Three things people should talk about in the breaks at the EU’s big SSbD event

The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework is meant to design chemicals and materials that are good for both people and the planet. The concept came with high hopes of a shift in chemical production that would enable downstream users to be certain that their products would be inherently safe.

But, as it turns out, this has been easier said than done. The discussion about what chemicals should be defined as safe and sustainable has grown into a huge and complex academic exercise that would make even the most abstract-minded philosophy professor proud.

The problem with the SSbD framework has always been its vague definition, which has turned the concept into a canvas for people to paint their dreams on. Even now, several years into the process, stakeholders from different sectors still have widely different ideas about what the SSbD framework should be. 

“Are we still heading in a direction that will replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives?”

But, instead of dwelling on discussions that clearly go nowhere, it’s time to shift the conversation to more meaningful topics. So, here are three discussion points that should dominate the coffee-break conversations at the SSbD workshop this week.

1.  How to achieve positive change

The Chemical Strategy for Sustainability emphasized the need to replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives.

One of the goals was to ensure that all new chemicals entering the European market are inherently safe and sustainable. The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework was introduced to implement this and did have a strong focus on hazards and “cut-off criteria” for harmful substances in the beginning. But lately, the support for the important cut-off criteria seems to have dwindled.

So, are we still heading in a direction that will replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives?

2.  How to include downstream users

In the beginning, downstream users were really excited about the initiative to develop chemicals that are safe and sustainable by design. Due to the theoretical nature of the framework, the interest has however cooled off. This is a huge problem since the most important push for change — in this case — should come from them. If the framework is confined to the chemical sector alone, there’s a risk that the change will happen at a modest (actually, probably very slow) pace.

This begs the question; how to get the downstream users more active and how to create a market demand for SSbD chemicals?

3.  How to avoid paralysis by analysis

The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework runs the risk — if it hasn’t happened already — of becoming way too complex. When political initiatives get stuck in endless loops of scientific analyses it’s extremely difficult for them to be put into practice. This “paralysis by analysis” means that all the hard work will be rendered useless, destined only to collect digital dust in some old Excel sheet.

The world’s biggest chemical producers seem to think we have all the time in the world to figure things out. But we don’t. The chemical pollution crisis is so severe and urgent that there’s no time for paralysis by analysis.

So, how do we get around that? Let the discussions begin!