Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:17:58.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefits and Costs of Regulating and Restricting Chemicals: The European Union’s REACH System and Its Effects on the Austrian Economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

Michael Getzner  and
Denise Schulz-Zak
Michael Getzner*
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Technology, Center of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, Department of Spatial Planning, Karlsplatz 13, 1040 Vienna, Austria, e-mail: michael.getzner@tuwien.ac.at
Denise Schulz-Zak
Affiliation:
City of Vienna, Municipal Department of Health Care and Social Affairs (Gesundheits- und Sozialplanung), Brigittenauer Lände 50-54, 1200 Vienna, Austria, e-mail: denise.zak@wien.gv.at
*
*e-mail: michael.getzner@tuwien.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European Union’s regulation for chemical safety (REACH) addresses the registration, evaluation, assessment, and consequent authorization (or restriction) of chemicals which are potentially harmful for both public health and the environment. The current study aims at ascertaining the costs and benefits of the REACH framework for the Austrian economy under major uncertainties, and draws on a wide range of databases on public and workplace health, chemical accidents in households, and the potential environmental impacts of harmful chemicals.

The uncertainties in the REACH system assessments of the effects of chemicals on health lie not only in the insufficiency of scientific evidence but also in the economic evaluation of effects on health, especially in regard to the value of statistical life (VSL), and the economic value of diseases attributed to chemicals.

This benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of the REACH system in Austria therefore takes into account these manifold uncertainties by designing a conservative baseline scenario and by varying all determinants in comprehensive sensitivity analyses. Projected over a period of about 30 years, this paper provides evidence that the REACH system most probably leads to net benefits for the Austrian economy (benefit-cost ratio of about 10.6) even though many benefits are still highly uncertain or unknown.

Keywords

D61D62H43I18J17Q51Q53Austriabenefits/costschemicals policiesEuropean Unionhuman healthREACH system
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Fall 2018 , pp. 462 - 495
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.)

