Commission staff working document - Simplification of EU legislation in the field of textile names and labelling - Impact assessment report {COM(2009)31 final} {SEC(2009)90}
Date: 2009-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, impact study, labelling, product designation, textile product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.1.2009 
SEC(2009) 91 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Simplification of EU legislation in the field of textile names and labelling - Impact 
Assessment Report 

{COM(2009)31 FINAL} 
{SEC(2009)90} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Simplification of EU legislation in the field of textile names and labelling - Impact 
Assessment Report 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Simplification of EU legislation in the field of 
textile names and labelling......................................................................................................... 2 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 5 

Consultation of other Commission Services ................................................................ 5 

Consultation with Member States ................................................................................ 5 

Stakeholder consultation .............................................................................................. 5 

External study .............................................................................................................. 6 

Results of the consultation ........................................................................................... 6 

Scrutiny by the Commission impact assessment board ............................................... 7 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................... 8 

Legislative background ................................................................................................ 8 

Context ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Problem identification................................................................................................ 10 

Community competence and subsidiarity .................................................................. 11 

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 12 

Overall objective ........................................................................................................ 12 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 12 

POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 12 

Overview of the policy options .................................................................................. 12 

Development of sub-options ...................................................................................... 14 

Description of options examined ............................................................................... 15 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 16 

Environmental and social impacts ............................................................................. 16 

Time Savings Associated with the Policy Options .................................................... 17 

5.2.1.  Overview of time savings .......................................................................................... 17 

5.2.2.  Time savings associated with Option 2 (Regulation) ................................................ 19 

5.2.3.  Time savings associated with Option 3 (Regulation + Standardisation) ................... 19 

5.3. 

Costs and Benefits of the Policy Options................................................................... 21 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
5.3.1.  Assumptions and costs estimations............................................................................ 21 

5.3.2.  Costs and Benefits of Option 1 (baseline scenario) ................................................... 25 

5.3.3.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.1 ............................................................................... 26 

5.3.4.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.2 ............................................................................... 29 

5.3.5.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.3 ............................................................................... 31 

5.3.6.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.4 ............................................................................... 35 

5.3.7.  Costs and Benefits of Option 3 .................................................................................. 36 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises ................................................................. 38 

Impact on Innovation ................................................................................................. 38 

International context .................................................................................................. 39 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 39 

Changing the three Directives on Textile Names into one Regulation (Option 2.1) . 39 

Providing further guidance to applicants for a new fibre name (Option 2.2) ............ 40 

Creating a network of recognised laboratories (Option 2.3)...................................... 41 

Providing further guidance and creating a network of recognised laboratories (Option 2.4)
.................................................................................................................................... 42 

6.5. 

Testing methods transferred to the domain of standardisation (Option 3) ................ 42 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 1 – Summary of consultation responses.................................................................... 44 

ANNEX 2 - Comparison of activities for preparation, assessment and approval of an application to 
a new textile fibre name, according to the regulatory and the regulatory+non-regulatory 
(standardisation) approaches examined ................................................................................... 75 

ANNEX 4 - Steps Involved in the Adoption a New Fibre Name in EU legislation ................ 82 

ANNEX 5 – Impact Assessment Board opinion of 9 September 2008 ................................... 85 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The revision of EU legislation on Textile Names and Labelling1 was announced in 2006 in 
the  “First  progress  report  on  the  strategy  for  the  simplification  of  the  regulatory 
environment”2 and was included in the Commission Legislative and Work Programme for 
2008. The idea for a revision of Textile Names legislation came to light in recent years as a 
result  of  the  experience  developed  with  regular  technical  amendments  to  the  current 
Directives in order to introduce new fibre names into the legislation. Industry and Member 
States representatives have suggested this revision in meetings and bilateral contacts. For 
the industry representatives, the legislation should be reviewed in order to shorten the time 
needed to trade legally a new fibre within the EU. Member States representatives consider 
that  introducing  new  fibre  names  in  the  European  legislation  is  important  to  promote 
innovation in the European industry and from the perspective of consumer's information. 
However, the political content of technical amendments to Textile Names legislation does 
not justify the heavy procedures and costs involved in the transposition of a Directive. A 
lighter legislative solution should be used. 

1.1. 

Consultation of other Commission Services 

Work on the impact assessment for this initiative started in 2007; an inter-service steering 
group  involving  Directorates-General  ENTR,  JRC,  SANCO,  TRADE  and  SG  was 
established  in  March  2008.  The  members  of  the  inter-services  group  were  invited  to 
participate in the meetings with the consultant that carried out the external study as well as 
to  participate  in  the  meetings  with  stakeholders  and  Member  States  representatives.  The 
comments on the draft impact assessment report were mainly provided by e-mail. 

1.2. 

Consultation with Member States 

In the framework of meetings of the Committee and Working Group on Textile Names and 
Labelling,  which  took  place  in  2005  and  2006,  Member  States  asked  for  a  simpler 
procedure  to  add  new  fibre  names  to  existing  legislation.  In  particular,  several  Member 
States suggested that the Textile Directives be transformed into a Regulation. 

In  order  to  discuss  the  key  elements  of  the  initiative  and  aspects  requiring  particular 
attention,  Commission  services  convened 
three  meetings  with  Member  States 
representatives and other stakeholders on 17 January 2008, 9 April 2008 and 7 July 2008. 
In  addition,  further  input  was  requested  from  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  a  specific 
questionnaire. 

1.3. 

Stakeholder consultation 

Due to the limited scope of this revision, a targeted consultation of interested parties was 
the  preferred  option.  Stakeholders  participated  at  the  three  meetings  organised  by  the 

1 
2 

Directives 96/74/EC (as amended), 96/73/EC (as amended) and 73/44/EC. 
Commission Working Document COM (2006) 689 final 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Commission  during  2008.  Industry  and  the  CEN  provided  feedback  at  the  occasion  of 
bilateral meetings with Commission services. Furthermore, input for the impact assessment 
was requested from key stakeholders on the basis of specific questionnaires. 

The following groups of stakeholders participated in the consultation process: industry and 
retail associations, trade unions, consumer organisations, European standardisation bodies, 
as well as national administrations3. 

In the framework of the meetings organized by the Commission services, stakeholders and 
Member  States  representatives  were  invited  to  present  their  views,  suggestions  and 
proposals during a period going from January to July 2008. In addition, the consultant in 
charge of the external study started consultations with stakeholders on 2 April 2008, when 
a first set of questions was sent to industry, and continued until 2 June 2008, when the last 
response was received. The consultation period is therefore in line with the Commission's 
Minimum Consultation Standards4. 

1.4. 

External study 

In  order  to  support  the  assessment  of  likely  impacts  of  the  proposal,  the  Commission 
services ordered a study to an external consultant, using the framework contract available 
within DG Enterprise and Industry.  

In  particular,  the  study  analysed  the  potential  effects  linked  to  the  different  alternatives 
proposed  for  the  revision  and  assessed  the  costs  and  benefits  for  public  authorities, 
economic  operators  and  consumers.  To  this  end,  the  consultant  circulated  a  number  of 
questionnaires to industry representatives, public authorities (Member States and European 
Commission),  the  European  Committee  for  Standardisation  (CEN)  and  to  consumer 
associations. 

The study "Simplification of EU legislation in the Field of Textile Names and Labelling – 
An  Impact  assessment  of  Policy  Options",  carried  out  by  Risk  Assessment  and  Policy 
Analysts Limited (RPA) will be posted in the website of DG Enterprise and Industry. 

1.5. 

Results of the consultation 

This proposal is the result of regular contacts of Commission services with representatives 
from Member States, industry associations and other stakeholders. 

All  stakeholders  welcomed  the  initiative.  Member  States  representatives,  industry 
associations and other parties have been involved from early stages of the development of 
the  proposal,  providing  fruitful  contributions  for  the  assessment  of  its  likely  impacts  and 
for the drafting of the text.  

3 

4 

CIRFS/BISFA (International Bureau for the Standardisation of Man Made Fibres), Euratex, AEDT (European 
Association of National Organisations of Textile Retailers), Trade Unions, ANEC (European Association for 
the  Co-ordination  of  Consumer  Representation 
in  Standardisation),  BEUC  (European  Consumers’ 
Organisation), CEN (European Committee for Standardisation), Member States representatives. 
Communication from the Commission: "Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General 
principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission" – COM(2002)704 
final. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States  representatives  have  generally  indicated  that  they  prefer  a  regulation  to  a 
directive  because  the  political  and  administrative  burden  is  lower.  They  have  also 
considered that improving guidance and clarifying requirements on developing application 
files  would  enable  to  gather  all  the  relevant  information  before  the  legislative  process 
starts. As a result, the period of time needed to process an application would be shortened. 
With  respect  to  the  consideration  of  national  laboratories  that  could  provide  a  first 
assessment  on  the  file  to  the  applicant,  Member  States  generally  consider  that  it  will 
promote a higher quality of applications and a harmonisation of approaches. However, if a 
network of recognised laboratories is to be created, this should not imply additional costs 
for  Member  States.  It  was  widely  indicated  by  Member  States  that  passing  the  testing 
methods  agreed  by  the  Committee  on  Textile  Names  and  Labelling  to  the  European 
Committee for Standardisation (CEN), instead of including them in the legislation, has the 
advantages  of  making  adaptations  easier  and  more  flexible.  In  addition,  it  would  ensure 
transparency  and  uniformity  of  testing  procedures  all  over  the  EU,  facilitating  matters  to 
national  laboratories.  However,  Member  States  have  a  major  preoccupation  in  this  area 
related to the time needed to have a European standard adopted, which varies from 1 to 5 
years.  The  possibility  of  involving  CEN  in  the  process  of  adopting  a  new  fibre  name 
should not compromise the major objective of the proposed legislative simplification. 

The  industry  favours  a  solution  enabling  to  speed  up  the  process  for  adoption  of  a  new 
textile fibre name. Industry representatives consider that the current guidance is clear but 
there is always scope for improvements. They recognise that companies are inexperienced 
in putting an application file for a new textile fibre name into practice. With respect to the 
use  of  officially  recognised  laboratories  to  produce  a  first  assessment  of  the  application, 
industry representatives have stated that they currently encourage members to make use of 
existing  laboratories  in  preparing  their  applications  because  they  believe  it  shortens  the 
time needed by the Commission services to examine the application. The conversion of test 
methods  into  European  standards  overseen  by  CEN  has,  for  the  industry,  the  positive 
aspect  of  allowing  easier  routine  revisions  carried  out  by  CEN  every  5  years.  However, 
industry  strongly  opposes  the  involvement  of  CEN  if  it  represents  creating  an  additional 
step in the decision-making process. 

Consumer  associations  are  not  currently  working  with  textile  fibre  names  issues.  The 
replies sent are very general, indicating that they think that positive impacts for consumers 
are  to  be  expected  from  streamlining  of  procedures,  including  the  changing  from  a 
directive  into  a  regulation,  clearer  and  more  detailed  guidance  to  industry  applicants, 
independent review by a recognised laboratory before an application is submitted, transfer 
of fibre testing methods to European standards. 

A summary of the replies to the questionnaires from competent authorities in the Member 
States and from stakeholders is presented in Annex 1. 

1.6. 

Scrutiny by the Commission impact assessment board 

The impact assessment board of the European Commission5
 assessed a draft version of the 
impact assessment in August 2008. It issued its opinion on 9 September 20086. The impact 

5 
6 

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab_en.htm 
Cf. Annex 5 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assessment  board  made  several  suggestions  for  improvement;  in  the  light  of  these 
suggestions, the final impact assessment report: 

–  Explains  better  how  the  feasibility  of  the  standardisation  approach  will  be  assessed  in 

the future. 

–  Gives further reasons to discard non-legislative and self-regulatory options. 

–  Clarifies certain aspects related to the establishment of recognised laboratories and the 

role of the Joint Research Centre in the examination process.  

–  Describes  briefly  the  international  context  as  regards  the  granting  of  new  fibre  names 

and the implications on trade of textile products. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Legislative background 

The  current  regulatory  framework  for  the  labelling  of  textile  products  consists  of  three 
basic Directives: 

–  Directive 96/74/EC7 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/EC8  and  73/44/EEC9  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.  

Textile Directives need to be adapted to technical progress every time a new generic name 
for a novel fibre must be added to the technical annexes. In the last years, new fibre names 
have been added to the technical annexes of the Directives by way of amendments to the 
Directives: 

–  Directive 97/37/EC10 added four new fibres to the list of fibre names (cashgora, lyocell, 

polyamide, aramid).  

–  Directive 2004/34/EC11 added the new fibre polylactide to the list of fibre names. 
–  Directive 2006/3/EC12 added the new fibre elastomultiester to the list of fibre names. 
–  Directive 2007/3/EC13 added the new fibre elastolefin to the list of fibre names. 
–  Directive  2006/2/EC14 added two fibre names (polylactide and elastomultiester) to the 

uniform test methods for the quantification of binary mixtures. 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

OJ L 32, 3.2.1997, p. 38–55, as amended 
OJ L 32, 3.2.1997, p. 1–37, as amended 
OJ L 83, 30.3.1973, p. 1–19  
OJ L 169, 27.6.1997, p. 74–75 
OJ L 89, 26.3.2004, p. 35–35 
OJ L 5, 10.1.2006, p. 14 
OJ L 28, 3.2.2007, p. 12-13 
OJ L 5, 10.1.2006, p. 10–13 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Directive 2007/4/EC15 added  the new fibre elastolefin to the uniform test methods for 

the quantification of binary mixtures 

Two  more  applications  are  currently  being  examined  and  new  amendments  to  the 
Directives are expected for 2008 and 2009. 

2.2. 

Context 

The  textiles  sector  is  an  important  part  of  the  European  manufacturing  industry,  with  a 
turnover of over €100 billion in 2005 and employing over 1 million workers 16. It accounts 
for  3.5%  of  the  total  number  of  manufacturing  firms  in  the  EU  (around  77,000)  but  less 
than 2% of manufacturing turnover. The average size of textiles companies is lower than 
the average size for all EU manufacturing, with the greatest number of small firms in the 
Member States, Spain and Portugal. The major players in EU textiles production are Italy, 
Germany, France, the UK and Spain, but there are significant textiles sectors in Belgium, 
the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia. 

A  study  of  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  textile  industry  notes  that  the  sector  has  faced 
significant economic challenges in recent years. The profitability of the sector in the period 
covered by the study was only 0.53%, directly related to the continuing overcapacity of the 
sector, despite a decline in production of nearly 14% between 2000 and 2005. This is due 
to a complex set of factors, including the Euro/Dollar rate and China's accession to WTO, 
which has enabled Chinese exporters to benefit from the initial steps of quota liberalization 
since December 2001. 

EU  textile  industry  has  undertaken  a  lengthy  process  of  restructuring,  modernisation  and 
technological  progress  in  response  to  the  significant  economic  challenges  faced  by  the 
sector  in  recent  years.  European  companies  have  improved  their  global  position  by 
concentrating on competitive advantages such as quality, design, innovation and products 
with  higher  value-added.  The  EU  industry  has  a  leading  role  at  world  level  in  the 
development  of  new  products,  technical  textiles  and  non-wovens  for  novel  applications 
such as geo-textiles, hygiene products, the automotive industry or the medical sector. 

Role of fibre research and innovation 

A key area for research is the development of new speciality fibres and fibre composites 
for innovative textile products, identified as one of the thematic priorities in the Strategic 
Research  Agenda  of  the  European  Technology  Platform  for  the  Future  of  Textile  and 
Clothing.  Fibre  innovation  at  the  upstream  end  of  the  textile  value  adding  chain  is  a 
powerful  source  of  new  products,  processing  options  and  application  areas  in  many 
downstream user sectors17. In fact, the number of requests for new fibre names to be added 
to EU legislation has increased in recent years and this trend is expected to consolidate as 
the European textile sector evolves into a more innovative industry.  

15 
16 

17 

OJ L 28, 3.2.2007, p. 14–18 
Figures  for  the  textile  sector,  excluding  clothing  manufacture.  Source:  Institut  Français  de  la  Mode  (2007), 
"Study  on  the  competitiveness,  economic  situation  and  location  of  production  in  the  textiles  and  clothing, 
footwear,  leather  and  furniture  industries",  prepared  for  the  European  Commission,  Enterprise  and  Industry 
Directorate General 
Strategic Research Agenda of the European Technology Platform for the Future of Textiles and Clothing 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Applications  for  new  fibre  names  have  been  submitted  by  a  number  of  different 
companies,  including  both  large  and  small  firms.  Industry  indicates  that,  in  general,  90-
95% of R&D activities are focussed on improvements and developments on existing fibres. 
Although  only  5-10%  of  R&D  activities  are  likely  to  result  in  a  fibre  requiring  a  new 
generic name, these new fibres generate  often new  uses  and technological  processes in a 
wide  number  of  domains  such  as  clothing,  medical,  environmental  and  industrial 
applications. 

2.3. 

Problem identification 

Adoption of a new fibre name in EU legislation 

Adding a new fibre to the annexes of the textile Directives necessitates a lengthy procedure 
at  European  level,  requiring  all  Member  States  in  the  EU  to  adapt  their  national  laws 
subsequently.  Enterprises  must  wait  for  several  years  before  being  able  to  use  the  new 
names they have applied for. 

The  Commission  services  expect  that  the  number  of  new  fibres  added  to  the  technical 
annexes is likely to increase in the coming years. Member States authorities also indicated 
that  they  expect  the  number  of  new  fibres  requiring  names  to  increase,  some  suggesting 
that  there  could  be  two  to  three  new  fibre  name  applications  per  year.  Industry  (as 
represented by BISFA18) noted that the future trend is difficult to predict. However, it also 
suggested two applications a year as a realistic estimate. 

For the purposes of this analysis and identification of the system's defaults, the application 
process  under  the  existing  Textiles  Directive  has  been  divided  into  five  key  steps  which 
involve  varying  actions  by  the  stakeholders  involved  (industry  and  public  authorities). 
These are set out below, further details are available in Annex 4. 

–  Step 0: Preparation of Application  

–  Step 1: Submission of Application  

–  Step 2: Assessment and Initial Review of Application 

–  Step 3: Technical Examination of Application  

–  Step 4: Preparation of Draft Proposals 

–  Step 5: Amendment of Directive and National Legislation  

–  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,  in  particular  with  respect  to  the 
technical  examination  and  the  transposition  of  the  amendments  into  national 
legislation. 

This translates in particular into: 

18 

BISFA: International Bureau for the Standardisation of Man Made Fibres.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a) Burden for public authorities. 

The  current  process  imposes  a  burden  on  public  authorities.  Member  States  need  to 
transpose each adaptation to technical progress of the Directives into national legislation. 
Member  States  have  expressed  problems  with  transposition  of  amendments  to  the 
Directives  and  have  suggested  that  they  be  transformed  into  a  Regulation.  In  particular, 
Member  States  with  a  federal  political  organisation  have  to  follow  the  complete  federal 
procedures to transpose the technical adaptation into national legislation. These procedures 
involve regional and local authorities or parliaments. The political content of introducing a 
new fibre name for consumer's information in the European legislation does not appear to 
justify the heavy procedures and costs related to the transposition of a Directive. According 
to  information  provided  in  the  regulatory  impact  assessment  by  the  UK  for  the  last 
amendment  of  the  UK  textiles  legislation,  the  involved  costs  were  estimated  at  around  1 
million  euros19.  These  costs  are  certainly  different  across  Member  States.  However,  this 
estimation  allows  the conclusion that  they  are significant at EU level. They appear to be 
disproportionate compared to the political relevance of the amending Directives.  

b) Costs for economic operators 

For  economic  operators,  the  delay  between  an  application  for  a  new  fibre  name  and  the 
time when it can legally be placed on the market may have implications at different levels. 
In the first place, it delays the return of the investment for the company that has developed 
the new fibre. Secondly, it will postpone benefits for those companies that will develop and 
market  products  using  the  new  fibre.  Thirdly,  a  more  rapid  process  for  approval  of  new 
fibres  would  contribute  to  improving  the  rate  of  innovation  in  the  textiles  and  clothing 
sector by encouraging new applications for new fibre names. As a result, reducing delays is 
foreseen to improve the overall profitability of the sector. 

Consideration  is  given  also  to  the  costs  for  companies  for  preparing  and  ensuring  the 
follow  up  of  an  application  for  a  new  fibre  name  submitted  for  technical  examination. 
According to industry representatives (BISFA), these costs may be particularly significant 
for  small  and  medium  enterprises.  Currently  there  is  no  specific  format  for  preparing  an 
application. This may pose particular difficulties for SMEs with limited experience in the 
preparation of such dossiers. 

2.4. 

Community competence and subsidiarity 

Member  States  recognised  in  the  1970’s  the  need  for  harmonization  of  Community 
legislation in the area of textile names. Different (non-harmonised) textile fibre names in 
the EU Member States would create a technical barrier to trade in the Internal Market. In 
addition, consumer interests would be better protected if the information provided in this 
area is the same within the Internal Market.  

This  rationale  is  still  valid  today  and  Community  rules,  based  on  article  95  of  the  EC 
Treaty, are necessary to avoid fragmentation of the market. Thus, the simplification of the 
existing regulatory framework can only be achieved by Community action. 

19 

DTI  (2006):  Full  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment,  The  Textile  Products  (Indications  of  Fibre  Content) 
(Amendment  and  Consolidation  of  Schedules  of  Textile  Names  and  Allowances)  Regulations  2006,  UK 
Department for Trade and Industry, 13th December 2006. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore,  the  policy  options  do  not  modify  the  political  balance  between  Member 
States and EU. In all of them a Committee is foreseen to assist the Commission and give an 
opinion  on  the  implementing  measures  proposed,  following  the  rules  of  a  regulatory 
committee with scrutiny. This is the case today with Directive 96/74/EC. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

Overall objective 

The  general  objectives  of  the  European  legislation  in  the  field  of  Textile  Names  are  to 
ensure  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  textile  products  and  to  protect 
consumer  interests  through  correct  information  on  textile  fibre  composition.  If  the 
provisions  of  the  Member  States  with  regard  to  the  names,  composition  and  labelling  of 
textile  products  were  to  vary  from  one  Member  State  to  another,  this  would  create 
hindrances to the proper functioning of the internal market. 

While the general objectives of the Textile Names Directives remain the same, the revision 
of this legislation aims at simplifying and improving the existing regulatory framework for 
the  development  and  uptake  of  novel  fibres,  with  a  view  to  encourage  innovation  in  the 
textile and clothing sector. 

The revision should also enhance the transparency of the process to add new fibres to the 
list  of  harmonised  fibre  names.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  introduce  more  flexibility  to 
adapt  legislation  in  order  to  keep  up  with  the  needs  of  the  technological  developments 
expected in the sector. 

It must be pointed out that it is not an objective of the revision to extend EU legislation to 
other  labelling  requirements  beyond  the  current  scope  of  the  Textile  Names  Directives 
which is the fibre composition and the harmonisation of textile fibre names. 

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

–  Reduce  the  burden  for  public  administrations  as  regards  the  examination  of  the 
application  and  facilitate  the  legislative  process  with  respect  to  the  changes  involving 
adaptation to technical progress.  

–  Shorten the time from investment to return for fibre producers and reduce costs for 

businesses of application for a new fibre authorisation.  

–  Allow  fibre  users  and  consumers  to  benefit  faster  from  the  use  of  novel  fibres  and 

innovative products. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1. 

Overview of the policy options 

Several broad lines of action to speed up the adoption of new fibre names were considered.  

The  first  option  that  appeared  to  be  the  strongest  available  solution  was  changing  the 
Directives  on  Textile  Names  and  Labelling  into  one  or  three  Regulations.  This  change 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
appeared  to  have  the  potential  to  simplify  the  adaptation  to  technical  progress.  Member 
States would 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 would allow authorising the marketing of a new textiles fibre name within 
a period of time 12 months shorter than the current situation, bringing substantial benefits 
to economic operators. 

