The Challenge
You're informing EU policy with operational experience and sector knowledge. Commission officials and Parliament staff dismiss it as anecdotal—not meeting credibility standards policy analysis requires. Your case studies, operational data, and expert testimony get limited consideration compared to academic research, official statistics, or commissioned studies policymakers view as rigorous and objective. The frustration: You possess detailed knowledge about regulatory compliance challenges, market dynamics, or implementation realities. Yet you can't present this in formats policymakers recognise as legitimate—getting dismissed as advocacy lacking analytical rigour.
Why It Happens
Policymakers prefer information sources perceived as objective and analytically rigorous over stakeholder-provided evidence they assume contains self-interest biases. The hierarchy: Commission impact assessments prioritise academic literature and official data over your operational knowledge Parliament committee staff value independent research over industry testimony Policy advisors discount stakeholder evidence as advocacy—not recognising organisational experience provides crucial implementation knowledge academic research can't offer The translation problem: You can't translate operational expertise into formats meeting policymaker standards—quantitative analysis, peer review, independent verification—that your processes don't produce, even when this evidence would substantially inform policy development.
Our Solution
Evidence development services translating your knowledge into formats meeting policymaker credibility standards: Commissioning independent research analysing your data and experience using academic methods Developing quantitative evidence from operational information through analytical frameworks policy standards recognise Securing third-party expert validation direct stakeholder presentation can't achieve We overcome evidence credibility barriers by providing analytical rigour and independent validation policymaker standards demand—enabling your expertise to inform policy through formats credibility requirements accept.
The Outcome
Your organisational knowledge informing EU policy through evidence meeting policymaker credibility standards rather than dismissal as anecdotal claims. You provide implementation expertise and operational knowledge policy design requires through independent research and validated analysis—enabling evidence-based regulation incorporating stakeholder experience alongside academic knowledge and official statistics. Policy development benefits from your expertise rather than excluding it when evidence doesn't meet analytical standards and independent validation requirements.
How We Deliver
Evidence development services translating your knowledge into policymaker-credible formats: Independent analysis of organisational data Quantitative evidence meeting analytical standards Third-party validation The result: Your expertise informing policy through formats policymakers accept—enabling implementation knowledge and operational experience evidence-based regulation requires.