The 'perfect storm' of REACH: Charting regulatory controversy in the age of information, sustainable development, and globalization

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 541-563

  Fisher, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HISTORY; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PLANNING; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRATEGIC PLANNING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

CHEMICALS REGULATION; CULTURES (TRADITIONAL); EUROPEAN UNION (EU); INFORMATION COLLECTIONS; INTENSE (CO); INTERNATIONAL (CO); MARKET GLOBALIZATION; PERFECT STORM; REGULATORY ASPECTS;

HEALTH RISKS;

EID: 47249166447     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870802086547     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Ahlers, J. 2000. The availability of risk information. In Risk assessment and risk management of toxic chemicals in the European Community: Experiences and reform, ed. G. Winter, 69-88. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
2. Applegate, J. 2006. The government role in scientific research: Who should bridge the data gap in chemical regulation? In Rescuing science from politics: Regulation and the distortion of scientific research, ed. W. Wagner and R. Steinzor, 255-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baldwin, R. 2005. Is better regulation smarter regulation? Public Law Autumn: 485-511.
4. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
5. _. 1996. Risk society and the provident state. In Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology, ed. S. Lash and B. Szerszynski, 27-43. London: Sage Publications.
6. Bergkamp, L., and T. Smith. 2004. Perfect storm in the EU: Tidal wave of product regulation. Executive Counsel 9-10.
7. Bernson, V. 2000. Restructuring the burden of producing risk information. In Risk assessment and risk management of toxic chemicals in the European Community, ed. G. Winter, 112-26. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
8. Breyer, S. 1982. Regulation and its reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9. Brickman, R., S. Jasanoff, and T. Iglen, 1985. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
10. Brussels European Council. 2005. Presidency conclusions. Paper presented at Brussels European Council, June 16-17, in Brussels, Belgium.
11. Busch, P.-O., H. Jorgens, and K. Tews. 2005. The global diffusion of regulatory instruments: The making of a new international environmental regime. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 598: 146-57.
12. Caplan, M. 2006. US: Realistic balance of risk and precaution. The Environmental Forum March/April: 48.
13. CEFIC. 2003a. Consultation document concerning registration, evaluation, authorisation and restrictions of chemicals (REACH): Executive summary. Brussels: CEFIC.
14. _. 2003b. Consultation document concerning registration, evaluation, authorisation and restrictions of chemicals (REACH): Proposed new chemicals legislation and international trade/WTO. Brussels: CEFIC.
15. _. 2003c. Risk and hazard - how they differ. Brussels: CEFIC.
16. Commission of the European Communities. 1998a. Communication from the Commission to the European Council of 27 May 1998 on a partnership for integration: A strategy for integrating the environment into EU policies. COM (1998) 333 final.
17. _. 1998b. Report on the operation of Directive 671548, Directive 88/379, Regulation 7931 93 and Directive 761769. SEC (1998) 1986 final.
18. _. 2001. White Paper on the strategy for a future chemicals policy. COM (2001) 88 final.
19. _. 2003a. Commission staff working paper - regulation of the European Parliament and Council concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restrictions of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and Amending Directive 19991451 EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Extended Impact Assessment. SEC (2003) 1171/3.
20. _. 2003b. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (Reach), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC). COM. (2003) 644(1) final.
21. _. 2004. Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas - a stocktaking of the Cardiff process. COM (2004) 394 final.
22. Committee on Government Reform, Minority Staff Special Investigations Division. 2004. A special interest case study: The chemical industry, the Bush administration, and European efforts to regulate chemicals: Prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman. Washington, DC: US House of Representatives.
23. Conrad, J. 2006. Open secrets: The widespread availability of information about the health and environmental effects of chemicals. Law and Contemporary Problems 69: 141-65.
24. Contiero, M. 2006. Toxic lobby: How the chemicals industry is trying to kill REACH. Brussels: Greenpeace.
25. Cotterrell, R. 2001. Is thee a logic of legal transplants? In Adapting legal cultures, ed. D. Nelken and J. Feest, 70-92. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
26. Denison, R. 2007. Not that innocent: A comparative analysis of Canadian, European Union, and United States policies on industrial chemicals. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense.
27. Deville, A., and R. Harding. 1997. Applying the precautionary principle. Sydney: Federation Press.
28. Dimas, S. 2005. REACH and the Lisbon Strategy. Debate with EP Kangaroo Group, Brussels.
29. Dovers, S., and R. Connor. 2006. Institutions and policy change for sustainability. In Environmental law for sustainability, ed. B. Richardson and S. Wood, 21-60. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
30. Dryzek, J. 2005. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Durodie, B. 2003. The true cost of precautionary chemicals regulation. Risk Analysis 23: 389-98.
32. Egan, M. 2001. Constructing a European market: Standards, regulation and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Fisher, E. 2000. Drowning by numbers: Standard setting in risk regulation and the pursuit of accountable public administration. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20: 109-30.