The  feasibility  of  having  a  non-legislative  solution  was  examined.  One  way  could  be 
dropping altogether textile names labelling. However, Member States agree on the need to 
harmonise textile fibre names to avoid proliferation of different names since the 70s; thus, 
EU  legislation  in  this  field  reflects  the  shared  concern  of  the  Commission  and  Member 
States that fibre names should provide information on the characteristics of the fibre and 
not be linked to a commercial name. 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  products  in  the 
Community  market.  In  addition,  economic  operators  obtain  substantial  benefits  from 
creating new fibres and having them widely known and marketed. Furthermore, as it was 
already  highlighted  in  this  report,  textiles  names  labelling  has  the  potential  to  encourage 
innovation in the EU industry. In view of that, this possibility would not gather the support 
of Member States. 

The  possibility  of  self-regulation  was  also  considered.  However,  the  experience  obtained 
with applications for new fibre names has shown that the names proposed by the applicants 
are  sometimes  closer  to  brand  names  than  to  fibre  names  related  to  the  properties  of  the 
fibre. In addition, the fibre definition proposed is often not in line with the fibre properties, 
providing  therefore  wrong  information  to  the  consumer.  Finally,  the  testing  methods 
included  in  the  application  file  are  almost  always  incomplete  or  not  sound,  preventing 
market  surveillance  authorities  of  assessing  conformity  correctly.  All  these  points  are 
sensitive to Member States, keen on examining the name and proposed definition as well 
as  on  introducing  modifications  where  appropriate.  These  views  are  reiterated  in  the 
framework  of  the  meetings  of  the  Committee  and  the  Working  Group  on  Textile  Names 
and  labelling  which  take  place  regularly.  Therefore,  a  non-legislative  initiative  was  no 
further examined. 

–  Option 1: no policy change that would leave the situation as it is. 

–  Option  2:  a  regulatory  approach  in  which  the  three  Directives  on  Textile  Names  and 
Labelling  would  be  replaced  by  one  (or  a  series  of)  regulation(s),  keeping  both 
harmonised  names  and  quantification  methods  within  the  EU  legislative  framework. 
Such  replacement  of  the  Directives  by  a  regulation  would  provide  a  legal  instrument 
which  is  directly  applicable  in  Member  States.  This  change  is  mainly  of  a  technical 
nature  as  the  provisions  for  the  labelling  of  textile  products  and  the  institutional 
decision-making process are not affected. 

–  Option 3: a combined regulatory/non-regulatory approach in which a new regulation 
would  contain  the  main  provisions  currently  included  in  Directive  96/74/EC  and  the 
Directives on quantification methods would be replaced by European standards. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

Development of sub-options 

Further to the simplification of the legislative process, other possibilities to facilitate and 
reduce  the  time  taken  with  the  technical  examination  of  the  application  files  were 
considered. 

Recent  experience  has  shown  that  the  application  files  for  new  fibre  names  are  usually 
insufficient  and  incomplete.  This  situation  implies  that  more  information  needs  to  be 
required from applicants, obliging to further testing work. It has happened that applicants 
have taken an additional period of 18 to 24 months to complete their applications with the 
required  information;  this  situation  occurs  despite  the  fact  that  technical  guidelines  are 
available  in  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  website.  It  was  therefore  decided  to  examine 
whether the inclusion of an Annex to the Regulation containing technical guidance would 
improve the situation. 

To improve the quality of the technical files and, therefore, to facilitate the technical work 
required  for  adding  a  new  fibre  name  to  EU  legislation,  the  following  additional 
approaches have been considered within the options 2 and 3:  

a) To include an annex in the legal act describing the technical file to be submitted by the 
manufacturer. This would effectively clarify the requirements for submitting an application 
for  a  new  fibre  name  and  make  these  binding  (as  opposed  to  the  current  non-
binding/guideline status);  

b)  to  identify  recognised  national  laboratorieswhich  would  support  applicants  in  the 
preparation of a complete technical file (prior to applying for a new fibre name), with the 
recognised  laboratory  providing  a  report  on  the  results  of  the  analysis  carried  out.  This 
would  help  to  ensure  that  the  application  file  contained  all  the  information  necessary. 
Overall, it is envisaged that:  

–  applicants  will  be  responsible  for  the  development  of  methods  to  identify  and 
quantify  the  new  fibre  (however,  in  some  cases  the  applicant  may  ask  one  of  the 
recognised laboratories to undertake this step too); 

–  the  recognised  laboratory,  identified  by  national  authorities,  will  review  the  file  and 
ensure that the application file meets the requirements of Commission services. A report 
from  the  laboratory,  including  data  to  support  the  validity  of  quantification  methods 
would accompany the application file;  

–  the use of recognised laboratories should remain voluntary and therefore the report 

issued by the laboratory should not have a legal status; and 

–  the  technical  examination  by  the  Commission  services  would  focus  on  checking  the 
adequacy of the application and validation of quantification methods. The Commission 
will remain responsible for commissioning ring trials when needed.  

c) a) and b) taken simultaneously. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
4.3. 

Description of options examined 

The  combination  of  each  option  with  the  different  approaches  to  facilitate  the  technical 
examination resulted in a range of sub-options to be analysed focusing on their capacity to 
streamline the current procedure, save time and reduce costs. 

Option 1: No policy change – this option will be analysed as the “baseline” scenario and 
each option will be compared with the current procedure; 

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: 

–  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  on  the  intervention  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  on  the  intervention  of  laboratories  recognised  by 
Member States (Option 2.2 plus Option 2.3). 

Option 2 will simplify the adaptation to technical progress. Member States no longer need 
to  transpose  the  technical  adaptations  into  national  legislation  resulting  in  a  direct 
reduction of their administrative burden. In addition, the time related to the transposition of 
a  Directive  into  national  legislation  is  eliminated.  Additional  reductions  in  costs  or 
increases in benefits are investigated within sub-options 2.2 to 2.4. 

Option 3: Adopt a combined regulatory / non-regulatory approach - this means that 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. 

–  Option  3.1:  Adopt  such  new  regulation(s)/standardisation  procedures  without  any 

additional 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 on the intervention 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 
laboratories recognised by Member States (Option 3.2 plus Option 3.3).  

In  Option  3,  it  is  examined  whether  the  standardisation  process  may  bring  additional 
benefits or reductions of costs.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
The  assumptions  for  this  option  are  more  complex.  A  proposal  for  a  European  Standard 
may  come  from  any  interested  party,  such  as  the  European  Commission  (EC),  the 
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and National Standards Bodies (NSB). There are 
two processes for adopting European standards:  

–  the ‘classical’ process, which generally takes up to 36 months to complete; and  

–  the shorter Unique Acceptance Process (UAP), which takes 8 - 12 months.  

A description of the steps involved in adopting a standard is presented in Annex 3. 

It  was  assumed  that  the  UAP  would  be  more  commonly  used  in  the  case  of  textile  fibre 
testing methods. Although CEN is not formally involved in the process of adopting a new 
fibre name, in practice the National Experts who assist the JRC always include members of 
the  CEN  relevant  committees.  This  could  in  principle  avoid  entering  into  a  classical 
process  for  the  establishment  of  a  standard.  The  risks  associated  with  this  possibility  are 
highlighted  in  the  conclusions.  It  was  therefore  retained  a  period  of  12  months  for  the 
standardisation procedures. 

The key uncertainty with Option 3 is whether a fibre with a new name could be placed on 
the market during the period when the test method was being converted to a standard. Two 
scenarios are, therefore, considered: 

–  Case  A:  This  assumes  that  the  marketing  of  the  fibre  under  the  new  fibre  name  is 
possible as soon as the amendment to the regulation is published, before the agreed test 
methods are adopted as a European Standard by CEN. In essence, although the work by 
CEN  takes  12  months,  the  fibre  could  be  marketed  during  this  period,  with  this  then 
reflecting  a  best  case  situation.  The  time  savings  for  Option  3  under  this  scenario  are 
essentially equivalent to Option 2 (and its various sub-options); and  

–  Case B: This assumes that the marketing of the fibre under the new fibre name is only 
possible  when  the  amendment  to  the  regulation  is  published  and  after  the  agreed  test 
methods are adopted as a European Standard by CEN. This is the worst case situation 
and essentially adds 12 months (the maximum time taken under UAP) to the time taken 
under Option 2 (and its various sub-options). 

For  all  the  options  and  sub-options  above,  Table  I  in  Annex  2  presents  a  detailed 
description of the activities to be carried out during the process of preparation, assessment 
and approval of an application to a new textile fibre name, according to the five key steps 
described in section 2.3 and Annex 4. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Environmental and social impacts 

It was 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 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
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  value20.  Therefore,  negative  effects  on  employment  resulting  from 
the proposed legislative simplification were not identified and were not further examined.  

5.2. 

Time Savings Associated with the Policy Options 

5.2.1.  Overview of time savings 

The  time  taken  in  the  different  steps  for  the  assessment  and  approval  of  the  more  recent 
applications was retained in the baseline scenario (current Directives). The time taken with 
the application that was more rapidly approved was identified as a best case scenario and 
the one taking more time to be approved generated the worst case scenario considered. 

From the replies to the questionnaires from stakeholders, Member States and the JRC, the 
time was then estimated for the options developed in the section 4 above, according to the 
steps described in section 2.3. Table 5.1 below summarises the results of this analysis. 

20 

Eurostat 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Report 

on  Technical 

Steps in the Application Process  
Step 0 - Preparation of Application2  
Step 1 - Submission of Application2  
Step 2 – Assessment of Application  
Step 3a – Convening Working Group  
Step 3b – JRC & Ring Trials  
Step 
3c/3d 
Examination 
Step 4 – Draft Proposals 
Step 5a – Directive/Regulation Amended 
Step  5b  –  Standard  adopted by  CEN  (Option 
3) 
Step 5c – Transposition (Option 1) 
Option 1: Total Number of Months 
Option 2: Total Number of Months 
Option  3:Total  Number  of  Months  up  to 
CEN publication of European Standard 

Table 5.1:Time in Months Taken for Each Step of the Application Process (Prior to Marketing) (Best Case (BC) and Worst Case (WC)) 
Option 2.1 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
6 
9 

Option 2.4 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
3 
6 

Option 3.1 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
6 
9 

Option 1 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
6 
9 

Option 2.2 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
3 
9 

Option 2.3 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
3 
6 

0 
0 
3 
18 
15 

0 
0 
3 
18 
15 

0 
0 
3 
18 
15 

0 
0 
3 
6 
15 

0 
0 
3 
9 
9 

0 
0 
3 
3 
9 

Option 3.2 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
3 
9 

0 
0 
3 
6 
15 

Option 3.3 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
3 
6 

0 
0 
3 
9 
9 

Option 3.4 
BC  WC 
0 
0 
1 
3 
6 

0 
0 
3 
3 
9 

1 
1 
6 

3 
3 
12 

1 
1 
6 

3 
3 
12 

1 
1 
6 

3 
3 
12 

1 
1 
6 

3 
3 
12 

1 
1 
6 

12 
36 

3 
3 
12 

12 
66 

24 

54 

21 

42 

18 

39 

18 

33 

Option 1 (the 
current 
process) 
could 
36 
- 
months 
total 

take 
66 
in 

Option 
2.1 
shows  a  12 
time 
month 
saving 
compared  to 
Option  1,  as 
MS 
no 
longer  have 
to  transpose 
Directive 

Option 
2.2 
shows a 3-12 
months  time 
saving 
compared  to 
2.1 
Option 
due 
to 
guidance  on 
application 
file 

Option 
2.3 
shows a 6-15 
months  time 
saving 
compared  to 
Option 
2.1 
through  use 
of 
recognised 
laboratories  

Option 
2.4 
shows  a  18-
33  months 
time  saving 
compared  to 
Option 1  

1 
1 
6 

0 
0 

3 
3 
12 

12 
0 

1 
1 
6 

0 
0 

3 
3 
12 

12 
0 

1 
1 
6 

0 
0 

3 
3 
12 

12 
0 

1 
1 
6 

0 
0 

3 
3 
12 

12 
0 

24 

66 

21 

54 

18 

51 

18 

45 

The best case scenario under Option 3 is the same as the best 
case  Scenario  under  Option  2.  However,  under  worst  case 
assumptions,  the  time  savings  in  Option  2  may  be  largely 
offset under Option 3 by the 12 months needed for a standard 
going through CEN.  

1. The time taken for Option 1 is based on experience to date (from the three amendments completed in the last five years), of the minimum and maximum time actually taken for each step. 
Because of the small number of cases, it is not possible to provide a meaningful average time. 
2. Submission of the application is taken as the start of the process. In practice, some sub-options may affect the time taken by the applicant to prepare an application. . 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2.2.  Time savings associated with Option 2 (Regulation) 

Under  best  case  assumptions  for  Option  1,  the  time  savings  for  Option  2  are 
estimated as being between 12 and 18 months. A 12 months time saving is associated 
with the fact that Member States no longer have to transpose an amending Directive 
into national legislation. A further 3 to 6 months are expected to be saved due to a 
more developed technical guidance for applicants and through the use of recognised 
laboratories. 

Under worst case assumptions for Option 1 (delays occur in several of the steps and 
the  fibre  and/or  quantitative  methods  are  technically  complex),  the  maximum  time 
savings  delivered  by  Option  2  would  be  up  to  33  months.  The  variation  in  savings 
across the sub-options to Option 2 is shown in Table 5.2. 

Table 5.2: Potential Time Savings Compared to Baseline: Option 2 Sub-Options 
Options  
Time taken – baseline 
Time savings - Option 2.1 
Time savings - Option 2.2 
Time savings - Option 2.3 
Time savings - Option 2.4 

Best Case 
36 
12 
15 
18 
18 

Worst Case 
66 
12 
24 
27 
33 

The  analysis  suggests  that  Option  2.4  has  the  potential  for  delivering  the  most 
significant  overall  reductions  in  the  amount  of  time  taken  from  the  point  of 
application to being able to market a fibre under a new name. Under the worst case 
assumptions, the additional savings could be up to 6 months greater than for the other 
sub-options,  while  under  the  best  case  assumptions  there  may  be  no  difference 
between this sub-option and sub-Option 2.3.  

5.2.3.  Time savings associated with Option 3 (Regulation + Standardisation) 

As mentioned in section 4.2, the assumptions for Option 3, the combined regulatory 
and  non-regulatory  option,  are  more  complex.  Two  scenarios  are,  considered 
depending  on  the  moment  when  a  fibre  with  a  new  name  could  be  placed  on  the 
market. 

The differences in the time savings under Scenarios A and B for Option 3 are set out 
in Table 5.3. Essentially, if it is assumed that the process stops after Step 5a (which 
concludes with the amendment of the regulation), then the time savings is the same 
as for Option 2; if the process does not stop until after Step 5b (including approval by 
CEN), then the time savings are reduced by 12 months across all sub-options. 

Best Case 
36 

Table 5.3: Potential Time Savings Compared to Baseline: Option 3 Scenarios  
Worst Case 
Options  
Time taken - baseline 
66 
Case A - Fibre can be placed on the market after Step 5a (equivalent to Option 2) 
12 
Time savings - Option 3.1  
24 
Time savings - Option 3.2  
27 
Time savings - Option 3.3  
33 
Time savings - Option 3.4  
Case B - Fibre can be placed on the market after Step 5b (adoption of the standard) 
Time savings - Option 3.1  

12 
15 
18 
18 

0 

0 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5.3: Potential Time Savings Compared to Baseline: Option 3 Scenarios  
Options  
Time taken - baseline 
Time savings - Option 3.2  
Time savings - Option 3.3  
Time savings - Option 3.4  

Best Case 
36 
3 
6 
6 

Worst Case 
66 
12 
15 
21 

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate the impacts of each policy option on the time taken for 
each  step  required  to  adopt  a  new  fibre  name  (under  best  and  worst  case 
assumptions) relative to Option 1. 

Figure 5.1:  Time Taken (Best Case) For Each Step of the Application Process

12

6

1
1

9

6

1

6

1
1

9

6

1

6

1
1

9

6

1

6

1
1

9

3

1

6

1
1

9

3

1

6

1
1

6

3

1

6

1
1

6

3

1

6

1
1

6

3

1

6

1
1

6

3

1

Option 1

Option 2.1

Option 3.1

Option 2.2

Option 3.2

Option 2.3

Option 3.3

Option 2.4

Option 3.4

Policy Options

Figure 5.2:  Time Taken (Worst Case) For Each Step of the Application Process

12

12

3

3

15

18

3

12

12

3

3

15

18

3

12

3

3

15

18

3

12

12

3

3

15

6

3

12

3

3

15

6

3

12

12

3

3

9

9

3

12

3

3

9

9

3

12

12

3

3

9

3

3

12

3

3

9

3

3

Option 1

Option 2.1

Option 3.1

Option 2.2

Option 3.2

Option 2.3

Option 3.3

Option 2.4

Option 3.4

Step 5c

Step 5b

Step 5a

Step 4

Step 3c

Step 3b

Step 3a

Step 2

Step 5c

Step 5b

Step 5a

Step 4

Step 3c

Step 3b

Step 3a

Step 2

s
h
t
n
o
M
n

i

n
e
k
a
T
e
m
T

i

s
h
t
n
o
M
n
i
n
e
k
a
T
e
m
T

i

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Policy Options

20 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. 

Costs and Benefits of the Policy Options 

5.3.1.  Assumptions and costs estimations 

The first step was to determine the baseline – the costs and benefits associated with 
the  current  situation.  However,  only  three  applications  for  new  fibre  names  have 
been  completed  in  the  last  five  years,  with  a  further  two  under  way,  providing  a 
limited  evidence  base.  Furthermore,  only  limited  information  was  received  from 
textile/fibre manufacturers. 

Given the lack of concrete data, it was necessary to make a series of assumptions to 
provide the basis for the analysis. A number of assumptions and scenarios have been 
derived  to  provide  best  estimates  of  the  potential  costs  and  benefits  of  the  various 
policy options. These assumptions and estimates are based on information obtained 
from consultation (for instance, with CIRFS/BISFA) and/or obtained from previous 
(related)  studies  or  other  referenced  sources.  The  assumptions  have  been  reviewed 
and agreed by CIRFS/BISFA. 

The  uncertainty  also  meant  that  relatively  wide  ranges  are  provided  for  most 
variables,  as  the  data  base  was  insufficient  to  provide  averages  or  to  determine  the 
probabilities that values would fall at particular points on the range. 

In estimating the costs and benefits (costs savings) relating to the policy options, the 
emphasis is on three main types of cost:  

–  the  administrative  costs  incurred  by  industry,  the  Commission  and  Member 
States  in  relation  to  the  technical  examination  and  by  Member  State  authorities 
related  to  the  transposition  of  EU  Directives  into  national  legislation.  Industry 
may  also  incur  additional  testing  costs  in  meeting  requests  for  additional  data 
during the technical examination;  

–  the sales/revenue lost as a function of the time taken between the introduction of 
the  application  for  a  new  fibre  name  and  the  moment  at  which  the  fibre  can  be 
legally put on the EU market; and  

–  the impact on innovation, development of new products or processes and on the 
overall research and innovation potential of the textile sector, taking into account 
the specific circumstances of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). 

A summary of the assumptions is as follows: 

–  two  cost  scenarios  have  been  developed:  a  high  cost  scenario  (based  on 
information provided by industry) and a low cost scenario (based on information 
from  previous  related  studies).  Furthermore,  “lower  bound”  and  “upper  bound” 
costs have been derived for each of these above scenarios to provide for a more 
robust  assessment.  The  "lower  bound"  costs  show  the  costs  of  the  best  cases  in 
terms  of  time  taken  in  the  application  process  as  explained  in  section  5.2,  while 
the "upper bound" costs show the costs of the worst cases. These scenarios and the 
resulting  cost  estimates  have  been 
industry 
representatives (CIRFS/BISFA);  

reviewed  and  agreed  by 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
–  costs have been calculated per fibre name application focussing on three main 
types of cost: administrative costs, losses of revenue from delays in bringing new 
fibres to market and impacts on innovation. The cost calculations are based on a 
series of simple spreadsheet models, in line with the concepts underlying the EU 
Standard  Cost  Model,  although  sufficiently  detailed  data  were  not  available  to 
give a full breakdown of costs by activity;  

–  for simplicity, a current rate for applications for new fibre names of one per year 
has  been  used,  although  the  actual  fibre  application  rate  in  the  last  10  years  is 
around  0.6/0.8  per  year  (three  or  four  fibre  applications  every  five  years).  In 
effect, the cost or benefit per application is equivalent to an annual cost or benefit;  

–  these annual costs and benefits have been calculated over a ten-year time period, 
discounted at 4% to provide a consistent basis for comparison. The 10-year period 
takes  account  of  the  period  over  which  the  benefits  of  a  new  fibre  will  mainly 
accrue; and  

–  the major non-economic impacts not readily subject to monetary valuation appear 

to accrue to consumers. These have been highlighted.  

The  main  staff  time  costs  for  industry  associated  with  an  application  arise  before 
submitting  an  application,  during  the  preparatory  stages;  these  costs  are  mainly 
related to the research and development of a new fibre and they are not influenced by 
the process of approval of a new fibre name. Therefore they are not included in the 
impact  assessment.  Staff  time  will  also  be  required  during  the  application  process; 
this is included in the impact assessment. CIRFS/BISFA indicated that one to three 
staff  members  are  always  present  at  meetings  and  submissions,  and  suggested  that 
these staff work full-time on the application at a cost of up to €1 million throughout 
the  two  to  three  years  that  an  application  takes  to  reach  the  point  when  an 
amendment to the Directives is adopted at EU level (Steps 2 to 5a21). This implies a 
cost of around €300,000 per year for three  staff or €8,300 per person per month on 
average. This was adopted as the high-cost scenario.  

The  external  consultant  previous  work  on  other  application  processes  allows  the 
conclusion that both this time estimate and the cost per person may be on the high 
side. In fact, in some cases the cost may be close to half of the indicated in the high 
cost scenario. Therefore it was assumed that the average cost may vary between the 
high cost scenario and the half of it, meaning €150,000 per year or €4,160 per month 
per person. In addition, it is also assumed that three staff will only work full-time on 
the application during the stages where there is likely to be communication between 
the Commission and the applicant, meaning during the assessment of the application, 
the  working  group  discussions  and  the  preparation  of  the  report  on  the  technical 
examination (Steps 2, 3a and 3c). They will not work on the application during other 
stages,  in  particular  during  the  preparation  of  the  Commission's  proposal  and  the 
transposition of the amendments into national legislation. (steps 1, 4 and 5). This was 
adopted as the low-cost scenario. 

21 

According  to  CIRFS/BISFA,  companies  undertake  no  additional  work  during  the  period  when  the 
amended Directives are being transposed by the Member States. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 5.4 below sets out the average costs of staff working on a fibre, for both the 
low and the high cost scenarios. 

Table 5.4: Average Cost of Staff Working on a Fibre 

Low Cost Scenario  High Cost Scenario 

€50  

€25  
€200 

Average cost per man-hour of staff working on fibre 
Average cost per man-day of staff working on fibre1 
Average  cost  per  man-month  of  staff  working  on 
fibre2 
Average cost for 3 staff per month3  
Average cost for 3 staff per year  
Average cost for 3 staff over 3 years  
1. Based on an 8-hour working day 
2. Based on a 21-day working month  
3.  In  practice,  industry  has  suggested  that  this  represents  the  costs  of  one  to  three  staff.  It  could 
therefore represent one very senior manager or technical expert; three “middle level” administrative 
staff, or any number of permutations of these. Based on the limited data available, there is no sound 
basis to allocate the costs between them.  

€12,500  
€150,000  
€450,000  

€25,000  
€300,000  
€900,000  

€ 4,166 

€ 8,333 

€400 

Applying the average monthly cost of €12,500 and €25,000 to the number of months 
required  for  each  step  of  the  current  application  process  (Option  1)  (as  set  out  in 
Table  5.1),  the  administrative  costs  for  industry  under  both  the  low  and  high  cost 
scenarios  are  illustrated  in  Table  5.5.  This  shows  costs  ranging  from  €100,000  to 
€300,000  per  application  under  the  low  cost  scenario  and  costs  ranging  from 
€600,000 to €1,350,000 per application  for the high cost scenario. 

