analysis of the results of the open public and sme ... · refit evaluation final report on the open...

Written by Milieu Ltd.: Elena Fries-Tersch, Lise Oulès, Florent Pelsy, Julia Lietzmann (project manager)

November 2017

Analysis of the results of the

open public and SME consultations of the REACH

REFIT evaluation

Final report on the open public consultation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Environment Directorate B — Circular Economy & Green Growth Unit B.2 — Sustainable Chemicals

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

Directorate-General for Environment Sustainable Chemicals

2017

Analysis of the results of the open public and SME consultations of the

REACH REFIT evaluation

Final report on the open public consultation

Analysis of the results of the open public and SME

consultation on the REACH REFIT evaluation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS USED .......................................................................................................... 9 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 10 2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Public consultation ............................................................................................. 15 2.2 Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Report ................................................................................................................... 16

3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Data processing .................................................................................................. 17

3.1.1 Double entries ....................................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Recoding ............................................................................................... 17 3.1.3 Grouping of sectors and size of businesses ....................................... 18

3.2 Methodology used for the analysis of closed questions ............................... 18 3.2.1 General answer tendency .................................................................. 18 3.2.2 Further breakdowns .............................................................................. 18 3.2.3 Respondents who ticked ‘don’t know/not applicable’ ................. 19 3.2.4 Analysis of responses to Part IIIb (Q.24).............................................. 19

3.3 Methodology used for the analysis of open questions and position papers . ............................................................................................................................... 20

4 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ......................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 21 4.1.2 Type of stakeholder .............................................................................. 21 4.1.3 Size of business ...................................................................................... 22 4.1.4 Country ................................................................................................... 23 4.1.5 Level of activity ..................................................................................... 24 4.1.6 Business/ industry associations by sector ........................................... 24

5 OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSES TO PART II OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................ 27 6 OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSES TO PART III OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ....................... 41

6.1 Responses to Part IIIa .......................................................................................... 41 6.1.1 Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 41 6.1.2 Efficiency ................................................................................................ 60 6.1.3 Relevance .............................................................................................. 69 6.1.4 Coherence ............................................................................................ 76 6.1.5 EU added value .................................................................................... 92

6.2 Responses to Part IIIB (Q.24) .............................................................................. 94 6.2.1 Overall answer tendencies ................................................................. 94 6.2.2 Responses by type of stakeholder ..................................................... 96 6.2.3 Responses by size of business ............................................................ 101 6.2.4 Responses by sector ........................................................................... 105

7 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED IN QUESTION 25 AND POSITION PAPERS .....107 8 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ANNEX 1: GROUPING OF SECTORS FOR THE OPC ...........................................................127 ANNEX 2: RE-CATEGORISATION OF TYPES OF STAKEHOLDERS .......................................128 ANNEX 3: RESPONDENTS WHO TICKED ‘DON’T KNOW/NOT APPLICABLE’ .....................129

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of answer categories, grouped by ‘negative’, ‘neutral’ and

‘positive’ designations........................................................................................................... 18 Table 2: Sectoral activity or interest (grouped sectors, multiple answers possible in

column 2) ................................................................................................................................ 25 Table 3: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 49 Table 4: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 49 Table 5: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 51 Table 6: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 52 Table 7: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 56 Table 8: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 57 Table 9: Statements made by stakeholders ....................................................................... 57 Table 10: Statements made by stakeholders ..................................................................... 58 Table 11: Statements made by stakeholders ..................................................................... 58 Table 12: Statements made by stakeholders ..................................................................... 59 Table 13: Statements made by stakeholders ..................................................................... 60 Table 14: Statements made by stakeholders ..................................................................... 69 Table 15: Statements made by stakeholders ..................................................................... 73 Table 16: Main areas of concern in relation to coherence ............................................. 79 Table 17: REACH procedures and mechanisms according to average satisfaction

level of stakeholders (average values of responses (means) (on a scale from 1=not at

all satisfactory to 5=very satisfactory) ................................................................................. 95 Table 18: Eight most satisfactory and eight least satisfactory mechanisms and

procedures among different stakeholder groups, and average answer value (mean)

by topic (on a scale from 1=not at all satisfactory to 5=very satisfactory) ................... 98 Table 19: Levels of satisfaction with procedures and mechanisms (by size of business)

................................................................................................................................................ 103 Table 20: procedures and mechanisms (by sector) ....................................................... 106 Table 21: Statements ........................................................................................................... 108 Table 22: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 108 Table 23: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 109 Table 24: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 110 Table 25: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 111 Table 26: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 111 Table 27: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 112 Table 28: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 115 Table 29: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 116 Table 30: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 117 Table 31: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 118 Table 32: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 118 Table 33: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 119 Table 34: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 119 Table 35: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 121 Table 36: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 122 Table 37: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 124 Table 38: Statements made by stakeholders ................................................................... 124

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Stakeholder type .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2: Size of business ........................................................................................................ 23 Figure 3: Country .................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4: Overall replies to Q6 ‘To what extent do you think REACH is achieving the

following objectives?’ ........................................................................................................... 27 Figure 5: Average response values by type of stakeholder to Q6 ‘To what extent do

you think REACH is achieving the following objectives?’ ................................................ 28 Figure 6: Responses to Q6.d andQ6.e from business representatives, by size of

business.................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 7: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.6f, ‘To what extent do you think

REACH is achieving the following objective: Promote alternative methods to animal

testing for hazard assessment of chemicals?’ ................................................................... 31 Figure 8: Replies by business and industry associations in different sectoral groups to

Q6.f ‘To what extent do you think REACH is achieving the following objective:

Promote alternative methods to animal testing for hazard assessment of chemicals?’

.................................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 9: Overall replies to Q7 ‘To what extent do you think REACH is delivering the

following results?’ (sorted by share substantially/very much) ......................................... 34 Figure 10: Average response values by type of stakeholder (on a scale from 1=not at

all to 5=very much) to Q7 ‘To what extent do you think REACH is delivering the

following results?’ ................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 11: Overall replies to Q8 ‘The various processes of REACH (e.g. registration,

evaluation) are expected to generate data that can be used by public authorities

to adopt adequate risk management measures under REACH or in other EU

legislation. To what extent do you think that the data generated are adequate for

adopting the following measures?’ .................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: Average response values by type of stakeholder (on a scale from 1=not

useful at all to 5=very useful) to Q.8 ‘The various processes of REACH (e.g. registration,

evaluation) are expected to generate data that can be used by public authorities

to adopt adequate risk management measures under REACH or in other EU

legislation. To what extent do you think that the data generated are adequate for

adopting the following measures?’ .................................................................................... 38 Figure 13: Overall replies to Q.9 ‘To what extent do you agree with the following

statements in relation to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)’? .......................... 39 Figure 14: Replies by type of stakeholder to Q.9 ‘To what extent do you agree with

the following statements in relation to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)’?,

Shares of ‘agree/ strongly agree’ ....................................................................................... 40 Figure 15: Overall replies to Q.10 ‘In your view, to what extent have the REACH

Regulation and its various chapters been implemented successfully?’ ....................... 42 Figure 16: Average response values by type of stakeholder (from a scale from 1=not

at all to 5=very much) to Q.10 ‘In your view, to what extent have the REACH

Regulation and its various chapters been implemented successfully?’ ....................... 43 Figure 17: Average response values by size of business (on a scale from 1=not at all to

5=very much) to Q.10 ‘In your view, to what extent have the REACH Regulation and

its various chapters been implemented successfully?’ .................................................... 44 Figure 18: Overall replies to Q.11 ‘Do you agree that the REACH legal text presents

requirements regarding the following chapters in a clear and predictable manner?’