34. _. 2006a. Risk and environmental law: A beginner's guide. In Environmental law for sustainability, ed. B. Richardson and S. Wood, 97-125. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
35. _. 2006b. Unpacking the toolbox: Or why the public/private divide is important in EC environmental law. In The public law/private law divide: Une entente assez cordiale? ed. M. Freedland and J.-B. Auby, 215-42. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
36. _. 2007. Risk regulation and administrative constitutionalism. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
37. Fisher, E., J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg. 2006. Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 1-16. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
38. Fligstein, N. 2001. The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39. _. 2008. Lessons from Europe: Some reflections on the European Union and the Regulation of Business. Paper presented at Tobin Project's Conference on 'Government and markets: Towards a new theory of regulation', February 1-3, in White Oak, FL, USA.
40. Fligstein, N., and I. Maro-Dita. 1996. How to make a market: Reflections on the attempt to create a single market in the European Union. American Journal of Sociology 102: 1-33.
41. Fraunhofer ISI, Progress and Business Foundation, R. Nordbeck, and IPTS. 2005. Implementation of REACH in the new member states. Seville: Directorate General Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
42. Fuller, L. 1978. The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Review 92: 353-409.
43. Gaines, S. 2002. Reflexive law as a legal paradigm for sustainable development. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 10: 1-24.
44. Gaskins, R. 1992. Burdens of proof in modern discourse. New Haven: Yale University Press.
45. Geertz, C. 1993. Local knowledge. New York: Fontana Press.
46. Green 10. 2007. 'Could try harder': A mid-term report on the European Commission's environmental record.
47. Gunningham, N., and P. Grabosky. 1998. Smart regulation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
48. Hammitt, J., J. Wiener, B. Swedlow, D. Kall, and Z. Zhou. 2005. Precautionary regulation in Europe and the United States: A quantitative comparison. Risk Analysis 25: 1215-28.
49. Hansen, B.G., and B. Mark. 2006. REACH: A step change in the management of chemicals. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 15: 270-80.
50. Hey, C., K. Jacob, and A. Volkery. 2006. Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy. FFU-report 02-2006. Berlin: Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universitat Berlin.
51. Heyvaert, V. 2005. Guidance without constraint: Assessing the impact of the precautionary principle on the European Community's chemical policy. Yearbook of European Environmental Law 6: 27-60.
52. Hilson, C. 2005. Information disclosure and the regulation of traded product risks. Journal of Environmental Law 17: 305-22.
53. Hird, J. 1994. Superfund: The political economy of environmental risk. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
54. Hood, C., H. Rothstein, and R. Baldwin. 2001. The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55. James, P., R. Johnstone, M. Quinlan, and D. Walters. 2007. Regulating supply chains to improve health and safety. Industrial Law Journal 36: 163.
56. Jasanoff, S. 1986. Risk management and political culture: A comparative study of science in the policy context. New York: Sage Publications.
57. _. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58. Jasanoff, S., and M. Long Martello, eds. 2004. Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
59. Jewell, T. 1998. Public law and the environment: The prospects for decision-making. In Law in environmental decision-making: National, European and international perspectives, ed. T. Jewell and J. Steele, 73-105. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
60. Junger, S. 2007. The perfect storm: A true story of men against the sea. London: Harper Perennial.
61. Karkkainen, B. 2002. Towards a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government's environmental performance. Columbia Law Review 102: 903-72.
62. Kelemen, D. 2007. Globalizing EU environmental regulation. Paper prepared for conference on 'Europe and the management of globalisation', February 23, at Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
63. Koch, L., and N. Ashford. 2006. Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 31-46.
64. Kogan, L. 2005. Exporting precaution: How Europe's risk free regulatory agenda threatens American free enterprise. Washington, DC: Washington Legal Foundation.
65. Korrkainen, B. 2001. Information as environmental regulation: TRI and performance benchmarking. Georgetown Law Journal 89: 251-368.
66. KPMG. 2005. REACH - further work on impact assessment - a case study approach: Final report. Dublin: KPMG Business Advisory Services.
67. Krämer, L. 2000. Introduction into the European Chemicals regulation: Basic structures and performance. In Risk assessment and risk management of toxic chemicals in the European Community, ed. G. Winter, 14-34. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
68. Legrand, P. 1997. The impossibility of legal transplants. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 4: 111.
69. _. 1998. European legal systems are not converging. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45: 52-81.
70. Lenschow, A. 2002. New regulatory approaches in 'greening' EU policies. European Law Journal 8: 19-37.
71. Levi-Faur, D. 2005. The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 598: 12-32.
72. _. 2006. Regulatory capitalism: The dynamics of change beyond telecoms and electricity. Governance 19: 497-525.
73. Levi-Faur, D., and J. Jordana. 2005. Regulatory capitalism: Policy irritants and convergent divergence. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 598: 191-7.