- 

Low Cost Scenario1 

High Cost Scenario2  

Lower Bound  Upper Bound  Lower Bound  Upper Bound 

Table  5.5:  Administrative  Costs  to  Industry  per  Application  Associated  with  the  Application 
Process - Low Cost and High Cost Scenario  
Steps  in  the  Application 
Process 
Step 1 - Submission  
Step 2 - Assessment  
Step 3a - Working Group  
Step 3b - JRC & Ring Trials  
Step 3c - Working Group  
Step 4 - Draft Proposals 
Step 5a - Directive Amended 
Total  
1.  Assumes  three  staff  work  full-time  throughout  steps  2,  3a  and  3c,  at  a  total  cost  of  €12,500  per 
month  
2. Assumes three staff work full-time throughout steps 2 to 5a, at a total cost of €25,000 per month  
The Lower and Upper Bound represent costs associated with each step in the “best-case” and “worst-
case” scenarios respectively for Option 1 (as set out in Table 5.2) 

- 
€ 12,500 
€ 75,000 
- 
€ 12,500 
- 
- 
€ 100,000 

- 
€ 75,000 
€ 450,000 

- 
€ 25,000 
€ 150,000 

€ 25,000 
€ 150,000 

€ 75,000 
€ 300,000 

€ 37,500 
€ 225,000 

€ 1,350,000 

€ 600,000 

€ 300,000 

€ 225,000 

€ 375,000 

€ 25,000 

€ 37,500 

€ 75,000 

- 
- 

- 

Under  both  the  high  and  low  cost  scenarios,  reducing  the  time  taken  for  the 
application process will reduce the administrative burden on industry.  

Tables  5.6  and  5.7  show  the  impact  on  the  administrative  costs  of  the  different 
timescales for the application process (from Table 5.1) under the low and high cost 
scenarios. 

Table  5.6:  Administrative  Costs  to  Industry  per  Application1  Associated  with  Different 
Timescales for Application Process – Low Cost Scenario  

Options  

Option 1 
Option 2.1 

Best Case 
(Months)  
8 
8 

Worst Case 
(Months)  
24 
24 

Lower  
Bound (€) 
€ 100,000 
€ 100,000 

Upper  
Bound (€)  
€ 300,000 
€ 300,000 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
Option 2.2 
Option 2.3 
Option 2.4 
1. Assuming three staff work full time at a cost of €12,500 per month throughout steps 2, 3a and 3c. 

€ 150,000 
€ 187,500 
€ 137,500 

€ 62,500 
€ 62,500 
€ 62,500 

12 
15 
11 

5 
5 
5 

Table  5.7:  Administrative  Costs  to  Industry  per  Application1Associated  with  Different 
Timescales for Application Process – High Cost Scenario  

Options  

Worst Case 
(Months)  
Option 1 
54 
Option 2.1 
54 
Option 2.2 
42 
Option 2.3 
39 
Option 2.4 
33 
1.  Assuming  three  staff  work  full  time  at  a  cost  of  €25,000  per  month  throughout  the  application 
process. 

Upper  
Bound (€)  
€ 1,350,000 
€ 1,350,000 
€ 1,050,000 
€ 975,000 
€ 825,000 

Best Case 
(Months)  
24 
24 
21 
18 
18 

Lower  
Bound (€) 
€ 600,000 
€ 600,000 
€ 525,000 
€ 450,000 
€ 450,000 

As explained before the costs associated with the research and development of a new 
fibre are not influenced by the process of approval of a new fibre name and therefore 
they  are  not  included  in  the  impact  assessment.  However,  in  addition  to  the 
administrative  costs,  applicants  also  face  costs  in  developing  test  methods  for  the 
quantification  and  identification  of  the  new  textile  fibre  in  order  to  enable  market 
surveillance  authorities  to  assess  if  the  information  provided  in  a  textile  label  is  in 
conformity with the content of the textile or clothing product bearing the label.  

Discussions with CIRFS/BISFA indicate that administrative costs account for around 
60%  to  80%  of  total  costs  of  supporting  an  application,  with  test  development 
accounting for the remaining 20% to 40%. In order to reduce the potential number of 
combinations between administrative costs and testing costs, we have considered in 
this  report  that,  in  the  lower  bound  of  both  low  and  high  cost  scenarios, 
administrative costs account for 80% of the total costs and testing costs account for 
the remaining 20%. In the upper bound, administrative costs account for 60% of the 
total costs and testing costs account for the remaining 40%. 

The  rationale  for  these  assumptions  is  that  the  lower  bound  shows  the  costs  of  the 
best cases in terms of time taken (more rapid) in the application process as explained 
in  section  5.2,  probably  involving  an  easier  and  less  costly  testing  work.  It  was 
assumed that the opposite situation occurs in the worst cases (more time taken in the 
application process). 

On  this  basis,  for  Option  1,  industry  costs  in  developing  test  methods  could  range 
from  €25,000  to  €200,000  for  the  low  cas
the high cost scenario, per application, as illustrated in Table 5.8. 

e  scenario  and  €150,000  to  €900,000  for 

Although the test development costs have been derived from the administrative costs, 
these test development costs are assumed to be fixed costs which will not necessarily 
be  affected  as  a  result  of  the  shorter  time  periods  under  any  of  the  policy  options. 
Hence, the testing costs derived for Option 1 are applied to all Options.  

The  test  development  costs  could  be  increased,  if  further  testing  is  required  during 
the  technical  examination  stage,  as  shown  in  table  5.8  below.  Based  on  the 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
experience  with  recent  applications  for  new  fibre  names,  which  have  generally 
required additional technical information, implying further testing, the hypothesis of 
a 50% increase was retained. This would imply additional test development costs of 
€12,500 to €100,000 for the low cost scenar
io and €75,000 to €450,000 for the high 
cost scenario, as part of the additional work during the technical examination step. 

Table 5.8: Calculation of Industry Test Development Costs 

Low Cost Scenario 

Lower 
Bound 
€100,000 

Upper 
Bound 

High Cost Scenario 
Upper 
Lower 
Bound 
Bound 

€300,000 

€ 600,000 

€ 1,350,000 

€125,000 2 

€500,000 3 

€750,000 2 

Option 1 - Administrative costs1  
Total administrative and test 
development costs  
Test development costs4  
Additional testing costs5 
1. Administrative costs taken from Table 5.5.  
2. Lower Bound assumes that administrative costs account for 80% of the total costs of preparing an 
application. 
3. Upper Bound Assumes that administrative costs account for 60% of the total costs of preparing an 
application. 
4. Calculated from total costs minus administrative costs. 
5. Assumes an additional expenditure of 50% of test development costs if further testing is required 
during the technical examination. 

€ 900,000 
€ 450,000 

€ 200,000 
€ 100,000 

€ 150,000 
€ 75,000 

€ 25,000 
€ 12,500 

€2,225,000 3 

5.3.2.  Costs and Benefits of Option 1 (baseline scenario) 

Industry 

On the basis of the assumptions set out above, the administrative and testing costs to 
a  company  under  the  current  process  range  from  €137,500 ,  in  the  case  of  the  less 
time  consuming  application  process,  to  €2.7  million   per  application,  in  the  worst 
case on time taken in the application process, as shown in Table 5.9 below. The top 
end  of  this  range  appears  to  be  quite  high  based  on  information  provided  by  one 
company, which had spent €2 million so far in  tests, research and development and 
submissions  relating  to  a  fibre  (the  estimates  shown  in  table  5.9  do  not  include 
research and development costs as these are incurred before an application is made). 

 Table 5.9: Administrative and Testing Costs to Industry per Application of Option 1  
High Cost Scenario 

Low Cost Scenario 

Administrative costs 
Test development costs 
Further 
technical 
(where necessary) 
Total  

testing 

during 
examination 

Lower 
Bound 

Upper Bound 

€ 100,000 
€ 25,000 

€ 300,000 
€ 200,000 

Lower 
Bound 
€ 600,000 
€ 150,000 

Upper Bound 

€ 1,350,000 
€ 900,000 

€ 12,500 

€ 100,000 

€ 75,000 

€ 450,000 

€ 137,500 

€ 600,000 

€ 825,000 

€ 2,700,000 

Assuming  that  the  current  rate  of  applications  continues,  at  around  1  per  year,  the 
total  annual  costs  to  industry  (undiscounted)  would  be  €137,500  to  €2.7  million  
per  application.  Assuming  a  4%  discount  rate  for  costs  incurred  in  future  years 
gives total costs to industry over ten years of between €1.25 million to €25 million . 

The  main  benefit  to  industry  of  having  a  new  textile  name  is  the  marketing  value. 
CIRFS/BISFA  has  suggested  that  a  new  textile  fibre  with  a  new  generic  name  can 
generate  an  extra  €100,000  to  €1  million  in  revenue  in  its  first  year,  rising  to 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
€500,000  to  €2  million  in  the  second  year.  This  gap  between  potential  revenues  is 
explained by a smaller or wider use of the new fibre as a result of its own success or 
of  being  a  speciality  fibre  with  a  niche  market  as  compared  to  a  commodity  fibre 
benefiting from a mass market. Because of uncertainties over the timing of revenue 
increases,  it  was  assumed  that  annual  benefits  per  fibre  per  year  will  range  from 
€100,000  to  €2  million.  If  such  benefits  accr ue  over  10  years  (based  on  discussion 
with CIRFS/BISFA) and a 4% discount rate applies, this  gives benefits of  between 
€910,000  and  €18.2 million per fibre.
 This indicates that the benefits of Option 1 
significantly outweigh the costs. 

Sales of some new fibres which were given new generic names recently have been in 
the  region  of  €10  million  to  €50  million;  although  this  level  of  sales  depends  on 
timing and other business factors. It also depends on whether the new fibre is being 
marketed  as  a  speciality  fibre  or  a  commodity  fibre.  Most  fibres  with  new  generic 
names start off as speciality fibres, with the hope that they can become a commodity 
fibre in future. A whole new business unit can be a spin-off as a result of this change.  

Consumers 

The  main  benefit  to  consumers  of  Option  1  is  that  it  provides  certainty  that  the 
named fibres contained within textile products meet specified characteristics and that 
Competent  Authorities  have  a  basis  for  testing  textile  products  to  ensure  that  they 
contain  the  named  fibres.  This  benefit  could  not  be  quantified,  as  none  of  the 
consumer  organisations  contacted  is  actively  working  on  the  issue  of  textile  fibre 
names. 

However, this benefit will apply equally to all Options with the only difference being 
in  how  quickly  the  benefit  is  realised;  the  lack  of  quantification  therefore  does  not 
affect the relative costs and benefits of the Options. 

Public Authorities 

The costs to the Commission of Option 1 are estimated at approximately €300,000 - 
€400,000 per application . According to JRC, ring tests cost around €120,000 while 
other activities undertaken on behalf of the Commission involving the full laboratory 
analysis of the new textile fibre cost around €250,000. In addition, meetings of the 
Committee on Textile Names and Labelling are likely to cost around €15,000 for the 
travel expenses  of participants, plus the  costs  of  the room and  translation  facilities, 
provided by the Commission. Assuming a 4% discount rate, this gives total costs to 
the Commission over ten years of between €2.7 million to €3.6 million . 

There  are  also  staff  time  costs  to  Competent  Authorities  in  the  EU-27  in  attending 
meetings of the Working Group and the Committee and costs to national experts in 
attending meeting(s) convened by the JRC. The scale of these costs will depend on 
the number of meeting days and the cost per day of Competent Authority staff. As 
these  factors  are  unlikely  to  vary  significantly  between  the  Options,  they  are  not 
discussed further. 

5.3.3.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.1 

Industry 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
The costs to industry under this sub-option will be the same as those under Option 1 
(shown in Table 5.9), as there is no change to the application process, only removal 
of  the  process  of  transposition  of  amendments  to  the  Directives  into  Member  State 
national laws. 

There would also be no administrative cost savings to industry from completing the 
process  of  adding  a  new  fibre  name  one  year  earlier,  as  there  is  no  administrative 
activity during transposition.  

There is a benefit to industry from this option related to the advantage of being able 
to market a fibre with a new name one year earlier.  

CIRFS/BISFA  has  indicated  that  delays  in  the  time  taken  in  granting  a  new  fibre 
name could result in companies:  

–  facing a longer gap between investment in the fibre and realisation of profit; 

–  realising a reduced period of patent protection due to the delay between filing and 

being able to take advantage of a patent for marketing; and  

–  losing time which could have been used in the creation of market awareness with 
corresponding premium price setting (i.e. obtaining extra margins for a fibre with 
a new generic name).  

According  to  CIRFS/BISFA,  the  main  benefit  of  speeding  up  the  process  is  the 
support which is given to the marketing strategy of the company which has applied 
for  the  fibre  name.  For  instance,  for  one  of  the  fibres  (currently  going  through  the 
process),  the  company  involved  is  not  manufacturing  any  other  fibre.  The  whole 
business  is,  therefore,  dependent  on  the  success  of  this  fibre.  This  may  not  be  the 
case for other companies, but whole business units or sections may be dependent on 
the time it takes a certain fibre to get to market. Speeding up the process, therefore, 
enables a company to strengthen its position overall 

In the absence of detailed information, two scenarios have been used to estimate the 
potential losses which might arise from delaying the placing on the market of a fibre 
with a new name, and thus the benefits of reducing such delays:  

–  Scenario 1 assumes that the only impact of a delay is to increase the time between 
investment in the fibre and the generation of revenues (of €100,000 to €2 million 
per year); there is no reduction in the overall revenue from the fibre. Table 5.10 
sets out the first-year benefits of avoiding a one-year delay in receiving revenues 
(assuming a 4% discount rate) for different annual revenue values. These benefits 
. Assuming the current rate of one 
range from around €4,000 to €77,000 per fibre
new fibre per year continues, the total benefits incurred by industry over a 10 year 
period  from  avoiding  the  one-year  delay  are  between  €35,000  and  €700,000 
(at 
4%  discount  rate).  As  a  conservative  estimate,  only  the  first-year  benefits  have 
been  included.  This  reflects  the  significance  to  companies  of  avoiding  a  year 
where  costs  are  incurred  but  no  benefits  are  received  (therefore,  the  company 
might incur borrowing costs). These first-year benefits will arise over the 10-year 
time period for analysis, as each fibre is placed on the market. Thus, an alternative 
approach  would  be  to  compare  the  net  present  value  of  the  revenue  stream  for 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
each fibre with, and without, a one-year delay. This results in a higher benefit per 
fibre,  of  £31,000  to  £624,000  per  fibre.  However,  the  total  benefits  to  industry 
would  be  difficult  to  determine,  as  they  would  accrue  at  different  times  over  a 
total period of 19 years as a minimum (from the start of the revenue stream for the 
first  fibre  to  the  end  of  the  revenue  stream  for  the  10th  fibre,  assuming  that  the 
introduction of new fibres is constant at one per year). Note that this may not be 
the case in practice. The average figure of one fibre per year may relate to two or 
three fibres introduced in a given year followed by no new fibres in the following 
two  or  three  years  (consistent  with  what  currently  appears  to  be  the  case).  As 
assumptions on the timing of these new fibres coming to market will change the 
present value estimate, it was decided to provide an indication of the benefits in 
relation to one fibre only. 

Table 5.10: Potential Benefits of Avoiding a One Year Delay in Placing a Fibre on the Market – 
Scenario 1 

in  achieving 

Annual revenue per fibre  
First-year  benefits  per  fibre  of  avoiding  a  1  year 
delay 
revenue 
(discounted at 4%) 
Total first year benefits to industry over 10 years 
of avoiding a 1 year delay in achieving additional 
revenue for 10 fibres (discounted at 4%) 

in  additional 

Lower Bound 
€100,000 

Upper Bound 
€2 million 

€ 3,846 

€ 76,923 

€35,041 

€700,837  

–  Scenario 2 assumes that the delay in placing the fibre on the market results in a 
loss  of  one  year’s  revenue;  this  could  occur,  for  example,  if  the  period  of  sales 
under patent protection is one year shorter. In this case (Table 5.11), the benefits 
of  reducing  delay  by  one  year  would  be  equivalent  to  one  year’s  revenue  of 
€100,000 to €2 million per fibre.
 Assuming the current rate, of one new fibre per 
year, the total benefit to industry from avoiding a one-year loss of profits could be 
equivalent to €911,000 to €18.2 million  over 10 years (using a 4% discount rate).  

Table 5.11: Potential Benefits of avoiding One Year Delay in Placing a Fibre on the Market – 
Scenario 2 

Extra Revenue per Fibre  
Loss  from  1  year  Delay  for  the 
first fibre  
Total  benefits  to  industry  over  10 
years of avoiding a 1 year delay in 
achieving 
revenue 
additional 
(discounted at 4%) 

Lower Bound 
€ 100,000 
€ 100,000 

Upper Bound 
€ 2 million 
€ 2 million 

€ 911,090 

€ 18,221,792 

The wide gap between the values obtained with scenarios 1 and 2 above do not allow 
an  undisputable  conclusion.  However,  it  is  legitimate  to  assume  that  the  potential 
direct benefits for industry from avoiding one year delay in placing a new fibre on 
the market may be substantial. 

Consumers 

This option would result in no change in the benefits for consumers of the Textiles 
Directives, but the benefits would be brought forward by one year. 

Public Authorities 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
Option 2.1 involves replacing the three directives on textile names and labelling by 
one (or a series of) regulations. In terms of administrative burden:  

–  cost  savings  are  expected  for  the  Commission,  including  the  JRC,  and  the 
Committee on Textile Names and Labelling. The Commission may incur savings 
through not having to deal with queries from Member States regarding technical 
problems with transposing the legislation and with the checking of transpositions. 
However, there is no real change in their current responsibilities; and 

–  cost savings are expected for Member State authorities, from no longer having to 
transpose  amendments  to  Directives.  According  to  information  provided  in  the 
regulatory impact assessment by the UK for the last amendment of the UK textiles 
legislation22,  the  costs  of  amending  current  national  legislation  to  implement  an 
amended Directive are around £700,000 (around €1 million). It was not possible 
to obtain details on these costs. However, even assuming that these costs may be 
lower  in  most  Member  States,  the  benefits  to  them  of  not  having  to  transpose 
amendments to Directives appear to be considerable. 

5.3.4.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.2 

Industry 

Option 2.2 involves adopting new regulation(s) and adding an annex specifying the 
contents of the application file. As indicated previously in this report, the experience 
with the applications for new fibre names put forward by companies in recent years 
has  shown  that  additional  technical  information  from  applicants  is  always  needed. 
Obtaining  the  required  information  from  the  involved  enterprises  has  taken  more 
than 12 months in some cases. It is estimated that the submission of a complete or 
close to complete application file could bring potential time savings for Option 2.2 
compared to Option 1 of 3 to 12 months, as indicated in Table 5.2.  

Table 5.12: Administrative Costs of Option 2.2 Compared to Option 1 (details in Tables 5.6 and 
5.7) 

Administrative costs of Option 1 per 
fibre 
Administrative  costs  of  Option  2.2 
per fibre 
Cost Saving per Fibre  
Discounted at 4% over 10 years 

Low Cost Scenario 

High Cost Scenario 

Lower 
Bound 

Upper 
Bound 

Lower 
Bound 

Upper 
Bound 

€ 100,000 

€ 300,000 

€ 600,000 

€ 1,350,000 

€ 62,500 

€ 150,000 

€ 525,000 

€ 1,050,000 

€ 37,500 
€ 341,659  

€ 150,000 
€ 1,366,000  

€ 75,000 

€ 300,000 

€ 683,317  

€ 2,733,269  

Table  5.12  above  shows  the  potential  administrative  cost  savings  arising  from  the 
time  reduction,  for  the  high  and  low  cost  cases.  These  range  from  €37,500  to 
€300,000  per application. Assuming that the rate of applications remains at one per 
year  for  10  years,  the  total  benefit  to  industry  over  10  years  would  be  between 
€340,000 and €2.7 million 

at a 4% discount rate. 

22 

DTI  (2006):  Full  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment,  The  Textile  Products  (Indications  of  Fibre 
Content)  (Amendment  and  Consolidation  of  Schedules  of  Textile  Names  and  Allowances) 
Regulations 2006, UK Department for Trade and Industry, 13th December 2006.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The industry may save testing costs which result from additional testing that has been 
always required by the Commission services and Member States national experts in 
the  assessment  of  recent  applications.  However,  to  keep  a  cautious  approach,  these 
potential cost savings were not taken into account for Option 2.1. 

The benefits already calculated for Option 2.1 with regard to the 12 months spared 
with  the  Directives  transposition  process,  therefore  avoiding  one  year  delay  in 
placing a fibre on the market as shown in Tables 5.10 and 5.11, would also apply for 
Option 2.2.  

Furthermore,  the  inclusion  of  a  technical  annex  in  the  regulation  describing  the 
requirements  of  the  application  file  (Option  2.2)  is  considered  to  bring  additional 
time  savings  between  3  to  12  months  as  compared  to  Option  2.1  (Table  5.2).  This 
shorter timescale would imply further benefits, estimated in Table 5.13 below. These 
additional benefits could range from around €1,000 , considering the assumptions of 
scenario 1 in Option 2.1, to €2 million , considering the assumptions of scenario 2 in 
Option 2.1. These benefits could be equivalent to between €9,100 and €18.2 million  
over 10 years (discounted at 4%).  

Table  5.13:  Potential  Benefits  of  Avoiding  an  Additional  3  -  12  months  Delay  or  Loss  of 
Revenue  

Annual revenue per fibre1 
Scenario 1: Benefits of avoiding a 1 year delay in achieving 
additional revenue (discounted at 4%)1.  
Scenario 2: Benefits of avoiding a 1 year delay in achieving 
additional revenue (discounted at 4%)1 
Scenario 1: Delay in Revenue 
Additional  benefits  of  a  further  3  month  reduction  in  the 
time taken to achieve revenue2 
Additional  benefits  of  a  further  12  month  reduction  in  the 
time taken to achieve revenue  
Scenario 2: Loss of Revenue  
Additional benefits of avoiding loss of 3 months revenue2 
Additional benefits of avoiding loss of 12 months revenue 
1. See Tables 5.10 and 5.11. 
2. Calculated as 25% of benefits of avoiding a one-year delay 

Lower Bound 
€100,000 

€ 3,846 

€100,000 

Upper Bound 
€2 million 
€ 76,923 

€2 million 

€962 

€ 3,846 

€19,230 

€ 76,923 

€25,000 
€100,000 

€500,000 
€2 million 

CIRFS/ BISFA is of the opinion that the long timescale of the current process cannot 
be  blamed  on  unclear  guidance  and,  therefore,  that  this  Option  would  not  result  in 
additional savings compared to Option 2.1. CIRFS/BISFA considers that the current 
guidance is quite clear, but, as with any other type of guidance, there is always scope 
to  provide  further  support,  whether  by  the  Commission  or  BISFA.  The  practical 
reality  is  that  companies  do  not  submit  applications  on  a  regular  basis  for  a  new 
generic  name  and,  as  such,  they  are  always  going  to  be  relatively  inexperienced  in 
preparing  a  dossier  (without  some  additional  help).  However,  CIRFS/BISFA  has 
later  (July  2008)  suggested  that  an  annex  containing  technical  guidance  would 
provide helpful support to applicants. The JRC considers that clear guidance would 
significantly  help  both  applicants  (who  would  clearly  know  what  information  they 
have  to  provide)  and  the  JRC  (which  would  receive  much  more  complete 
information).  

The JRC indicates that the aspect of applications which would benefit the most from 
identification, 
such  guidance 

to  analytical  methods  for 

the  part 

linked 

is 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
quantification and characterisation of new fibres. In its experience, this part is rarely 
complete and sometimes missing and never includes experimental data to support the 
proposed quantitative methods. This gives the impression that the proposed methods 
have not been fully tested in-house. 

JRC  considers  that,  ideally,  the  application  should  contain  not  only  a  complete 
description  of  the  proposed  methods  but  also  data  concerning  their  development, 
their  robustness  and  their  in-house  performances,  so  that  when  the  JRC  checks  the 
validity of the methods, it would have data for comparison. Applications should also 
contain  the  quantitative  behaviour  of  the  new  fibre  with  the  already  established 
methods.  JRC  considers  that,  if  the  guidance  obliges  applicants  to  present 
experimental  data  to  support  the  proposal  of  new  analytical  methods,  this  would 
probably  avoid  the  presentation  of  inadequate  methods  to  the  JRC  as  well  as  time 
wasted in demonstrating the inadequacy.  