.................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 19: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.11 ‘Do you agree that the REACH

legal text presents requirements regarding the following chapters in a clear and

predictable manner?’........................................................................................................... 46 Figure 20: Overall replies to Q.12 ‘In your view, to what extent are the following

elements of REACH working well?’ ..................................................................................... 47 Figure 21: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.12 ‘In your view, to what extent are

the following elements of REACH working well?’ (shares of respondents indicating

'rather/very well').................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 22: Replies to Q.14 ‘In your view, to what extent are the following elements of

REACH enforcement satisfactory?’ ..................................................................................... 53 Figure 23: Replies to Q.14 ‘In your view, to what extent are the following elements of

REACH enforcement satisfactory?’(among respondents who had experienced a

REACH inspection/control (‘Yes’) and among those who had not (‘No’)) .................. 53 Figure 24: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.14 ‘In your view, to what extent are

the following elements of REACH enforcement satisfactory?’ (shares of respondents

indicating 'rather/very satisfactory').................................................................................... 54 Figure 25: Replies of main countries to Q. 14 ‘In your view, to what extent are the

following elements of REACH satisfactory?’ (shares of ‘rather/very satisfactory’) ....... 55 Figure 26: Responses by businesses to Q.15, ‘Have you, in the past 5 years,

experienced a REACH inspection/control or have your products been controlled for

REACH compliance?’ (size of business) .............................................................................. 60 Figure 27: Overall replies to Q.16 ‘In your view, how significant are the following

benefits generated for society by the REACH Regulation?’ ........................................... 61 Figure 28: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.16 ‘In your view, how significant are

the following benefits generated for society by the REACH Regulation?’ (shares of

respondents indicating 'rather/very significant') ............................................................... 62 Figure 29: Average response value of different stakeholder groups (range 1=not at all

significant to 5=very significant) to Q.16 ‘In your view, how significant are the

following benefits generated for society by the REACH Regulation?’ .......................... 63 Figure 30: Responses of business respondents, by size of business, to Q.16 ‘In your

view, how significant are the following benefits generated for society by the REACH

Regulation?’ (shares of respondents indicating ‘rather/very significant’) .................... 64 Figure 31: Overall replies to Q.17 ‘In your view, to what extent are the costs linked to

the following REACH chapters (for society, companies, public authorities, etc.)

proportionate to the benefits (for society, companies, public authorities, etc.)

achieved?’ ............................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 32: Average response values by stakeholder group (on a scale from 1=not at

all to 5=very much) to Q.17 ‘In your view, to what extent are the costs linked to the

following REACH chapters (for society, companies, public authorities, etc.)

proportionate to the benefits (for society, companies, public authorities, etc.)

achieved?’ ............................................................................................................................. 66 Figure 33: Overall replies to Q.18 ‘Is the level of the fees and charges paid to the

ECHA as provided by the Fee Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008),

still adequate?’ ...................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 34: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.18 ‘Is the level of the fees and

charges paid to ECHA as provided by the Fee Regulation (Commission Regulation

(EC) No 340/2008), still adequate?’ (shares of respondents thinking that fees are too

high) ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 35: Overall replies to Q.19 ‘Do you believe that there are areas where the

REACH Regulation could be simplified or made less burdensome?’ ............................ 68

Figure 36: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q. 19, ‘Do you believe that there are

areas where the REACH Regulation could be simplified or made less burdensome?’

.................................................................................................................................................. 69 Figure 37: Overall replies to Q. 20 ‘Do you believe that the REACH Regulation

addresses the key issues in relation to the management of chemicals?’ (N=416) ...... 70 Figure 38: Question 20, Do you believe that the REACH Regulation addresses the key

issues in relation to the management of chemicals? (N=416) ........................................ 70 Figure 39: Overall replies to Q.21 ‘How suitable do you consider REACH to be to deal

with the following emerging issues?’................................................................................... 71 Figure 40: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.21 ‘How suitable do you consider

REACH to be to deal with the following emerging issues?’ (share of respondents

thinking that REACH is the most suitable legal instrument) .............................................. 72 Figure 41: Overall replies to Q.22 ‘Please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree

with the following statements: [statements on…]’ ............................................................ 77 Figure 42: Overall replies to Q.23 ‘To what extent do you consider that taking action

through the different chapters of REACH has added value above what could have

been achieved through action by Member States alone at national level?’ ............. 93 Figure 43: Average response values by type of stakeholder (on a scale from 1=no

value to 5=very high value) to Q.23 ‘To what extent do you consider that taking

action through the different chapters of REACH has added value above what could

have been achieved through action by Member States alone at national level?’ ... 94

ABBREVIATIONS USED

BREF Best available techniques Reference document

CA Competent Authority

CLH Harmonised Classification and Labelling

CLP Classification, Labelling and Packaging

CMR Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, and toxic for Reproduction

CoRAP Community Rolling Action Plan

CSR Chemical Safety Report

DNEL Derived No-Effect Level

DU Downstream User

ECHA European Chemicals Agency

ED Endocrine Disruptors

ELV End-of-life Vehicles Directive

ES Exposure Scenario

EU European Union

NEA National Enforcement Authority

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OEL Occupational Exposure Limit

OPC Open Public Consultation

OSH Occupational Safety and Health

PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic chemicals

PNEC

POP

Predicted No-Effect Concentration Persistent Organic Pollutants

PPPR Plant Protection Products Regulation

QSAR Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships

R&D Research and development

RAC Risk Assessment Committee

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of

Chemicals

REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme

RMM Risk Management Measure

RMOA Risk Management Options Analysis

RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic

Equipment Directive

SCOEL Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits

SDS Safety Data Sheet

SEAC Socio-Economic Analysis Committee

SIEF Substance Information Exchange Forum

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SVHC Substance of Very High Concern

UVCB Substance of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex

reaction products or Biological materials

Milieu Ltd

Brussels


consultation of the REACH REFIT evaluation / 10

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the outcome of the stakeholder consultation conducted within the context of the 2017

REACH REFIT evaluation. The 12-week open public consultation (OPC) ran from 28 October 2016 to 28

January 2017.

453 respondents replied to the OPC in total. The largest group of respondents were businesses (46%),

followed by industry associations (31%). Together, these two groups made up 77% of all respondents.

Only 6% of respondents represented the public sector (mostly governments or public authorities). Only

5% of respondents represented NGOs and 4% were individual citizens. Fewer than 10 respondents

represented research and education, consumer associations and trade unions, respectively.

