Commission staff working document - Simplification of EU legislation in the field of textile names and labelling - Impact Assessment – Executive Summary {COM(2009) 31 final} {SEC(2009) 91}
Date: 2009-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, labelling, product designation, textile product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.1.2009 
SEC(2009) 90  

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Simplification of EU legislation in the field of textile names and labelling - Impact 
Assessment – Executive Summary 

{COM(2009) 31 final} 
{SEC(2009) 91} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Simplification of EU legislation in the field of textile names and labelling - Impact 
Assessment – Executive Summary 

EU  legislation  in  the  field  of  Textile  Names  and  Labelling  consists  of  three  Directives, 
amended over recent years in order to introduce new fibre names into the European legislation 
(adaptation to technical progress). Directive 96/74/EC on textile names requires the labelling 
of the fibre composition of textile products using only the harmonised names listed in Annex I 
to  the  Directive.  Directives  96/73/EC  and  73/44/EEC  specify  the  methods  of  analysis  to  be 
used  to  check  whether  the  composition  of  textile  products  is  in  conformity  with  the 
information supplied in the label.  

These Textile Directives need to be adapted every time a new generic name for a novel fibre 
is  to  be  added  to  the  technical  annexes.  The  procedure  starts  with  the  submission  to  the 
Commission  services  of  an  application  file  prepared  by  an  economic  operator.  From  a 
political  and  legal  point  of  view,  the  introduction  of  a  new  fibre  name  is  a  minor  technical 
amendment  to  EU  legislation.  However,  as  the  legislation  is  in  the  form  of  Directives,  it 
requires  all  Member  States  to  take  action  to  transpose  the  amending  Directives.  Experience 
has shown that it takes a long time between the introduction of a request for a new fibre and 
its  legal  adoption  in  the  EU.  In  the  framework  of  the  legislative  simplification  programme 
being  undertaken  by  the  European  Commission,  it  is  proposed  to  revise  EU  legislation  on 
Textile Names and Labelling in order to simplify its adaptation to technical progress. 

The key issue surrounding the current regulatory framework, for both public authorities and 
industry, is the time taken between the initial application for a new fibre and its legal adoption 
across  the  EU.  The  simplification  of  EU  legislation  in  this  field  is  thus  focused  on 
streamlining  the  procedure  and  on  saving  time  to  add  a  new  fibre  name  to  the  technical 
annexes of the Directives. Therefore, the options examined do not affect the provisions for the 
labelling  of  textile  products  with  respect  to  the  fibre  composition  and  the  institutional 
decision-making process is not changed. 

In  order  to  achieve  the  objective  of  reducing  the  time  taken  to  legally  market  a  new  textile 
fibre name in the EU, the available solution is to change the three existing Directives into one 
or three Regulations, the preference going to one Regulation if it is confirmed by the Legal 
Service that this is a sound solution from a legal point of view. 

The  Regulation  will  simplify  the  adaptation  to  technical  progress.  Member  States  will  no 
longer  need  to  transpose  technical  amendments  in  the  form  of  Directives  into  national 
legislation,  resulting  in  a  direct  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden.  Furthermore,  it  will 
allow  authorising  the  marketing  of  a  new  textiles  fibre  name  within  a  period  12  months 
shorter than the current situation, bringing substantial benefits to economic operators. 

The  feasibility  of  having  a  non-legislative  solution  for  textile  names  was  also  examined. 
Dropping altogether textile names labelling is not an option. Information to consumers in this 
area  is  important  for  reasons  of  comfort  associated  with  the  properties  of  certain  fibres  and 
also  for  health  reasons  because  some  consumers  develop  allergies  to  certain  fibres. 
Furthermore,  the  European  Union  legislation  in  this  domain  was  developed  in  order  to 
harmonise  national  legislations  and  avoid  technical  barriers  to  free  circulation  of  textile 

EN 

2 

   EN 

products  in  the  Community  market.  In  addition,  economic  operators  benefit  from  creating 
new fibres and having them widely known. 