Consumers 

This option would result in no change in the benefits for consumers, but the benefits 
would be brought forward by further 3-12 moths compared to Option 2.1. 

Public Authorities 

The  Commission  may  incur  some  costs  from  having  to  prepare  guidance  for  the 
applicants to a new fibre name. These costs do not imply specific financial expenses. 
They  are  related  to  the  time  required  from  Commission  officials  to  prepare  and 
discuss  an  annex  with  technical  guidance  to  include  in  the  Regulation.  The 
preparation of a guidance document may take the equivalent of one to two weeks of 
the  work  of  one  Commission  official,  including  contacts  with  other  Commission 
services and with industry representatives.  

Some  additional  benefits  are  expected  for  the  Commission  from  Option  2.2, 
compared  to  Option  2.1.  These  may  arise  from  having  to  place  fewer  requests  for 
further  information  to  industry  as  the  files  received  are  in  a  more  complete  form. 
This  could  result  in  some  time  savings;  however,  the  scale  of  these  cost  savings  is 
uncertain and cannot yet be quantified. In the long-term, it is likely that the on-going 
benefits of creating guidance will outweigh the additional one-off costs.  

No  additional  benefits  are  expected  for  Member  State  authorities,  compared  to 
Option  2.1.  Member  States  authorities  do,  however,  believe  that  creating  guidance 
would clarify the requirements and necessary elements of the application and thereby 
shorten the time of the application process. 

5.3.5.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.3 

Industry 

Option 2.3 involves including provisions to establish a list of laboratories recognised 
by  Member  States  that  possess  the  capacities  to  assess  an  application  for  a  new 
textiles  fibre  name.  As  explained  before,  this  option,  as  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario (Option 1), saves time in the assessment and approval of a new textile fibre 
name.  As  a  result,  administrative  costs  for  industry  are  lower.  As  shown  in  Table 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
5.14,  the  savings  in  administrative  costs  would  be  between  €37,500   (lower  bound, 
low cost scenario) and €375,000  per fibre (upper bound, high cost scenario).  

However,  industry  could  incur  costs  in  paying  national  laboratories  to  review 
dossiers before an application is made to the Commission for a new fibre name. The 
extent of the costs will depend on the degree to which tests by national laboratories 
replace those that would currently be carried out by industry, rather than duplicating 
work that industry undertakes. 

In order to provide an indication of the costs, it was assumed (based on discussions 
with  CIRFS/BISFA)  that  10%  to  25%  of  the  work  on  test  methods  currently 
undertaken  by  companies  will  be  repeated  by  laboratories.  Accordingly,  additional 
costs  of  10%  were  taken  into  account  for  the  lower  band  of  low  and  high  cost 
scenarios  and  increased  costs  of  25%  were  considered  for  the  upper  band  in  both 
scenarios. Applying these percentages to the costs of developing test methods, shown 
in Table 5.8, results in an additional cost to industry for the tests duplicated by the 
laboratories of between €2,500 and €225,000 per fibre

. 

CIRFS/BISFA,  however,  does  not  consider  that  there  would  be  any  extra  costs  to 
companies  from  Option  2.3,  as  it  currently  encourages  members  to  make  use  of 
external laboratories in preparing their application. Rather, the advantage is that the 
Commission  does  not  spend  time  and  money  repeating  work  already  done  by 
industry. Using national laboratories might increase the time taken to put together an 
application  dossier  (Step  0);  however,  this  step  is  not  addressed  in  this  impact 
assessment because is takes place before an application is submitted.  

By  using  the  services  of  recognised  laboratories  to  prepare  an  application  file, 
applicants  will  very  likely  present  a  complete  dossier.  Therefore,  companies  will 
save the costs incurred on the further testing that has been always needed with recent 
cases during the assessment of the application as a result of the incompleteness of the 
files. These costs range from €12,500 to €450,000. As shown in Table 5.14 below net 
savings in test development costs could fall within a range of between €10,000 and 
€225,000 . 

To  sum  up,  net  administrative  and  test  developing  cost  savings  would  be  between 
€47,500 and €600,000 per fibre
. Assuming that the rate of applications remains at 
one  per  year  for  10  years,  the  total  benefit  to  industry  over  10  years  would  be 
between €432,000 and €5.5 million 

(at a 4% discount rate). 

Table 5.14: Cost Savings to Industry of Option 2.3 compared to Option 1 (per application)  

Low Cost Scenario 
Upper 
Lower 
Bound 
Bound 

High Cost Scenario 
Upper 
Lower 
Bound 
Bound 

Administrative Costs  
Administrative  costs  of  Options  1and 
2.11  
Administrative costs, Option 2.31 
Savings in administrative costs2 
Test Development Costs 
Current  test  development  costs  (Option 
1)3 
Additional cost of repeating tests4  
Savings  from  not  repeating  tests  during 

€ 100,000 

€ 300,000 

€ 600,000 

€ 1,350,000 

€ 62,500 
€ 37,500 

€ 187,500 
€112,500  

€ 450,000 
€ 150,000 

€ 975,000 
€ 375,000 

€ 25,000 

€ 200,000 

€ 150,000 

€ 900,000 

€ 2,500 
€ 12,500 

€ 50,000 
€ 100,000 

€ 15,000 
€ 75,000 

€ 225,000 
€ 450,000 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
cost 

€10,000 

in  test  development  costs 
from  non-repetition  minus 

Table 5.14: Cost Savings to Industry of Option 2.3 compared to Option 1 (per application)  
technical examination3 
Savings 
(savings 
additional costs from repeating tests) 
in 
(savings 
savings 
Total 
administrative  costs  plus  savings  in  test 
development costs) 
Discounted at 4% over 10 years 
1. From Tables 5.6 and 5.7.  
2. Current administrative costs (Option 1) minus administrative costs under Option 2.3  
3. From Table 5.8: additional testing costs.  
4. 10% duplication – lower bound; 25% duplication – upper bound 

€ 1,913,288 

€ 1,480,521 

€ 5,466,537 

€ 432,768 

€600,000 

€162,500 

€210,000 

€225,000 

€ 47,500 

€60,000 

€50,000 

As indicated for Option 2.2 above, the benefits already calculated for Option 2.1 with 
regard  to  the  12  months  spared  with  a  regulation  on  the  Directives  transposition 
process, therefore avoiding one year delay in placing a fibre on the market as shown 
in Tables 5.10 and 5.11, would also apply for Option 2.3.  

Furthermore, Option 2.3 is estimated to save between 6 to 15 months as compared to 
Option  2.1  (Table  5.2).  This  shorter  timescale  would  imply  further  benefits, 
estimated  in  Table  5.15  below,  according  to  the  approach  used  in  the  previous 
options: scenario 1 assumes that the additional benefits are the equivalent of avoiding 
a one-year delay in receiving revenues at a 4% discount rate and scenario 2 assumes 
that  the  additional  benefits  are  the  equivalent  to  one  year's  revenue.  These  could 
range from around €2,000  to €2.5 million  per fibre as shown in Table 5.15 below. 
These  benefits  could  be  equivalent  to  between  €18,200  and  €22.8  million   over  10 
years (discounted at 4%).  

Table 5.15: Potential Benefits of Avoiding an Additional 6 - 15 months Delay in Placing a Fibre 
on the Market  

Annual revenue per fibre1 
Scenario 1: Benefits of avoiding a 1 year delay in achieving in 
additional revenue (4%)1 
Scenario 2: Benefits of avoiding a 1 year delay in achieving in 
additional revenue (4%)1 
Scenario 1: Delay in Revenue  
Additional benefits of a further 6 month reduction in the time 
taken to achieve revenue2 
Additional benefits of a further 15 month reduction in the time 
taken to achieve revenue3 
Scenario 2: Loss of Revenue  
Additional benefits of avoiding loss of six months revenue2 
Additional benefits of avoiding loss of 15 months revenue3 
1. See Tables 5.10 and 5.11. 
2. Calculated as 50% of benefits of avoiding a one year delay. 
3. Calculated as 125% of benefits of a avoiding a one year delay. 

Lower Bound 
€100,000 

Upper Bound 
€2 million 

€ 3,846 

€ 76,923 

€1000,000 

€2 million 

€1,923 

€ 4,807 

€38,461 

€ 96,153 

€50,000 
€125,000 

€1 million 
€2.5 million 

The analysis suggests that using a recognised laboratory to prepare an application for 
a new textiles fibre name will bring potential benefits to applicants. However, from a 
legal point of view, applications will always need to be assessed by the Commission 
services, including the JRC. The report from the laboratory can not be granted a legal 
status avoiding any further examination from Commission services and the group of 
Member  Sates  experts  on  textile  fibre  names.  As  a  result,  the  use  of  a  recognised 
laboratory by a company should remain on a voluntary basis. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
Consumers 

This option would result in no change in the benefits for consumers, but the benefits 
would be brought forward by a further 6-15 months compared to Option 2.1. 

Public Authorities 

Some  additional  benefits  are  expected  for  the  Commission,  JRC  and  the  Working 
Group from this Option. Lower costs will arise because the check on the application 
file  by  a  recognised  laboratory  should  reduce  the  need  to  request  supporting  data 
from the applicant and, possibly, from fewer ring trials being required to validate the 
test  methods.  If  25%  of  costs  are  saved,  this  could  result  in  savings  of  around 
€75,000 per fibre .  Assuming that the current rate of one  fibre application per year 
continues,  this  would  result  in  cost  savings  over  ten  years  (discounted  at  4%)  of 
around €680,000.  

A number of laboratories experienced in the domain of textile labelling and having 
the technical capabilities necessary to undertake these tasks already exist across the 
EU.  Member  States  may  incur  some  costs  in  identifying  recognised  national 
laboratories;  the  scale  of  these  costs  is,  however,  limited.  In  fact,  existing 
accreditation systems may be used for this purpose.  

Most  Competent  Authorities  in  the  Member  States  believe  that  the  creation  of 
the  quality  of  applications,  create 
recognised 
competence, result in a shorter processing time and reduced processing costs. Some 
Member States raised concerns indicating that:  

laboratories  would 

improve 

–  there will be insufficient work for the laboratories. This seems to borne out by 

the best-case projections of two to three fibres a year across the EU;  

–  there  may  be  a  lack  of  adequate  skills  and  expertise  to  act  as  an  accredited 
laboratory  in  most  Member  States.  One  Member  State  indicated  that  it  had  no 
laboratory  which  could  serve  the  above  function  (others  indicated  that  they  had 
between  one  and  three)  while  another  indicated  it  had  only  two  to  three  experts 
who  were  sufficiently  knowledgeable  regarding  the  identification  and  analysis 
methods for textiles which can be very advanced, e.g. thermal analysis, NMR; 

–  laboratories would have different approaches, which may result in a variability 

in applications; and  

–  some  authorities,  however,  expressed  concern  at  the  implications  for  Member 
States  of  the  extra  cost  of  identifying  recognised  laboratories.  The  laboratories 
would also have to allocate significant resources for the co-operation which would 
be required.  

The  JRC  considered  that  the  formal  creation  of  a  European  Network  of  Public 
Notified Laboratories (enforcement laboratories), which would assist the JRC in the 
evaluation  of  applications  and  take  part  in  the  validation  of  new  methods  and 
coefficients,  would  be  a  major  benefit.  It  facilitates  the  assessment  of  applications 
and the organisation of ring trials. This network already exists informally (known as 
the European Network of National Experts on Textile Labelling). However, it is not 
officially  recognised  in  the  legislation,  situation  that  is  sometimes  a  source  of 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
confusion  with  respect  to  the  laboratories  that  should  be  part  of  the  network.  The 
official  creation  of  such  a  network  is  being  explored  with  Member  States 
representatives, on the basis of the existing European Network of National Experts. 
In order to minimise potential costs, the solution being explored with Member States 
representatives  considers  that,  in  a  first  phase,  the  laboratories  that  benefit  already 
from accreditation are those that would join the network. The work to be carried out 
through  the  network  does  not  require  the  participation  of  27  laboratories,  meaning 
that  all  Member  States  do  not  need  to  be  represented.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  to 
propose a solution that does not oblige Member States  to  incur  in  costs  in  order  to 
develop its laboratories capacities at this stage; furthermore, this brings potential new 
customers  to  existing  laboratories.  In  addition,  the  list  of  recognised  laboratories 
would remain open in order to allow that Member States indicate further laboratories 
to be part of the network in the future. It should be noted that the JRC, being a part of 
the  Commission,  plays  an  institutional  role  in  the  examination  of  applications  and 
should remain independent to avoid any conflict of interests. 

The evaluation of the foreseen regulation, proposed to take place after 3 to 5 years of 
its  entering  into  force,  would  assess  the  results  obtained  with  this  solution  and 
suggest corrective measures if needed.  

5.3.6.  Costs and Benefits of Option 2.4 

Industry  

Option  2.4  involves  adopting  new  regulation(s)  (Option  2.1),  adding  an  annex 
specifying the contents of the application file (Option 2.2) and establishing a list of 
recognised national laboratories (option 2.3). The costs and benefits calculated under 
Options 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are, therefore, combined under Option 2.4.  

Table 5.16 shows the cost savings of Option 2.4 compared to Option 1. It considers 
the administrative costs as presented in Tables 5.6 and 5.7, and the cost savings from 
testing  resulting  from  the  fact  that  there  would  be  no  need  for  applicants  to  repeat 
tests as estimated in Table 5.14 for Option 2.3. The total administrative and testing 
cost savings range from €47,500 to €600,000.
 Assuming that the rate of applications 
remains at one per year for 10 years, the total benefit to industry over 10 years would 
be between €430,000 and €5,5 million 

(at a 4% discount rate). 

Table 5.16: Cost Savings to Industry of Option 2.4 Compared to Option 1 (per Application) 
High Cost Scenario 
Upper 
Lower 
Bound 
Bound 

Low Cost Scenario 

Administrative costs of Option 11  
Administrative costs, Option 2.4 1 
Savings in administrative costs2 
Cost savings from Testing3 
Total Cost Savings  
Costs  over  10  years,  discounted  at 
4%  
1. From Tables 5.6 and 5.7.  
2. Current administrative costs (Option 1) minus administrative costs under Option 2.4  
3. From Table 5.14.  

€ 600,000 
€ 450,000 
€ 150,000 
€ 60,000 
€ 210,000 

€ 1,480,521  

€ 1,913,288  

€ 432,768  

€ 1,350,000 
€ 825,000 
€ 375,000 
€ 225,000 
€ 600,000 

Upper 
Bound 
€ 300,000 
€ 137,500 
€ 112,500 
€ 50,000 
€ 162,500 

Lower 
Bound 
€ 100,000 
€ 62,500 
€ 37,500 
€ 10,000 
€ 47,500 

€ 5,466,537  

As indicated for Options 2.2 and 2.3, the benefits already calculated for Option 2.1 
with regard to the 12 months spared with a regulation on the Directives transposition 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
process, therefore avoiding one year delay in placing a fibre on the market as shown 
in Tables 5.10 and 5.11, would also apply for Option 2.4. 

Furthermore,  as  indicated  in  Table  5.2,  the  potential  time  savings  for  Option  2.4 
compared  to  Option  2.1  is  6-21  months.  This  shorter  timescale  will  generate 
additional benefits compared to those shown for Option 2.1 in Tables 5.9 and 5.10, 
from  further  reductions  to  delays  in  bringing  fibres  with  new  names  to  market.  As 
shown in Table 5.17 below, these could range from around €2,000  to €3.5 million  
per fibre. These benefits could be equivalent to between €18,200 and €31.9 million  
over 10 years (discounted at 4%). 

 Table  5.17:  Potential  Benefits  of  Avoiding  an  Additional  6  -  21  months  Delay  in  Placing  a 
Fibre on the Market  

Annual revenue per fibre1 
Benefits of avoiding a 1 year delay in achieving in additional 
revenue (4%)1 
Scenario 1: Delay in Revenue  
Additional benefits of a further 6 month reduction in the time 
taken to achieve revenue2 
Additional  benefits  of  a  further  21  month  reduction  in  the 
time taken to achieve revenue3 
Scenario 2: Loss of Revenue  
Additional benefits of avoiding loss of 6 months revenue2 
Additional benefits of avoiding loss of 21 months revenue3 
1. See Table 5.9 
2. Calculated as 50% of benefits of avoiding a one year delay 
3. Calculated as 175% of benefits of avoiding a one year delay 

Consumers 

Lower Bound 
€100,000 

Upper Bound 
€2 million 

€ 3,846 

€ 76,923 

€1,923 

€ 6,730 

€38,461 

€ 134,614 

€50,000 
€ 175,000 

€1 million 
€3.5 million 

This  option  would  result  in  no  change  in  the  benefits  for  consumers  but  benefits 
would be brought forward by a further 6-21 months. 

Public Authorities 

Under  Option  2.4  (as  for  Option  2.3)  a  saving  of  25%  of  the  costs  of  JRC  would 
. Assuming that the current 
provide benefits of around €75,000 to €100,000 per fibre
rate of one fibre application per year continues, this would result in cost saving over 
ten years of around €680,000 to €910,000 

(discounted at 4%).  

Option  2.4  would  also  retain  the  benefits  of  Option  2.2  for  the  Commission,  from 
having  to  make  fewer  requests  for  further  information  to  industry,  as  the  files 
received  are  in  a  more  complete  form.  Member  States  authorities  also  believe  that 
creating  guidance  would  clarify  the  requirements  and  necessary  elements  of  the 
application  and  thereby  shorten  the  time  of  the  application  process.  These  could 
result in some time savings; however, the scale of these cost savings is uncertain and 
cannot yet be quantified.  

5.3.7.  Costs and Benefits of Option 3 

Option  3  involves  a  combined  regulatory/non-regulatory  approach  in  which  a  new 
regulation would contain provisions currently included in Directive 96/74/EC and in 
which  the  quantification/test  methods  would  be  transferred  to  the  domain  of 
standardisation (by CEN). 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
The  key  uncertainty  with  Option  3  is  whether  a  fibre  with  a  new  name  could  be 
placed on the market during the period when the test method was being converted to 
a  standard.  Two  potential  cases  have  been  identified.  In  both  cases,  the  time 
considered  for  the  adoption  of  the  standards  by  CEN  is  based  on  the  Unique 
Acceptance Process as explained in Section 5.2.3: 

–  Case  A:  the  work  by  CEN  takes  12  months,  but  the  fibre  could  be  marketed 

during this period; and 

–  Case B: the work by CEN to adopt a standard would take 12 months and the fibre 

could not be marketed during this period. 

Industry 

The impact of Option 3 on industry will depend critically on which Scenario applies: 

–  under  Case  A,  there  could  be  some  reduction  in  the  administrative  cost  savings 
obtained under Option 2, as industry might need to respond to the CEN enquiry 
process. However, as the test method will have been agreed beforehand (Step 3), 
this  additional  cost  is  likely  to  be  minimal.  Otherwise,  the  time  savings  under 
Option 3.1 will be the same as Option 2.1, Option 3.2 the same as Option 2.2 etc, 
as  industry  will  not  be  undertaking  any  other  administrative  activity  during  the 
period of conversion of the test method  to  a standard, but the benefits would be 
the same as for Option 2; and  

–  under Case B, there could also be some reduction in administrative cost savings. 
The main cost to industry will be the 12 month delay in marketing the fibre, which 
would result in the loss of benefits associated with replacing the Directives with 
Regulation(s).  

CIRFS/BISFA  indicates  that  the  main  benefit  of  transferring  test  methods  to 
standards is that there would be a regular revision of the standards every five years 
by CEN; this would enable prescribed test methods to keep pace with the change in 
test methods in the textile industry. However, industry is not in agreement with the 
transfer of test methods to the standardisation process if this implies further analysis 
by the CEN working groups, further requirements on testing and further delays in the 
time to bring the fibre to the market. 

Consumers 

Option 3 would not change the overall benefits to consumers compared to Option 1. 
Under Case A, the benefits to consumers from faster placing of new fibres on the EU 
market  under  Option  3  would  be  identical  to  those  under  Option  2.  Under  Case  B, 
there would be a 12 month delay in placing new fibres in the markets, so benefits to 
consumers from this would also be delayed 12 moths compared to Option 2. 

Public Authorities 

There  will  be costs for CEN and for  the 30 National  Standardisation Bodies,  as  all 
CEN  members  are  required  to  implement  the  standard  (once  approved)  as  their 
national  standard.  CEN  was  not  able  to  provide  information  so  far  on  the  scale  of 
these costs.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
Once a test method has been approved by JRC, there could be costs associated with 
putting  the  test  method  into  the  standard  template  and  editing  the  document at  the 
secretariat  and  CEN  level,  prior  to  the  Unique  Acceptance  Process.  At  this  point, 
there  will  also  be  translation  costs.  In  some  countries  (the  UK,  for  example),  the 
costs for members of CEN Committees and Working Groups to attend meetings are 
financed  partly  by  Government  and  partly  by  their  respective  companies,  who  pay 
their  salaries  and  top  up  any  expenses  incurred.  Central  costs  would  be  borne  by 
CEN and the National Standards Body which holds the secretariat of the committee 
or working group.  

It is not expected that there are direct costs to Member State Governments from the 
formal  adoption  of  a  European  Standard  in  this  domain  since  the  production  costs 
should be borne by CEN and the national member bodies. The EN standards are also 
translated  compulsorily  into  the  official  languages:  English  (by  BSI),  French  (by 
AFNOR) and German (by DIN). It is up to the other National Standardisation Bodies 
(and  not  Member  States)  to  translate  the  EN  standard  into  their  own  national 
languages.  It  is  difficult  to  quantify  costs  as  it  depends  on  the  complexity  of  the 
standard.  

All  CEN  standards  are  reviewed  regularly  (a  maximum  of  five  year  intervals)  to 
ensure that they are still up-to-date and of use to industry and for public enforcement 
purposes.  The  updating  allows  for  new  developments  to  be  taken  into  account, 
changes to regulations, improvements to be made, etc. For example, if any problems 
are  identified  with  a  standard,  CEN  indicates  that  these  can  be  addressed  within  a 
six-month to one year time period.  

5.4. 

Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises 

With regard to the potential impacts of the policy options on SMEs, as noted earlier, 
recent applications for new fibre names have been submitted by both large and small 
firms.  CIRFS/BISFA  did  not  consider  that  there  was  a  difference  in  expertise 
between  SMEs  and  large  firms  in  making  applications  for  a  new  fibre  name;  this 
process  is  only  undertaken  occasionally  by  any  firm,  so  that  none  have  developed 
particular  experience.  However,  recent  cases  show  that  the  application  files 
submitted  by  SMEs  have  taken  longer  periods  (up  to  24  months)  than  large 
companies, to complete their applications with the required information. 

The key difference appears to be that for SMEs the viability of the whole business 
may  be  more  dependent  on  the  time  it  takes  a  certain  fibre  to  go  to  market.  For  a 
large  company,  the  development  of  a  new  fibre  may  often  be  carried  out  within  a 
separate  business  unit  and  it  appears  easier  to  accommodate  the  event  of  failure  or 
time  delay.  It  may  therefore  be  particularly  important  for  SMEs  to  reduce  the  time 
between investment in a new fibre and the ability to market it under a new name. The 
benefits of all the options that result in a reduction in the time taken will therefore be 
of particular importance for SMEs. 

5.5. 

Impact on Innovation 

A major potential benefit of reducing the time it takes between the submission of an 
application to the Commission and the moment the new fibre name can be put in the 
market  is  in  supporting  innovation.  According  to  the  opinions  expressed  by  the 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
industry  and  the  Member  States  representatives,  speeding  up  the  process  of 
introducing a new fibre name leads to more new fibres being brought to the market. 
Table  5.18  below  indicates  the  potential  benefits,  assuming  that  three  new  fibre 
names  are  adopted  per  year.  The  additional  potential  benefit  in  terms  of  revenue 
ranges from €10 million to over €200 million  over ten years.  

