Who are engaging in the nano-specific partner expert groups? An analysis of partner expert groups vs. expert groups

Environmental Sciences Europe

Table 2 Number of comments provided by nano-specific PEG members, number of adopted or partially adopted comments by ECHA, number of comments dismissed by ECHA, number of comments neither adopted nor dismissed (n/a), acceptance rate as a percentage of comments provided and the number of PEGs in which the stakeholder is represented

Stakeholder organisation	No. of comments	Adopted	Dismissed	n/a	Adopted (%)	No. of PEGs
MSCA	924^†	678^†	209^†	37^†	68^‡	5
Austria	13	6	7	0	46	1
Belgium	18	12	4	2	67	3
Denmark	20	9	9	2	45	3
Finland	24	22	2	0	92	1
France	62	40	15	7	65	5
Germany	275	185	70	12	67	5
Italy	13	7	5	1	54	2
Lithuania	0	0	0	0	–	2
Netherlands	271	222	41	0	82	5
Norway	92	69	22	1	75	5
Poland	14	11	3	0	79	1
Sweden	19	13	4	2	68	4
United Kingdom	103	82	19	2	80	4
EUB	771^†	547^†	183^†	41^†	71^‡	5
DG Env	102	71	23	8	70	5
DG Grow	332	199	126	7	60	5
ECHA	2	0	0	2	-	5(2*)
JRC	335	277	34	24	83	5
I&Ts	876^†	494^†	330^†	52^†	54^‡	5
CEFIC	345	191	133	21	55	5
CheMI	0	0	0	0	–	1
ECETOC	144	67	68	9	47	4
ECPA	0	0	0	0	–	1
EFCC	0	0	0	0	–	2
EFfCI	0	0	0	0	–	1
ETRMA	6	1	5	0	17	1
ETUC	0	0	0	0	–	2
ETUI	22	10	12	0	45	3
EuPC	17	15	1	1	88	1
Eurometaux	166	100	61	5	60	5
FEPA	0	0	0	0	–	1
IMA	0	0	0	0	–	1
NIA	168	106	48	14	63	4
SME United	8	4	2	2	50	4
NGOs	126^†	70^†	52^†	4^†	50^‡	5
ECOPA	3	1	2	9	33	1
EEB	41	20	21	0	49	5
HSI	28	16	10	2	57	2
PISC	54	33	19	2	61	5
Other	3^†	0^†	3^†	0^†	0^‡	1
Unknown⁑	3	0	3	0	0	1

In total, 2700 comments were provided by PEG members. Note that Academia is not represented
^†Total number of comments provided by the stakeholder group
^‡Group average
*ECHA provided a comment for themselves for two PEGs
⁑Unknown is not considered a separate stakeholder in this analysis