3rd meeting of the high level roundtable on the chemicals strategy for sustainability : joint report on research & innovation and safe and sustainable by design.
Date: 2022-08-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU research policy, chemical industry, chemical product, chemicals legislation, environmental impact, environmental protection, health risk, innovation, pollution control measures, sustainable development, toxic substance

3RD MEETING OF THE HIGH LEVEL 
ROUNDTABLE ON THE CHEMICALS 
STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Joint Report on Research & Innovation 
and Safe and Sustainable by Design

18 May 2022

Environment

Table of contents

Background

1.  Recommendations on the questions 
  asked by the Commission

2.  Main players

3.  Funding opportunities

Annex. 
Methodology and process leading
to the Joint Report

1

2

8

10

12

Manuscript completed in June 2022

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022
© European Union, 2022

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  based  on  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of 
12  December  2011  on  the  reuse  of  Commission  documents  (OJ  L  330,  14.12.2011,  p.  39).  Cover  photo:  ©  European 
Commission. Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by 
the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-53918-6

doi: 10.2779/005896

KH-07-22-598-EN-N

Background

The European Commission established the High-Level Roundtable on 
the implementation of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability in May 
2021. The strategy forms part of the EU’s zero pollution ambition for a 
toxic-free environment – a key commitment of the European Green Deal. 
Supporting the Commission in realising the Strategy’s objectives, and 
establishing dialogues with relevant stakeholders, the Roundtable consists 
of 32 members from industry, science, civil society, international 
organisations and the Member State holding the EU Presidency. 
The Roundtable also monitors progress on the Strategy’s implementation 
towards the transition to safe and sustainable chemicals. 

The 3rd meeting of the 
High-Level Roundtable on 
the Chemicals Strategy for 
Sustainability focused on 
research and innovation (R&I) 
for the transition to safe and 
sustainable chemicals 
and materials. 

The High-Level Roundtable 
members were invited to 
contribute ideas on how to 
boost the development and 
uptake of innovative safe and 
sustainable chemicals and 
materials across sectors. 

The Commission was seeking 
the High-Level Roundtable’s 
advice on the implementation 
challenges and the active 
engagement of stakeholders 
in implementation, as well as 
on incentives for funding at 
national or private level 
for two initiatives: 

1)  A  Strategic  Research  and  Inno-
vation  Plan  to  align  future,  and  where 
possible  already  existing,  chemicals  and 
materials with the Green Deal objectives. 
The plan will identify the research and in-
novation gaps and thereby set joint future 
R&I  priorities  and  guide  decision  makers 
on  investments  across  EU,  national  and 
private funding programmes. The analysis 
of the R&I needs for chemicals and mate-
rials spans across their lifecycle, i.e., from 
design,  selecting  resources  and  synthesis 
routes,  production,  manufacturing  to  use, 
disposal, and pollution prevention. It is also 
essential  in  this  context  to  assess  meas-
ures for complete substance, material and 
product  flows,  including  alternative  busi-
ness models requiring ever less hazardous 
chemicals. 

2)  A  Safe  and  Sustainable  by  Design 
Framework  that  will  set  out  the  steps 
and criteria for assessing safety and sus-
tainability of chemicals and materials and 
products  including  non-chemical  alterna-
tives. It will provide authorities, scientists 
and companies with specific guidance on 
how to assess safety and sustainability in 
a combined approach, starting at the de-
sign phase of new chemicals and mate-
rials but also at later stages of their life-
cycle.  The  future  Commission  document 
will include the framework for a stepwise 
assessment  of  safety  and  sustainability 
and  give  guidance  on  its  application.  The 
R&I needs for tools, methods, and data in-
frastructures to assist in this assessment 
will be taken up in the Strategic Research 
and Innovation Plan.

Specifically,  in  a  Background  Document 
circulated  to  all  High-Level  Roundtable 
members,  the  Commission  laid  out  the 
items  on  which  advice  is  solicited,  in  the 
form of four questions:

Question  1:  On  the  two  initiatives  pre-
sented,  consultations  are  ongoing  with 
a  wide  range  of  stakeholders.  Does  the 
High-Level Roundtable have strategic rec-
ommendations  on  the  initiatives  as  pre-
sented in the background document? 

Question 2: What are the key actions the 
Commission  should  address  as  a  priority 
to maximise the impact of the implemen-
tation of the envisaged Strategic Research 
and Innovation Plan and the Safe and Sus-
tainable by Design Framework?

Question 3: What would encourage stake-
holders  (academia,  industry,  NGOs,  civil 
society organisations) to promote and use 
both  the  Strategic  Research  and  Innova-
tion Plan and the Safe and Sustainable by 
Design Framework?

Question  4:  a)  Who  would  be  important 
players  at  national  and  private  level  to 
be frontrunners in testing of the Safe and 
Sustainable by Design Framework, as well 
as  the  further  development  of  the  tools 
and  methods  needed?  b)  What  would 
be  the  funding  opportunities  in  Member 
States and with private investors?

1

1.

Recommendations 
on the questions 
asked by the 
Commissions

2

 
Priority actions 
(Questions 1 and 2)  

Recommendation 1: 

Data for Safe and Sustainable by Design 
assessment should be publicly available 
for transparency and benchmarking 
(taking into account confidentiality 
and intellectual property rules), collected
 in a harmonised way and shared on a 
common EU digital platform.  
There is a need to define the level of 
transparency that is necessary and appropriate 
to enable innovation and for a mechanism to 
facilitate communication, taking into account 
developments on the Digital Product Passport. 

The Commission should push for more data transparency. Since it 
is key to innovation, thought should be given to how it connects to 
Research and Innovation (R&I) priorities and to the concept of Safe 
and Sustainable by Design (SSbD), in the context of the Sustain-
able Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP). 

