Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:12:53.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefit-Cost Analysis in EU Chemicals Legislation: Experiences from over 100 REACH Applications for Authorisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2018

Stavros Georgiou ,
Christoph M. Rheinberger Open the ORCID record for Christoph M. Rheinberger [Opens in a new window]  and
Matti Vainio
Stavros Georgiou
Affiliation:
U.K. Health and Safety Executive & Visiting Research Fellow, Applied Economics, Marketing and Development Group, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, U.K.
Christoph M. Rheinberger*
Affiliation:
European Chemicals Agency, Risk Management Implementation Unit, Annankatu 18, Helsinki, Finland 00121, e-mail: rheinberger.cm@gmail.com
Matti Vainio
Affiliation:
European Chemicals Agency, Risk Management Implementation Unit, Annankatu 18, Helsinki, Finland 00121
*
*e-mail: rheinberger.cm@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we review the benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) made to support applications for authorisations under the EU’s REACH Regulation on hazardous chemicals. Experiences from over 100 cases suggest that there are a number of informational and methodological challenges to overcome in these BCAs. In particular, we find that many REACH applicants have had problems explaining the societal relevance of the regulatory impacts expected to affect them and other market actors. Adapting the framework for regulatory impact assessment proposed by Dudley et al. [(2017). Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8, 187–204], we discuss these impacts from a welfare economics perspective and make suggestions on how to improve current practices in BCA applied to chemicals risk management. From this discussion we then distill a number of topics that deserve more attention in applied BCAs under the REACH Regulation.

Keywords

D61D62D78D81D82I18H43Q51Q53benefit-cost analysischemicalsenvironmenthealthlaw and regulationREACH
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 181 - 204
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank Jack de Bruijn, Bill Hoyt, Kalle Kivelä, Maria Ottati and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on a previous version of this paper. The views expressed in the paper are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or positions of the European Chemicals Agency or the U.K. Health and Safety Executive.

References

Bergkamp, Lucas(Ed.) (2013). The European Union REACH regulation for chemicals: Law and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, Didier (2015). The Precautionary Principle: Definitions, Applications and Governance. European Parliament Research Service Paper, 19-12-2015.Google Scholar
Cochrane, John H. (2014). Challenges for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation. Journal of Legal Studies, 43, 63–105.Google Scholar
Cox, Louis A. (2016). Rethinking the Meaning of Concentration-Response Functions and the Estimated Burden of Adverse Health Effects Attributed to Exposure Concentrations. Risk Analysis, 36, 1770–1779.Google Scholar
Dudley, Susan, Belzer, Richard, Blomquist, Glenn, Brennan, Timothy, Carrigan, Christopher, Cordes, Joseph, Cox, Louis A., Fraas, Arthur, Graham, John, Gray, George, Hammitt, James, Krutilla, Kerry, Linquiti, Peter, Lutter, Randall, Mannix, Brian, Shapiro, Stuart, Smith, Anne, Viscusi, W. Kip & Zerbe, Richard (2017). Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8, 187–204.Google Scholar
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)(2011). Guidance on the preparation of socio-economic analysis as part of an application for authorisation. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23036412/sea_authorisation_en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)(2013). Application for authorisation: establishing a reference dose response relationship for carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13579/rac_carcinogenicity_dose_response_crvi_en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)(2016). Valuing selected health impacts of chemicals: Summary of the results and a critical review of the ECHA study. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13630/echa_review_wtp_en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)(2017). Socio-economic impacts of REACH authorisations – A meta-analysis of the first 100 applications for authorisation. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13637/tecch_report_socioeconomic_impact_reach_authorisations_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Gabbert, Silke, Scheringer, Martin, Ng, Carla A. & Stolzenberg, Hans-Christian (2014). Socio-Economic Analysis for the Authorisation of Chemicals Under REACH: A Case of Very High Concern? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 70, 564–571.Google Scholar
Gayer, Ted & Viscusi, W. Kip (2016). Determining The Proper Scope of Climate Change Policy Benefits in US Regulatory Analyses: Domestic Versus Global Approaches. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10, 245–263.Google Scholar
Gravelle, Hugh & Smith, Dave (2001). Discounting for Health Effects in Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Health Economics, 10, 587–599.Google Scholar
Gray, George M. & Cohen, Joshua T. (2012). Policy: Rethink Chemical Risk Assessments. Nature, 489, 27–28.Google Scholar
Hansen, Bjorn G. & Blainey, Mark (2006). REACH: A Step Change in the Management of Chemicals. Reciel, 15, 270–280.Google Scholar
Haveman, Robert H. & Weimer, David L. (2015). Public Policy Induced Changes in Employment: Valuation Issues for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6, 112–153.Google Scholar
Just, Richard E., Hueth, Darrell L. & Schmitz, Andrew (2004). The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
McDonald, Rebecca L., Chilton, Susan M., Jones-Lee, Michael W. & Metcalf, Hugh R. T. (2016). Dread and Latency Impacts on A VSL for Cancer Risk Reductions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52, 137–161.Google Scholar
Panteia(2016). Economic Impact Authorisation Chrome VI. Technical Report. https://www.panteia.nl/uploads/sites/2/2016/12/Panteia_Final-Report-Economic- Impact-Chrome-VI.pdf.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Hammitt, James K. (2014). The Welfare Value of FDA’s Mercury-in-Fish Advisory: A Dynamic Reanalysis. Journal of Health Economics, 37, 113–122.Google Scholar
Robinson, Lisa A. & Hammitt, James K. (2013). Skills of the Trade: Valuing Health Risk Reductions in Benefit-Cost Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 4, 107–130.Google Scholar
Robinson, Lisa A., Hammitt, James K. & Zeckhauser, Richard J. (2016). Attention to Distribution in U.S. Regulatory Analyses. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10, 308–328.Google Scholar