Making Chemicals Safe and Sustainable by Design: Part 2

The chemical industry is a critical component of the modern global economy. As sustainability becomes an increasingly important consideration in the European Union’s (EU) economic strategies, the European chemical industry is changing to embrace market demands and put Europe at the forefront of environmental protection, chemical innovation, and competitiveness.

Part 1 of this series on the Safe and Sustainable by Design: Accelerating the Industrial Transition conference in March looked at the development of the Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework, the benefits and challenges of adopting the SSbD, and promoting the adoption of SSbD among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that need to present a strong business case for adoption.

This second article in the two-part series looks at case studies from organizations that have applied the principles of SSbD, further opportunities for the application of SSbD, and the role of the proposed innovation and substitution hubs.

Case Studies on Application of SSbD

While SSbD is still in the early stages of application, some organizations in academia and industry are already making headway in applying its principles and gathering early data on the opportunities and challenges it presents.

Carlos Fito López from the AlChemiSSt (Alternative Chemicals and Materials integrating Safety, Sustainability, new Production technologies and Socio-economic aspects) project of the NSC (Network for Safety and Sustainability of Chemicals and Materials) provided a progress report on the development of alternatives to substances of very high concern in high-impact markets.

AlChemiSSt conducted seven case studies to generate evidence to support the applicability of SSbD for safety, sustainability, and social assessment. The studies involved key actors along the entire value chain as part of a co-creative process that integrated the interests of different stakeholders.

López noted excellent progress in developing safety and sustainability indicators for targeted alternatives along the product life cycle, including the development of new biosurfactants from renewable raw materials with different structures, significant advances in developing flame retardants, and some promising results for new fatty acid-based plasticizers. He also highlighted the opportunities for organizations to use SSbD to establish clean and measurable objectives for safety and sustainability, saying as well that organizations attempting to apply SSbD would benefit from tools like training sessions and practical examples with experts.

Stefan Spirk from Ecolyte discussed a project dedicated to replacing the environmentally harmful components of redox-flow batteries with the assistance of the SSbD framework.

“We have identified one aromatic compound, vanillin, which is still produced on an industrial scale,” said Spirk. “We found a way to make some useful compounds that can replace active materials in batteries, and we are tuning the chemistry of those molecules to have better cell potential in the battery, to have higher solubility and stability.” Spirk said that in addition to working on sustainability aspects like toxicity and recyclability, Ecolyte is also using SSbD to reinforce process efficiency.

Spirk reported that the results have improved processes and synthesis while retaining the same yields and functions, with ongoing toxicity studies in different activities. He also highlighted the benefits of SSbD, including the way in which it encourages teams to consider perspectives that have not traditionally formed part of their processes.

“You learn so much about the things you don’t think about,” said Spirk. “This is the main advantage from a scientific point of view when you do business. You start thinking and caring about things that don’t play a role in your consideration in that much detail.” Spirk said that one of the most important benefits of SSbD is the way in which it helps organizations identify and mitigate risk early in the processes to support development of better technology later on.”

Collaboration and Trust Are Critical

Panelists said that a collaborative environment based on trust, a common language, and a common understanding is critical for making progress on the application of SSbD.

“We have the possibility to be open to each other, to be transparent, and to raise concerns without being worried that something will not get funded or that there will be a punishment for an opinion,” said Emma Stromberg from IRISS. “There must be a high ceiling so you can truly discuss what the challenges and possibilities are.”

Austrian chemical policy expert Samira Galler noted that while there has been support for simplifying SSbD to make it more appealing for SMEs with limited resources, SSbD should instead focus on growing maturity over time.

“My view has always been that the framework itself shouldn’t be simplified to avoid the risk of being accused of greenwashing,” said Galler. “Instead, a high degree of pragmatism should be applied in the implementation phase because when the project is mature and new data become available, they can apply the reiteration process.” Galler also supported a more formal approach to introducing SSbD by providing more tools and supporting infrastructure to help encourage adoption.