References

Alberini, Anna(2017) Measuring the economic value of the effects of chemicals on ecological systems and human health. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 116, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Andersson, Linus, Johansson, Åke, Millqvist, Eva, Nordin, Steven & Bende, Mats (2008). Prevalence and Risk Factors for Chemical Sensitivity and Sensory Hyperreactivity in Teenagers. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211(5), 690–697.Google Scholar
Angerer, Gerhard, Nordbeck, Ralf & Sartorius, Christian (2008). Impacts on Industry of Europe’s Emerging Chemicals Policy REACH. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(4), 636–647.Google Scholar
AUVA (2014). Data on Accidents in Households and at the Workplace, Special Analysis of Work-place Health Risks. www.auva.at [accessed May 2014].Google Scholar
Bardana, Emil J. Jr. (2003). Occupational Asthma and Allergies. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 111(2), 530–539.Google Scholar
Bateman, Ian J., Mace, Georgina M., Fezzi, Carlo, Atkinson, Giles & Turner, R. Kerry (2014). Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessment. In Ninan, Karachepone N. (Ed.), Valuing Ecosystem Services (pp. 23–77). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Batzdorfer, Ludger & Schwanitz, Hans Joachim (2004). Ökonomische Folgen berufsbedingter Hauterkrankungen. Betriebliche Prävention, 2004(6), 278–280.Google Scholar
Bauer, Anke, Schwarz, Eberhard & Mai, Christoph (2008). Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS): Ein Update. Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, 21(4), 9–15.Google Scholar
Bellavance, Francois, Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin (2009). The Value of a Statistical Life: A Meta-Analysis with a Mixed Effects Regression Model. Journal of Health Economics, 28(2), 444–464.Google Scholar
Bergkamp, Lucas (2013). Does REACH Present a Business Opportunity? In Bergkamp, Lucas (Ed.), The European Union REACH Regulation for Chemicals – Law and Practice (pp. 396–409). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergkamp, Lucas & Herbatschek, Nicolas (2013). Key Concepts and Scope. In Bergkamp, Lucas (Ed.), The European Union REACH Regulation for Chemicals – Law and Practice (pp. 40–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bock, Karl Walter & Birbaumer, Niels (1998). Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Schädigung durch Chemikalien oder Nozobo-Effekt. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 95(3), 91–94.Google Scholar
Bolt, Hermann & Kiesswetter, Ernst (2002). Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity a Clinically Defined Entity? Toxicology Letters, 128(1), 99–106.Google Scholar
Boschetto, Piera, Quintavalle, Sonja, Miotto, Deborah, Lo Cascio, Natalina, Zeni, Elena & Mapp, Cristina (2006). Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Occupational Exposures. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 1(11), 1–6.Google Scholar
Cesnaitis, Romanas, Sobanska, Marta A., Versonnen, Bram, Sobanski, Tomasz, Bonnomet, Vincent, Tarazona, Jose V. & De Coen, Wim (2013). Analysis of the Ecotoxicity Data Submitted within the Framework of the REACH Regulation. Part 3. Experimental Sediment Toxicity Assays. Science of the Total Environment, 475(15 March 2014), 116–122.Google Scholar
Chiu, Weihsueh A.(2017). Chemical risk assessment and translation to socio-economic assessments. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 117, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Corsini, Emanuela, Galbiati, Valentina, Nikitovic, Dragana & Tsatsakis, Aristidis M. (2013). Role of Oxidative Stress in Chemical Allergens Induced Skin Cells Activation. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 61(November 2013), 74–81.Google Scholar
CSES, Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (2012a). Study on the impact of REACH regulation on the innovativeness of the EU chemical industry. Report prepared for the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, European Commission.Google Scholar
CSES, Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (2012b). Interim evaluation: Functioning of the European chemical market after the introduction of REACH. Report prepared for the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, European Commission.Google Scholar
Das-Munshi, Jayati, Rubin, James G. & Wessely, Simon (2007). Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Review. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 15(4), 274–280.Google Scholar
De Luca, Chiara, Raskovic, Desanka, Pacifico, Valeria, Thai, Jeffrey Chung Sheun & Korkina, Liudmila (2011). The Search for Reliable Biomarkers of Disease in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and other Environmental Intolerances. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(7), 2770–2797.Google Scholar
Domazlicky, Bruce R. & Weber, William L. (2004). Does Environmental Protection lead to Slower Productivity Growth in the Chemical Industry? Environmental and Resource Economics, 28(3), 301–324.Google Scholar
Dudley, Susan E.(2017). Retrospective evaluation of chemical regulations. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 118, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
ECHA (2014). Understanding REACH. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Helsinki (http://echa.europa.eu, September 2014).Google Scholar
ECOTEC (2003). Derivation of assessment factors for human health risk assessment. Technical Report No. 86, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECOTEC), Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission (2003). 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) Extended Impact Assessment. SEC (2003) 1171/3.Google Scholar
European Commission (2008). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects – structural funds, cohesion fund and instrument for pre-accession. European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy, Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013). Final report for REACH. COM(2013) 49 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission (2018). Commission general report on the operation of REACH and review of certain elements. COM(2018) 116 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
