ABSTRACT
The final chapter summarizes and concludes the findings of Chapter 4, and tries to integrate these into the bigger picture. The study shows that using only one method would not lead to such in-depth, generalizable results.
First, decision-making is a communicative process and, at a general level, the majority of inputs from societal actors are taken on board by decision-makers. This shows the importance of consultations and societal actors for the decision-making process.
With regard to individual lobbying success, on average only one-third of the lobbying goals were successfully advocated. Results show that there is no particular bias towards one specific actor type or that one member state is favored over the others.
The receptiveness toward, and the impact of, the different types of frames varies according to the decision-makers responsible at the different decision-making stages. European bureaucrats are more receptive to frames that indicate consequences, legal and economic impacts or point to flaws in the planned legislation. European parliamentarians as well as government representatives are more interested in receiving moral evaluations, expert knowledge and frames concerning the feasibility of the planned legislation in practice.