Table  5.18:  Potential  Additional  Benefit  over  Ten  Years  from  Increasing  the  Rate  of 
Adoption of New Fibre Names 

Revenue per Fibre  
per year 
€100,000 
€2 million 

Revenue from One 
New Fibre/year  
€ 5,110,314 
€ 102,206,288 

Revenue from Three 
New Fibres/year 
€ 15,330,943 
€ 306,618,863 

Potential Increase in 
Revenue 

€ 10,220,629 
€ 204,412,575 

Discounted at 4% over ten years  

5.6. 

International context 

The  new  regulation  does  not  imply  any  change  compared  to  existing  legislation  in 
respect  to  trade  and  third  countries.  Non-EU  producers  exporting  new  fibres  to  the 
EU are subject to the same requirements as EU manufacturers, needing to submit an 
application for a new fibre name when necessary. On the other hand, if EU producers 
intend to export into third countries, they need to comply with the legislation in the 
country of destiny.  

On the other hand, in spite of ongoing discussions at ISO level, there are substantial 
differences in the philosophy for granting new fibre names in different countries of 
the world. This is the reason why in this domain as well as in many other domains of 
ISO activities agreements are not always possible rapidly and may take many years. 
Public authorities in the EU often introduce modifications in the proposed names and 
definitions  (as  described  under  point  4.1  above).  Other  countries  follow  less  strict 
approaches  which  result  on  the  one  hand  on  the  approval  of  fibre  names  close  to 
brand names (according to the opinion of EU Member States representatives and of 
the Commission services) and on the other hand on the approval of definitions that 
are not correct providing consumers with information that is not totally exact. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

6.1. 

Changing  the  three  Directives  on  Textile  Names  into  one  Regulation  (Option 
2.1) 

The  results  of  the  analysis  show  that  changing  the  three  Textile  Names  Directives 
into  one  Regulation  brings  benefits  to  the  economic  operators  and  to  the  public 
administrations, in particular the EU Member States. 

The Regulation will allow putting a new fibre name in the market 12 months before 
the  time  needed  under  the  current  situation,  as  a  result  of  the  fact  that  the 
transposition of the Directives introducing new fibre names will no longer be needed. 

The benefits for the industry may be substantial if the benefits of reducing delay by 
one  year  would  be  equivalent  to  one  year’s  revenue,  which  is  estimated  to  be 
between € 100,000 and € 2 million per fibre. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Furthermore,  it  appears  that  the  benefits  are  more  important  to  small  and  medium 
enterprises due to the fact that the viability of a SME business will be enhanced by 
time savings in putting new fibres in the market. 

In  addition,  according  to  the  opinions  expressed  by  industry  and  Member  States 
representatives,  it  is  likely  that  speeding  up  the  process  of  introducing  a  new  fibre 
name leads to more new fibres being brought to the market, resulting in considerable 
potential additional benefits for industry. These may be between around €10 million 
and €200 million over a 10 years period if th ree new fibres were adopted per year. 

With respect to the public authorities, the more significant gains expected result from 
cost savings for Member States from no longer having to transpose amendments to 
Directives. 

According  to  information  provided  in  the  regulatory  impact  assessment  by  the  UK 
for the last amendment of the UK textiles legislation23, the costs of amending current 
national legislation to implement an amended Directive are around £700,000 (around 
€1  million).  Even  assuming  that  these  cost s  may  be  lower  in  most  Member  States, 
the benefits would be considerable. 

6.2. 

Providing further guidance to applicants for a new fibre name (Option 2.2) 

Companies do not submit applications on a regular basis for a new generic name and, 
as  such,  they  are  always  going  to  be  relatively  inexperienced  in  preparing  an 
application file. Further guidance is certainly more important for SMEs which do not 
possess the same technical and financial resources as large firms do. 

Providing an annex to the Regulation containing a more developed guidance on the 
technical requirements of an application file brings a potential reduction  of  3 to  12 
months  in  the  time  needed  to  assess  the  application  by  public  authorities.  This 
reduction  has  the  potential  to  save  costs  to  industry  of  between  €37,500  and 
€300,000. 

Additional  benefits  for  industry  are  to  be  expected  from  a  further  reduction  in  the 
time taken to achieve revenue. These benefits may be significant, in particular when 
a reduction of 12 months is considered, reaching around € 2 million per fibre in the 
scenario where they are estimated as the equivalent of the loss of a one year revenue 
for the more successful fibres. 

Time savings resulting from the submission of a more complete application file are 
to be expected for public authorities, including Commission services and experts in 
the Member States, involved in the assessment of applications for a new textile fibre 
name. 

The inclusion in the regulation of an annex containing guidance to applicants gathers 
the support of stakeholders and Member States. 

23 

DTI  (2006):  Full  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment,  The  Textile  Products  (Indications  of  Fibre 
Content)  (Amendment  and  Consolidation  of  Schedules  of  Textile  Names  and  Allowances) 
Regulations 2006, UK Department for Trade and Industry, 13th December 2006.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.3. 

Creating a network of recognised laboratories (Option 2.3) 

The  creation  of  a  network  of  recognised  laboratories  looks  for  achieving  two 
objectives: 

–  To  encourage  applicants  for  new  textile  fibre  names  to  make  use  of  recognised 
competent  laboratories  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  application  file  is  close  to 
completeness; 

–  Making  official  the  informal  European  Network  of  National  Experts  on  Textile 
Labelling, which assists the JRC in the technical assessment of application files, 
in  order  to  facilitate  and  clarify  the  organisation  and  working  relations  of  the 
informal network. 

The analysis indicates that industry could obtain total administrative and testing cost 
savings  per  fibre  between  €47,500  and  €600,000  a nd  additional  benefits  that  could 
reach  €2.5  million  resulting  from  a  reduction  of  15  months  in  the  time  needed  to 
assess  the  application,  in  the  scenario  where  those  benefits  are  estimated  as  the 
equivalent of the loss of a one year revenue for the more successful fibres. 

However,  the  Commission  services  will  always  need  to  produce  their  own 
assessment to submit to the Member States authorities in the framework of the legal 
procedure to adopt a new fibre name. The recognised laboratory report can not have 
a legal status avoiding the mentioned assessment. This is particularly the case when a 
ring  trial  is  needed  and,  in  any  case,  the  name  proposed  for  the  fibre  and  the 
definition  of  the  fibre  have  to  be  approved  within  the  comitology  procedure. 
Therefore,  the  use  of  recognised  laboratories  by  applicants  for  new  fibre  names 
should remain on a voluntary basis. In addition, the JRC could not fulfil the role of a 
recognised  laboratory  because  it  will  be  called  to  produce  the  technical  assessment 
on  behalf  of  the  Commission  services  and  needs  therefore  to  avoid  any  potential 
conflict of interest. 

It is estimated that the improvement of the quality of the applications resulting from 
its  submission  to  a  competent  laboratory  before  the  official  presentation  to  the 
Commission could reduce by 25% the costs involved with the technical examination 
by the Commission services, representing around € 75,000 per fibre. 

However,  it  was  not  possible  to  assess  at  this  stage  the  potential  costs  for  Member 
States  of  participating  in  the  creation  of  such  network  of  recognised  laboratories. 
These  costs  may  be  low  if  the  laboratories  to  include  in  the  network  are  those 
benefiting  already  from  official  accreditation  to  fulfil  the  tasks  required  by  the 
examination  of  an  application  for  a  new  textile  fibre  name.  Laboratories  with  the 
technical  capabilities  and  experience  in  this  domain  already  exist  in  numerous 
Member  States;  therefore,  this  solution  does  not  oblige  Member  States  to  incur  in 
additional  costs  to  create  new  laboratories  or  buy  new  laboratory  equipments.  In 
addition, the current needs of the JRC with the organisation of the fibre assessment 
process, including possible ring trials, do not require 27 laboratories. Therefore, it is 
not  crucial  that  all  Member  States  indicate  at  least  one  recognised  laboratory.  In 
conclusion,  the  participation  in  the  network  should  be  established  on  a  voluntary 
basis. Member States should have the possibility to indicate recognised laboratories 
at any point in time. The evaluation to be carried out within a period of 3 to 5 years 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
after  the  entering  into  force  of  the  Regulation  should  assess  the  results  of  this 
solution. 

6.4. 

Providing  further  guidance  and  creating  a  network  of  recognised  laboratories 
(Option 2.4) 

This option provides to industry total administrative and testing cost savings per fibre 
between  €47,500  and €600,000, identical  to  th ose obtained with option 2.3. On the 
other hand, putting together an annex with guidance for applicants, which will also 
inform  laboratories  on  the  tasks  to  be  fulfilled,  and  a  network  of  recognised 
laboratories has the potential to further save time and thus achieve additional benefits 
from bringing the new fibre name earlier to the market.  

Choosing  option  2.4  needs  to  take  into  consideration  the  constraints  described  in 
section 6.3, namely the voluntary basis for using laboratories by industry and for the 
participation in a possible official network.  

6.5. 

Testing methods transferred to the domain of standardisation (Option 3) 

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, in particular with respect to the technical 
examination  and  the  transposition  of  the  amendments  into  national  legislation. 
Transferring testing methods to the domain of standardisation is an option only if it 
does  not  compromise  the  time  gained  with  the  possible  changes  to  the  current 
legislation examined in Options 2.1 to 2.4. 

On  the  other  hand,  Option  3  does  not  appear  to  bring  additional  financial  benefits 
when compared to Options 2.1 to 2.4. 

Member States and industry agree that passing the testing methods to standardisation 
instead  of  including  them  in  the  legislation  has  the  advantages  of  allowing  routine 
revisions carried out by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) every 5 
years. 

However, it needs to be taken into consideration that CEN is an independent body. 
For  the  purposes  of  this  report  it  was  assumed  that  the  lighter  CEN  procedure 
(Unique Acceptance Process), which takes around 12 months, could be adopted with 
respect  to  textile  fibre  testing  methods.  But  the  debates  that  took  place  with 
stakeholders and Member States representatives have shown that cases where CEN 
members may require a full examination within the classical CEN procedure to adopt 
standards  can  not  be  excluded.  This  procedure  may  take  3  to  5  years.  Industry  and 
Member States oppose changes that may imply the risk of increasing the time needed 
to bring a new textile fibre to the market. 

In addition, the CEN standardisation process implies costs. Unfortunately, it was not 
possible to obtain estimates from CEN on the potential costs that could be associated 
with the textile fibre testing methods. A part of those costs is  supported often by a 
Commission financial contribution. 

It  is  therefore  planned  not  to  involve  standardisation  in  the  process  of  adoption  of 
testing methods for textile fibres at this stage. Further contacts with CEN, Member 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
States  and  stakeholders  should  be  developed  during  the  implementation  of  the 
foreseen regulation to assess the feasibility of a future taken up by standardisation of 
the textile fibre testing methods. The legal possibilities of involving CEN in the fibre 
analysis procedure at a very early stage will be examined as well as the possibility of 
ensuring  that  a  standard  may  be  adopted  by  CEN  within  a  timeframe  that  does  not 
exceed  the  time  period  needed  to  assess  the  request  for  a  new  fibre  name.  This 
assessment  should  be  considered  together  with the  report  on  the  implementation  of 
the foreseen regulation after 3 to 5 years of entering into force. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The proposal, once adopted, is going to be implemented in close cooperation with all 
stakeholders  concerned.  To  this  end,  the  Committee  and  the  Working  Group  on 
Textile  Names  and  Labelling  have  provided  for  a  valuable  forum  in  the  past  and 
would be used in the future. 

Evaluation of the policy will look into the ability of the regulatory environment for 
textile products to encourage fibre innovation. In particular, the evaluation will focus 
on  the  effectiveness  of  the  new  regulation  to  simplify  the  procedure  to  adapt  EU 
legislation and speed up the process to add a new fibre name to its technical annexes. 
After  three/five  years  of  entry  into  force,  the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with 
Member States and stakeholders, will assess: 

–  The number of amendments to add new fibre names to the regulation; 

–  The  completeness  of  the  information  submitted  in  the  technical  files  of  the 

applications for new fibre names; 

–  The number of applicants which made use of recognised laboratories to examine 

and complete the technical file; 

–  The  time  needed  to  examine  the  applications  submitted  in  accordance  with  the 

new rules. 

The Commission will make the results of this evaluation publicly available.  

Further discussions with CEN will take place in the framework of the meetings of the 
Working  Group  on  Textile  Names  and  Labelling  to  gather  information  to  assess 
whether standardisation would be an appropriate approach in the future. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 – Summary of consultation responses 

Summary of Responses by Competent Authorities 

General Questions 

(1) 

Only a few applications for new textile fibre names have been made per year over the 
last  five  years.  What  is  your  view  on  the  likely  numbers  in  the  future  -  e.g.  two  per 
year over the next three years, increasing to five a year thereafter?  

If the Directives are adjusted, more new fibres probably will be adopted in future. Final 
structure and philosophy are important for another fibre names. 

The rate  of applications for new textile  fibre names per year might be  the same  in  the 
future as it was during last five years. 

The numbers may slightly increase 

Not more than three per year 

Three per year over one year and probably two or three per year thereafter 

One application every two years 

It is hard to asses, but could rise to three per year 

No, it won’t be more than before 

Probably no more than 2 per year 

(2) 

How often do companies approach you as a Member State Competent Authority with 
an application for a new fibre name? (Please tick the answer that applies to you) 

Yes  

0 

No  

10 

(3) 

Has a company have ever requested that you provide it with a preliminary designation 
for a new fibre name so that they can market a fibre while the application for a new 
name is being considered? (Please tick the answer that applies to you) 

Have your received a request for a preliminary designation? 

Was a preliminary designation provided? 

Did the company market the fibre under this preliminary name? 

Yes 

No 

0 

0 

0 

10 

10 

10 

(4)  What  do  you  see  as  the  key  bottlenecks  within  the  current  procedures  for  reviewing 

and granting approval to an application for a new fibre name? 

Long time for evaluation and development of proper analytical method are main reasons 
for  long  duration  of  adopting  of  a  new  textile  name.  If  new  analytical  methods  are 
prepared (e.g. as EN standard) more types of fibers will be analysed in future. It’s very 
important  for  adopting  of  new  materials.  All  steps  of  evaluation  of  new  fibre  are 
necessary but the long time and of course consequent administrative delays are issues. 

Too long and complicated administrative procedure. 

The quality of applications. Lack of appropriate test methods. The procedure is slow and 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
cumbersome. 

Verification and validation of methods for quantification of new fibres in mixtures with 
other fibres. Lack of time limit to release of official decision of European Commission 

Too long method validation period. 

The agreement between the representatives for establishing the name, the definition, the 
properties  if  the  new  fibre  and  all  the  other  information  necessary  for  identifying  the 
new fibre and making different from the existing fibres. 

We haven’t received any request for designation of new fibre. 

Technical approval / Validation of test methods. 

The verification of the proposed method is the most problematic point in the procedure. 
It needs a long time and sometime very special instruments. 

(5)  What are the key issues that your Member State faces in transposing amendments to 

the current Directive into your national legislation? 

For  adopting  of  a  new  agenda  it’s  generally  important  to  translate  all  details  properly 
using equivalent technical terminology. Adopting of new legislation as “Regulation” is 
legislatively  easier  and  can  be  issued  during  short  time  on  national  level.  Testing  (or 
measuring) methods generally are not very suitable for Directive. EN standard is more 
practical. 

Too many amendments in relevant national legislation, high administrative burden, short 
time limit for the transposition and implementation. 

We try to make it as simple as possible 

The procedure is not complicated. 

The considerable time period required between the date of application of the regulation 
draft and the approval of it. 

We  have  to  transpose  the  amendment  of  the  Directive  with  the  amendment  of  the 
national Rules, which transpose the directive into national legislation 

Amendments need to be implemented into domestic law. We have made provision in our 
law  that  the  relevant  annexes  to  the  Directives  (annex  I  and  II)  listing  new  textile 
product  names  and  test  methods  take  effect  in  national  law  as  they  are  amended  from 
time  to  time.  If  there  are  amendments  to  the  Directive  text  other  than  the  relevant 
Annexes  we  will  need  to  make  implementing  regulations  and  provide  an  impact 
assessment  of  the  costs  to  business  and  the  public  sector  of  the  amendments  to 
Parliament for consideration along with the regulations. We need to provide up to date 
information  on  the  current  regulatory  position  and  do  so  by  means  of  updating  our 
relevant  government  website  as  necessary 
including 
manufacturers and enforcement authorities aware of the changes.  

to  make  stakeholders, 

(6) 

How long does transposition generally take and what is the administrative burden? 

taken 

Time 
transposition 
(months) 

for 

•  About a year 
•  6 -9 months 
•  3-6 months 
•  At least 3-4 months, sometimes more 
•  Approximately 1 month 
•  12 months 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Administrative 
burden (person-days) 

•  9-12 months 
•  3 -4 months 
•  6 months 
•  1-2 hours a day/ a person/a year 
•  1  -  2  days/one  person  (in  addition  to  legislative  control 

activities) 

•  20 days 
•  It is difficult to answer precisely this question  
•  One person is responsible for this work. It is complicated to 

define accurately how long it takes 

•  It depends on the amendment (20 -100 persons per day) 
•  10 days  

If amendments are to annex I and II, then as indicated in answer 
to 5, such amendments take effect in domestic law immediately 
they come into force as provided under current legislation.  

If  new  implementing  regulations  are  required,  then  depending 
on whether a 12 week consultation period is required relating to 
the  method  of  implementation  etc,  transposition  could  take 
upwards of 25 weeks. The government also wishes to allow for 
a  12  week  period  for  business  to  adapt  to  the  new  provisions 
before they come into force where this is possible.  

The  administrative  burden  lies  in  consulting  with  stakeholders, 
drawing  up  a  consultation  document,  drafting  regulations, 
responses, 
impact 
amending  draft  regulations,  making  and  laying  regulations 
before Parliament together with supplementary memoranda and 
transposition notes. This could be up to 10 person days. 

consultation 

assessment, 

considering 

Guidance on Developing Application Files 

One of the options being considered by the Commission is for more formal guidance on the 
contents of an application file to be developed. This guidance would then be included in the 
revised legislation as an Annex, providing a clear indication of what is required of these files 
for decision making purposes.  

(7) 

In what percentage of cases do you consider that applicants have provided inadequate 
information within their application files? 

We do know 

No experiences in this field 

In most cases 

We haven’t before received any application files so it’s hard to predicate 

As I guess it take around 30% 

Not more than 5% 

We don’t have any experience yet 

50-75% 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
(8) 

In  your  experience,  what  aspects  of  applications  would  benefit  the  most  from  such 
guidance?  

Guide for producers describing procedures of adopting of new fibers would be helpful 
and supporting. All information would be collected before starting of legislation process. 
Following steps then can be faster.  

No experience in this field. 

The applications would already contain all relevant pieces of information if guidance is 
followed. 

Requirement  of  providing  quantification  methods  of  new  fibres  in  mixtures  with  other 
fibres.  Requirement  of  providing  proper  new  fibre  samples  to  finalised  procedure  for 
verification and validation of new methods. 

It would clarify the requirements, what are the necessary elements of the application. A 
detailed explanation is needed that the quality of application will be appropriate. 

Will shorten the time of the procedure for the application. 

Fibre identification – chemical formula, differences from the existing fibres. 
Identification and quantitative analysis methods for representative mixtures of fibres of 
the new fibre and the existing ones. 
Advices regarding fibre destination and impact assessment on the consumer. 

Methods of analysis and identification. 

(9) 

Do you believe that the existence of formal application guidance would speed up the 
approvals process? 

Yes  

9 

No  

0 

(10)  Do you think it would also result in cost savings? If so, what costs would be reduced 

and by how much?  

Yes  

9 

No  

0 

What  costs  would  be 
reduced? 

What  would  the  value 
of the cost saving be? 

•  Travelling  cost  (for  example  for  meetings  of  Working 
Group  on  Textile  Names  and  Labelling  –  possibly  e-mail 
communication)  
•  Processing costs 
•  Particularly work of the Commission and JRC 
•  The costs of validation and examination 
•  Cost of JRC in Ispra 
•  The costs for evaluation by an accredited laboratory of the 

proposed methods 

•  The costs for expert meetings. 
•  Reduced meetings 
•  It is difficult to answer precisely this question 
•  Considerable  
•  It is difficult to answer precisely at this stage 
•  It’s difficult to predict 
•  We don’t have any experience. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
Network of Notified Laboratories 

The  Commission  is  also  considering  an  option  which  would  involve  the  creation  of  a 
European  Network  of  Notified  Laboratories  who  would  either  prepare  application  files  on 
behalf of applicants or review the files before submission.  

(11)  What advantages do you think the creation of such a Network would bring? 

•  unification of approach of all authorities 
•  better information exchange 
•  cooperation 
•  unification of analytical procedures 
•  contact with new materials 
•  improved service to producers of new materials on national and international level 
Higher quality of applications, shorter processing time and reduced processing costs. 

Not applicable. We do not have any competent laboratories available in our country.  
In general terms, it would create competence and speed up the processes 

I’m not sure that the creation of such network would bring advantages. 

Applicants  would  have  access  to  the  list  of  laboratories  ready  to  review  the  method 
before submission 

The applicant will know whom he may contact.  
It will establish the minimum equipment required by a laboratory in order to be able to 
perform the tests for textile fibres composition labelling, which will assure good market 
surveillance. 
The method validation test could be accomplished in the network of laboratories. 

Well and clearly prepared technical files. 

None - not enough work to go round 

(12)  What disadvantages would it have?  

No disadvantages. 

The  laboratories  have  to  allocate  significant  resources  for  this  cooperation.  It  may  be 
costly and time-consuming. 

It  would  cause  extra  costs  for  MS.  According  to  the  requirements  of  the  framework 
decision  on  marketing  of  product  it  won’t  be  an  easy  or  cheap  procedure  to  achieve  a 
notification.  

Additional  expenses  for  the  creation  of  such  network  and  for  the  notification  of 
accredited laboratories. Notification criteria are not clear. 

Procedure of laboratory notification would have to be developed which is probably time 
consuming 

At the first sight, there are no elements which present disadvantages. 

The  Notified  Bodies  should  be  designated  by  the  Member  State.  The  criteria  for 
designating of Notified Body should be clearly prescribed (the accreditation for EN ISO 
17025); if not the question of competency of such laboratories would arise. 

Laboratories  would  have  different  approaches  –  variable  consistency  of  applications 
would result. There should only be one laboratory and JRC Ispra is the obvious choice. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
(13)  How  many  of  the  labs  in  your  country  do  you  believe  have  adequate  skills  and 

expertise to act as an accredited “notified” lab? 

No laboratories for the time being 

Two to three  

At present only one lab has adequate skills to act as an accredited “notified” lab 

It depends on what will be their tasks. In our country, there are max. 2 labs 

One laboratory 

Three  

One accredited laboratory 

Max two. At the moment there is no accredited laboratory 

Not many as applications are no longer simple fibres. Identification and analysis methods 
can  be  very  advanced,  e.g.  thermal  analysis,  NMR,  etc.  There  are  maybe  two  or  three 
experts in the whole country. 

European Standards passed to CEN 

One  of  the  options  being  considered  by  the  Commission  is  for  test  methods  agreed  by  the 
Committee on Textile Labelling to be  passed to CEN  for  adoption as harmonised European 
standards. 

(14)  What advantages do you think such an approach would have? 

Main  advantage  is  separation  of  analytical  methods  from  the  Directives.  New  EN 
standard must be more flexible and changes could be adapted easily by TC group. Final 
adoption of revised EN standards (in future) to national versions is ordinary procedure. 

Using  harmonised  European  standards  is  the  simplest  way  to  confirm  that  important 
requirements provided by the relevant directives are fulfilled 

Many  experts  already  participate  in  the  CEN  standardisation  work  in  this  field. 
Therefore  it  would  be  natural  to  combine  this  work  with  the  work  related  to  the 
directives. 

I’m not sure that it would bring advantages 

Harmonization of these standards is an advantage for laboratories 

Laboratories of all Member States would have access to proper analytical methods from 
European Standards when they need to quantify new fibre 

Passing the testing methods into European standards will have the advantage of assuring 
the transparency and uniformity of testing procedures all over Europe 

List of harmonised standards 

It is easier to update an EN standard than to amend the directive or regulation. CEN has 
an existing structure in TC 248 (Textiles) to cope with this requirement. Test labs would 
find  it  easier  to  get  accreditation  to  ISO  17025  for  an  EN  standard  than  for  methods 
published elsewhere. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
(15)  What disadvantages would such an approach have? 