REACH: general objectives, benefits, effects on competitiveness and innovation

The majority of the respondents replied positively to the question of whether or not REACH has achieved

its objective of protecting consumers, workers and the environment. When asked if REACH has achieved

the free circulation of chemicals on the internal market, however, respondents replied negatively. More

respondents agreed than disagreed that REACH generates benefits for society in the following areas:

reducing the exposure of citizens in general to hazardous chemicals; reducing the exposure of workers to

hazardous chemicals; and reducing damage to the environment and to eco-systems. In contrast, however,

negative views prevailed with respect to the benefits of encouraging research and innovation, generating

new jobs, and improving the competitiveness of EU manufacturing industry, stimulating competition and

trade within the EU single market, and stimulating international trade between the EU and other countries.

In this context, a high number of respondents stated that REACH processes, particularly the inclusion of

substances on the Candidate List or the registry of intentions, create uncertainty that subsequently impacts

long-term investment decisions. In terms of REACH registration costs, costs for information in the supply

chain and for substance evaluation were largely perceived to be proportionate, with more negative views

in the responses to questions on the costs related to authorisation, and requirements for substances in

articles.

Overall, respondents reported that all REACH chapters had significant EU added value. Registration and

data-sharing/avoidance of animal testing were considered particularly valuable.

Registration and data sharing

Most respondents agreed that the REACH legal text is clear in relation to registration and data-sharing,

and they reported finding the requirements of registration to have been implemented successfully on the

whole. However, criticism came from some industry representatives who pointed to instances of free-

riding among companies in the preparation of jointly submitted dossiers, in particular when updating

registration dossiers. Respondents from all groups of stakeholders stated that the high level of non-

compliance of registration dossiers has undermined the achievement of REACH’s objectives or impaired

the level playing field between duty-holders. NGOs and consumer organisations asked for ECHA to be

given the means to enforce the ‘no data, no market’ principle whereby registration numbers are refused or

withdrawn when important data are missing from the registration dossiers, or when extremely poor data

have been provided.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Avoidance of unnecessary testing

The move away from animal testing under REACH is considered to be effective, overall. However, a large

number of responses to open questions claimed that the principle of ‘animal testing as a last resort’ is not

yet fully implemented because alternative testing methods and read-across were not sufficiently accepted.

One animal welfare NGO called for proportionate requests for information, substantiated by a sound

demonstration of the potential risks to human health and the environment, in order to avoid excessive data

requests and additional testing.

Information in the supply chain Q10, 11

In contrast to the overall positive responses, SMEs were generally critical of the way the REACH legal

text sets requirements in relation to information in the supply chain. Businesses in general and industry

associations took a negative view of the proportionality of costs of information in the supply chain, with

large businesses being the most critical. A number of respondents from industry and public authorities

indicated that information included in eSDS (Extended Safety Data Sheets) was often insufficiently

targeted to the needs of downstream users, either because the eSDS is too lengthy and technical, or

because it does not provide enough practical information to adopt risk management measures. Some

respondents called for the establishment of a harmonised template for eSDS and exposure scenarios.

Finally, some welcomed and supported the work undertaken by the Chemical Safety Report/ Exposure

Scenario (CSR/ES) Roadmap, developed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) together with its

stakeholders.

Information on substances in articles

Numerous industry associations, as well as some businesses, expressed their concern about the European

Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling on applying the 0.1% threshold for notifying Substances of Very High

Concern (SVHC) in articles. The ruling concluded that the obligation to notify applies to each article

included as a component of a complex article. Questionnaire respondents felt that this interpretation of

Article 33 placed an unreasonable burden on businesses, especially on the producers of complex articles.

However, only a few respondents called for an exemption of individual articles within complex

assemblies.

NGOs and public authorities stressed the importance of improving the information on substances in

articles communicated in the supply chain, in order to enable consumers to make informed choices, to

support companies investing in substituting hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives, and to improve

traceability of recycled materials. Several respondents mentioned that information on SVHC in articles

communicated through the supply chain did not reach the recycling industry, thereby creating problems

for fulfilling recycling obligations. They suggested the following remedies:

Amend Article 33 to introduce notification requirements for all SVHC in articles, irrespective of tonnage (from 1 kg/year), or lower the tonnage, or require a compulsory content declaration for all

consumer goods.

Label articles containing SVHC. Extend the scope of Article 33 to articles containing any substance that meets SVHC criteria

present above 0.1%, or other criteria for being hazardous, e.g. Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, and toxic

for Reproduction (CMR).

Make SVHC information mandatory, not just on consumer request, in view of limited consumer awareness of their right to this information.

Information provided to consumers must include the nature of the article as an SVHC, together

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



with the appropriate risk management measures.

Introduce simple tools for communicating SVHC through the supply chain. Extend the Article 33 requirements to imported articles in order to avoid giving a competitive

advantage to non-EU suppliers and to prevent articles containing SVHC from entering the EU

market unchecked.

Evaluation

The effectiveness of implementing the REACH requirements on substance evaluation is viewed rather

negatively by respondents. By contrast, they responded positively to dossier evaluation, with respondents

agreeing overall that the REACH legal text is clear.

One competent authority (CA) suggested that the ‘5% compliance check’ should be performed at each of

the dossier’s endpoints.

Some respondents pointed to perceived discrepancies in the management of substance evaluation by

different Member States. They called for greater involvement of the ECHA to ensure equal treatment for

all registrants and the proportionality of information requests.

A few respondents called for a systematic dossier evaluation before the evaluation of the substance to

increase the consistency of the evaluation process, with some stating that it would be useful to involve

downstream users in substance evaluation, in particular to provide data on use and exposure.

Identification of SVHC

Unsurprisingly, respondents from industry showed a tendency to favour a risk-based approach over the

current hazard-based approach that requires placement of substances on the Candidate List. This

preference is partially explained by their belief that inclusion on the Candidate List, and choice of risk

management measure (in particular the inclusion in Annex XIV), is insufficiently transparent and

predictable, thus leading to business uncertainty. Some respondents mentioned that the time-lag between

inclusion on the Candidate List and the adoption of a risk management measure is sometimes quite long,

creating uncertainty in the supply chain. On the other hand, NGOs, research institutions, and consumer

associations were more likely to state that inclusion on the Candidate List should remain hazard-based.

Some NGOs, consumer associations, public authorities, and research institutions stressed the need to

consider groups of chemicals rather than individual substances in screening and analysis, in order to

achieve the objectives of the SVHC Roadmap and to avoid regrettable substitution with an equally

hazardous chemical. Some NGOs proposed the introduction of an automatic trigger for including on the

Candidate List those substances fulfilling Article 57 properties.

Similarly, these groups of respondents diverged in respect of the usefulness of risk management option

analyses (RMOA). While a relatively large number of industry respondents called for the integration of

RMOA into the regulatory process, some NGOs and consumer organisations considered the process

counterproductive, stating that it shifts the focus from the prioritisation of substances to information on

use and exposure, as well as discouraging Member States from preparing dossiers.

