Consultation participation and their own register declarations, side by side. Counts, not judgments — participation is not influence.
Counts here are a floor, never a total: they cover the 583 consultation files tracked so far (42,224 submissions, mostly 2025–26), so an organization's real filing history is larger, not smaller.
Register facts self-declared (snapshot 2 Sept 2026); cost bands are floors. Shared files are shared attention, not evidence of coordination.
What each said, in their own words
Their opening passages on the files they share, verbatim and in filing order. We do not summarize, compare, or characterize positions — read them at source.
Buongiorno, starting with the summary < < The European Green Deal sets the objective of zero pollution for a toxic-free environment. > >. We are again making the mistake not to distinguish PERICOLO from RISK. Toxic/hazardous substances will always exist. It is the risk that needs to be managed to minimise the hazard.
Filed in Italian · English published by the European Commission
The commitment to the Green Deal must not be a European exclusive, otherwise we would only harm our economy and industry. The competent authorities must absolutely dialogue with the Asian ones, due to their not very green and safe vision when they export goods, unlike when they import them, where they are very careful. It cannot always pay the EU industry, especially SMEs.
The latest REACh update of 2018 concluded that it is effective but that there are opportunities for further improvement, simplification and burden reduction. On the reduction of burdens, we have already said countlessly that it is not these actions that make the registration process sustainable, but the SIMPLIFICATION must be done and not just with words. A simplification / improvement would be a check on the SIEFs.
I am pleased with such a large participation in this important public consultation on REACh. 10 years ago in the various surveys, the comments could be counted on the fingers of one hand, we were very few. I do not know how much the Commission will value our comments, which I want to clarify are not complaints, but serious analyzes and possible solutions. Thanks to everyone we continue to have our say!
The REACH Regulation is an essential tool for chemicals control in Europe. However, it needs to be improved to support the implementation and the level of ambition of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS).
It must be precise and standardised without leaving room for interpretation, as is the case for certain aspects of the textile/fashion world, one of which has been confused with azo dyes. Here, apart from the REACh Regulation, which explains it very well, many NGOs that are unreliable, but with great media resonance, have always used the term azotic or azo as a synonym of a serious danger to health.
Filed in Italian · English published by the European Commission
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) welcomes the Commissions initiative to evaluate the possibility of revising the Textile Labelling Regulation (TLR). The attached document contains considerations we urge policymakers to explore in the evaluation and impact assessment.
Take this comparison with you
2 organizations on one sheet: every file each filed on, their register declarations, and a working link to each submission. Free: we ask for your name and email, and PolicySpeak may contact you about the product (privacy policy). The per-file record stays downloadable without signing up on each file’s page.