European Investment Bank (2013). The economic appraisal of investment projects at the EIB. European Investment Bank, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
Eurostat (2012). The REACH baseline study 5 years update. Comprehensive study report, Eurostat, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
ExternE (1999). Externalities of energy. Volume 7: Methodology update 1998. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Georgiou, Stavros, Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Vainio, Matti (2018). Benefit-Cost Analysis in EU Chemicals Legislation: Experience from over 100 REACH Applications for Authorisation. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(1), 181–204.Google Scholar
Getzner, Michael(2000). Risk, uncertainty, and discounting in practical environmental decision making. Paper presented at the 49th International Atlantic Economic Conference, University of Munich.Google Scholar
Getzner, Michael (2006). Kosten und Nutzeffekte der Chemikalienpolitik. Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten–Nutzen–Analyse der neuen EU-Chemiepolitik (REACH) für Österreich. Vienna: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Getzner, Michael (2008). Uncertainties and the Precautionary Principle in Cost-Benefit Environmental Policies. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Getzner, Michael, Mahlberg, Bernhard, Plas, Christian, Schweighofer, Johann, Schwärz, Magdalena & Zak, Denise(2015). REACH – evaluation of the impacts on the affected industries and the whole economy in Austria. Research report to the Austrian Ministry of the Environment; Vienna University of Technology/denkstatt/IWI, Vienna.Google Scholar
Gowdy, John, Howarth, Richard B. & Tisdell, Clem (2011). Discounting, Ethics and Options for Maintaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Integrity. In Kumar, Pushpam (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – Ecological and Economic Foundations (pp. 257–283). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gubbels-van Hal, Ineke, Pelkmans, Jacques & Schrefler, Lorna(2013). REACH: A killer Whale for SMEs? CEPS Policy Brief 307, Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels.Google Scholar
Hammerschmidt, Thea & Marx, Romy (2014). REACH and Occupational Health and Safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(6), 1–12.Google Scholar
Hanschmidt, Angelika, Lulei, Michael & Paetz, Andrea (2013). Five Years REACH: Lessons Learned and first Experiences – an Industry’s View. Environmental Sciences Europe, 25(19), 1–8.Google Scholar
Hansen, Bjorn (2013). Background and Structure of REACH. In Bergkamp, Lucas (Ed.), The European Union REACH Regulation for Chemicals – Law and Practice (pp. 17–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansjürgens, Bernd & Nordbeck, Ralf (2007). REACH und Innovationen. uwf – UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 15(4), 205–208.Google Scholar
Hansjürgens, Bernd & Nordbeck, Ralf(Eds.) (2005). Chemikalienregulierung und Innovationen zum nachhaltigen Wirtschaften. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
Hausteiner, Constanze, Bornschein, Susanne, Hansen, Jochen, Zilker, Thomas & Förstl, Hans (2005). Self-Reported Chemical Sensitivity in Germany: A Population-Based Survey. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 208(4), 271–278.Google Scholar
Heitmann, Kerstin & Reihlen, Antonia(2007). Case study on ’announcement effect’ in the market related to the candidate list of substances subject to authorization. Report by Ökopol, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Herry Consult (2013). UKR Heim, Freizeit und Sport. Ermittlung der Unfallkosten für die Bereiche Heim, Freizeit und Sport 2011. Report commissioned by Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KfV), Vienna.Google Scholar
Jeebhay, Mohamed F. & Quirce, Santiago (2007). Occupational Asthma in the Developing and Industrialised World: A Review. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 11(2), 122–133.Google Scholar
Kaberlah, Fritz, Augustin, Roland, Bunke, Dirk, Schwarz, Markus & Oppl, Reinhard(2011). Karzinogene, mutagene, reproduktionstoxische (CMR) und andere problematische Stoffe in Produkten – Identifikation relevanter Stoffe und Erzeugnisse, Überprüfung durch Messungen, Regelungsbedarf im Chemikalienrecht. UBA Texte 18/2011, Umweltbundesamt (UBA), Berlin.Google Scholar
Kimber, Ian, Basketter, David A. & Dearman, Rebecca J. (2010). Chemical Allergens – What are the Issues? Toxicology, 268(3), 139–142.Google Scholar
Kimber, Ian & Dearman, Rebecca J. (2002). Chemical Respiratory Allergy: Role of IgE Antibody and Relevance of Route of Exposure. Toxicology, 181–182(27 December 2002), 311–315.Google Scholar
Kimber, Ian, Dearman, Rebecca. J., Basketter, David. A. & Boverhof, Darrell. R. (2014). Chemical Respiratory Allergy: Reverse Engineering an Adverse Outcome Pathway. Toxicology, 318(6 April 2014), 32–39.Google Scholar
Lacour, Michael, Zunder, Thomas, Schmidtke, Klaus, Vaith, Peter & Scheidt, Carl (2005). Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome (MCS) – Suggestions for an Extension of the US MCS-Case Definition. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 208(3), 141–151.Google Scholar
Leiter, Andrea M. (2011). Age Effects in Monetary Valuation of Reduced Mortality Risks: The Relevance of Age-Specific Hazard Rates. European Journal of Health Economics, 12(4), 331–344.Google Scholar
Lindhjem, Henrik, Navrud, Stale, Braathen, Nils Axel & Biausque, Vincent (2011). Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions from Environmental, Transport, and Health Policies: A Global Meta-Analysis of Stated Preference Studies. Risk Analysis, 31(9), 1381–1407.Google Scholar
Luengo-Fernandez, Ramon, Leal, Jose, Gray, Alastair & Sullivan, Richard (2013). Economic Burden of Cancer across the European Union: A Population-based Cost Analysis. The Lancet Oncology, 14(12), 1165–1174.Google Scholar
McKee, Richard H., Tibaldi, Rosalie, Adenuga, Moyinoluwa D., Carrillo, Juan-Carlos & Margary, Alison (2018). Assessment of the Potential Human Health Risks from Exposure to Complex Substances in Accordance with REACH Requirements. ‘White Spirit’ as a Case Study. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 92(February), 439–457.Google Scholar
Miller, Claudia S. (1996). Chemical Sensitivity: Symptom, Syndrome or Mechanism for Disease? Toxicology, 111(1), 69–86.Google Scholar