Authorisation

Despite overall agreement that REACH has been implemented successfully (as outlined earlier), the

negative views expressed in this regard related mainly to authorisation, particularly among SMEs. Almost

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



one-third of the respondents believed that the REACH legal text does not set out clear and predictable

requirements for the authorisation process.

A number of industry respondents called for a more transparent and targeted authorisation process.

According to some respondents, chiefly those representing industry, the inclusion of substances on the

authorisation list does not sufficiently account for the difficulties in substituting some substances. This

leads to costly authorisation applications, which might be avoided through more thorough consideration of

feasibility and economic impacts ahead of the authorisation process. These respondents argued that other

risk management measures should be prioritised, with authorisation (including use-specific restrictions)

being the last resort.

The view that the authorisation procedure should be simplified found support among a number of industry

representatives, some of whom called for increased standardisation of applications and analyses of

alternatives. Some also advocated for a longer sunset period to enable industry to make the necessary

adjustments.

Several NGOs and public authorities shared the view that authorisations should not be granted for broad

or non-specific uses and called for the development of a template for reporting on the uses and functions

that could be used in upstream applications. These groups also called for a more thorough assessment of

alternatives in socioeconomic analyses, pointing to the failure of public consultations to provide useful

information about the alternatives available. They held that the socioeconomic assessment should include

the applicant’s perspective, together with ‘all relevant aspects’ (e.g. the impact of the authorisation on the

whole market, including on producers of alternatives), as required by Article 60(5) of REACH.

Restrictions

Most respondents were positive about the implementation of REACH, particularly its implementation of

the chapters on registration, data-sharing and avoidance of unnecessary testing, evaluation-dossier, and

overall implementation.

Responses to the questions on restriction proposals, however, showed rare agreement between industry,

NGOs and public authorities, with the latter stating that the number of restriction proposals submitted is

too low because of the very high level of information required from Member States in the restriction

dossiers. An industry association suggested that this feature pushes Member States to privilege

authorisations over restrictions.

While some industry respondents replied that the simplified restriction procedure (Article 68(2) of

REACH) should be used only in exceptional cases, some consumer associations and NGOs proposed the

extension of the simplified procedure to all substances fulfilling SVHC criteria (e.g. PBT/vPvB,

sensitisers and endocrine disruptors (EDs)).

Coherence with other EU legislation

The majority of comments related to the coherence of REACH with other EU legislation, EU policies and

national legislation. Respondents’ chief concern was the need to improve coherence between REACH and

the OSH legislation. A significant number of respondents also identified issues of coherence between

REACH and the EU policy on the circular economy.

Additional comments on coherence related to the following EU legislation (ranked by number of

comments received): Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Directive (RoHS); water legislation; waste legislation; Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP);

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation; Industrial Emissions Directive (IED); Biocidal Products

Regulation (BPR); End-of-life Vehicles Directive (ELV); Cosmetic Products Regulation; Toys Directive;

draft Fertilisers Regulation; data protection legislation; textile legislation; competition law; food contact

materials; Batteries Directive; food additives; Seveso Directive; Plant Protection Products Regulation

(PPPR); Eco-design Directive; medicinal products legislation; detergents legislation; Sulphur Directive;

General Product Safety Directive.

Unintended effects

Respondents were asked to identify the unintended effects of REACH, both positive and negative, and to

provide either evidence to quantify those effects or a qualitative description. Unintended effects are

outcomes that were not anticipated by the impact assessment or the legal act. Comments from respondents

were divided into unintended benefits and unintended negative consequences. Respondents from almost

all groups highlighted the example that REACH set for other jurisdictions as the main unintended benefit.

Unintended negative consequences, identified largely by industry respondents, were (ranked according to

number of comments received): competitive advantage for producers of articles outside the EU; relocation

of activities outside the EU / job losses for EU industry; supply chain disruption / withdrawal of

substances; market concentration / reduced competition; ‘black-listing’ of substances; and increased time

to market.

Emerging issues

Respondents were asked if they thought that REACH would be well-suited to addressing the following

‘emerging issues’: nanomaterials, EDs, substances in articles, combination effects of chemicals, and

extremely persistent substances.

The majority of respondents stated that REACH was the most suitable EU legal instrument to address

each of the emerging issues listed. The issue of extremely persistent substances had the highest share of

agreement among respondents (90%), with the issue of combination effects of chemicals having the

lowest agreement rate (50%).

Enforcement

When asked about overall REACH enforcement in the EU, REACH enforcement at Member State level,

and communication of enforcement activities from Member States and the Forum, respondents answered

rather negatively, with around 40% stating that these aspects are not at all satisfactory or rather

unsatisfactory, 30% saying that they are rather or very satisfactory, and the rest remaining neutral.

Uniform enforcement of REACH across the EU had the most negative perception, with almost 70%

deeming it not at all satisfactory or rather unsatisfactory, while only 10% believed it to be rather or very

satisfactory.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Every five years, the European Commission, Member States and the ECHA report on the functioning of

REACH. The 2017 REACH REFIT evaluation (which forms part of the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness

and Performance Programme) thus builds on the REACH Review published in 20131. In line with the

principles of Better Regulation, it will assess the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU

added value of REACH, placing an emphasis on the potential for burden reduction and simplification2.

The 2017 REACH REFIT evaluation runs in parallel with the fitness check of other EU chemicals

legislation (excluding REACH)3.

As part of the REACH REFIT evaluation, the Commission developed a Consultation Strategy, detailing

the consultation objectives and activities planned. A 12-week open public consultation (OPC) was one of

seven consultation tools proposed for the REACH REFIT evaluation. The OPC aimed to gather

stakeholders’ and citizens’ views on the strengths and weaknesses of REACH and any potential missing

elements, as well as the general approach to the 2017 REACH REFIT evaluation itself.

The OPC ran for 12 weeks, from 28 October 2016 to 28 January 2017. It was carried out via EUsurvey,

the survey software of the European Commission, and was available in three languages (English, French,

and German). Responses will be published together with the analysis of responses provided in this report.

This report analysis the 455 responses to the OPC. The results of the specific survey dedicated to SMEs

(‘SME panel’), also conducted as part of the REACH REFIT consultation strategy and which ran in

parallel with the OPC, are presented in a separate report.

2.2 QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire4 contained 25 questions and was divided into three parts:

Part I requested general information on the respondents;

Part II contained four compulsory questions, intended for all respondents interested in REACH,

including those less familiar with its legal details;

Part IIIa was intended for those respondents familiar with REACH. It contained 14 optional questions

(three of which included both a closed and an open question) related to the five evaluation criteria

and to REACH procedures. Part IIIb contained two questions (Q24, Q25). Question 24 requested

respondents’ opinions on the mechanisms and procedures of the REACH Regulation, while Question

25 provided the opportunity for respondents to add any additional comments they believed relevant.

Respondents were not obliged to respond to all of the 16 questions.