The possibility of self-regulation was also considered. However, the experience obtained with 
applications for new fibre names has shown that the names proposed are sometimes closer to 
brand  names  than  to  fibre  names  related  to  the  properties  of  the  fibre;  the  fibre  definition 
proposed  is  not  always  in  line  with  the  fibre  properties,  providing  therefore  wrong 
information to the consumer; and the testing methods proposed are almost always incomplete 
or not sound preventing market surveillance authorities of assessing conformity. 

Member States do not favour either possibility. Therefore, both potential options above were 
no further examined. 

It was also considered if negative effects on environment and employment could result from 
the  proposed  simplification  of  the  legislation.  With  respect  to  environment,  the  legislative 
simplification does not appear to bring changes to the current situation. There is no evidence 
of  environmental  problems  associated  with  the  rhythm  of  new  textile  fibres  brought  to  the 
market.  On  the  contrary,  it  could  be  argued  that  environmental  benefits  may  arise  from 
encouraging the production of fibres which can replace a natural fibre such as cotton, whose 
production  process  involves  some  environmental  problems.  Therefore,  the  investigation  on 
potential negative effects resulting from putting an additional new textile fibre in the market 
each year was no further pursued. 

A similar situation occurs with respect to employment. If any effects may result from bringing 
new textile fibres earlier to the market, those effects can only be positive. In fact, innovation 
associated  with  new  textile  fibres  is  a  competitive  advantage  of  the  European  textiles  and 
clothing industry. Together with other aspects, it has contributed to enable the industry to go 
through deep modernisation and restructuring processes over decades and remain world leader 
in  areas  such  as  technical  and  industrial  textiles  and  fashion.  The  trends  in  the  sector  show 
developments into less but larger and more modern companies employing less but better paid 
employees. The job losses in the European textile and clothing sector are mainly related to the 
changes  in  the  combination  of  production  factors  at  international  level.  In  Europe,  as 
compared  to  other  regions  in  the  world,  the  combination  of  technologies,  know-how  and 
labour  force  costs  provide  competitive  advantages  for  the  production  of  high  value-added, 
quality  and  innovative  products  and  companies  are  regularly  dropping  mass  production. 
Within  this  framework,  new  textile  fibres  are  contributing  to  giving  a  new  shape  for  the 
textiles and clothing industry and in spite of a reduction in its share in the European economy, 
it  remains  at  3,5%  of  the  manufacturing  added  value  1.  Therefore,  negative  effects  on 
employment  resulting  from  the  proposed  legislative  simplification  were  not  identified  and 
were not further examined.  

Along with the option for a Regulation, further possibilities of reducing the time between the 
introduction of a request for a new fibre and its legal adoption in the EU were assessed. 

Experience in recent years has shown that application files are almost always incomplete, in 
particular  with  respect  to  testing  methods.  It  was  therefore  decided  to  examine  whether 
providing  more  specific  guidance  on  how  to  prepare  an  application  file  would  bring  net 
benefits to economic operators, consumers and public administrations. 

1 

Eurostat 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
In addition, it was also considered the possibility of making the application files be examined 
by  one  of  the  existing  specialised  laboratories  before  its  submission  to  the  Commission 
services. 

Finally, it was explored the idea of passing to the standardisation process the contents of the 
technical directives related to the testing methods. Technical methods can be transformed into 
European standards. This possibility would further simplify the European Union legislation. It 
was  therefore  worth  examining  if  this  operation  does  not  compromise  the  key  objective  of 
reducing the time for legally marketing new fibres in the EU. 

With those objectives, the following policy options and sub-options were considered: 

(1)  Option 1: No policy change – this option will be analysed as the “baseline” scenario 

and each option will be compared with the current procedure; 

(2)  Option 2: Adopt new regulation(s) – this involves replacing the three directives on 
textile  names  and  labelling  by  one  (or  a  series  of)  regulations,  with  sub-options  as 
follows: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Option 2.1: Adopt such new regulation(s) without any additional provisions; 

Option  2.2:  Adopt  such  new  regulation(s),  adding  an  annex  specifying  the 
contents of the application file; 

Option  2.3:  Adopt  such  new  regulation(s),  including  provisions  to  establish  a 
list of laboratories recognised by Member States; 

Option  2.4:  Adopt  such  new  regulation(s),  including  an  annex  specifying  the 
contents of the application file and provisions to establish a list of laboratories 
recognised by Member States (Option 2.2 plus Option 2.3). 

