms of intermediation given that the number of sub-groups is large, and hence "liaison" would systematically give high scores, distorting the relative position of the Commision.

Table II

Actors’ centrality within the GMO network

Types of organizations	Organizations	Size egonetwork*	Betweenness centrality**
EU institutions	Commission	17	16.743
	European Parliament	15	3.238
	National representatives	6	0.061
Scientific advisors	Independent scientific advisor A	9	0.061
Scientific advisors	Independent scientific advisor B	1	0.000
Agricultural organizations	COPA-COGECA	15	3.238
	IFOAM	11	0.686
	Demeter - Organic Farmers	10	0.143
Industrial organizations	COCERAL	6	0.000
	Eurocommerce	12	1.216
	Europabio	13	2.457
	FEDIOL	8	0.061
Consumer organizations	EURO COOP	15	3.544
Consumer organizations	BEUC	15	3.348
Environmental organizations	EEB	12	0.472
	Friends of the Earth	13	1.415
	Greenpeace	14	3.021
Aid NGO	XminusY Solidarity Fund	6	0.000

* Absolute scores

** Percentage

Table III

Brokerage scores in the EES policy network

Type of organizations	Organizations	Coordination	Gatekeeper	Representative	Consultant	Liaison	Total
EU institutions	Commission	2	9	9	6	24	50
	EMCO	0	0	0	0	2	2
	EP	0	0	0	0	0	0
Social partners	ETUC	0	2	2	0	2	6
	DA	0	0	0	0	0	0
	CEEP	0	2	2	2	0	6
	UNICE	4	4	4	0	2	14
Other stakeholders	EAPN	0	0	0	0	0	0
Minor EU institutions	CoR	0	0	0	0	0	0
Minor EU institutions	Ecosoc	0	0	0	0	2	2

Table IV

Diverse measurements about the actors’ centrality within the EES network

Type of organizations	Organizations	Size egonetwork*	Betweeness centrality**
*EU institutions*	Commission	8	41.667
	EMCO	3	0.926
	EP	4	0.000
*Social partners¹*	ETUC	5	5.556
	DA	1	0.000
	CEEP	5	4.630
	UNICE	6	25.926
*Other stakeholders²*	EAPN	2	0.000
*Minor EU institutions³*	ECOSOC	3	1.852
*Minor EU institutions³*	CoR	1	0.000

* Absolute scores

** Percentage

¹ETUC: European Confederation of Trade Unions; DA: Danish Employers´ association, CEEP: European association of public employers; UNICE: European Business Association.

²EAPN: European Anti-Poverty Network

³ECOSOC: Economic and Social Commitee; CoR: Commitee of the Regions.

Figure 1

Strong and weak brokerage roles in EU policy making

Box 1

Brokerage roles according to the group origin of sender, broker and recipient

Source: Gould and Fernandez, 1989.

Box 2

Data sources for the two case studies