We do not know 

No disadvantages 

It is not sure that this will speed up the process 

According the time which is needed for CEN to adopt a new standard (as I know, 1-2 
years), there is a big question how could the market surveillance authority work without 
available standards? If the test methods should be first agreed by the committee and then 
sent to CEN, this will prolong the whole procedure. 

In the case where CEN is responsible for elaborating the testing methods, the approval 
time of the standard will be too long and will delay the finalization of the technical file 
for the new fibre 

CEN needs about 1 year for adoption and publication of methods in form of European 
Standards 

Preparation of the standard is also a very long procedure. In reality it takes 2 – 3 years, if 
you  include  the  procedure  for  preparation  of  mandate  from  the  Commission  to  CEN 
(voting  procedures  from  Member  States  to  confirm  the  mandate  and  the  notification 
procedures  under  the  directive  98/34  should  be  included),  which  will  take  at  least 
additional  year.  It  will  take  at  least  3-4  year  from  application  for  a  new  fibre  name  to 
publishing new standard in OJ 

No obvious ones 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
REVISION OF LEGISLATION ON TEXTILE FIBRE NAMES AND LABELLING 

Summary of Responses by CEN 

1. What are the key steps involved at the CEN level in adopting a standard? 

There are two cases to take into account: 
1)  The  existing  methods have  been already  integrated  within  the  series  of  ISO  1833, 
widely used in the whole world. It is no use to create something new but to adopt the 
series  of  ISO 1833  as  EN  ISO  standards.  If  some  slight  differences  may be 
found between one part of ISO 1833 standard and one method in the Directive text, they 
can be easily overcome. 
2)  If  a  new method,  validated  by  the  JRC,  is  proposed  to  CEN, it  can  be  forwarded 
directly to a UAP enquiry (Unique Acceptance Procedure) provided it is written in the 
EN format. 
The key step is the public enquiry: all the CEN countries are required to vote and the 
standard needs at least72% of approval. Then, it is translated in the official languages: 
English, French, German and published. 

Any new work item is first agreed by the Technical Committee and member states. The 
committee or, in this case, one of its Working Groups produces a draft standard which 
is  then  issued  to  member  states  for  voting  on.  Following  agreement  the  draft  is 
translated and then published as a formal European Standard. The full CEN time scale 
for the full process is a 3 year time cycle. 

The key steps from approval of the new work item are as follows: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Approval of the new work item by the relevant technical committee 

Working group prepares a draft 

Draft circulated for five months enquiry (public comment) 

Comments collated and resolved. 

Document circulated for 2 months final vote. 

Final corrections/publication  

The  normal  (default)  timescale  for  producing  a  European  standard  (from  an  outline 
proposal) is 36 months. CEN national members have a further six months to implement 
the standard and withdraw any conflicting standards. 

Starting the work 
A  proposal  for  a  European  Standard  may  come  from  any  interested  party.  Most  are 
presented  by  the  National  Standards  Bodies  and,  where  European  legislation  is 
concerned,  the  European  Commission  (EC)  and  the  European  Free  Trade  Association 
(EFTA). 
Taking into account the time required and the resources available, the appropriate CEN 
Technical  Committee  makes  a  decision  on  the  adoption  of  the  proposal.  An  adopted 
standardization project is allocated to one of the Working Groups for the drafting of the 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
standard. Working Groups respond to the Technical Committee. 
If the proposal is for a new field of standardization activity, a decision is first made by 
the  CEN  Technical  Board,  who  then  sends  the  work  to  a  new  or  existing  Technical 
Committee. 
One of the values of CEN is that, once a standardization project has been adopted, the 
National  Standards  Bodies  put  all  national  activity  within  the  scope  of  the  project  on 
hold. No new projects are initiated, nor are revisions of existing standards undertaken at 
a national level. This obligation is called ’standstill’ and allows efforts to be focused on 
European harmonization. 
Public comment  
Once the draft of a European Standard is prepared, it is released for public comment, a 
process  known  in  CEN  as  the  ‘CEN  Enquiry’.  During  the  public  commenting  stage, 
everyone  who  has  an  interest  (e.g.  manufacturers,  public  authorities,  consumers,  etc.) 
may comment on the draft. These views are collated by the National Standards Bodies 
and analyzed by the CEN Technical Committee. 
Adoption by weighted vote 
Taking  into  account  the  comments  resulting  from  the  CEN  enquiry,  a  final  version  is 
drafted which is then submitted to the CEN members for a weighted formal voting.  
1 European Standard = 30 national standards 
After ratification by CEN, each of the National Standards Bodies adopts the European 
Standard as an identical national standard and withdraws any national standards which 
conflict  with  the  new  European  Standard.  Hence  one  European  Standard  becomes  the 
national standard in the 30 member countries of CEN. 
For example, the European Standard on toy safety, EN 71, has been adopted as NF EN 
71  by  AFNOR  in  France  and  as  EVS  EN  71  by  EVS  in  Estonia.  These  standards  are 
made available by the National Standards Body in each country. 

2.  As  an  estimate,  how  long  would  it  take  CEN  to  adopt  a  test  method  as  an  EU 
standard?  What  are  the  factors  which  could  affect  this?  For  instance,  would  it  take  a 
shorter  period  of  the  time  if  the  standard  has  been  verified  by  a  notified/approved 
national laboratory?  

With the UAP procedure, it will take approximately 8 months. 
The factor which could affect this is a negative vote: then, the test method would have 
to be discussed again and improved within the CEN working group. 
For this directive, there is no notified national laboratory. We believe that the JRC can 
act as the reference laboratory in order to perform a consistent and structured work for 
validating the method .The aim of the JRC is to check the new methods through inter 
laboratory trials, as already done by the technical working group working with the JRC. 

I  am  uncertain  of  the  role  of  a  notified  /approved  national  laboratory  in  verifying 
standards as I cannot accept this would be acceptable to CEN. If it were the Laboratory 
of  the  Joint  Research  Council  then  yes,  the  method  could  be  agreed  in  a  shorter  time 
frame as detailed below but it could not be accepted verbatim without going through the 
CEN approval process. 
Once  a  draft  standard  has  been  agreed  it  would  take  approximately 7/8  months  to 
be made  available  for  purchase  as  an  EU  Standard.  This  comprises  of  one  month  for 
formal editing etc., 3 months for translating, final editing and printing, and 3/4 months 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
for final formal voting by member states. 
It is envisaged that a method approved by JRC (which also involves CEN/TC 248/WG 
30  members)  will  be  subject  to  a  much  faster  production  schedule.  T  he  "approved 
method"  will  be  circulated  (subject  to  TC  agreement)  to  a  3-months  UAP.  Under  the 
UAP  procedure  only  editorial  comments  are  accepted,  hence  there  will  be  no  delay 
resolving technical comments. 

0 Receipt of text from JRC 

+ 1 month (editing and placing in template) 

+3.5 months (processing and translation by CEN) 

+3 (or 5 months) UAP (72% approval required) 

+1 month ratification 

+2 months (DAV available following processing and translation) 

Total – 10.5 months 

CEN  national  members  have  a  further  six  months  to  implement  the  standard  and 
withdraw any conflicting standards 

Adopting a validated test method as a European standard is a straightforward process, 
taking it for granted that the validated test method was elaborated by  different  parties 
and that there is consensus on the test method. From the moment CEN receives the text, 
up to publication by the CEN/Management Centre, it can take as little as 9-10 months. 
This  includes  preliminary  administrative  processing,  a  two  month  translation  time,  a 
three  month  voting  time  (shortened  UAP  procedure)  and  finally  the  ratification  and 
publication. 
It  is  taken  for  granted  that,  for  example  JRC  is  to  be  considered  as  a  competent 
laboratory (or in your wording a “notified/approved national laboratory”). 

3.  Under one of the scenarios being considered, it is assumed that the marketing of a 
fibre with a new fibre name will be possible as soon as the amendment to the regulation 
is published and before the agreed test methods are adopted as a European Standard by 
CEN.  In  theory,  this  should  shorten  the  time  and  procedure  of  adopting  a  new  name. 
What  are  your  views  on  the  possible  implications  of  this  for  CEN  and  the  overall 
process? 

No  problem  with  this,  we  do  not  see  any  implication  as  both  procedures move 
forward side by side and there should not be a big gap of time between them. 

Provided CEN are involved at the start of the process there should be no problems but if 
CEN  are  only  brought  in  when  a  new  fibre  name  has  been  agreed  then  it  delays  will 
occur as any new test method being produced as a standard would need to go through 
the  formal  CEN  process  of  approval which  would  take  a  minimum  of  7/8  moths  as 
detailed above. 

Do not see a great problem but obviously the earlier CEN members are involved in the 
process the better. 

CEN  is  a  platform  where  experts  are  sitting  around  the  table  to  come  to  consensus. 
Many textile experts work in CEN and having them involved at an early stage facilitates 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the standardisation process and effectively shorten the overall process. 

4. Can you provide an estimate of the cost implications of transferring this responsibility 
to  CEN? Please  feel  free  to  provide  estimates  from  other  standards  adopted  by  CEN 
(which may or may not be related to textiles) or alternatively, provide an indication of 
how  many  man-days  and  staff  are  normally  involved  in  the  process  of  adopting  a 
standard. 

We have no idea of the CEN costs, please ask them directly. 

Sorry  I  am  not  able  to  give  you  any  cost  implications  as  these  will  vary  from  one 
country to another. In the UK members of CEN Committees and Working Groups are 
financed partially by Government to attend meetings and by their respective companies 
who pay their salaries and top up any expenses incurred. Central costs would be borne 
by CEN and the National Standards Body who holds the secretariat of the committee or 
working group. These expenses would cover editing, translating and publishing costs. 

There  will  obviously  be  production  costs  for  CEN  and  for  the  30  national  member 
bodies, as all CEN members are required to implement the standard (once approved) as 
their national standard, irrespective of whether they are in favour of it or not. 
It is difficult to quantify costs as it depends on the complexity of the standard. However, 
in terms of staff involvement, once the method has been approved by JRC, there could 
be costs associated with templating and editing the document at the secretariat and CEN 
level, prior to UAP. At this point there will also be translation costs. 
If approved by CEN members, there will also be production and translation costs at the 
national level. 

As  the  work  gets  transferred  to  CEN,  it  is  mainly  the  CEN  system  (i.e.  the 
CEN/Management  system  with  its  30  national  members)  which  has  to  bear  the  costs. 
All  processes  in  CEN  are  streamlined  for  standard  setting.  Therefore,  and  because  of 
economies  of  scale  (>  1000  European  standards  are  published  each  year),  it  is  much 
more efficient to use the standardisation Route. 

5. Is it reasonable to assume that the formal adoption of a European Standard by CEN 
would automatically result in costs to Member States (for instance, when such standards 
are  translated  into  national  standards  or  codes  of  practice)?  If  not,  what  are  the 
considerations taken into account by Member States. 

The EN standards are mandatory translated in the official languages: English (by BSI), 
French  (  by  AFNOR)  and  German  (  by  DIN)  .  It  is  up  to  the  other  National 
Standardisation Bodies (and not Member States) to translate the EN standard into their 
own national languages. 

See 4 above. In theory there would be no costs to Member States but only organisations 
and  companies  working  within  Member  States.  There  would  also  be  costs  to  users  of 
the standards who would need to purchase them from their National Standards body. 

There are no additional costs to Member States since the production costs are borne by 
CEN and the national member bodies. 

Transferring  the  work  to  CEN  will  imply  cost  savings  for  the  European  and  national 
authorities for the simple reason that the work is done inside the CEN structures. The 
additional costs are to  be carried by  the CEN System and the national standardisation 
bodies. It is difficult to calculate, on a scientific basis, how high these additional costs 
will  be  for  CEN.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  difficult  to  measure  the  cost  savings  for  the 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
European and national authorities.  
Referring  to  European  standards  also  contributes  to  the  Commission’s  SLIM-policy 
(Simplification of Legislation policy, see 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/simplification/index_en.htm )  

6.  Some  industry  stakeholders  have  indicated  that  one  benefit  of  translating  test 
methods into standards is that this allows for periodic updating of the test method. What 
do  you  consider  would  be  the  benefits  (and  costs)  of  such  updating,  and who  would 
benefit? 

The methods are technical and must follow the state of the art and therefore, have to be 
updated.  That  is  the  aim of  the  systematic  review  of  EN  standards  and  it  is  a  key 
advantage.  
The  future  regulation  should  be  in  compliance  with  the  new  approach; that  is  to 
say, written  as  a  legislative  text,  with  reference  to  EN  standards  for  the  technical 
applications. 

Having been deeply involved in the development and publication of national, European 
and  International  standards  for  over  30  years  there  is  a  definite  benefit  of  a  period 
review  and  update  as  necessary.  Within  CEN  any  standard  is  reviewed  on  a  5  yearly 
time scale. The updating allows for new developments to be taken into account, changes 
to regulations i.e. use of chemicals, improvements to be made etc. These would benefit 
all users of a standard from producers through to the consumer. It is doubtful whether 
there would be any cost savings. 

All CEN standards are reviewed regularly (a maximum of five year intervals) to ensure 
that 
industry.  NSBs  may  propose 
amendments/revisions to an existing standard at any time. 

they  are  still  up-to-date  and  of  use 

to 

European standards have to be reviewed, at least every five years. This ensures that the 
standard is a “stat of the art” document, up to date for the economic operators, European 
authorities and national market surveillance authorities. Updating European legislation 
(Regulations and Directives) is a much “heavier” process and, as a consequence, much 
more expensive. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
REVISION OF LEGISLATION ON TEXTILE FIBRE NAMES AND LABELLING 

Summary of Responses by Industry (Fibre Manufacturers Association) 

Q1  -  The  questions  below  are  intended  to  provide  an  indication  of  the  scale  and  focus  of 
research  and  development  of  textile  fibres  for  your  organisation.  Please  give  your  best 
estimate or forecast; more detail or explanation can be provided in the box below. 

In the last five years:  

How many new fibres has your organisation placed on the global market? 

  1-10 

How many new fibres has your organisation placed on the EU market? 

How many of the new fibres placed on the EU market were classified under 
existing fibre names?  

How  many  of  the  new  fibres  placed  on  the  EU  market  require  a  new  fibre 
name  as,  for  chemical  or  processing  reasons,  they  should  not  be  classified 
under the existing groups? 

In the next five years: 

How  new  many  new  fibres  does  your  organisation  expect  to  place  on  the 
global market? 

How new many new fibres does your organisation expect to place on the EU 
market? 

How many of the new fibres to be placed on the EU market do you expect to 
classify under existing fibre names? 

How many of the new fibres to be placed on the EU market do you expect to 
apply for new textile fibre names? 

With regard the scale of R&D, this may vary by company but all companies regardless 
of size are involved in R&D in one form or another. As an illustration, while some of 
the  companies  which  have  recently  put  new  fibres  through  the  approvals  process  are 
large  companies,  others  are  much  smaller.  Hence,  it  is  the  case  that  small  companies 
may be interested in R&D as much as big companies.  

In general 90 - 95% of a companies R&D activities are focussed on improvements and 
developments on existing fibres. Only 5 - 10% of R&D activities are likely to result in a 
fibre requiring a new generic name. It is the case that if 10 - 20% of the R&D activities 
of a company is successful, that can be considered a good situation.  

Between  five  new  fibres  applying  for  new  generic  names  have  been  placed  on  the 
global market in the last five years. Also, most companies do not discriminate between 
global  and  EU  markets.  It  is,  however,  the  case  that  some  fibres  may  be  sold  on  an 
overseas  market  (e.g.  US)  and  not  in  the  EU.  For  instance,  Melamine  is  a  new  fibre 
which is currently going through the EU approvals process (~18 months to-date). This 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fibre name was, however, adopted by BISFA over 10 15 years ago and is only currently 
being  put  forward  to  the  Commission  (by  an  American-based  company).  During  this 
time,  it  has  been  sold  in  the  US  and  has  been  marketed  in  the  EU  in  only  small 
quantities.  

To  date,  there  is  no  case  where  a  fibre  name  has  been  rejected  by  the  Commission. 
However, there have been two recent cases where an application has been rejected by 
BISFA. One case was for a bamboo fibre and they concluded it was just a variation of a 
viscose fibre process.  

Q2 - What are the key factors determining the rate of development of new fibres? Some 
examples are provided below; please rank these factors (from 1 - 5) with the most important 
numbered  1.  Feel  free  to  identify  other  factors  and/or  provide  more  detail  or  explanation  in 
the box below. 

Maintaining a competitive advantage over other fibre producers  

Company size and/or budget allocated to the development of fibres 

Advances in research and development by laboratories - know-how 

Market/consumer demand for new fibres  

Wider commercial and strategic considerations (e.g. patent rights) 

  4 

  5 

  3 

  2 

  1 

Other (please specify) 

Q3  -  Could  you  provide  an  indication  of  the  time  currently  taken,  once  a  new  fibre  is 
developed, before it can be placed on the EU market for production or commercial purposes - 
differentiating  between  the  time  taken  for  “new”  fibres  which  should  be  given  new  fibre 
names under the Textiles Directives, and “other new” fibres which can be classified under the 
existing groups? 

taken 

Time 
for  “new” 
requiring new fibre names 

<1 year 

1-2 years  

2-3 years 

3-4 years 

4-5 years  

fibres 

Tick  Time  taken  for  “other  new” 

Tick 

x 

fibres 

<1 year 

1-2 years  

x 

2-3 years 

3-4 years 

4-5 years  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 years  

5 years  

Obviously,  a  new  fibre  can  be  placed  on  the  market  immediately  if  it  is  using  an 
existing fibre name; however, BISFA is aware of some applications for a new generic 
name which have taken four years. A faster process has taken 18 months. On average, 
two  to  three  years  would  be  a  good  assumption.  BISFA  would,  however,  like  the 
procedure to take one year.  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Q4  -  Could  you  provide  your  best  estimate  of  the  total  costs  per  new  fibre  to  your 
organisation of obtaining approval to market a fibre in the EU with a new name in line with 
the Textiles Directives? 

Cost to organisation  

Tick 

<€10,000 

€10,000 - €99,999 

€100,000 - €249,999 

€250,000 - €499,999 

€500,000 - €999,999 

€1 million and above  

x 

BISFA  estimates  that  three  staff  are  always  present  from  any  given  company  at 
meetings and submissions relating to a new fibre. Assuming that these three staff work 
full time on a given fibre from the start of the project through the 2 - 3 years it takes to 
get approval, the man-day costs alone will be expected to be greater than €1 million.  

Q5  -  Listed  below  are  some  of  the  actions  that  you  may  take  in  order  to  comply  with  the 
Textiles  Directives.  Please  indicate  which  of  these  actions  is  relevant  to  your  organisation 
(using the YES and NO boxes). For those which are relevant, provide the estimated costs in 
Euros  (€)  of  each  action;  alte rnatively,  you  can  rank  these  actions  (from  1  -  8)  with  most 
significant - in terms of cost - numbered 1. 

Yes  No  Cost/Rank

Identifying whether a new fibre can/cannot be classified into 
any of the existing groups 

Contacting  and  getting  support  from  the  relevant  European 
industry federations, consumer  organisations and industry in 
general before launching an application  

Providing proof of consumer relevance of a new fibre  

Obtaining evidence of innovative elements of an application 
(e.g. patents, etc). 

Laboratory  and  scientific  studies  for  the  definition  of,  and 
testing methods for, a new fibre name 

Preparing an application file for a new textile name 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please add others as relevant (please specify) 

BISFA reckons that the costs of these various activities would have to be estimated on 
the basis of the number of man-days spent by people in the organisation on each step. 
Some  steps  (e.g.  providing  proof  of  consumer  relevance  of  a  new  fibre)  will  not  be 
relevant, however, as companies would in any case put the fibre on the market to test 
commercial relevance. In effect, it is part of the baseline cost.  

Q6  -  Please  provide  further  information  on  the  administrative  burden  associated  with  the 
requirements of the current Textiles Directives for your organisation. For example, how many 
full-time staff (or alternatively person-days) do you employ/spend obtaining approval for new 
fibre names under the Textiles Directives? 

No. of full-time staff 

Tick  No. of person-days  

Tick 

<1 person  

1-3 people  

2-5 people  

5-10 people 

10-20 people  

<1 day/year  

x 

<20 days/year (~1 month) 

1 - 2 months/year 

2 - 3 months/year 

3 - 6 months/year 

>20 people (please specify) 

6 - 12 months/year 

Other administrative costs (including unquantifiable costs):  

Around 1-3 people are actively involved in the application procedure on a part or full-
time for as long as the procedure takes.  

Q7 - Please provide your best estimate of the percentage of the total costs of compliance with 
the  Textiles  Directives  (indicated  in  Q4)  which  relate  to  administrative  burden  or  costs,  as 
opposed to testing costs, for instance.  

% of Costs Relating to Administration 

Tick 

<15%  

15 - 25% 

25- 50% 

50 - 75% 

EN 

x 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
75 - 90% 

90 - 100% 

Q8 - One of the aims of revision of the Textiles Directives would be to reduce the amount of 
time it takes to process an application for a new textile name. Could you please provide an 
indication of what benefits to your organisation might result from speeding up the application 
process? Please indicate the size of the likely benefits and indicate which is likely to be the 
most important? 

Yes  No  Value/Rank 

Reduced  personnel  time  in  supporting  an  application 
through the process 

Increases in the number of new fibres brought to market 

Increases in innovation 

Benefits  from  getting  a  new  fibre  onto  the  market  more 
quickly  

Increases in investment in new fibre technologies  

Increased market demand for new fibres 

Other (please specify) 

Please  describe  what  these  benefits  would  mean  to  your  company.  For  example, 
indicate the potential magnitude of cost savings in terms of reduced personnel time or 
the value of any time to market benefits. 

The  main  benefit  of  speeding  up  the  process  is  the  support  which  is  given  to  the 
marketing strategy of the company which has applied for the fibre name. For instance, 
for the melamine fibre (currently going through the process), the company involved is 
not  involved  in  the  manufacture  of  any  other  fibre.  The  whole  business  is,  therefore, 
dependent on the success of this fibre. While for other companies, this may not be the 
case,  but  whole  business  units  or  sections  may  be  dependent  on  the  time  it  takes  a 
certain fibre to go to market. Speeding up the process, therefore, enables the company 
to strengthen its position overall. 

Q9  -  The  decision  making  process  for  justifying  the  addition  of  a  new  fibre  name  to  the 
Textiles  Directive  requires  applicants  to  submit  a  file  with  an  application  for  a  new  fibre 
name. One of the reasons for approval taking so long is because these files sometimes contain 
insufficient information to allow for assessment of whether the case for a new fibre name is 
adequate. There is currently some guidance on file contents on the Commission website and 
improved guidance is being developed.  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please  indicate  whether  you  believe  that  the  provision  of  clearer  and  more  detailed 
guidance would result in a reduction in time delays (explaining why). 

Yes 

No 

Why would it result in a reduction in time delays?  

BISFA does some work with companies in the area of providing guidance 
and,  indeed,  the  initial  guidance  produced  by  the  Commission  was 
developed  by  BISFA.  BISFA  considers  the  current  guidance  to  be  quite 
clear; but like any other type of guidance, there is always scope to provide 
further  support  whether  by  the  Commission  or  BISFA.  Overall,  BISFA 
considers that the Commission (or the slow process) cannot be blamed on 
unclear guidance. The reality is that companies do not apply everyday for a 
new generic name so they are generally always going to be inexperienced 
in putting it into practice (without some help). 

If clearer and more detailed guidance would result in a reduction in time delays, this may also 
reduce  the  costs  that  your  company  currently  incurs  in  seeing  an  application  through  the 
approvals process. Please provide your best estimate of the potential percentage reduction in 
time and costs that your company might expect to realise. 