Each of the closed questions in Part II, Part IIIa and Part IIIb included several more specific questions

1 Commission Staff Working Document, General Report on REACH, SWD/2013/025 final, 5 February 2013. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/review_2012_en.htm 2 See the Roadmap on the REFIT evaluation in view of the obligation stemming from Article 117(4) of Regulation (EC) No

1907/2006 for the Commission to report by 1 June 2017 on the implementation of REACH. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_005_reach_refit_en.pdf 3 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_grow_050_refit_chemicals_outside_reach_en.pdf 4 The questionnaire is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/19561

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/review_2012_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_005_reach_refit_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/19561

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



(Q6a, Q6b, etc.) which are referred to as ‘sub-questions’.

In total, 455 responses were received, with a significant majority of respondents choosing to reply to both

Parts II and III5.

Respondents also had the opportunity to submit position papers, and 194 such papers were received. The

last open question included hyperlinks to five relevant documents. These were counted as position papers,

bringing the total number of papers submitted to 199. Excluding duplicates and blank documents6, a total

of 148 documents of various types were submitted, including position papers, academic articles, studies,

presentations, test reports and results from inspection campaigns. These are also analysed in this report.

2.3 REPORT

This report summarises the results of the public consultation, in five sections:

Section 1 Introduction;

Section 2 explains the methodology used to analyse the responses;

Section 3 provides an overview of the OPC respondents;

Section 4 provides an overview of the replies to Questions 6-9 in Part II of the questionnaire;

Section 5 provides an overview of the replies to the more detailed questions (Q10-24);

Section 6 summarises the additional comments in Question 25 and the position papers.

The report contains three annexes:

Annex 1 Grouping of sectors for the OPC;

Annex 2 presents an overview of the re-categorisation of some types of stakeholders;

Annex 3 lists the percentages of respondents who ticked ‘don’t know/not applicable’ per question.

5 Only 453 were counted, with some double entries merged. See Section 3 Methodology for more detail. 6 Two respondents submitted blank questionnaires.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DATA PROCESSING

3.1.1 Double entries

Several double entries were received through the OPC. In two cases, the double responses were merged

into a single response for each respondent, as minor differences – but not contradicting answers – were

identified between sets of responses.

Other double entries found were retained:

One business respondent answered twice (same contact person). All answers but one were the same,

thus both were kept.

Two entries had the same transparency register number, the same contact person and company name.

However, the answers differed for several questions, and both entries were kept.

In three cases the contact person was the same but the business/organisation name was different;

here, all entries were kept.

3.1.2 Recoding

Types of stakeholders

Question 4 asked respondents to describe the capacity in which they replied to the questionnaire (i.e.

citizen, business, NGO, consumer association, industry association, trade union, government or public

authority, intergovernmental organisation, research or educational institute, third country private

organisation, third country public authority, or other). A number of obvious incorrect responses were

identified, where companies ticked ‘industry association’, or industry associations ticked ‘trade union’,

etc. Where the mistake was clearly evident mistake, the response was corrected. Annex 2 contains an

overview of the re-categorised responses.

A number of respondents ticked ‘other’. Where the description provided suggested these belonged to one

of the stakeholder groups proposed in the questionnaire, they were included with that group. Where it was

unclear, however, they remained in the group ‘other’.

Country

The country of origin is requested in an open question (Q1), giving respondents the option to name several

countries. A very small number of respondents did so. As these were all businesses, only the country in

which their headquarters is based was taken into account.

Sectors

In Question 4.2, respondents were asked to identify their sector, with the option to select ‘other’. Where

‘other’ respondents clearly belonged to one of the sector groups presented in Annex 1, they were included

with that group. Again, where this was unclear, they remained in the ‘other’ group.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



3.1.3 Grouping of sectors and size of businesses

As the list of sectors proposed in Question 4.2 comprised 39 NACE sectors and was thus too cumbersome

for visual presentation on charts, broader groups of sectors were created and are presented in Annex 1.

With respect to the size of businesses, it was decided to group ‘self-employed’ with ‘micro companies’, as

only two self-employed replied to the consultation.

3.2 METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CLOSED QUESTIONS7

3.2.1 General answer tendency

The first step of the analysis examined each of the questions, and compared the overall answer patterns to

the responses to the different sub-questions.

The answer categories for most questions were designed on five-point scales. These are either ‘bipolar’

scales with a neutral category (e.g. largely disagree-disagree-neutral-agree-largely agree) or ascending

scales (e.g. not at all – slightly – somewhat – substantially – very much). In order to reduce complexity,

the outer categories were merged to reduce the answer scale to three categories and gain a better overview

of answer patterns. However, this was not done for all questions, as there were, occasionally, high shares

in the extreme categories. Answer tendencies are often described as ‘negative’ or ‘positive’, according to

whether a larger share of respondents ticked ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ answer categories.

Table 1: Summary of answer categories, grouped by ‘negative’, ‘neutral’ and ‘positive’ designations

‘negative’ neutral ‘positive’

not at all slightly somewhat substantially very much

not useful at all slightly useful somehow useful substantially useful very useful

strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree

not well at all rather not well neutral rather well very well

not at all

satisfactory

rather

unsatisfactory

neutral rather satisfactory very satisfactory

not significant at all rather not

significant

neutral rather significant very significant

3.2.2 Further breakdowns

Replies were further broken down according to their types of respondents and countries of origin. For

some questions, businesses’ and industry associations’ responses were then broken down by sector, and,

for businesses, also according to their size. When optional questions (or sub-questions) were addressed

directly to businesses, only responses from businesses and industry associations were considered.

Differences between stakeholder groups across or within sub-questions were subsequently described,

where the answer patterns of one or more stakeholder groups was visibly different than that of the overall

answer pattern. Particular attention was paid to the two largest stakeholder groups, businesses and industry

associations, particularly any differences between the two, given that they were the largest groups of

respondents and because they respond similarly to most issues. The category ‘other’ was not described,

because it is a very small and heterogeneous group and any interpretation would be misleading.

7 Closed questions were those with multiple choice answers presented.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



The graphs in this report present either the shares of respondents to a certain answer category (‘negative’

or ‘positive’) within each group, or the mean (average values) of replies within each stakeholder group.

This allows for a comparison of replies by different stakeholder groups and for each of the sub-questions

in a single graph. It was considered unnecessary to graph the insights from breakdowns by size, while

breakdowns by sector and country are too complex to be presented in one graph for several sub-questions.

Breakdown by sectors

When using the broader groups presented in Annex 1, some respondents fit in more than one group. When

breaking down responses by sector group, all responses were counted in each sector group, even though

this results in double counting. For Question 6.f (on the role of REACH in promoting alternative methods

to animal testing), the breakdown was also calculated for respondents who indicated they were active in

only ONE sectoral group, in order to examine the potential bias of double-counting. This analysis showed

that results were very similar when looking at all of the respondents in one sector group (double counting)

and when looking at those respondents who belong to only one sector group (no double-counting).

Breakdown by country

In the analysis where location is important, answers are presented per country. The geographical

limitations must be acknowledged, with 19 countries having fewer than 10 respondents. Where numbers

of respondents within a country are very low, their responses cannot be seen as ‘typical’ for that country,

making comparisons with other countries useless. The report therefore looks only at differences between

countries with 20 or more respondents, i.e. Belgium, Germany, France, Austria and the UK. Taken

together, respondents from these countries make up around 75% of all respondents, with the analysis at

country level thus covering more than the majority of respondents.

