IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v3y2015i1p128-138.html

The Implementation of the REACH Authorisation Procedure on Chemical Substances of Concern: What Kind of Legitimacy?

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Klika

    (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands)

Abstract

With the increasing “agencification” of policy making in the European Union (EU), normative questions regarding the legitimacy of EU agencies have become ever more important. This article analyses the role of expertise and legitimacy with regard to the European Chemicals Agency ECHA. Based on the REACH regulation, so-called Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) are subject to authorisation. The authorisation procedure aims to ensure the good functioning of the internal market, while assuring that risks of SVHCs are properly controlled. Since ECHA has become operational in 2008, recurring decisions on SVHCs have been made. The question posed in this article is: to what extent can decision making in the REACH authorisation procedure be assessed as legitimate? By drawing on the notion of throughput legitimacy, this article argues that decision making processes in the authorisation procedure are characterized by insufficient legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Klika, 2015. "The Implementation of the REACH Authorisation Procedure on Chemical Substances of Concern: What Kind of Legitimacy?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 128-138.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v3:y:2015:i:1:p:128-138
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v3i1.85
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/85
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v3i1.85?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:719-740 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Morten Egeberg & Jarle Trondal, 2007. "National Agencies in the European Administrative Space: Government driven, Commission driven or networked?," ARENA Working Papers 17, ARENA.
    4. Henrik Selin, 2007. "Coalition Politics and Chemicals Management in a Regulatory Ambitious Europe," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 7(3), pages 63-93, August.
    5. Jens Blom‐Hansen & Gijs Jan Brandsma, 2009. "The EU Comitology System: Intergovernmental Bargaining and Deliberative Supranationalism?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 719-740, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Åse Gornitzka & Cathrine Holst, 2015. "The Expert-Executive Nexus in the EU: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Klika, 2015. "The Implementation of the REACH Authorisation Procedure on Chemical Substances of Concern: What Kind of Legitimacy?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 128-138.
    2. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    3. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    4. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    5. Panagiotis Koudoumakis & George Botzoris & Angelos Protopapas, 2022. "Cohesion policy evaluation: Guidelines for selection of appropriate methods," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1062-1084, October.
    6. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    7. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    8. Carina I. Hausladen & Regula Hänggli Fricker & Dirk Helbing & Renato Kunz & Junling Wang & Evangelos Pournaras, 2024. "How voting rules impact legitimacy," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Tjahja, Nadia & Meyer, Trisha & Shahin, Jamal, 2022. "Who do you think you are? Individual stakeholder identification and mobility at the Internet Governance Forum," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10).
    10. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Muireann O'Dwyer, 2022. "Gender and Crises in European Economic Governance: Is this Time Different?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 152-169, January.
    12. Reini Schrama, 2023. "Expert network interaction in the European Medicines Agency," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 491-511, April.
    13. Nicola Acocella, 2020. "To Exit or not to Exit (from the EMU)?," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 73(1), pages 1-20.
    14. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Konstantinos Matakos & Hande Mutlu-Eren, 2019. "“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 297-333, June.
    15. Albrecht, Eerika & Ratamäki, Outi, 2016. "Effective arguments for ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation – A case study on Finnish peatland conservation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 41-50.
    16. Hugh Breakey, 2021. "Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 359-373, May.
    17. Solveig Grønnestad & Anne Bach Nielsen, 2022. "Institutionalising city networking: Discursive and rational choice institutional perspectives on membership of transnational municipal networks," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 59(14), pages 2951-2967, November.
    18. Onna Malou van den Broek, 2024. "How Political Actors Co‐Construct CSR and its Effect on Firms' Political Access: A Discursive Institutionalist View," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 595-626, March.
    19. Hyman, Richard & Gumbrell-McCormick, Rebecca, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105078, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Hasselbalch, Jacob Adam, 2017. "Innovation assessment: governing through periods of disruptive technological change," SocArXiv 3rj94, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v3:y:2015:i:1:p:128-138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.