74. Lisbon European Council. 2000. Presidency conclusions. Paper presented at Lisbon European Council, March 23-24, in Lisbon, Portugal.
75. Logomasini, A., and H. Miller. 2005. REACH exceeding its grasp? Regulation Fall: 10-3.
76. Lyndon, M. 1989. Information economics and chemical toxicity: Designing laws to produce and use data. Michigan Law Review 87: 1795-858.
77. Maduro, M. 1998. We, the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
78. Montfort, J.-P. 2003. The Commission's White Paper on a strategy for a future EU chemicals policy: The view of European companies of American parentage. Risk Analysis 23: 399-404.
79. Nelken, D. 1995. Disclosing/invoking legal culture. Social and Legal Studies 4: 437.
80. Ogus, A. 1994. Regulation: Legal form and economic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
81. Orts, E. 1995. Reflexive environmental law. Northwestern University Law Review 89: 1227.
82. Pearce, D., and P. Koundouri. 2004. Regulatory assessment for chemicals: A rapid appraisal cost-benefit approach. Environmental Science and Policy 7: 435-49.
83. Persson, T. 2007. Democratising European chemicals policy: Do consultations favour civil society participation? Journal of Civil Society 3: 223-38.
84. Pesendorfer, D. 2006. EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals. Environmental Politics 15: 95-114.
85. Power, M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
86. Radaelli, C. 2005. Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy 12: 924-43.
87. Rayner, S., and R. Cantor. 1987. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis 7: 39.
88. Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London: Routledge.
89. Renn, O., and D. Elliott. Forthcoming. Precautionary regulation in chemicals in the US and EU. In The reality of precaution: Comparing risk regulation in the US and Europe, ed. J. Wiener, M. Rogers, P. Sand, and J. Hammitt.
90. Renn, O., A. Klinke, C. Losert, A. Stirling, P. van Zwanenberg, U. Muller-Herold, M. Morosini, and E. Fisher. 2003. The application of the precautionary principle in the European Union: Regulatory strategies and research needs to compose and specify a European policy on the application of the precautionary principle (PrecauPri). Stuttgart: Centre for Technology Assessment.
91. Rogers, M. 2003. The European Commission's White Paper 'Strategy for a future chemicals policy': A review. Risk Analysis 23: 381-8.
92. Rose, N. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
93. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2003. Chemicals in products: Safeguarding the environment and human health: 24th Report. London: Cm 5827.
94. Scheringer, M., S. Boschen, and K. Hungerbuhler. 2006. Will we know more or less about chemical risks under REACH? Chimia 60: 699-706.
95. Scott, J., and J. Holder. 2006. Law and new environmental governance in the EU. In Law and governance in the EU and US, ed. G. de Búrca and J. Scott. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
96. Smith, M. 2006. Representation of diffuse interests in the european parliament: The case of REACH. Unpublished manuscript on file with author.
97. Stanton, L. 2005. Opinion. Environmental Law Review 7: 231.
98. Stein, A. 2005. Foundations of evidence law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
99. Steinberg, R. 2004. Judicial lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, constitutional, and political constraints. American Journal of International Law 98: 247-75.
100. Stephan, M. 2002. Environmental information disclosure programs: They work, but why? Social Science Quarterly 83: 190-205.
101. Stirling, A. 2003. Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science, ed. F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones, 33-76. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
102. Sunstein, C. 1990. Paradoxes of the regulatory state. University of Chicago Law Review 57: 407-41.
103. _. 2002. The cost benefit state: The future of regulatory protection. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
104. Sykes, A. 1999. Regulatory protectionism and the law of international trade. University of Chicago Law Review 66: 1.
105. Tickner, J., K. Geiser, and M. Coffin. 2005. The US experience with promoting sustainable chemistry. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 12: 1-9.
106. Tietenberg, T. 1998. Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 587-602.
107. Twining, W. 1994. Rethinking evidence: Exploratory essays. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
108. van der Kolk, J. 2000. The state of knowledge about chemicals after four decades of European chemicals policy. In Risk assessment and risk management of toxic chemicals in the European Community, ed. G. Winter, 35-43. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
109. Vos, E. 1999. Institutional frameworks of community health and safety legislation: Committees, agencies and private bodies. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
110. Wagner, W. 2004. Commons ignorance: The failure of environmental law to produce needed information on health and the environment. Duke Law Journal 53: 1619-736.
111. Weale, A. 1993. Ecological modernisation and the integration of European environmental policy. In European integration and environmental policy, ed. J. Liefferink, P. Lowe, and A. Mol, 196-216. London: Belhaven Press.
112. Wiener, J. 2006. Better regulation in Europe. Current Legal Problems 59: 447-518.
113. Wiener, J., and M. Rogers. 2002. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research 5: 317-49.
114. Winter, G., ed. 2000. Risk assessment and risk management of toxic chemicals in the European Community. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
115. Wolf, O., and L. Delgado. 2003. The impact of REACH on innovation in the chemical industry. Brussels: Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
116. Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33: 401-17.