-
Published:
Cybersecurity
Committee:
Railwaysstatus:
NewIn Both the EU and Japan are strengthening cybersecurity in the railway sector as rail systems become increasingly digital and connected. In the EU, ERA and ENISA are working together on railway cybersecurity, including the implementation of NIS2 and cybersecurity requirements for railway systems.In Japan, cybersecurity is also recognised as part of railway safety and information-security policy, with MLIT responsible for railway-sector measures. Greater EU-Japan cooperation and information exchange could help promote common approaches and standards for railway cybersecurity.
-
Published:
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environment Product Declaration (EPD)
Committee:
Materialsstatus:
NewLCAs and EPDs are becoming more common both as suppliers are disclosing the information as part of their transparency efforts and as buyers are requesting this to fulfil their environmental goals and requirement. In the EU, some standards, such as EN 15804+A4 for the construction related materials, and platforms for EPD, such as Environdec, are being used. In Japan we have Ecoleaf. As more and more data are being covered by LCA and EPD it is important that there is harmonisation between various systems to avoid that additional costs. This can become significant considering the number of products of a given company. It should be mentioned that some collaboration already exists. Usage of Product Category Rules (PCR) should be promoted and harmonised to reduce the efforts on EPDs of products within the same category. The EU is slightly more advanced/ahead in the efforts due to the already started implementation of CBAM.
-
Published:
PFAS regulation alignment
Committee:
Materialsstatus:
NewPFAS restrictions are becoming a major issue for surface treatment, plating and specialty chemicals. As various authorities are looking at how to lessen the impact of “forever chemicals” and to make certain that the use is safe, the EBC would like to highlight the need for greater alignment between the EU and Japan. Differences in definitions, regulatory approaches, restrictions, exemptions and assessment requirements could increase compliance costs and create unnecessary barriers for companies operating across both markets. At the same time, regulatory measures should take into account the different functions and applications of PFAS, as well as the availability and suitability of alternatives.






