Learnings from Silver: Starting off on the right foot with downstream users on a CLH file

One of the big changes in chemicals regulation over the last ten years is the increased engagement of downstream users in such processes. It’s not just regulatory impacts that have drawn users into processes such as REACH and Classification and Labelling (CLH), but also impact on brand and reputation as chemicals in consumer products are a focus of society at large. The ongoing debate about titanium dioxide's proposed harmonised classification as a carcinogen (cat 1b) by inhalation has perhaps highlighted the wide, automatic and often perverse regulatory impacts of a hazard classification on everyone from food and pharma to paints and construction. It has also underlined the impact producers engaging with downstream users can have on such processes.

Silver is the latest industry to be affected by a proposal for EU harmonised hazard classification (see intention here). Its downstream users include financial institutions, electronics, aerospace, batteries, automotive, renewables, healthcare and many others. In fact, it’s essential as a material for pretty much every priority the new European Commission President has set out. As I sat with 80 or so representatives of said industries in a kick off downstream user workshop in Brussels on the file, it occurred that the approach being taken by France Capon and the European Precious Metals Federation would be what I’d consider to be best practice at the start of such processes. Here’s five things France and the team did in the workshop last week that I think others may consider repeating (transparency: EPMF is a client of my company Rud Pedersen Public Affairs Brussels).

1. Be open about the process

Irrespective of the process, chemicals regulation is pretty complicated. ECHA do a great job of trying to explain it, but having it translated for your particular product/use is something we can’t expect from them. As such, getting in early to set out the process and what can be expected from it is key. It’s going to build a common understanding amongst the entire supply chain, get everyone on the same page about what the whole industry shall do and avoid people taking decisions either on advocacy or business that are unhelpful. In the case of silver, the CLH dossier is yet to be opened up for public consultation so the workshop came at what I would argue to be precisely the right moment.

2. Be honest about the science

I may be a public affairs guy, but the process of CLH is in the first instance about the science. It’s important in my view that the producers are honest about what they think it says, where it doesn’t say what they’d like it to and what gaps if any remain. Of course, for many downstream users there’s some translation to be done here – we are not after all toxicologists – as to what this means. But still even a public affairs guy can get the key scientific messages if presented well. In the case of silver, there’s an honesty that there are open questions about the reprotox endpoint and the poor quality of the data currently out there. The producers acknowledge this. They made a Testing Proposal as long ago as 2015 to fill these gaps, which was only finally granted in the summer of this year. The travesty here is that due to this delay, the science that would have answered the question that is being posed by the Swedes may miss the RAC deadline by a couple of months (there’s a rush on silver and its compounds because of the BPR review programme that needs to be completed by 2024). In effect, decisions that affect the EU’s overall agenda may take place without the strong understanding of the science that the industry has been proactively trying to get done for four years. (With my citizen hat on I tear my hair out on this one.)

3. Be real about potential impact

Whether the science supports a harmonised classification or not, there’s a duty to let the downstream industries and the policymakers know what the impact is likely to be. As always with chemicals regulation (see microplastics restriction), the more you dig the more you find impacts you hadn’t thought of for industries you didn’t even know existed. As such, while socio-economic impact is not considered in a CLH file, it’s worthwhile from a comms and advocacy perspective to already begin what is a complex and time consuming exercise of building this understanding. In the case of silver, the consultants on the socio-economic impact were in the room to set out the process by which they’ll help the industry understand the socio-economic impact of a classification.

4. Be clear about what you need people to do

It’s true that after a number of recent files, there is a more general awareness of the impact of chemicals regulatory processes on downstream users. Yet 80 people in the room on a CLH file that is just starting is no mean feat. Having engaged with such a wide variety of people and enthused them about the subject matter and its importance, the next thing to do is make it easy for them to take action. As such, it is important to be clear about what they need to do, when they need to do it and what support they’ll get to do it. After all you want to direct the desire for action to ensure energies are spent productively.

5. Be supportive in the future

Such regulatory processes are marathons rather than sprints. The opinion giving phase at ECHA takes 18 months alone on a CLH file, and then there is the regulatory phase at Commission. As such, they’ll be a need to continue the communication with the downstream users post the workshop. This is basic comms. Who needs to be aware, understand, act? When do they need to do this? How do they take in information? What channels of comms already exist? What assets/materials will be needed for them? Ideally you’ll create a network/community that each know the process and their roles within it.

If you're a downstream user of silver and want further information on the Silver CLH dossier please contact France Capon and the team at EPMF contact details are on their website.,