More news
- Asian paint regulatory round up – Indonesian exterior paint still uses lead, warns W...
- Nigeria’s paint industry navigates regulatory changes and economic challenges amid p...
- Focus on the global coatings market: Global coatings market outlook
- Innovative coatings mitigate effects of deepening climate change
- Focus on adhesives: Unveiling unbreakable bonds – Testing redefines physical strengt...
David Park from the British Coatings Federation writes for PPCJ about the current state of UK chemicals policy in the wake of the recent General Election, emphasising the regulatory challenges and advancements in sustainability within the coatings sector.
The last of these columns provided an update on the political situation in the UK following the recent General Election. As the election was held in the summer and the usual party political conferences took place in September, the new Labour Government has had very little time to move legislation, as Parliament has not been sitting for most of the past four months. We continue to await announcements on the direction of future chemicals policy: for instance, how will the new Government respond to the public consultation on proposals for UK REACH, which ended in July? How will it take forward its informal statements that it wants to seek a ‘bespoke deal’ on chemicals with the EU as part of talks on revising the Trade and Co-operation Agreement? And how do those two issues interact? So, there continues to be a waiting game for the firm direction the UK will take on these issues.
In the UK, the Department that takes the lead on Chemicals is the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). However, the regulator is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and the HSE also takes the policy lead on CLP, Biocides, and PIC. Last month, the HSE published a list of suppliers due to be removed from the GB Article 95 List from 3 March 2025, which ran to some 2,500 lines in an Excel spreadsheet. While many of these will be removed for different reasons — such as also being due to be removed in the EU — it is clear that the additional administration and costs of also registering in the UK influenced decisions for some suppliers. This could create problems for domestic companies that now need to find new suppliers or make a registration themselves. The BCF continues to make the point — as with UK REACH — that any registration process needs to be kept as simple and as affordable as possible, reflecting the comparative size of the UK market to that of the EU, whose regulatory framework it has now left.
Looking further ahead, the HSE has begun to discuss how it might change the processes for which it has responsibility. Regarding biocides, there is a backlog of work and decisions that have built up since Brexit, and so it is considering streamlining its decision-making processes. The organisation wants to ensure that innovative, more sustainable substances are prioritised for review and authorisation, and so any new procedures will also address this desired outcome.
On CLP, the HSE has also started to provide a broad indication of how it might streamline its processes. While some informal soundings have suggested potentially admin-saving measures for companies in terms of database management, there are concerns that policy changes might also lead to more divergence from the EU on classifications. Since Brexit, the HSE has essentially been waiting to see what the EU does before reviewing those RAC decisions. Whilst the vast majority of GB decisions have resulted in the same outcome as the EU, around 10% or so have been different.
Moreover, as the decisions are based on the EU, there is also an inevitable ‘divergence by delay’ even on many of the mirrored outcomes. BCF is concerned that outcomes leading to the need for different labels for products in the UK compared to those in the EU will be costly for businesses, and we continue to ensure that the relevant authorities take this into account when developing the new regulations.
We expect more formal consultations on both Biocides and CLP to be available shortly, at which point we can discuss problems, benefits and solutions with members with more precision.
Finally, to move away from the somewhat turgid world of regulation, the BCF can share some positive signs of improved sustainability performance across the sector. Since 1996, the BCF has been running its ‘Coatings Care’ programme, monitoring a range of sustainability metrics across members’ sites. This year saw a record number of companies take part in the programme. However, the real cheer came from data showing that energy use fell by 12% compared to 2022. This result means that energy use per tonne of production is lower than at any point prior to 2018. For the constant sample of companies participating in all the Coatings Care surveys over the last five years, which eliminates the effect of sample changes, the result was equally good. In 2023, energy use was 161 kWh per tonne of production, down 9% compared to the previous year, and 10% lower than in 2020.
Moreover, for the first time, a majority of sites reported zero landfill waste from production, as 59% said that all waste was either incinerated or recycled. For the constant sample of 22 companies providing consistent data for the last five years, 16 produced no landfill waste at all. Furthermore, for this ‘constant’ group, total waste was 34.6 kg per tonne of production, 7% lower than in 2023. Indeed, over the last five years, this was the best result outside of the exceptional 2020. Looking at the method of disposal, recycling increased to 70% of all waste, while landfill fell to just 1%.
All are welcome steps in the right direction and a tribute to the work coatings companies are putting into becoming more sustainable enterprises.