Musu, Tony(2004). REACHing the workplace: How workers stand to benefit from the new European policy on chemical agents. European Trade Union, Technical Bureau for Health and Safety (TUTB), Brussels.Google Scholar
Musu, Tony(2006). REACH am Arbeitsplatz: die potenziellen Vorteile der neuen europäischen Chemikalienpolitik für die ArbeitnehmerInnen. Informationen zur Umweltpolitik 169, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte, Vienna.Google Scholar
Navrud, Stale(2017). Possibilities and challenges in transfer and generalisation of monetary estimates for environmental and health benefits of regulating chemicals. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 119, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Nies, Eberhard, Musanke, Uwe, Püringer, Joe, Rühl, Reinhold & Arnone, Mario (2013). DNELs for Workplaces – Observations from an Inspection of the DGUV DNEL list. Gefahrstoffe – Reinhaltung der Luft, 73(11/12), 455–462.Google Scholar
Nordbeck, Ralf (2005). Europäische Chemikalienregulierung – Hemmnis oder Anreiz für Innovationen zum nachhaltigen Wirtschaften? In Hansjürgens, Bernd &  Nordbeck, Ralf (Eds.), Chemikalienregulierung und Innovationen zum nachhaltigen Wirtschaften (pp. 123–169). Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
Öko-Institut (2016). REACH baseline study – 10 years Update: Monitoring REACH with the Risk & Quality Indicator System. Report to the European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Brussels.Google Scholar
Pickvance, Simon, Karnon, Jon, Peters, Jean & El-Arifi, Karen(2005). Further assessment of the impact of REACH on occupational health with a focus on skin and respiratory diseases. Final report, prepared for the European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health & Safety, Brusssels.Google Scholar
Püringer, Joe (2011). Derived Minimal Effect Levels (DMEL): Defizite ein Jahr nach der REACH-Registrierungspflicht. Gefahrstoffe – Reinhaltung der Luft, 71(11), 471.Google Scholar
Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan, He, Qile, Black, Andrew, Ghobadian, Abby & Gallear, David (2017). Environmental Regulations, Innovation and Firm Performance: A Revisit of the Porter Hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155(Part II), 79–92.Google Scholar
Reihlen, Antonia & Lüskow, Heike(2007). Analysis of Studies Discussing the Benefits of REACH. Ökopol, Institut für Ökologie und Politik, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Rogers, Ken (2014). Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances. In Wexler, Philip (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Toxicology. (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
RPA (2003). Assessment of the impact of the new chemical policy on occupational health. Final report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, Brussels.Google Scholar
RPA (2015). Technical assistance related to the review of REACH with regard to the extension of the registration requirements for substances manufactured or imported between 1 and 10 tonnes per year. Report for the European Commission, DG Environment (ENV.A.3/SER/2013/0057r).Google Scholar
RPA (2016). Study on the calculation of the benefits of chemicals legislation on human health and the environment – development of a system of indicators. Report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Brussels.Google Scholar
Rühl, Reinhold (2007). Mit REACH zu einem sicheren Umgang. TÜ, 48(9), 29–34.Google Scholar
Scialli, Anthony R. (2008). The Challenge of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology under REACH. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 51(2), 244–250.Google Scholar
Skovbjerg, Sine, Brorson, Stig, Rasmussen, Alice, Johansen, Jeanne Duus & Elberling, Jesper (2009). Impact of Self-Reported Multiple Chemical Sensitivity on Everyday Life: a Qualitative Study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(6), 621–626.Google Scholar
Sobanska, Marta A., Cesnaitis, Romanas, Sobanski, Tomasz, Versonnen, Bram, Bonnomet, Vincent, Tarazona, Jose V. & De Coen, Wim (2013). Analysis of the Ecotoxicity Data Submitted within the Framework of the REACH Regulation: Part 1. General Overview and Data Availability for the first Registration Deadline. The Science of the Total Environment, 470–471, 1225–1232.Google Scholar
Sommer, Heini, Brügger, Othmar, Lieb, Christoph & Niemann, Steffen(2007).Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten der Nichtberufsunfälle in der Schweiz. Strassenverkehr, Sport, Haus und Freizeit. bfu–Swiss Council for Accident Prevention: Berne.Google Scholar
Statistics Austria (2014a). Demographic prognosis. www.statistik.at (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Statistics Austria (2014b). NAMEA data for Austria. www.statistik.at (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Stern, Nicholas (2006). The Economic of Climate Change – The Stern Review. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarazona, Jose V., Sobanska, Marta A., Cesnaitis, Romanas, Sobanski, Tomasz, Bonnomet, Vincent, Versonnen, Bram & De Coen, Wim (2014). Analysis of the Ecotoxicity Data Submitted within the Framework of the REACH Regulation: Part 2. Experimental Aquatic Toxicity Assays. Science of the Total Environment, 472, 137–145.Google Scholar
Van Wassenhove, Luk N., Lebreton, Baptiste & Lorenz, Tobias(2008). The REACH directive and its impact on the european chemical industry: A critical review. INSEAD Working Paper No. 53.Google Scholar
Versonnen, Bram, Tarazona, Jose V., Cesnaitis, Romanas, Sobanska, Marta A., Sobanski, Tomasz, Bonnomet, Vincent & De Coen, Wim (2013). Analysis of the Ecotoxicity Data Submitted within the Framework of the REACH Regulation: Part 4. Experimental Terrestrial Toxicity Assays. Science of the Total Environment, 475, 123–131.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip & Masterman, Clayton J. (2017). Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8(2), 226–250.Google Scholar
Winder, Chris (2002). Mechanisms of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Toxicology Letters, 128(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Getzner and Schulz-Zak supplementary material

Getzner and Schulz-Zak supplementary material 1

Download Getzner and Schulz-Zak supplementary material(File)
File 91.6 KB