HOW TO FIND AND ANALYSE ALTERNATIVES IN THE AUTHORISATION PROCESS

The document identifies systemic failures in the REACH authorisation process, specifically noting that authorisations are often granted even when suitable alternatives exist. It argues that applicants lack incentives to provide comprehensive information and that the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) incorrectly shifts the burden of proof away from applicants. To remedy this, the authors propose proactive consultation methods—inspired by EU merger law—and a more rigorous technical assessment based on 'end-use function' rather than just chemical performance. Key recommendations include requiring applicants to provide contact lists of competitors and customers, implementing a decision tree for feasibility assessments, and withdrawing authorisations if undisclosed alternatives are discovered.

• The REACH authorisation process has failed to reach its full potential because authorisations are granted under Article 60(4) even when suitable alternatives are available, which the authors claim "rewards the laggards and frustrates the frontrunners."
• Applicants for authorisation often lack the incentive to provide exhaustive information on alternatives because if SEAC finds a suitable alternative, the applicant's "chances of getting an authorisation are zero".
• The current public consultation process is insufficient because alternative providers often remain unaware of it, and those who are aware may fear "endangering business relationships" if the applicant is a potential customer.
• To improve the accuracy of alternative analyses, the authors recommend that ECHA adopt practices from EU merger law, such as requiring applicants to provide a "contact detail list" of main competitors, customers, and suppliers for direct consultation via questionnaires.
• SEAC is criticized for shifting the burden of proof from the applicant to third parties by assuming that the act of applying for authorisation implies no alternative exists, a logic the authors describe as "unsound".
• The authors propose that if a relevant alternative is already in use on the market, SEAC should apply a "presumption" that the alternative is technically and economically feasible, requiring the applicant to provide high-level evidence to rebut this.

APA

ClientEarth (2018). HOW TO FIND AND ANALYSE ALTERNATIVES IN THE AUTHORISATION PROCESS. https://www.clientearth.org/media/wc0nv3lz/how-to-find-and-analyse-alternatives-in-the-authorisation-process-coll-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. HOW TO FIND AND ANALYSE ALTERNATIVES IN THE AUTHORISATION PROCESS. 2018. https://www.clientearth.org/media/wc0nv3lz/how-to-find-and-analyse-alternatives-in-the-authorisation-process-coll-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=HOW TO FIND AND ANALYSE ALTERNATIVES IN THE AUTHORISATION PROCESS |date=March 2018 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/wc0nv3lz/how-to-find-and-analyse-alternatives-in-the-authorisation-process-coll-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2018how, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{HOW TO FIND AND ANALYSE ALTERNATIVES IN THE AUTHORISATION PROCESS}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2018}, month = mar, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/wc0nv3lz/how-to-find-and-analyse-alternatives-in-the-authorisation-process-coll-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }