European DIY Retail Association
EDRA
EDRA/GHIN is the voice of home improvement retailing in Europe and the world.
ID: 897456530168-43
Lobbying Activity
Response to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution
4 Jan 2022
On labeling:
- Today, labels bear a lot of information, sometimes even making it difficult for customers to read. For this reason, EDRA recommends that economic operators have the liberty to choose how they want to communicate information on microplastics to customers (e.g. pictograms, online means like QR codes,…). Besides, today most paint labels are already bearing information on how to clean brushes and rollers.
- Regarding paints, the CEPE (paint industry) has already been working on providing information to consumers on how to use paintbrush and rollers in order to avoid pollution (see guidance in attachment).
On reporting:
- the reporting obligation will be uneasy to comply with as retailers are facing difficulties to collect information from the upstream actors on their product composition for confidentiality reasons
As a result, this way of reporting does not allow for solid conclusions on the release of microplastics; it only shows the volumes of microplastics used or sold.
On timeline:
- Finding alternatives to (releasable) microplastics takes a lot of time. The timeline proposed is too tight for R&D teams to be able to achieve that for certain products (e.g. detergents/maintenance products and fertilisers/plant protection products.
Compliance deadlines should be rethought either by:
a) Setting the compliance deadlines at manufacturing or importing stage (“placing on the market”) and not at retailing stage (“making available”). (DEADLINE SHIFT)
In the ECHA opinion, the deadline for labeling obligations are sell-through dates, meaning that 24 months after the entry into force of the future restriction proposal, it is no longer possible to make the product available to customers. This approach is raising problems particularly the waste it generates (both substances and mixtures). Indeed, 24 months may be too short to use up all stocks of a particular item. DIY items have a very slow turnover of products.
Therefore, EDRA supports that deadlines in the restriction proposal should be at placing on the market stage so as to allow retailers to use up their stocks.
Beyond purely economic reasons, this shift will also benefit the environment as the sell-through date often leads to relabeling a large amount of of products which were compliant at the time of manufacture. This shift will greatly minimise the environmental impact of compliance.
Our view is that once something has been manufactured in full compliance and complete good faith, that product should be allowed to be sold through (with the exception of extraordinary safety emergencies) to exhaustion, regardless of regulatory updates.
Setting the compliance deadlines at manufacturing or importing stage will also have the following advantages:
- Less stress for all – it is a huge and almost impossible administrative burden to ensure sell through especially in a field (i.e. chemicals) that is subject to so many changes.
- Manufacturer is the most important actor in the Chemical Product supply chain; it feels right therefore that they should bear the responsibility of managing these types of changes
- Save economic operators money and reduces commercial risk – retailers do not control market forces – volatility in the economy can profoundly delay sell through timeframes.
b) If a shift from sell-through dates to placing on the market deadlines is not possible, the deadline for labeling obligations must be kept at 24 months.
This will allow retailers to sell most of their stocks. It will also minimise the environmental impact of compliance by preventing waste generation.
The 24-month transition period for the labelling obligation is a minimum as:
- the ‘instruction for use/disposal’ are not clear enough. We need more precision on what they are if they are to be labelled on the product
- Identifying with our suppliers the use of microplastics is huge and requires more time.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals
1 Jun 2021
1. Compliance deadlines in ATPs should be rethought to avoid waste and remove burdens.
Today, compliance deadlines in ATPs are sell through dates, meaning that 18 months after the entry into force of the ATP, it is no longer possible to make the product available to customers. This approach is raising a great deal of problems (see full list below) particularly the waste it generates (both substances and mixtures). Indeed, 18 months is often too short to use up all stocks of a particular item. DIY items have a very slow turn over of products.
For this reason, EDRA supports shifting away from sell through dates in ATPs and move instead to ‘manufacturing of finished product deadline dates’ or importation dates as deadlines in ATPs in order to avoid waste.
We already live in very uncertain and volatile times and black swan events like Brexit or Covid are creating a great deal of burdens on economic operators. Setting the ATP deadlines routinely at the retailing stage puts distributors and retailers under extra enormous pressure to sell through their products in scope of ATP amendments.
ATP deadlines should be set at manufacturing or importing stage (“placing on the market”) and not at retailing stage (“making available”).
However, we concede that for rare and exceptional events, where there is a critical safety issue, there may still be a place dead-lining sales at retail stage (as per current requirements) – but not routinely.
Our view is that once something has been manufactured in full compliance and complete good faith, that that product should be allowed to be sold through (with the exception of extraordinary safety emergencies) to exhaustion, regardless of regulatory updates.
Other reasons supporting this approach aside from preventing generation of waste:
• Less stress for all – it is a huge and almost impossible administrative burden to ensure sell through especially in a field (i.e. chemicals) that is subject to so many changes.
• Manufacturer is the most important actor in the Chemical Product supply chain; it feels right therefore that they should bear the responsibility of managing these types of changes
• Avoids the absurdity and environmental impact of making changes to products which were compliant at the time of manufacture
• Save economic operators money and reduces commercial risk – retailers do not control market forces – volatility in the economy can profoundly delay sell through timeframes.
• If sell through forecasts are incorrect or slow down in sales are experienced, then the retailer is in big trouble – why should retailers shoulder this burden?
2. ATP revisions should be more distant in time to leave economic operators sufficient time to comply with new provisions
New ATPs are adopted every 9-12 months, sometimes as often as twice a year. This pace of change is making it extremely difficult for distributors and retailers to comply with the new provisions. Adding to that, it also creates a climate of anxiety and legal uncertainty that is hindering business.
Besides it also creates a situation where they have not even finished making the necessary changes to comply with the previous ATP that another one is already entering in force, sometimes even changing the previous provisions (often very recently updated artworks which then have to update again at significant expense & waste)
3. Possibility to provide mandatory consumer information on chemicals by digital means
Particularly, mandatory consumer information on products containing chemicals (e.g. paints, glues, adhesives) can be overwhelming sometimes, in particular for smaller and/or multilingual products. The Commission should look into ways to allow provision of these information digitally. Digital provision of information has the potential to communicate more efficiently and in a personalized way information to consumers; but also, reduce packaging waste and shipping costs and help the free movement of goods in the EU.
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable Products Initiative
16 Nov 2020
Dear Sir/Madam,
The European DIY Retail Association (EDRA) is pleased to share their feedback on the SPI with the Commission.
Best regards,
Julien BOUYERON
Director of European Affairs
European DIY Retail Association (EDRA)
Read full responseResponse to Chemicals strategy for sustainability
19 Jun 2020
EDRA’s key messages on this issue are the following (see our paper in attachment for details and arguments):
1) Compliance deadlines in ATPs should be rethought to avoid waste.
Today, compliance deadlines in ATPs are sell through dates, meaning that 18 months after the entry into force of the ATP, it is no longer possible to make the product available to customers. This approach is raising a great deal of problems (see full list below) particularly the waste it generates (both substances and mixtures). Indeed, 18 months is often too short to use up all stocks of a particular item. DIY items have a very slow turn over of products.
For this reason, EDRA supports shifting away from sell through dates in ATPs and move instead to ‘manufacturing of finished product deadline dates’ or importation dates as deadlines in ATPs in order to avoid waste.
Our view is that once something has been manufactured in full compliance and complete good faith, that that product should be allowed to be sold through (with the exception of extraordinary safety emergencies) to exhaustion, regardless of regulatory updates.
2) Enforcement of rules on chemicals should also apply on online market places.
Online market places (Amazon, Ali Baba,...) are selling chemicals as substances or as part of mixtures and articles via third party merchants. Countless examples of non-compliant/unsafe items are sold via these market places. Recently, Toy Industries of Europe carried out a study on compliance of toys sold through online market places with EU safety. It shows that 97% of toys bought online from third-party sellers were non-compliant with EU law and 76% of those safety-tested were deemed dangerous for children. A significant portion of these toys presented harmful chemical levels that were several hundred-fold over the EU legal limit.
If the EU wants to tackle hazardous chemicals, it is paramount that enforcement of safety rules on online market places should start (!).
The very limited enforcement by Member States on online market places is one of the main drivers behind this situation. The absence of a clear liability regime for online market places at EU level that reflects their actual role is another reason for unsafe products containing chemicals sold via online market places.
3) Establishing a policy mix to de-risk innovation and improve the business case for safer chemistries and technologies
- Establish harmonised data requirements for substitution
- Need to create incentives/policies (tax breaks, research and development credits)
4) Possibility to provide mandatory consumer information on chemicals by digital means
5) Any assessment of a chemicals needs to be aligned globally and follow a scientific approach
6) Viable alternatives sometimes simply do not exist (yet).