% Reduction in Time Delays 

Tick % Reduction in Costs 

Tick 

<15%  

15 - 25% 

25- 50% 

50 - 75% 

75 - 90% 

90 - 100% 

<15%  

15 - 25% 

25- 50% 

50 - 75% 

75 - 90% 

90 - 100% 

Q10 - If the new application guidelines were to be made binding; for instance, by including 
them as a technical annex to a Regulation – to allow updating and amendment, in the same 
way  as  updating  to  add  new  fibre  names  –  do  you  think  this  would  a)  reduce  the  time  and 
costs  to  your  organisation  of  preparing  a  file;  b)  speed  up  the  approval  process  by  the 
authorities? See above  

Reduce  the  time  and  costs  to  your 
organisation? 

Speed  up  the  approval  process  by  the 
authorities? 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Q11 - Could you provide information on the extent to which delays in introducing new fibre 
names results in lost revenue and profits to your organisation? 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The amount of revenue lost by delays is in general difficult to quantify and will depend 
on the company and its strategic view of the market. Most companies will only apply 
for a new generic name where its suits their market strategy and know-how. You have 
to look and see if the market is accepting the products being put on the market and if 
customers  are  willing  to  accept  the  changes  or  indeed,  price  mark-up.  If  these  market 
conditions are not met, there may be benefits of marketing under an existing fibre name. 

As  a  proxy,  a  few  factors  can  be  considered.  For  some  new  fibres  which  were  given 
new generic names recently, sales have been in the region of €10 million to €50 million 
(depending on timing and other business factors). 

This also depends on whether it is a speciality fibre or a commodity fibre. Most fibres 
with new generic names start off as speciality fibres and the hope of every company is 
that it can one day become a commodity fibre. A whole new business unit can be a spin-
off as a result of this movement. 

Speciality fibre can differ in cost from a commodity fibre by a factor of 2 to 10 times 
more.  However,  a  direct  comparison  cannot  be  made  between  their  market  prices 
because SF are produced under special conditions and in lower quantities so the price 
per kilogram needs to be seen in the context of the quantity produced.  

Q12 - The current Textiles Directives contain long lists of test methods; in many cases these 
are  very  similar  to  methods  used  in  relevant  standards.  The  Commission  has  discussed  a 
simple transfer of  testing  methods in the Directives to European standards (EN).  What 
do you think the impacts of such a change would be?  

The  main  advantage  of  such  a  change  is  that  there  would  be  a  regular  revision  of  the 
standards  every  five  years  by  CEN  -  so  as  to  keep  pace  with  the  rapid  change  in  test 
methods  in  the  textile  industry.  This  is  better  than  the  current  situation  where  no 
changes are made after a test method is included in a Directive. In practice, it may well 
be that every five years, CEN just conclude that there is no need for revision for a test 
method but at least someone is looking at it.  

Q13  -  Another  option  involves  an  application  file  being  accompanied  by  a  report  from  an 
accredited  national  laboratory  (or  “notified  laboratory”).  The  aim  would  be  to  have  an 
independent  review  before  the  application  file  is  submitted,  thereby  improving  file  quality, 
reducing  the  need  for  further  testing  (and  ring  trials  if  possible)  and  increasing  the  overall 
speed of the process. 

Do you believe that such “notified” independent laboratories could take on the assessment of 
technical files? 

BISFA is currently encouraging members to make use of such laboratories in preparing 
their application.  

How much you believe this would cost your organisation? 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
No  extra  costs  to  companies.  The  main  advantage  is  that  the  Commission  does  not 
spend valuable time and money repeating work already done by industry.  

Would it have any wider impacts on the application process (positive and negative)? 

Q14  -  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  overall  effects  of  the  proposed  changes  to  your 
customers,  and  which  changes  do  you  believe  would  be  of  the  most  benefit  to  your 
customers? 

 The  basic  effect  will  be  that  consumers  have  access  to  useful  information  on  the 
textiles and their properties, as intended by the Directive. 

Q15 - Finally, if you feel that we have missed anything important, or would like to comment 
on  any  of  the  issues  raised  by  this  questionnaire,  please  let  us  know  (and  continue  on  a 
separate sheet if necessary). 

Three new fibre names have been issued in the last five years:  

•  Elastomultiester  
•  Polylactide  
•  Elastolefin  

Fibres which are currently work in progress include:  

•  Melamine: BISFA have adopted melamine as a fibre name 1015 years ago - but the 
step was not made to the Commission. They made the step for a new generic name 
18 months ago but it has been marketed in the EU in minor quantities. 

•  Primethylene ester (PTT) (application in US as well)  
•  Propylamide composite  

Some  companies  have  informed  BISFA  that  they  will  be  coming  forward  with  new 
applications for new generic names. There are two companies which may come up with 
new applications but not yet.  

Overall, some of the companies that apply for a new generic name are big companies 
while  others  are  small  companies  but  important  players  like  or  much  smaller 
companies  (SME).  Hence,  it  is  the  case  that  R&D  efforts  are  not  limited  to  big 
companies  (or size/budget). Also, most research efforts (90 - 95%) by companies are 
on existing fibres, rather than looking for new fibres.  

It is possible that a new fibre name could indirectly result in a higher margin - even if a 
new generic name is not used for direct marketing (i.e. brand names); however, there 
are  other  considerations  (e.g.  market  strategy  and  market  know-how)  on  whether  u 
have to put a new fibre or just go with an existing fibre. Overall, applying for a new 
fibre is a purely business and marketing strategy/decision. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
For the recent fibres:  

•  Melamine  Fibre:  the  company  that  owns  it  does  not  manufacture  any  other  fibre. 

They are depending on this fibre for opening this business line;  

•  The same is true for elastolefin. They have a separate section dealing with this fibre 

and the success of that division depends on this fibre.  

•  For polyactide, the main application is in packaging - only a minor part is for fibre 

applications; 

•  For Primethylene ester (PTT), the company is a big one. One of their raw materials 

is PTT - the dependence is a bit minor.  

•  For elastomultiester, it is one of the many products of the company. It is a speciality 

fibre in a huge portfolio.  

•  For  Propylamide  composite:  the  company  considers  this  a  speciality  and  is  a 

breakthrough innovation for their key business. Of major strategic importance.  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
QUESTIONS FOR BISFA  

1)  How  frequently  does  BISFA  make  a  fibre  application  on  behalf  of  one  of  its  members 
versus  the  member  company  making  the  application  itself?  In  your  opinion,  what  generally 
determines the extent to which a company uses BISFA in making a fibre application? 

Principally applications for new generic names to the EU Commission are done by 
the  companies  concerned.  If  they  have  gone  through  the  adoption  procedure  at 
BISFA (normal case),they make reference to that. The credibility of an application is 
very much supported through prior adoption at BISFA (rules for generic names for 
fibres  were  originally  developed  by  BISFA,  a  standardisation  organisation  now 
existing for 72 years) 

2) Do all member companies approach BISFA with their proposed application prior to making 
the application with the Commission? Or is BISFA sometimes approached at the same time as 
a company makes its application to the Commission? 

it is the normal situation that companies (also non-members) first approach BISFA 
for adoption and after that the EU Commission 

3)  It  is  our  understanding  that  companies  make  applications  for  a  new  fibre  name  to  the 
BISFA  Secretariat  which  then  submits  this  to  the  Standards  for  Fibres  and  Textiles 
Committee. 

approaching  the  BISFA  secretariat  already  includes  guiding  information  for  the 
applicant by the Secretary General of BISFA 

a) Does a company have to wait until the SFT meets before its proposal is put forward to the 
BISFA Policy Committee?  

applications can be put forward either to the SFT or to the Policy Committee, which 
means  to  groups  meeting  in  total  4  times  a  year  (spread  along  the  year).This  is 
adequate, taking into consideration the before mentioned initial guiding step by the 
Secretary General 

b)  Is  it  general  procedure  for  the  SFT  to  then  put  a  working  group  in  place  to  prepare  an 
application proposal together with the company? 

The installation of an ad hoc meeting working group depends on the need resulting 
from discussions at the SFT or Policy committee for more details, for clarification, 
for analytical results .If there is no need ,no working group will be installed 

c) How long does it usually take for final approval to be given to an application by BISFA? 

Usually it takes no longer than half a year, of course with some exemptions to this 
rule 

4) What advantages does taking an application through BISFA have for companies? Does it 
speed up the time taken to get an application through the EU procedure? Does it reduce the 
likelihood of MS objections? Does it affect testing requirements? 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
it is above all in a case of adoption that the fibres industry (BISFA represents > 90% 
of the European man made fibers industry) is confirming the need for a new generic 
name, and it supports the credibility of the applicant if competing companies come to 
that (consensus) conclusion. Testing results are part of the application at BISFA, so 
are a base for subsequent adoption by Commission/MS 

5) Does BISFA and its member companies always approach the Commission with regard to 
an application or do companies also make the application through a Member State competent 
authority? 

There are no recent cases of applications through MS competent authorities 

6)  Are  applications  generally  made  at  the  same  time  in  the  EU  and  in  the  US,  or  are  they 
made  first  in  the  US  or  made  first  in  the  EU?  What  generally  determines  the  decision  by 
companies regarding which country they approach first with a new fibre? 

all situations occur. One aspect is related to the main market to be addressed 

7)  If  companies  tend  to  make  an  application  in  the  US  first,  do  they  take  any  further  steps 
prior  to  making  an  application  in  the  EU?  E.g.  carry  out  more/different  testing,  prepare 
different information for their application, etc. 

to  prepare  for  application  in  Europe  they  usually  approach  BISFA.  Procedures  in 
US  and  Europe  are  quite  different:  in  terms  of  naming  (EU:  stricter  technical 
name),definition (EU: only verifiable and quantifiable definitions) and testing (EU: 
strict  results  related  to  definitions).The  process  in  EU  generally  is  more  extensive, 
more quantified (and longer)  

8) Only a few applications have been made per year in the recent past, does BISFA see the 
number as increasing in the future? If so, what is the expected trend in terms of numbers per 
year (e.g. two per year over the next three years, increasing to five a year thereafter)? 

difficult to predict, but 2/year seems realistic 

9) How long on average does the current process take once an application has been made to 
the European Commission? What aspects of the current process does BISFA believe could be 
speeded up? 

varies  between  2  and  4  years.  Recent  suggestions  made  by  DG  Enterprise  seem 
adequate to speed up. Especially the aspect of testing mentioned is crucial to speed 
up:if the applicant shows convincing test results, a decision should be based on that 
without  further  testing  by  the  Commission  or  MS  (training  of  MS  labs  could  be 
organised after adoption and publication) 

10)  In  your  experience,  what  is  considered  as  sufficient  proof  of  commercial  relevance  in 
making  an  application  to  the  EU?  Where  an  application  for  a  new  fibre  is  rejected,  in  your 
experience, what implications does this have for a fibre which has proven to be commercially 
relevant? 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
a  presence  in  the  markets  by  some  tonnage,  presence  at  fairs  and  other  marketing 
efforts  should  be  shown.  If  an  application  is  rejected  it  does  not  mean  the  product 
has no marketing future or power. It only means that the innovation did not show the 
need to communicate to the market the need for creation of a new fiber family 

11) Do companies make use of their ability to approach MS to gain preliminary designations 
for fibre names in order to be able to market them while the application for a new fibre name 
is  being  considered?  If  so,  which  MS  authorities  are  approached  most  often?  Also,  do  MS 
authorities  undertake  their  own  testing  or  checks  prior  to  agreeing  to  grant  a  preliminary 
designation to fibre? 

cases are known for UK, Italy and France. We are not aware of testing done for that 
by Member States 

12)  Minutes  of  meetings  of  the  Committee  and  Working  Groups  on  Textile  Names  and 
Labelling suggest that some of the more recent textiles are challenging the content of Annex 
1. For example, it has been suggested that developments in fibre technology means that a new 
family of fibres (i.e. composite fibres) may need to be added to the families currently listed in 
the  Directive.  It  has  also  been  suggested  that  there  may  be  a  need  to  create  sub-categories 
under the generic headings to make distinctions between fibres that deliver new properties but 
which  cannot  be  given  anew  fibre  name  due  to  their  chemical  properties  or  processing 
method. 

Do you believe these issues are likely to become more important in the future? If so, please 
comment on their likely importance. 

Yes,  we  believe  that  new  technologies  like  composite  fibers  are  serious  candidates 
for  new  generic  names.  The  acceptance  of  generic  names  should  consider  new 
emerging  technologies,  respectively  generic  names  are  a  tool  for  this  and  they  are 
satisfying a consumers need to create awareness of innovative fibre technologies in 
the textile market 

13)  What  are  the  commercial  and  economic  advantages  of  gaining  a  new  fibre  name?  Are 
there any examples that BISFA can provide? 

a new fibre name is related to an innovative technology, so it supports a marketing 
approach  based  on  uniqueness  with  commercial  and  economic  advantages. 
Especially  the  EU  fibers  industry  depends  on  specialisation  and  a  corresponding 
creation of awareness in the market. In fact all recent new fibre names can be taken 
as examples 

14) What is the economic value of a reduction in the time taken to gain approval for a new 
fibre name?  

As  time  is  money,  a  reduction  of  time  (and  correspondingly  costs)  contributes 
positively 

15)  What  advantages  would  there  be  in  having  test  methods  agreed  for  the  different  fibre 
types converted into standards overseen by CEN? 

one  positive  aspect  is  that  testing  methods  could  undergo  routine  revisions  (all  5 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
years?) 

16) Would there be advantages to companies in being able to approach a notified body (or a 
network of such bodies) to develop and carry out the necessary testing?  

the  application  at  BISFA  already  includes  that  testing  is  conducted  (respectively 
verified)  by  preferably  2  notified  bodies  (recognised  testing  houses).This  should 
remain an important base referring to the credibility of the application 

17)  Would  the  development  of  clearer  and  more  precise  guidelines  on  what  should  be 
included in a dossier and what is required for approval of an application reduce the time and 
costs involved to companies? 

the  guidelines  are  sufficiently  clear,  but  our  experience  is  that  some  guiding  (like 
through the preliminary guiding mentioned with the Secretary General of BISFA) is 
helpful 

18) Are there other industry associations or companies who you believe should be consulted 
for this study? 

we are not aware of further associations involved in detail 

Note:  Please  consider  that  the  aspect  of  harmonisation  of  generic  names  (at  ISO 
level, see standard ISO 2076) still is a problem. The actual situation is that at ISO 
parallel names are adopted (US and EU names) due to a lack of harmonisation 

Number of people per fibre development is not dependent on company size but on the 
fibre  technology  to  be  developed  and  marketing  strategy  involved,  lets  say  a  large 
project with 5-10,a smaller project with 2-5 staff 

I  would  prefer  to  state  that  per  fibre  applying  for  a  new  generic  name  during  the 
period of application 1-3 people are directly involved with the Textiles Directive 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
REVISION OF LEGISLATION ON TEXTILE FIBRE NAMES AND LABELLING 

Summary of Responses by Industry (Fibre Users) 

Q1 - How many new fibres which could be classified under existing names in EU legislation 
has your organisation used in the last five years? How many new fibres that required the fibre 
producer to obtain a new name under EU legislation has your organisation used in the last five 
years? 

Number over the last 5 years 

Number  of  new  fibres  classified  under 
existing names  

10 

Number  of  new  fibres  requiring  new 
names under EU legislation 

20 

Q2 - What are the key factors determining the rate of uptake of new textile fibres? Do these 
vary  for  fibres  which  can  be  classified  under  existing  names  and  those  which  require  new 
names? 

New technical fabrics 

High-Tech garments 

Personal Protective Equipment 

Fashion 

Q3  -  How  long  does  it  take  for  a  textile  fibre  (initially  made  available  for  “market  testing 
purposes”)  to  be  placed  on  the  EU  market  for  production  or  commercial  purposes  -  please 
distinguish  between  the  time  taken  for  “new”  fibres  (which  require  a  new  name  under  the 
Textiles Directives) and “other” new fibres which can be classified under the existing groups? 

Time 
taken 
requiring a new name  

for  “new” 

fibres 

Tick

Time  taken  for  “other”  new 
fibres 

Tick 

<1 year 

1-2 years 

2-3 years 

3-4 years 

4-5 years 

5 years 

EN 

<1 year 

1-2 years 

X 

2-3 years 

3-4 years 

4-5 years 

5 years 

70 

X 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q4 - Do you believe that a simplification of the Textiles Directives with the aim of reducing 
the  time  taken  to  approve  a  fibre  would  result  in  a  reduction  in  costs  incurred  by  your 
organisation? Please provide a reason for your answer.  

Yes  X 

Please provide further comments here. 

No 

Please provide your best estimate of the potential reduction in costs to your organisation (as a 
percentage) that would arise from the shorter time frames. 

% Reduction in time delays 

Tick % Reduction in costs 

Tick

<15%  

15 - 25% 

25- 50% 

50 - 75% 

75 - 90% 

90 - 100% 

X 

X 

<15%  

15 - 25% 

25- 50% 

50 - 75% 

75 - 90% 

90 - 100% 

Q5 - Could you provide further information on the extent to which delays in introducing new 
fibres results in lost revenue and profits to your organisation? 

As  laboratory  testing  centre  a  shorter  time  to  classify  new  fibres  could  be  useful  to 
provide a better service to textile companies in order to fill in the composition label. 

Q6 - Have delays in the approval of a particular fibre (or fibres) resulted in your organisation:  

a)  resorting  to  alternative  fibres  to  develop  a  particular  product  (or 
products)  

b) losing the opportunity to develop a particular product (or products) 

c) losing significant investment in research and development 

d)  refusing  to  purchase  a  fibre  which  you  were  previously  intending  to 
use  

  YES/NO

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e)  being  unable  to  sell  a  fibre  or  product  for  which  you  had  a  potential 
customer 

f)  incurring  significant  costs  due  to  delays  in  bringing  new  textile 
products to market 

YES 

YES 

g) other (please specify) 

Please  provide  further  details.  Any  available  data  on  the  costs  associated  with  the 
above actions would be welcomed. 

Q7 - Finally, if you feel that we have missed anything important, or would like to comment on 
any of the issues raised by this questionnaire, please let us know (and continue on a separate 
sheet if necessary).  

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVISION OF LEGISLATION ON TEXTILE FIBRE NAMES AND LABELLING 

Summary of Response by Consumer Association 

Q1 - Is your organisation aware of the EU requirements on textile names and labelling? 

 Yes  

No 

yes 

Q2 - If yes, what are the main benefits of the requirements for consumers? 

Flame retardants, Biocides, Organic cotton 

Q3 - Do you believe that a simplification of the Textiles Directives, to reduce the time taken 
to approve a fibre, would result in additional benefits for consumers? Please provide a reason 
for your answer.  

Yes  X 

Please provide further comments here. 

No 

Q4 - The options for streamlining the procedures in the Textiles Directives are listed below. 
Please indicate what impact, if any, you think these would have on consumers. 

Option 

Impacts 

Positive 

Negative  No 

impact 

Changing  the  Directive  to  a  Regulation,  so  that 
national legislation does not need to be adapted 

Clearer  and  more  detailed  guidance  to  industry 
applicants 

Transfer  of  fibre  testing  methods  to  European 
standards 

Independent  review  by  an  accredited  national 
laboratory before an application is submitted 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q5 - Finally, if you feel that we have missed anything important, or would like to comment on 
any of the issues raised by this questionnaire, please let us know (and continue on a separate 
sheet if necessary).  

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 2 - Comparison of activities for preparation, assessment and approval of an application to a new textile fibre name, according to the 
regulatory and the regulatory+non-regulatory (standardisation) approaches examined 

Table I: Comparison of Activities for Streamlining Current Process  

No Policy Change –  

Current Process 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

No additional provisions 

Contents of Application File 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Laboratories recognised byMS 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Contents of Application File + 
Laboratories recognised by MS 

Step 0: Preparation of Application  

Step 0: Preparation of Application 

Step 0: Preparation of Application  

Step 0: Preparation of Application 

Step 0: Preparation of Application 

•  Company 

in-house 
uses 
capabilities  or  hires  a  Lab  to 
undertake  testing  or  develop  new 
test methods  

•  Company 

in-house 
uses 
capabilities  or  hires  a  Lab  to 
undertake 
testing  or  develop 
new test methods  

•  Company 

in-house 
uses 
capabilities  or  hires  a  Lab  to 
undertake 
testing  or  develop 
new test methods  

•  Company 

uses 

in-house 
to 
capabilities  or  hires  a  Lab 
undertake  testing  or  develop  new 
test methods 

•  Application is prepared setting out 
justification  for  a  new  generic 
name  and  proposed  methods  for 
identification and quantification: 

justification 

•  Application  is  prepared  setting 
for  a  new 
out 
generic  name  and  proposed 
methods  for  identification  and 
quantification: 

justification 

•  Application  is  prepared  setting 
for  a  new 
out 
generic  name  and  proposed 
methods  for  identification  and 
quantification: 

•  Application is prepared setting out 
justification  for  a  new  generic 
name  and  proposed  methods  for 
identification  and  quantification 
including: 

•  Company  uses  in-house  capabilities 
or hires a Lab to undertake testing or 
develop new test methods 

•  Application  is  prepared  setting  out 
justification  for  a  new  generic  name 
for 
and 
identification 
quantification 
including: 

proposed 

methods 

and 

•  Chemistry 

•  Process 

•  Consumer relevance 

• 

Identification 
quantification 
methods 

& 

•  Chemistry 

•  Chemistry 

•  Chemistry 

•  Process 

•  Process 

•  Process 

•  Consumer relevance 

•  Consumer relevance 

•  Consumer relevance 

• 

Identification 
quantification 
methods 

& 

• 

Identification 
quantification 
methods 

& 

• 

Identification 
& 
quantification methods 

•  Network  Lab  checks 

method 

the 

test 

•  Chemistry 

•  Process 

•  Consumer relevance 

• 

Identification 
quantification methods 

& 

•  Network Lab checks the test method 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table I: Comparison of Activities for Streamlining Current Process  

No Policy Change –  

Current Process 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

No additional provisions 

Contents of Application File 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Laboratories recognised byMS 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Contents of Application File + 
Laboratories recognised by MS 

Step 1: Submission of Application 

Step 1 : Submission of application 

Step 1 : Submission of Application 

Step 1: Submission of Application 

Step 1: Submission of Application 

•  Application 

to 
is 
Commission  or  to  a  MS  National 
Authority 

made 

•  Application 

is  made 

to 
Commission  or  MS  National 
Authority 

•  Application 

is  made 

to 
Commission  or  MS  National 
Authority 

•  Application  (including  validation 
report  by  network  lab  is  made  to 
Commission  or  MS  National 
Authority 

•  Application 

(including  validation 
report  by  network  lab)  is  made  to 
Commission 
or  MS  National 
Authority 

•  Application  includes  proposals 
for  new 
test  methods  or 
correction factors as appropriate 

•  Application  includes  proposals 
for  new 
test  methods  or 
correction factors as appropriate 

•   

•   

•  Application  includes  proposals  for 
new  test  methods  or  correction 
factors as appropriate accompanied 
by  a  report  from  a  recognised 
national laboratory  

•  Application  includes  proposals  for 
new 
test  methods  or  correction 
factors  as  appropriate  accompanied 
by  a 
recognised 
national laboratory  

from  a 

report 

Step  2  :  Assessment  and  Initial 
Review  of  Application  by  DG 
Enterprise 

Step  2  :  Assessment  and  Initial 
Review  of  Application  by  DG 
Enterprise 

Step  2  :  Assessment  and  Initial 
Review  of  Application  by  DG 
Enterprise 

Step  2  :  Assessment  and  Initial 
Review  of  Application  by  DG 
Enterprise 

Step 2 : Assessment and Initial Review 
of Application by DG Enterprise 

•  Commission  decision  on  whether 
to  convene  WG  or  request  more 
info 

•  Commission 
whether 
request more info 

decision 
on 
to  convene  WG  or 

•  Commission 
whether 
request more info 

decision 
on 
to  convene  WG  or 

•  Commission  decision  on  whether 
to  convene  WG  or  request  more 
info 

•  Commission  decision  on  whether  to 
convene WG or request more info 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Table I: Comparison of Activities for Streamlining Current Process  

No Policy Change –  

Current Process 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

No additional provisions 

Contents of Application File 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Laboratories recognised byMS 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Contents of Application File + 
Laboratories recognised by MS 