3.2.3 Respondents who ticked ‘don’t know/not applicable’

To avoid high numbers of ‘don’t know/not applicable’ reducing the readability of charts, these responses

were removed. The number of respondents is indicated in the overall response charts. Where the number

of ‘don’t know/not applicable’ is particularly high, this is mentioned in the text. An overview of the

numbers of ‘don’t know/not applicable’ can be found in Annex 3.

The shares of those who replied ‘don’t know/not applicable’ are quite high, most frequently between 10%

and 20%. For several sub-questions (Q9 on ECHA, Q11 on the clarity of the REACH legal text, Q17 on

the proportion of costs and benefits, Q18 on fees paid to ECHA, and Q24 on REACH mechanisms and

procedures) the shares of ‘don’t know/not applicable’ are over 20%.

3.2.4 Analysis of responses to Part IIIb (Q.24)

Answer tendencies (positive, neutral, negative) among all respondents were compared across the 44 sub-

questions. Due to the large number of sub-questions within Question 24, a different approach was taken

when analysing responses by type of stakeholder and size of business: the average response value (mean)

of the replies from respondents in one stakeholder group and in one business size group was calculated per

sub-question. The analysis therefore reflects whether ‘on average’ these groups replied in a positive,

neutral or negative way (the higher the mean, the more positive the answer tendency). These mean values

were then compared across the groups for each sub-question (see, for example, Figure 21 in Section

6.2.3). Finally, the average of the mean values themselves was calculated for each group. This allowed the

answer tendencies to be compared between the groups, both in general (i.e. for all of the sub-questions

together) and for each sub-question separately. Patterns could thus be identified more easily.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



3.3 METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF OPEN QUESTIONS AND POSITION

PAPERS

There were four open questions in the OPC. Three asked for specific information on:

the unintended effects of REACH (Q13);

ways to improve enforcement (Q14.1) and;

areas in which coherence can be improved (Q22.1).

Question 25 asked for any additional relevant comments, with respondents also invited to elaborate on

their answers to Questions 19 and 20.

334 respondents provided an answer to Question 13, 288 respondents to Question 14.1, 298 respondents to

Question 22.1, and 264 respondents to Question 25. A large number of identical responses (the exact same

text, or almost) were identified for each question, most likely as a result of an umbrella organisation

sending standard responses or position papers to their members. Given that they were sent by different

respondents, these responses were all counted as individual responses; however, the number of identical

responses was indicated in each case.

Each open question was analysed separately. The main ideas, problems raised, or suggestions made by

respondents have been summarised into short statements (or ‘codes’). The frequency of each statement

highlighted the most prominent issues raised by stakeholders. The section on each open question

summarises the main trends (e.g. the frequency of each comment) and describes the most frequent

statements in greater detail. In cases where responses to open questions could illustrate the results of

closed questions, this has been indicated.

When respondents commented on unrelated issues, these comments were taken into account together with

additional comments made in Question 25, or, if they addressed an issue relating to another open question,

they were included with the comments for the relevant open question.

The same methodology was employed to analyse the position papers, with the same codes used where

possible. This facilitated their comparison with the open questions, given their considerable similarities.

As the two analyses were undertaken separately, however, they do not account for potential overlap

between a respondent’s answers to open questions and a position paper. As a result, the number of

respondents to an open question and the number of position papers raising the same issue cannot be

combined, as double counting is likely.

Identical position papers sent by different organisations were counted as individual position papers, with

1928 documents considered here, submitted by 125 respondents.

8 Excludes blank questionnaires and documents with identical content sent twice by the same organisation. 199 documents were

originally received.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



4 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

This section presents the results for Part I of the questionnaire (‘General Information about respondents’).

It also provides an overview of the respondents, including:

type of stakeholder responding – if they replied as a citizen or if they represent a larger entity

(business, NGO, etc.);

size and sector of the businesses represented by respondents;

countries the respondents come from;

level at which respondents’ organisations (if they represent an organisation) carry out their activity.

4.1.1 Overview

In total, 453 respondents replied to the OPC9. All respondents answered Questions 6-9 of the

questionnaire (Part II - compulsory general questions). The non-response rate for the remaining questions

(Q10 to 24) varied between 4% and 6% (20-30 respondents), excluding those questions directed to

specific respondents and thus not applicable to all (e.g. Q16f). Almost all respondents completed the entire

questionnaire, with only 32 finishing before the last sub-question of Question 24. As most respondents

chose to answer the more specific questions (part III), they can be assumed to be well-informed

stakeholders.

4.1.2 Type of stakeholder

Businesses formed the largest group of respondents (46%), followed by industry associations (31%).

Together, these two groups comprised 77% of all respondents.

Only 6% of respondents (26) represented the public sector (mostly governments or public authorities, with

a single representative of an intergovernmental organisation, namely the European Defence Agency10

).

Only 5% of respondents represented NGOs, and 4% were individual citizens. Fewer than 10 respondents

represented research and education, consumer associations, and trade unions, respectively. Although a

single business respondent represents only its own interests while an industry association or an NGO

represents a group of stakeholders, the answers from businesses could not be weighted less than the

answers from interest groups. This fact should, however, be borne in mind in the interpretation of

responses.

9 Four entries were merged to two, since they were double entries (see Section 2.1). 10 In order to facilitate further analysis, this entry was recoded as ‘government or public authority’.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Figure 1: Respondents by stakeholder type

4.1.3 Size of business

Of the 208 businesses who replied, over half (113) were large companies with 250+ employees. Medium

and small enterprises were also well represented, with 40 and 42 respondents, respectively (around 20% of

the answers each). 18 responses came from micro/self-employed enterprises11

.

11 16 micro enterprises, two self-employed; the two categories were merged and labelled ‘micro’, since they share similar

interests, in order to present the data more clearly.

Business, 213

Industry association, 142

Public authority, 26

Citizen, 25

NGO, 20 Research, 8

Other, 8 Consumer

Association, 6 Trade

Union, 5

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Figure 2: Respondents by size of business

4.1.4 Country

Replies came from all Member States except Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Latvia. Over 50% of the respondents

were based in either Germany (32%) or Belgium (20%). However, a large majority of the Belgian

respondents (67%) represent industry associations, which is a high share compared to respondents from

other countries. Similarly, a very large share of respondents from Belgium represent organisations

operating at EU level (75%), with only three respondents from Belgium operating at either local or

national level.

Other fairly large groups include respondents from France (8% or 36 respondents), from the UK, Austria,

Sweden and Italy (with 16 to 23 respondents, or around 4%-5% each). The remaining Member States had

11 respondents (Finland) or fewer, equalling 2% or less of all respondents. 17 respondents came from

non-EU countries12

, a substantial number compared to many individual Member States.

