According to literature on organised interests in the European Union, the European Parliament's Environment Committee (ENVI) gives environmental interests a potent point of legislative access. Yet while ENVI helped sustain the EP's commitment to environmental interests in the case of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive adopted in September 2000, it did not do so for REACH, a regulatory framework for the chemicals sector adopted by the EP and Council in December 2006. Ultimately, the value of legislative access for organised interest groups depends on the extent to which they have privileged interactions with a node in the policy-making apparatus and the degree to which actors in the policy-making process defer to the particular institutional node. For environmental interests, both privileged interactions between environmentalists and ENVI and deference to the committee decline when environmentalists seek regulations that impose concentrated costs on producers. Such instances invoke calls to protect industrial competitiveness and intensify conflict between EP committees.
BeyersJ. (2002) ‘Gaining and seeking access: The European adaptation of domestic interest associations’, European Journal of Political Research, 41:5, 585–612.
2.
BurnsC. (2006) ‘Co-decision and inter-committee conflict in the European Parliament post-Amsterdam’, Government and Opposition, 41:2, 230–248.
3.
CichowskiR. A. (1998) ‘Integrating the environment: The European Court and the construction of supranational policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5:3, 387–405.
4.
CoenD. (2004) ‘Environmental and business lobbying alliances in Europe: Learning from Washington?’, in LevyD.NewellP. (eds), Business in International Environmental Governance: A Political Economy Approach (Cambridge MA: MIT Press), 197–221.
5.
CollinsK.BurnsC.WarleighA. (1998) ‘Policy entrepreneurs: The role of European Parliament Committees in the making of EU policy’, Statute Law Review, 19:1, 1–11.
6.
Commission of the European Communities (1997) ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the end of life vehicles’, COM(97) 358 final, 9 July.
7.
Commission of the European Communities (2001) ‘White Paper: Strategy for a future chemicals policy’, COM(2001) 88 final, Brussels, 27 February.
8.
Commission of the European Communities (2003) ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Registration of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants’, COM(2003) 644 final, 29 October 2003.
9.
CorbettR.JacobsF.ShackletonM. (2003) The European Parliament (5th edn) (London: John Harper Publishing).
10.
European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) (2003) ‘BEUC Position Paper: Comments on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on nutrition and health claims’, COM (2003) 424(01).
11.
European Parliament (EP) (1999) ‘Report on the proposal for a Council Directive on end of life vehicles’, Committee on the Environment Public Health and Consumer Protection, COM(97)0358–C4–0639/97–97/0194(SYN)).
12.
European Parliament (EP) (2004a) ‘Activity Report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy’, 1999–2004 Parliament. DT\537810EN.doc.
13.
European Parliament (EP) (2004b) ‘Activity report of the delegations of the Conciliation Committee’, 1 May 1999 to 30 April 2004 (5th parliamentary term), DV\530227EN.doc.
14.
European Parliament (EP) (2005a) ‘Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Registration of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants’, 2004–09 session document FINAL A6–0315/2005, 24 October 2005. Guido Sacconi, Rapporteur.
15.
European Parliament (EP) (2005b) ‘Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods’, COM(2003 0424–C5–0329/2003–2003/0165(COD)). Commission on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Adriana Poli Bortone, Rapporteur. Final A6–0128/2005.
16.
EvansD. (1996) ‘Before the roll call: Interest group lobbying and public policy outcomes in House committees’, Political Research Quarterly, 49:2, 287–304.
17.
FairbrassJ.JordanA. (2001) ‘Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: National barriers and European opportunities?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8:4, 499–518.
18.
HixS.KreppelA.NouryA. (2003) ‘The party system in the European Parliament: Collusive or competitive?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41:2, 309–331.
19.
HubschmidC.MoserP. (1997) ‘The co-operation procedure in the EU: Why was the European Parliament influential in the decision on car emission standards?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 35:2, 225–242.
20.
ImigD.TarrowS. (2001) ‘Mapping the Europeanization of Contention: Evidence from Quantitative Data Analysis’, in ImigD.TarrowS. (eds), Contentions Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity (Boulder, CO, and Oxford, UK: Rowmann and Littlefield), 27–49.
21.
JudgeD.EarnshawD. (2003) The European Parliament (Basingstoke, UK, and New York: Palgrave).
22.
KaedingM. (2004) ‘Rapporteurship allocation in the European Parliament: Information or distribution’, European Union Politics, 5:3, 353–371.
23.
MarksG.McAdamD. (1996) ‘Social movements and the changing structure of political opportunity in the European Union’, West European Politics, 19:2, 249–278.
24.
McElroyG. (2006) ‘Committee representation in the European Parliament’, European Union Politics, 7:1, 5–29.
25.
PedlerR. (2002) ‘Clean air and car emissions: What industries and issue groups can and can't achieve’, in PedlerR. (ed.), European Union Lobbying: Changes in the Arena (Basingstoke: Palgrave), 104–122.
26.
PollackM. A. (1997) ‘Representing diffuse interests in EC policy-making’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4:4, 572–590.
27.
PollackM. A.Hafner-BurtonE. (2000) ‘Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:3, 432–456.
28.
SchörlingI. (2004) REACH—The Only Planet Guide to the Secrets of Chemicals Policy in the EU: What Happened and Why? (Brussels: Inger Schörling, Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament), Available at http://www.mp.se.
29.
ShepsleK. A.WeingastB. R. (1987) ‘The institutional foundations of committee power’, The American Political Science Review, 81:1, 85–104.
30.
SmithR. A. (1984) ‘Advocacy, interpretation, and influence in the US Congress’, The American Political Science Review, 78:1, 44–63.
31.
SmithR. A. (1995) ‘Interest group influence in the US Congress’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20:1, 89–139.
32.
Van der HeijdenH.-A. (2006) ‘Globalization, environmental movements, and international political opportunity structures’, Organization & Environment, 19:1, 28–45.
33.
WarleighA. (2000) ‘The hustle: Citizenship practice, NGOs and “policy coalitions” in the European Union—The cases of auto oil, drinking water and unit pricing’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:2, 229–243.
34.
WrightJ. R. (1990) ‘Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the US House of Representatives’, The American Political Science Review, 84:2, 417–438.
35.
WürzelR. K. W. (2002) Environmental Policy-making in Britain, Germany and the European Union (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