In terms of making SSbD more attractive to SMEs, Stromberg said that the economic benefits of SSbD should be an important selling point.

“We have to make it profitable,” Stromberg said. “We have to think about how to balance the safety, environmental, and socioeconomic aspects with each other and assure that we find incentives to make it profitable to invest in the future.”

Panelists also noted that opportunities for collaboration extend beyond the EU by integrating non-EU countries in the value chain into SSbD.

“SSbD paves the way for incentivization, for closing the incentive gap in industry, including for setting procurement criteria, green labeling, and streamlining regulatory pathways,” said Dimosthenis Sarigiannis from the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC) and the National Hellenic Research Foundation. “If you can say there is a benefit to bringing into the domestic European market an SSbD-labeled product with everything in the value chain being SSbD, that creates an incentive to change the game.”

Technology and the breakthrough of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) have also had a critical impact on the chemical industry. Thomas Exner from Seven Past Nine noted that AI provides opportunities to engage in the development process using virtual tools, but that it is still not entirely reliable.

“We use generative AI at the beginning when proposing new candidates,” said Exner. “This is going in the direction of virtual candidates, where we use virtual tools to assess them because they don’t yet exist. The idea is whether it can be synthesized and is safe and sustainable. There are many things AI can help with, but I would be careful to say it can bring the solution. No. It can bring ideas and then you have to evaluate.”

Challenges and Solutions for Innovation Hubs

The EU Chemicals Innovation and Substitution Hubs are intended to provide support to companies looking to accelerate safer alternatives and substitutions for targeted chemicals and to overcome knowledge constraints that impede the innovation process by connecting SMEs to experts, supporting testing and validation, enabling cross-sector collaboration, and building SME capacity.

The hubs will operate through a central EU network, with regional hubs and independent organizations like universities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) providing support. They will provide strategic analyses and assessments for priority substances, critical sectors, and emerging solutions and will support SMEs in navigating fragmented fields of knowledge.

“We are still at the conceptual stage,” said Paul Speight, head of the Safe and Sustainable Chemicals Unit in the directorate-general of the EC. “We are working on these hubs, and the idea is to get feedback. We want to develop it in partnership with others.”

Laia Perez Simbor, policy officer for the European Commission, discussed a pilot project for the EU Substitution Centre, the goal of which is to establish a network of such centers to facilitate the search for high-performing chemical alternatives and to develop a framework for promoting collaboration and innovation.

The project began in 2024 and will run until July 2027, with testing to support substitutions for batteries, hard chrome plating, and brominated flame retardants. Thus far, the project has engaged in stakeholder mapping for the future network, conducted several surveys and targeted interviews, and defined an EU network to coordinate national and regional hubs of expert knowledge.

Policy coordinator René Korenromp said that substitution hubs need to be more than simply an exercise for checking boxes in the innovation process.

“Support should not be only complicated models and tools but also decision-making to help SMEs with SSbD strategy,” he said.

Jonatan Kleimark from ChemSec said that while innovation hubs can provide understanding of how SMEs can access funding, he still sees SSbD as lacking ambition in relation to safety.

“The challenge for innovation hubs is to find the balance between the information part and the complex research that is needed to find the specific solutions,” said Kleimark. “That’s two very big differences to identify to support companies for where they should do innovation and how they can scale to pinpoint solutions.”

Kleimark also said that hubs need to complement regulations and not replace them.

“It should be support for the implementation of the policy that has been decided for the transformation of the industry,” he said.

Elke Van Asbroeck from Apeiron said that companies looking to embrace innovation hubs are keenly aware of the potential business risks, which are constraints on adoption.

“These are often misunderstood as not willing to change, but there are financial risks, regrettable investment risks, level playing field risks, and legal uncertainty risks,” she said.

Van Asbroeck continued that the EU could play a more significant role in helping organizations mitigate those risks.

“A main barrier is a fear of competition law,” she said. “It’s a legal risk and a reputational risk. What could help is the idea of collaboration being embedded in legal texts, which could give organizations the legal certainty and confidence to actually get together.”