(3)  Option  3:  Adopt  a  combined  regulatory 

/  non-regulatory  approach 
(standardisation)  -  this  means  a  new  regulation  would  contain  the  provisions 
currently  included  in  Directive  96/74/EC  (as  amended)  while  the  quantification 
methods would be transferred to the domain of standardisation. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Option  3.1:  Adopt  such  new  regulation(s)/standardisation  procedures  without 
anyadditional provisions; 

Option 3.2 Adopt such new regulation(s)/standardisation procedures, adding an 
annex specifying the contents of the application file; 

Option 3.3 Adopt such new regulation(s)/standardisation procedures, including 
provisions to establish a list of laboratories recognised by Member States; 

Option 3.4 Adopt such new regulation(s)/standardisation procedures, including 
an  annex  specifying  the  contents  of  the  application  file  and  provisions  to 
establish  a  list  of  laboratories  recognised  by  Member  States  (Option  3.2  plus 
Option 3.3). 

The policy options proposed could result in significant savings in the length of time required 
to obtain a new fibre name following an application, bringing economic benefits and reducing 

EN 

4 

   EN 

the  costs.  Furthermore,  the  analysis  has  shown  that  significant  savings  in  time  have  the 
potential to encourage innovation. 

Industry and Member States consider that speeding up the process of introducing a new fibre 
name leads  to  more fibres  being  brought to the market. According to the industry, one new 
fibre generates net benefits per year between € 100,000 and € 2 million, depending on several 
factors. If one or two further new fibre names are put forward each year, benefits for industry 
would increase considerably. Benefits of new and innovative fibres for downstream producers 
using them have not been analysed. However, it is worth mentioning that a recent fibre named 
elastane,  with  particular  elastic  properties,  has  enabled  important  changes  to  take  place  in 
clothing production, bringing competitive advantages and substantial profits. 

With  respect  to  SMEs,  it  appears  to  be  particularly  important  to  reduce  the  time  between 
investment  in  a  new  fibre  and  the  ability  to  market  it  under  a  new  name.  According  to  the 
information provided by the industry, the whole business of a SME may be dependent on the 
time it takes a certain fibre to go to the market. 

The analysis and comparison of the policy options leads to the following conclusions: 

•  the  greatest  benefits  for  industry  arise  from  reducing  the  time  taken  between  an 
application for a new fibre name being submitted and the ability to place the fibre 
on the market with the new name. This results in savings in administrative costs 
and earlier realisation of revenue from sale of the fibre. Options 2.4 and 3.4 (Case 
A)  potentially  deliver  the  most  significant  cost  savings  and  overall  benefits. 
Potential time savings under these Options are 18 to 33 months, up to 6 months 
greater than for the other Options;  

•  the greatest benefits to Member State authorities are from replacing the Directives 
with  Regulation(s),  because  they  would  no  longer  need  to  transpose  the 
amendments into national legislation. This could generate significant cost savings 
to Member States. These cost savings arise under all sub-options of Options 2 and 
3;  

•  there  are  potential  benefits  to  industry  and  public  authorities  associated  with 
providing  guidance  on  the  contents  of  the  application  file  (Options  2.2  and  3.2) 
and on setting up a list of recognised national laboratories under (Options 2.3 and 
3.3). If these Options result in the submission of application files more in line with 
the requirements of the Commission services, this could result in significant time 
savings up to 18-27 months for both industry and public authorities; and 

•  all  of  the  Options  will  retain  the  benefits  for  consumers  of  certainty  that  the 
named fibres meet specified characteristics. Consumers may also gain additional 
benefits from new fibres reaching the market earlier.  

EN 

5 

   EN