12 Thailand (2), Turkey, United States (9), Japan (2), Canada (2).

Large , 113

Medium, 40

Small, 42

Micro, 18

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Figure 3: Respondents by country

4.1.5 Level of activity

The largest group of all responses (37%) came from organisations operating at the global level, followed

by those at EU level (28%), and national level (24%). Among all respondents, organisations operating at

local level only form a small share (4%), as well as those active in several countries (4%).

There is a difference, however, between industry associations, businesses, and public organisations: the

majority of respondents answering for businesses said that they were globally active (62%), while the

majority of industry associations said they were active at EU level (48%) or nationally (35%). Only 13%

were active globally.

Of the public organisations responding, the majority are active nationally (60%), and come from the

following Member States: Sweden and Portugal (two each), Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,

Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, and the UK. There is also one public

authority from Thailand among the respondents. Most of these national public authorities are Ministries,

Agencies or Departments responsible for environmental matters, three of which are responsible for

economic matters and one for Science.

Among NGOs, similar numbers of respondents are active at national, EU, and global levels.

4.1.6 Business/ industry associations by sector

Respondents from businesses and industry associations were asked to indicate their field(s) of interest or

activity from 38 different sector options. This was a multiple choice question and most respondents ticked

several sectors. The sectors were presented in NACE categories, the statistical classification of economic

DE, 146

BE, 90 FR, 36

UK, 24

AT, 20

non-EU, 17

[CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE]

[CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE]

FI, 11

NL, 10

other, 67

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



activity in the European Community13

. Manufacture of basic metals (C24) is the sector with the highest

number of respondents (80) either active or interested. Manufacture of other chemical products (C 20.5),

manufacture of fabricated metal products (C25), and manufacture of basic chemicals, fertilisers, plastics,

and synthetic rubber in primary forms (C20.1) also had many active respondents (see Table 2 below).

To facilitate subsequent analysis, the sectors were grouped according to the NACE hierarchy and the list

of industrial sectors on the Commission's website14

. The sectoral breakdown for the chemical industry is

based on CEFIC’s facts and figures 201615

. (See Annex 1 for list of sectors in each group.)

Respondents’ ticking ‘other’ were re-coded where they fitted in one of the groups, e.g. all activities related

to surface coating (frequently mentioned under ‘other’) were recoded under raw materials, metals and

wood, in order to reduce the number of unclear assignments. Ten respondents remain under ‘other’, as the

sectors indicated do not fit any of the groups.

Two groups of sectors were mentioned very frequently: raw materials, metals and wood (essentially

metals), and base chemicals. A large number of respondents (146 out of 453) mentioned at least one sector

in the group of raw materials, metals and wood as their activity, while 101 respondents mentioned at least

one sector in the group of base chemicals. Other important groups were the transport and mechanical

engineering sectors and consumer products, with 64 and 65 respondents, respectively, mentioning at least

one sector in these groups. The remaining groups were each mentioned by 43 or fewer respondents (see

Table 2).

Most respondents reported carrying out activities in more than one sectoral group and fewer respondents

ticked (one or more) sectors belonging to the same group. This means that differences in response

behaviour relating to respondents’ activity may be difficult to detect, since the sectoral groups created for

the purpose of this analysis are not mutually exclusive. Respondents who belong to more than one group

may inadvertently conceal differences.

Table 2: Sectoral activity or interest (grouped sectors, multiple answers possible in column 2)

Activity in at least

one sector in group

Activity in (one or more)

sectors in only this group

Raw materials, metals and wood 146 93

Base chemicals 101 32

Transport and mechanical engineering 64 29

Consumer products 65 18

Polymers 43 8

Specialty chemicals 40 4

Consumer chemicals 37 11

Carriers and retailers 33 13

13 NACE is a four-digit classification providing the framework for collecting and presenting a large range of statistical data

according to economic activity in the fields of economic statistics (e.g. production, employment and national accounts) and in

other statistical domains developed within the European statistical system (ESS). See Eurostat, Statistics Explained, Glossary:

Statistical Classification of economic activities in the European Community (NACE). 14 DG GROWTH, sectors: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors_en 15 CEFICc, Facts and Figures 2016, EU chemical industry sales by sectoral breakdown. Available at: http://fr.zone-

secure.net/13451/186036/#page=8

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:National_accounts_(NA)http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:European_statistical_system_(ESS)http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Statistical_classification_of_economic_activities_in_the_European_Community_(NACE)http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors_enhttp://fr.zone-secure.net/13451/186036/#page=8http://fr.zone-secure.net/13451/186036/#page=8

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Activity in at least

one sector in group

Activity in (one or more)

sectors in only this group

Professional 28 8

Energy 17 6

Agriculture 12 1

Water and waste 8 3

Construction 4 0

Given that they represent 32% of all responses, respondents from Germany have a heavy weight in the

overall results. German business respondents are highly concentrated in the areas of raw materials, metals

and wood16

, causing this sectoral group to spike.

Raw materials, metals and wood

17 was the sectoral group most frequently mentioned among small,

medium, and large businesses. This was particularly true of small businesses, with 65% reportedly active

in the area of raw materials, metals and wood. Among medium and large companies, the share was

smaller (44% and 38%, respectively). Among large companies, base chemicals was frequently mentioned

(36%), followed by consumer products and the mechanical engineering sector (22% and 20%,

respectively). Among medium-sized companies, base chemicals and transport and mechanical engineering

constituted important sectoral groups (22% and 17%, respectively).

The activities of micro-enterprises and the self-employed are obviously quite different: a high percentage

reported working as professionals (33%), as well as on base chemicals (28%), specialty chemicals (22%),

and carriers and retailers (17%). Base chemicals is the only sector that could be considered widespread

among the SMEs and large companies that took part in the OPC.

16 Including: Mining and quarrying (B); Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork except furniture (C16);

Manufacture of paper and paper products (C17); Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products (C23); Manufacture of basic

metals (C24); Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment (C25). 17 ibid.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



5 OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSES TO PART II18 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

6. To what extent do you think REACH is achieving the following objectives?

6.a Improve protection of consumers

6.b Improve protection of workers

6.c Improve protection of the environment

6.d Free circulation of chemicals on the internal market (Reduce barriers to trade in

chemicals across borders within the EU)

6.e Enhance competitiveness and innovation

6.f Promote alternative methods to animal testing for hazard assessment of chemicals

Overall, these sub-questions did not show an overwhelmingly positive or negative response. The

exception was Question 6.e, where 70% of respondents believed that REACH enhanced competitiveness

and innovation either not at all, or only slightly. The most positive views were reported in the

improvement of consumer protection (Q6.a), where over 40% said that REACH improved protection of

consumers substantially/very much, compared to less than 20% taking a negative view (slightly/not at all.

Promotion of alternative methods to animal testing for hazard assessment of chemicals (Q6.f) also

received positive responses. Views on the objectives of improving workers’ and environmental protection

(Q6.b and Q6.c) were more balanced, with similar shares of respondents answering positively

(substantially/very much) and negatively (not at all/ slightly). Views on the objective of free circulation of

chemicals on the internal market (Q6.d) are mostly negative, with a larger share of respondents holding a

negative view (40%) than a positive one (30%) and a particularly high share of people (25%) opting for

‘not at all’.