Step  3a:  Technical  Examination  of 
Application 

Step 3a: Technical Examination of 
Application 

Step 3a: Technical Examination of 
Application 

Step  3a:  Technical  Examination  of 
Application 

Step  3a:  Technical  Examination  of 
Application 

•  Commission  convenes  Working 

Group on Textile Labelling 

•  Commission  convenes  Working 
Group on Textile Labelling 

•  Commission  convenes  Working 
Group on Textile Labelling 

•  Commission  convenes  Working 

•  Commission 

convenes  Working 

Group on Textile Labelling 

Group on Textile Labelling 

•  File discussed at WG meeting 

•  File discussed at WG meeting 

•  File discussed at WG meeting 

•  File discussed at WG meeting 

•  File discussed at WG meeting 

•  Additional  information  requests 
applicant  where 

to 

made 
necessary 

•  Additional  information  requests 
applicant  where 

made 
to 
necessary 

•  Limited 
made 
to 
necessary  

information 

requests 
applicant  where 

•  Very 

limited 

requests  made 

additional 
to 

information 
applicant 

•  Clarifications from applicant 

•  Clarifications from applicant 

• 

• 

JRC  carries  out  tests  to  check 
definition  and  whether  suggested 
test methods are sufficient 

• 

JRC  carries  out  tests  to  check 
definition 
whether 
and 
test  methods  are 
suggested 
sufficient 

•  Applicant  must  provide 

any 
additional  information  requested 
by WG 

•  Applicant  must  provide  any 
additional information requested 
by WG  

JRC  carries  out  tests  to  check 
definition 
whether 
and 
suggested 
test  methods  are 
sufficient 

• 

JRC  carries  out  tests  to  check 
definition  and  whether  suggested 
methods are sufficient 

•  Applicant  must  provide  any 
additional information requested 
by WG 

additional 
by WG 

•  Applicant  must 

any 
provide 
information  requested 

•  Very  limited  information  requests 
made to applicant where necessary 

• 

to  check 
JRC  carries  out 
definition  and  whether  suggested 
methods are sufficient 

tests 

•  Applicant  must 

any 
additional  information  requested  by 
WG 

provide 

EN 

77 

EN 

 
  
Table I: Comparison of Activities for Streamlining Current Process  

No Policy Change –  

Current Process 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

No additional provisions 

Contents of Application File 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Laboratories recognised byMS 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Contents of Application File + 
Laboratories recognised by MS 

Step 3b: JRC organises ring trials  

Step 3b: JRC organises ring trials  

Step 3b: JRC organises ring trials  

Step 3b: JRC organises ring trials  

Step 3b: JRC organises ring trials  

• 

JRC  organises  ring  trials  where 
there is a need to validate findings 

• 

JRC  organises  ring  trials  where 
to  validate 
there 
findings 

is  a  need 

• 

JRC  organises  ring  trials  where 
to  validate 
is  a  need 
there 
findings – sub-set of cases 

• 

JRC  organises  ring  trials  where 
there is a need to validate findings 
– sub-set of cases; 

• 

JRC organises ring trials where there 
is  a  need  to  validate  findings  –  sub-
set of cases 

•  Uses network of labs 

•  Checks  repeatability  of  tests  and 
tests  for  different 

validity  of 
combinations of fibres 

•  Uses network of labs 

•  Uses network of labs 

•  Uses network of labs 

•  Uses network of labs 

•  Checks repeatability of tests and 
validity  of  tests  for  different 
combinations of fibres 

•  Checks repeatability of tests and 
validity  of  tests  for  different 
combinations of fibres 

•  Checks  repeatability  of  tests  and 
for  different 
tests 

validity  of 
combinations of fibres 

•  Checks  repeatability  of 

validity  of 
combinations of fibres 

tests 

tests  and 
for  different 

Step  3c/3d:  Report  on  Technical 
Examination  and  discussion  with 
National Experts 

Step  3c/3d:  Report  on  Technical 
Examination  and  discussion  with 
National Experts 

Step  3c/3d  Report  on  Technical 
Examination  and  discussion  with 
National Experts 

Step  3c/3d:  Report  on  Technical 
Examination  and  discussion  with 
National Experts 

Step  3c/3d:  Report  on  Technical 
Examination  and  discussion  with 
National Experts 

•  Results  of  technical  examination 
& ring trials submitted to COM,  

•  Results of technical examination 
& ring trials submitted to COM  

•  Results of technical examination 
& ring trials submitted to COM 

•  Results of technical examination & 
ring trials submitted to COM  

•  Results  of  technical  examination  & 

ring trials submitted to COM 

•  COM prepares proposal to amend 

•  COM  prepares  proposal 

to 

•  COM  prepares  proposal 

to 

•  COM  prepares  proposal  to  amend 

•  COM prepares proposal to amend the 

the Directive 

amend the Directive  

amend the Directive 

the Directive 

Directive 

Step  4:  Preparation  of  Draft 
Proposals  

Step  4:  Preparation  of  Draft 
Proposals  

Step  4:  Preparation  of  Draft 
Proposals  

Step  4:  Preparation  of  Draft 
Proposals  

Step 4: Preparation of Draft Proposals  

•  Commission 
amendments 
Textile Names and Labelling  

draft 
to  Committee  on 

tables 

•  Commission 

draft 
amendments  to  Committee  on 
Textile Names and Labelling  

tables 

•  Commission 

draft 
amendments  to  Committee  on 
Textile Names and Labelling  

tables 

•  Commission 
amendments 
Textile Names and Labelling  

draft 
to  Committee  on 

tables 

•  Commission tables draft amendments 
to  Committee  on  Textile  Names  and 
Labelling  

•  Amendments  agreed  or  referred  to 

•  Amendments agreed or referred to 

•  Amendments  agreed  or  referred 

•  Amendments  agreed  or  referred 

•  Amendments  agreed  or  referred  to 

written procedure 

written procedure 

to written procedure 

to written procedure 

written procedure 

EN 

78 

EN 

 
  
Table I: Comparison of Activities for Streamlining Current Process  

No Policy Change –  

Current Process 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or 
Non-regulatory Approach (Option 
3) – 

No additional provisions 

Contents of Application File 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Laboratories recognised byMS 

Regulatory (Option 2) and/or Non-
regulatory Approach (Option 3) – 

Contents of Application File + 
Laboratories recognised by MS 

Step 5a: Directive Amended 

Step 5a: Regulation Amended 

Step 5a: Regulation Amended 

Step 5a: Regulation Amended 

Step 5a: Regulation Amended 

•  Submission  to  scrutiny  of  EU 

•  Submission  to  scrutiny  of  EU 

•  Submission  to  scrutiny  of  EU 

•  Submission 

to  scrutiny  of  EU 

•  Submission 

to 

scrutiny  of  EU 

Parliamentary  

Parliamentary  

Parliamentary  

Parliamentary  

Parliamentary  

•  Adoption by COM 

•  Adoption by COM 

•  Adoption by COM 

•  Adoption by COM 

•  Adoption by COM 

•  Publication in OJ 

•  Publication in OJ  

•  Publication in OJ  

•  Publication in OJ  

•  Publication in OJ  

• 

Immediate  marketing  of  new 
fibre possible 

• 

Immediate  marketing  of  new 
fibre possible 

• 

Immediate  marketing  of  new  fibre 
possible 

• 

Immediate  marketing  of  new  fibre 
possible 

•  Test  method  passed  to  CEN  to 
standard 

become  an  EU 
(Option 3 only) 

•  Test  method  passed  to  CEN  to 
standard 

become  an  EU 
(Option 3 only) 

•  Test  method  passed  to  CEN  to 
become an EU standard  (Option 
3 only) 

•  Test  method  passed 

to 
become  an  EU  standard  (Option  3 
only) 

to  CEN 

Step 5b: CEN Adopts Standard 

Step 5b: CEN Adopts Standard  

Step 5b: CEN Adopts Standard  

Step 5b: CEN Adopts Standard  

Step 5b: CEN Adopts Standard  

•  Not applicable 

•  Adoption  of  Test  Methods  as 
European  Standard  by  CEN 
(Option 3 only) 

•  Adoption  of  Test  Methods  as 
European  Standard  by  CEN 
(Option 3 only) 

•  Adoption  of  Test  Methods  as 
European  Standard  by  CEN 
(Option 3 only) 

•  Adoption  of  Test  Methods  as 
European  Standard  by  CEN  (Option 
3 only) 

Step 5c: MS Transposition 

Step 5c: MS Transposition 

Step 5c: MS Transposition 

Step 5c: MS Transposition 

Step 5c: MS Transposition 

•  Transposition of Directive by MS 

•  No transposition required  

•  No transposition required  

•  No transposition required  

•  No transposition required  

MS  introduce  EU  standard  into 
national  standards 
in  conformity 
with EN (Option 3 only) 

MS  introduce  EU  standard  into 
national  standards 
in  conformity 
with EN (Option 3 only) 

Changes from Option 1are underlined 
Changes which apply only to Option 3 are in Italics  

introduce  EU 

into 
MS 
national  standards  in  conformity  with 
EN (Option 3 only) 

standard 

MS  introduce  EU  standard  into  national 
standards in conformity with EN (Option 
3 only) 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 3 Steps Involved in Adopting a Standard 

A  proposal  for  a  European  Standard  may  come  from  any  interested  party,  such  as  the 
European  Commission  (EC),  the  European  Free  Trade  Association  (EFTA)  and  National 
Standards Bodies (NSB). There are two processes for adopting European standards:  

–  the ‘classical’ process, which generally takes up to 36 months to complete; and  

–  the shorter Unique Acceptance Process (UAP), which takes 8 - 12 months.  

The ‘Classical’ Process 

The key steps involved in the ‘classical’ process are as follows: 
1.  Approval  of  the  new  work  item  by  the  relevant  CEN  technical  committee24  :  Taking 
into  account  the  time  required  and  the  resources  available,  the  appropriate  CEN  Technical 
Committee makes a decision on the adoption of the proposal. If the proposal is for a new field 
of standardisation activity, a decision is first made by the CEN Technical Board, which then 
sends the work to a new or existing Technical Committee. An adopted standardisation project 
is allocated to one of the Working Groups (which reports to the Technical Committee) for the 
drafting of the standard. 

2.  Working  group  prepares  a  draft  standard:  This  includes  preliminary  administrative 
processing (e.g. formal editing and placing the proposal text in a template and translation into 
English, French and German). 

3. Draft standard is circulated for public comment: Once the draft of a European Standard 
is prepared, it is released for public comment, a process known in CEN as the ‘CEN Enquiry’. 
At this stage, everyone who has an interest (e.g. manufacturers, public authorities, consumers, 
etc.) may comment on the draft. These views are collated by the National Standards Bodies 
and analysed by the CEN Technical Committee. 

4.  Formal  voting  on  final  draft: After  the  comments  collated  from  the  CEN  enquiry  have 
been resolved, a final version of the standard is drafted, which is then submitted to the CEN 
Members  for  a  weighted  formal  voting.  All  the  CEN  countries  are  required  to  vote  and  the 
standard needs at least 72% of approval to go to the next stage. 

5. Ratification and publication of Standard: Final editorial corrections are then made and 
the  standard  is  published  as  a  formal  European  Standard  in  the  official  languages  (English, 
French, and German). 

The Unique Acceptance Procedure (UAP) 

The  accelerated  Unique  Acceptance  Procedure  (UAP)  is  applied  where  there  is  a  high 
likelihood of agreement on a standard. The UAP involves the following steps: 

1.  Approval  of  the  new  work  item  by  the  relevant  CEN  technical  committee:  Any 
remaining  uncertainties  regarding  the  proposed  test  method  could  be  addressed  through 

24 

Note that once a standardization project has been adopted (Step 1), the National Standards Bodies stop 
all national activity within the scope of the project. No new projects are initiated, nor are revisions of 
existing standards undertaken at a national level. This obligation is called ’standstill’ and allows efforts 
to be focused on European harmonization. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
formal  and  informal  discussions  between  CEN  and  the  test  method  proposer  before  the 
adoption  process  begins.  The  administrative  procedures  (e.g.  formal  editing  and  placing  the 
proposal  text  in  a  template)  take  around  four  to  six  weeks  and  there  is  also  a  two  month 
translation time into English, French and German. 
2.  The  formal  voting25  on  the  proposed  test  method  starts.  This  formal  vote  normally  lasts 
five months, but can be shortened to three months. 

3. The standard will then be finalised, ratified and published, as in the ‘classical’ process. This 
could take around four to eight weeks. 

At  best,  the  UAP  procedure  can  take  8  -  9  months,  and  in  general,  10  -  12  months,  from 
receipt of a proposal to publication and availability of a European standard. The factor which 
could  affect  this  is  a  negative  vote:  then,  the  test  method  would  have  to  be  discussed  again 
and improved within the CEN working group. 

Adoption as national standard: After publication by CEN, each of the National Standards 
Bodies  adopts  the  European  Standard  as  an  identical  national  standard  and  withdraws  any 
national  standards  which  conflict  with  the  new  European  Standard.  Hence  one  European 
Standard becomes the national standard in the 30 member countries of CEN. These standards 
are made available by the National Standards Body in each country (generally for a fee). CEN 
national  members  have  six  months  to  implement  the  European  standard  and  withdraw  any 
conflicting national standards.  

25 

The vote  actually  combines  the  CEN-Enquiry  and formal  vote  stage  of  the  “classical process”  in  one 
single  step.  In  practise,  this  allows  only  editorial  comments  on  the  draft  standard,  as  technical  issues 
will have been resolved prior to the start of the vote on the test method 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 4 - Steps Involved in the Adoption a New Fibre Name in EU legislation 

Step  0:  Preparation  of  Application:  This  is  the  stage  at  which  a  company  prepares  an 
application  for  a  new  generic  name.  In  general,  applications  for  new  generic  names  are 
prepared  by  the  companies  concerned  using  in-house  or  external  laboratories.  Some 
companies  also  go  through  an  adoption  procedure  at  BISFA,  prior  to  approaching  the 
Commission. BISFA represents over 90% of the European man made fibres industry and it is, 
therefore, considered that the credibility of an application is enhanced if competing companies 
come  to  a  consensus  regarding  the  validity  of  an  application.  The  costs  of  this  step  are  not 
quantified in the impact assessment as it takes place before an application is made. However, 
policy options which introduce a network of recognised national laboratories may impact on 
the length of this step and therefore introduce additional costs within it. These additional costs 
are included in the analysis. 

Step  1:  Submission  of  Application:  This  is  the  stage  at  which  a  written  application  (and 
technical  file)  for  an  amendment  of  the  Textiles  Directives  is  sent  to  the  European 
Commission.  The  application  could  be  sent  to  the  respective  authority  of  an  EU  Member 
State, but this has not yet happened in practice. The application sets out the justification for a 
new generic name based on (a) chemistry; (b) process; (c) consumer relevance and provides a 
definition and identification and quantification methods. 

Step  2:  Assessment  and  Initial  Review  of  Application:  This  is  the  stage  at  which  the 
application file is initially examined by the Commission services with the aim of determining 
whether a new name is justified on the basis that the fibre cannot be classified into any of the 
existing  groups.  The  amendment  process  will  only  be  initiated  where  an  amendment  of  the 
Directives appears appropriate, in view of a need for consumer information and/or the proper 
functioning of the internal market as well as to encourage innovation by providing the fibre 
with a legal name for trading. 

The  Directive  does  not  specify  a  format  for  an  application  from  industry  and,  as  such, 
applications  initially  submitted  to  the  Commission  may  have  incomplete  and  insufficient 
information to make an assessment as to whether an application is justified. The Commission 
has, therefore, issued a set of non-legally binding guidelines26
 for potential applicants, which 
clarifies that an application can only be considered if the information listed below is included: 

a)  indication  must  be  provided  in  which  respect  the  fibre  is  different  (and  distinguishable) 
from existing fibres already listed in Annex I to Directive 96/74/EC; 

b)  following  from  above,  an  indication  of  the  test  methods  for  detecting  the  new  fibre  in 
mixtures  (qualitative  and  quantitative  test  method  required),  taking  into  account  Directives 
96/73/EC and 73/44/EEC; 

c) indication of present or future consumer relevance must be provided (and where possible, 
evidence of innovative elements (e.g. patents)); 

d) a proposal for a generic name; and 

26 

Application  for  a  new  fibre  name:  guidelines  available  from  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/textile/ 
guidelines_applicants.htm 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
                                                 
e) a proposal for an agreed allowance. 

If the Commission services consider that the application is sound, they launch the process for 
the technical examination. 

Step 3: Technical Examination of Application The Commission services make the technical 
examination  of  an  application  (i.e.  to  validate  fibre  name  as  well  as  the  definition  and 
analytical  methods  proposed  by  the  applicant,  so  that  they  can  be  officially  established  and 
used by Member States for market surveillance). 

Step 3a: Convening a Working Group: As soon as the Commission has examined a 
file and it appears likely that it is indeed a new fibre, it convenes a meeting of the 
Working Group on Textiles Labelling (WG), made up of Member State experts and 
chaired by a Commission representative. The WG discusses whether the application 
is  justified,  the  technical  adequacy  of  the  file  and  whether  other  information  is 
needed  from the  applicant and gives its opinion to the Commission on whether the 
application  should  proceed.  Any  comments  or  questions  the  WG  may  raise,  are 
referred to the applicant by the Commission. In practice, all applications received to 
date have required additional data from the applicant.  

WG meetings are convened as necessary by the Commission when an application is 
received (usually in less than three months since the application was submitted to the 
Commission services). The initial Working Group assessment (is it a new fibre? what 
additional  data  are  needed  to  launch  the  testing?)  is  usually  completed  within  6 
months, if the applicant holds all the required data and provides it to the Commission 
in  a  timely  fashion.  However,  in  some  cases  applicants  have  taken  up  to  18  -20 
months  to  provide  all  the  data,  particularly  where  further  laboratory  testing  is 
required. 

Step 3b: Joint Research Centre (JRC) checks definition and test method: In theory, 
a single WG meeting should be sufficient for a decision to be made as to whether an 
application  should  proceed  and  thus  for  the  JRC  of  the  Commission  to  initiate  its 
work on validating the fibre definition and test methods. This involves a laboratory 
examination to check the fibre definition and testing to determine whether there is a 
test  method  that  will  allow  Member  States  Competent  Authorities  to  check  that  an 
article  labelled  with  the  fibre  name  indeed  contains  it.  The  JRC  usually  requires 
around 10 months to undertake this work. If the application file includes a definition 
and  a  sound  testing  method  with  supporting  experimental  data,  the  process  can 
involve shorter checking of these by JRC. 

During this stage, the JRC convenes at least two meetings of a European network of 
national  experts on textile labelling in order to share opinions and decisions  on  the 
work to be performed. The experts do not provide an official opinion. Although some 
of  the  national  experts  participate  in  meetings  of  the  Working  Group,  there  is  no 
formal link between the groups. 

Step 3c: Ring Trial: There may be a need to organise a ‘ring trial’ to validate some 
correction  factors  and/or  new  methods  in  order  to  evaluate  repeatability  and 
reproducibility to ensure that the proposed test method works in different laboratories 
and with different fibre mixtures. This involves around 10 (though sometimes fewer) 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
laboratories in Member States carrying out tests. The ring trial phase takes around six 
months (making 16 months in total for the work of the JRC plus the ring trial). 

Step  3d:  Discussion  with  National  Experts:  The  report  of  the  JRC,  describing  the 
work performed and the results obtained, is used as a basis to draft the proposals for 
amending  Directives  96/74/EC  and  96/73/EC.  The  report  specifies  which  decisions 
were taken by consensus with National Experts on the name, definition, methods and 
coefficients which should be added to the directives. 

Step 4: Preparation of Draft Proposals: At this stage, draft proposals to amend the Textiles 
Directives are prepared and submitted to the Committee on Textile Names and Labelling for 
voting, following the so-called comitology rules. After receiving a favourable opinion of the 
Committee, the proposal is submitted for scrutiny to the European Parliament. 

Step 5: Amendment of Directive and National Legislation: This stage involves: 

a) the proposals going through European Parliament scrutiny; 

b) the amending Directives being adopted and published in the Official Journal (OJ); and 

c) Member States transposing the Directives into national legislation. 

European Parliament scrutiny takes a period of 4-6 months once all linguistic versions have 
been submitted to the Parliament. If there are no objections during this period, the amendment 
is  adopted  and  published.  Member  States  then  have  a  further  12  months  to  transpose  the 
amendments to the Directives into national law. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 5 – Impact Assessment Board opinion of 9 September 2008 

Opinion 

Title 

Impact Assessment on: Simplification of EU legislation in the 
field of textile names and labelling 

(draft version of 16 July 2008) 

Lead DG 

DG ENTR 

1) Impact Assessment Board Opinion 

(A) Context 

EU legislation in the field of Textile Names and Labelling consists of three Directives – 
96/74/EC,  96/73/EC  and  73/44/EEC.  These  Directives  need  to  be  adapted  each  time  a 
new  generic  name  for  a  novel  fibre  is  to  be  added  to  the  technical  annexes,  it  also 
requires  all  Member  States  to  take  action  to  transpose  the  amending  Directives  into 
national legislation. 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.  

(B) Positive aspects 

This draft IA report is of a good quality. It is well structured with good use of tables and 
graphs  to  illustrate  the  presentation.  The  report  provides  a  clear  and  focused  problem 
definition  and  provides  a  good  range  of  realistic  options.  Extensive  stakeholder 
consultation has taken place.  

(C) Main recommendations for improvements 

The recommendations below are listed in order of descending importance. Some more technical comments 
have been transmitted directly to the author. 

General recommendation: 

The  report  could  be  improved  further  by  clarifying  how  the  feasibility  of  the 
standardisation  approach  could  be  better  assessed  in  the  future  and  explaining 
more clearly the unsuitability of non-legislative and self-regulatory options. A brief 
clarification of some aspects related to creating a network of recognised laboratories 
and third country impacts is also recommended. DG ENTR has already indicated it 
will take on board many of the detailed comments made by the Board. 

(1)  The  report  should  further  clarify  the  approach  to  Option  3  (transfer  of 
quantification  methods  to  the  domain  of  standardisation).  Due  to  the  lack  of 
information, which the report correctly identifies, there are presently major uncertainties 
related to this approach, which limit the possibility of evaluating it in detail. However the 
report also indicates that standardisation has important qualitative benefits (for instance, 
regular  revision  of  standards  and  unified  approach)  which  were  also  emphasised  by 
Member  States  (p.9).  The  report  should  therefore  explain  in  more  detail  how  it  is 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
intended  to  gather  the  necessary  information  and  to  develop  cooperation  with  the 
European  Committee  for  Standardisation  in  order  to  assess  in  future  whether  Option  3 
would be an appropriate approach. 

(2) The report should include a clearer explanation of why non-legislative and self-
regulatory  options  were  discarded  including  more  information  on  the  preference  of 
industry  and  Member  States  for  a  regulatory  approach  at  Community  level.  A  brief 
presentation  of  the  general  objectives  of  the  Textile  Name  Directive  in  the  Section  of 
Objectives (which presently only states the aims of the revision process) would be useful. 

(3)  The  report  should  clarify  some  aspects  related  to  creating  a  network  of 
recognised laboratories by explaining why the Joint Research Centre can not assist the 
applicants  in  the  preparation  stage  and  being  more  specific  whether  the  creation  of  a 
voluntary  network  of  recognised  laboratories  would  imply  additional  cost  to  Member 
States (p.44). 

(4)  Concerning  third  country  impacts,  the  report  should  briefly  describe  how  the 
regulation applies to the export and import of textile products; and what are the principles 
for granting new fibre names in third countries. 

(D) Procedure and presentation 

It  appears  that  all  procedural  requirements  have  been  complied  with.  The  executive 
summary  should  contain  a  clear  presentation  of  the  quantified  benefits  of  the  policy 
option. 

2) IAB scrutiny process 

Reference number 

2008/ENTR/012 (simplification) 

Author DG 

ENTR G 4  

External expertise used 

No  

Date of Board Meeting  Written Procedure 

Date of adoption of 
Opinion 

9 September 2008 

EN 

86 

   EN