7) More cooperation from manufacturers of articles and components of articles is needed
8) Cross-contamination is a new issue. Caution is key.
Read full responseResponse to Amending requirements for information for poison centers
3 Jun 2020
EDRA (European DIY Retail Association) is the voice for the home improvement industry at European level. Today EDRA represents 140 European home improvement retailers including the three largest, i.e. Adeo Group (inc. Leroy Merlin), Kingfisher and OBI as well as 27 of the top 30 players in Europe.
"The welcome and essential amendment to CLP Annex VIII will provide changes that will enable harmonised Poison Centre notification requirements to become workable for many sectors. However, Official Journal publication will occur in early November 2020, with an unchanged first applicability date of 1st January 2021. EDRA believes that eight weeks of legal certainty is insufficient time to respond to and utilise these workability changes. Furthermore, several Member States have reported that they will not be ready in time for the current Annex VIII applicability date.
Considering that existing Member State notification systems remain operational and the workability amendment to Annex VIII has yet to be adopted, we believe a revised applicability date would be a robust and proportionate response to the impossible challenge this timeline places on Member States and our industry. We would also be open to other suggestions to resolve these concerns. The following points are highlighted for your consideration:
Member State & Poison Centre Preparedness:
The Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP were consulted on 15th May 2020 on the Annex VIII workability amendment. During this consultation, several Member State Competent Authorities objected to the proposed timelines. EDRA is aware that many poison control centres across the EU- 27 are co-located at hospital sites and staffed by medical professionals. It is evident that the outbreak of SARS-COV-2 has placed an unprecedented and ongoing demand on Europe’s hospitals. Considering this, the Commission is requested to seriously consider the objections raised by Member State Competent Authorities.
Delayed Adoption Timeline:
The original Commission forecast estimated a publication of this vital amendment in the summer 2020, thus granting Industry, Member States and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) circa six months to respond. Unavoidably the SARS-COV-2 public health crisis delayed the adoption process.
The unintended outcome of this major crisis is a five-month delay, meaning EDRA members are left with around 8 weeks to comply with revised requirements before the applicability date. This is particularly detrimental to our ability to provide harmonised emergency response information to poison centres. A stable and finalised legal text is essential. Legal certainty must be established before investment and preparation can justifiably commence. Consequentially, eight weeks is insufficient time to adapt systems and prepare and submit the thousands of notifications required in time for the first applicability date.
Hardware and Software Adaptation:
In certain instances, changes will necessitate the adaptation of existing hardware and software across the EU-27. For example, in the case of paint mixing at the point of sale. There are approximately 15,000 DIY stores in Europe (plus professional/trade outlets), with at least the same number of point of sale paint mixing stations thought to be operational. Thousands of hardware adaptations would be required in November and December 2020 to ensure mixing stations can appropriately print obligatory Annex VIII information. This is simply not feasible. For this and many other sectors the response to Annex VIII requirements raises significant and poorly timed questions of business continuity.
Given the unprecedented circumstances imposed on us and the existence of functioning, robust and reliable national notification systems, EDRA believes that it is appropriate to revise the applicability date of CLP Annex VIII."
Read full response5 Feb 2019
EDRA welcomes this public consultation. EDRA is the European association that represents European DIY retailers. As such, we are by far the largest paint retailers.
On safety, the hazard is only relevant for workers in industrial environment. Indeed, TiO2 dust is generated during production of the substance itself or in the production of mixtures containing the substance. But no hazard has been documented during use of final mixtures. We are aware that workers in industrial environment have to be protected but occupational exposure limits for dust are already in place in Member States.
The effects observed on rats during the testing is not an intrinsic property of titanium dioxide. Therefore, we think it should be out of the scope of CLP and that the proposed classification is disproportionate. The benefits of classifying it have not been demonstrated whereas the negative consequences of doing so are acknowledged. Indeed, the proposed labelling will not help consumers in any way but rather confuse them on the nature of the product they intend to buy. It will also make customers feel unsafe about products that they have been buying for decades. The proposed classification is disproportionate. Titanium dioxide has been used for decades safely in thousands of products and articles. We therefore call for this dossier to be handled differently, i.e. in line with the principles of better regulation.
Read full response