Figure 4: Overall replies to Q6 ‘To what extent do you think REACH is achieving the following objectives?’

18 Part II – General questions.

11

5

60

106

156

9

60

94

83

70

137

45

173

178

126

97

74

143

157

128

140

93

25

110

23

34

27

39

26

26

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

6.a Improve protection of consumers (N=424)

6.b Improve protection of workers (N=439)

6.c Improve protection of the environment (N=436)

6.d Free circulation of chemicals on the internal market(N=405)

6.e Enhance competitiveness and innovation (N=418)

6.f Promote alternative methods to animal testing forhazard assessment of chemicals (N=333)

1 Not at all 2 Slightly 3 Somewhat 4 Substantially 5 Very much

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



The different stakeholder groups gave similar responses to the three first sub-questions on whether

REACH achieved the improvement of protection of consumers (Q6.a), workers (Q6.b) and the

environment (Q6.c). Businesses were most critical about these objectives with only around 20% believing

that REACH had improved these objectives either substantially or very much (compared to an average of

over 30%). A large share said it had improved them somewhat. Around half of the businesses thought

REACH had achieved its objective to improve protection of the environment not at all or only slightly.

Replies from citizens were quite evenly spread across the negative and positive spectrum, as were those

from NGOs.

Replies from industry associations, public authorities, and particularly from consumer associations and

trade unions, were far more positive, with much larger shares stating that REACH had achieved the

objectives mentioned (Q6.a, Q6.b and Q6.c).

Consumer associations, trade unions, public authorities and NGOs were also generally positive about

REACH achieving the economic objectives (free circulation of chemicals on the internal market (Q6.d)

and enhanced competitiveness and innovation (Q6.e)). By contrast, businesses were largely critical, with

70% to 80% finding that REACH had not at all or only slightly achieved these objectives. Industry

associations were neutral in respect of the free circulation of chemicals, but 70% thought that REACH had

enhanced competitiveness and innovation not at all or only slightly.

Figure 5: Average response values by type of stakeholder to Q6 ‘To what extent do you think REACH is achieving the

following objectives?’

Graphs display the mean (average) across the range of values (from 1=not at all to 5=very much) in each stakeholder

group in response to each question; a higher mean indicates a more positive opinion of REACH’s impact

A closer look at the replies from businesses to Q6.d (free circulation of chemicals) and Q6.e

(competitiveness and innovation) shows that small and medium companies held a more critical view than

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.a Improve protection of consumers

6.b Improve protection of workers

6.c Improve protection of the environment

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.d Free circulation of chemicals on the internalmarket

6.e Enhance competitiveness and innovation

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



micro and large companies, although the latter were also quite critical. Between 70% and 80% of SMEs

thought that REACH had not achieved an improvement of the free circulation of chemicals on the internal

market (Q6.d), nor had it enhanced competitiveness and innovation (Q6.e). Among micro and large

businesses, the shares who thought REACH had not at all achieved these goals varied between 20% and

40%. A further 20% to 40%, however, stated that REACH had achieved these goals only slightly.

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Figure 6: Responses to Q6.d andQ6.e from business representatives, by size of business

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Businesses of all sizes were more critical about REACH’s impact on enhancing competitiveness and

innovation (Q6.e) than about free circulation of chemicals on the internal market (Q6.d).

Figure 7: Responses by type of stakeholder to Q.6f, ‘To what extent do you think REACH is achieving the following

objective: Promote alternative methods to animal testing for hazard assessment of chemicals?’

Respondents from the different sectors held varying views on question of whether or not REACH has

promoted alternative methods to animal testing for hazard assessment of chemicals (Q6.f): Among the two

largest sectoral groups, respondents from base chemicals were more positive (around 40% stated that

REACH has achieved this objective substantially or very much), while respondents from raw materials,

metals and wood were less positive (only 20% thought that REACH has achieved this objective

substantially or very much, with 70% thinking REACH has somewhat achieved this objective). The

business sectors most positive about the achievement of this objective were agriculture, energy, consumer

products and specialty and consumer chemicals, each with at least 50% of respondents stating that

REACH achieved this objective substantially or very much.

0 3

4 0 0 0 0 2 0 9

1

3

30

0 0 0

3 7 1

45

0

7 81

2 3

4 3 41

2

143

0

3

42

1 2

2

5

41

14

110

0

5 11

1 2

0 2

3 2 26

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 Not at all 2 Slightly 3 Somewhat 4 Substantially 5 Very much

Milieu Ltd

Brussels



Figure 8: Replies by business and industry associations in different sectoral groups to Q6.f ‘To what extent do you think

REACH is achieving the following objective: Promote alternative methods to animal testing for hazard assessment of

chemicals?’

Views on the role of REACH in promoting alternative methods to animal testing were also analysed for

groups of respondents working only in ONE sectoral group (the groups above are respondents who may

work in several sectoral groups; for further explanation see Section 3.1.3). Results proved very similar to

the above findings. The most positive views about the function of REACH in promoting alternative

methods to animal testing were held by respondents working exclusively in agriculture, in specialty

chemicals, consumer products and energy (within each of these groups, over 50% thought that REACH

has promoted alternative methods to animal testing either substantially or very much). Also similarly,

respondents working exclusively on raw materials, metals and wood held the least positive views (their

view is fairly balanced, with a large share in the middle category). For respondents working in the sectors

of base chemicals and carriers and retailers, the differences were not as marked, with both groups holding

similar views, largely balanced between positive and negative.

Examining the responses by country shows consistent differences between respondents’ views on

improvement of the protection of consumers (Q6.a), workers (Q6.b) and the environment (Q6.c). The

main difference was between German and Austrian respondents, who were more critical towards the

achievement of these goals (with at most 20% stating that REACH achieved these goals substantially or

very much) and French and Belgian respondents, who were less critical (over 40% thought that REACH

achieved these goals substantially or very much). Respondents from the UK were more critical about the

improvement of the protection of consumers and the environment (mirroring Austria and Germany) and

less critical of the protection of workers (where they were more like Belgium and France). It should be

borne in mind that the respondents from France, the UK and Belgium, in particular, comprised more

industry associations, while the respondents from Austria and Germany were mainly businesses.

For the objectives ‘free circulation of chemicals on the internal market’ (Q6.d) and ‘enhancing

competitiveness and innovation’ (Q6.e), respondents from France, the UK, Austria and Germany all

17

2

4

7

2

22

3

4

2

5

5

2

1

1

43

74

1

14

16

1

31

10

11

15

14

17

3

2

2

119

28

1

6

11

2

42

11

13

16

18

24

8

5

6

98

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Raw materials, metals, wood

Construction

Transport and mechanical engineering

Polymers

Water and waste

Base chemicals

Professional, scientific and technical

Carriers and retailers

Consumer chemicals

Specialty chemicals

Consumer products

Energy

Other sectors/cross-sectoral

Agriculture

Total

not at all/slightly somewhat substantially/very much

Milieu Ltd

Brussels

Analysis of the results of the open pub

analysis of the results of the open public and sme ... · refit evaluation final report on the open...

Documents