Regulatory and R&I initiatives should complement each other to 
ensure transparency on chemicals and their impacts. As a mini-
mum, all of the data underlying a market approval of a chemical 
should be publicly available and easily accessible. This is to enable 
third-party scrutiny (including scientific studies), to ensure trust in 
the system, and to provide information for designers, innovators 
and others in the value chain. Meanwhile, unfair advantages for 
competitors that do not invest in this approach should be avoided. 
Any processing of personal data must be done in full respect of 
the rules of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In  the  SSbD  Framework,  sufficient  and  necessary  data 
should be accessible to developers and innovators, taking 
into account intellectual property rules, to enable a circu-
lar  economy.  Transparency  on data for existing products (which 
can help identify R&I and SSbD priorities) and transparency on pos-
sible alternatives, where less or different types of data are available 
at early stages of development, may require different data man-
agement  approaches.  Transparency  is  important  for  stakeholders 
in different ways, for many reasons. Despite, and because of this, 
transparency should be ensured throughout the whole value chain, 
to ensure reliable data are available to consumers, academia, trade 
unions,  NGOs  and  other  civil  society  groups.  In  this  way,  greater 
transparency when bringing products to market creates new oppor-
tunities for the design and application of safer and more sustain-
able alternatives.

To  facilitate  transparency  in  data  sharing,  standardised  digital 
tools can enable public access; while different levels of access can 
protect confidentiality when required. The recent Commission pro-

posal for the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation aims 
to increase transparency and proposes a Digital Product Passport, 
as a mechanism to transfer information through value chains and 
communication channels. 

Transparency for information on the chemical content of products 
is key to enable the circular economy. Upstream and downstream 
stages  are  inextricably  linked,  because  material  needs  to  be  re-
used and recycled in a circular economy approach, but these stag-
es could be better defined. Downstream users can benefit from a 
mechanism or tools that make chemicals information more acces-
sible and understandable for them.

All stakeholders can contribute to data collection, to work trans-
parently towards SSbD, including businesses, authorities, universi-
ties and research institutes that improve knowledge on SSbD. The 
OECD  has  developed  electronic  standards  for  data  exchange  on 
hazard and property data. This is an EU-driven activity which has 
become an international standard.

Data should be FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reus-
able)  and  be  built  on  harmonised  terminology  and  standards.  It 
should be available for all European companies, including small- 
and  medium-size  enterprises  (SMEs),  as  well  as  for  academia, 
research  organisations,  and  other  key  stakeholders.  For  safety 
data  on  substances,  the  ECHA  dissemination  website  should  be 
the starting point. When it comes to data sharing mechanisms it 
is important to define who will have access to the data and under 
which conditions.

It is important to acknowledge that to increase transparency, the 
scope  of  confidential  business  information  (CBI)  claims  would 
probably have to be reduced. This reduced level of confidentiality 
could be agreed upon in accordance with R&I needs and between 
the  stakeholders  working  on  innovation  projects,  understanding 
that information on chemicals relating to the health and safety of 
humans and the environment should, in principle, not be regarded 
as confidential (SAICM OPP Art. 15c). Since confidentiality of cer-
tain data must be taken into account in line with intellectual prop-
erty rules, it is important to define criteria for data to be treated 
as CBI, consistent with existing case law and building on existing 
legal provisions in sectoral legislation. 

As  stated  above,  data  considering  environmental  and  human 
health  impacts  of  chemicals,  materials  and  products,  especially 
toxicological  or  safety  data,  should  in  principle  not  be  confiden-
tial. Nonetheless, where relevant, compliance with the GDPR must 
be  ensured.  In  terms  of  the  relationship  between  transparency 
and anti-trust law/protection of other legitimate interests, the EU 
should establish what is allowed to be published and what is not.

Those developing SSbD chemicals and materials could use data to 
undertake benchmarking methods as market drivers (for example, 
GreenScreen), thus creating market dynamism. Other mechanisms 
are needed for improved information flow from chemical produc-
ers and formulators to consumer-close companies, to help them 
move ahead of regulation. Frontrunners may need more informa-
tion, which can also ensure that SSbD does not become a concept 
for potential “greenwashing”. 

3

Recommendation 2: 

a.  Ensure that the most intrinsically 

hazardous chemicals are not considered 
as SSbD, as not all existing and new 
chemicals will meet the criteria; 

b.  All users of chemicals (e.g. industrial 

users, other professionals and consumers) 
need to be equally protected from 
chemical risks; 

c.  Differences of exposure and differences 
of risk management options need to be 
considered in the SSbD assessment, 
taking a life-cycle approach. 

Recommendation 3: 

The SSbD approach should not lead to break-
ing the minimum requirements for safety for 
the sake of sustainability.

Recommendation 4: 

Within the SSbD Framework, both a 
hazard-based approach and a risk-based 
approach could be included.

Recommendation 5: 

The SSbD Framework must stimulate 
innovation and set higher standards 
than current regulation.

Recommendation 6: 

Support further development and validation 
of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) suit-
able for application at early stages of chemical 
development, and enhance synergies for use 
and acceptance of NAMs.

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are critical at early stages in 
the  substance  design  process  to  predict  (eco)toxicity  and  identify 
potential red flags. Well-designed and reliable NAMs can accelerate 
the design and development of chemicals that are Safe and Sus-
tainable by Design (SSbD), and generally benefit the SSbD concept.
The  Strategic  Research  and  Innovation  Plan  (SRIP)  for  chemicals 
must  enable  the  transition  away  from  animal  models,  improving 
the quality and ensuring the regulatory acceptability of NAMs; and 
the integration of data from multiple sources, and their translation 
to hazard categories used by many downstream users. A key goal is 
to improve the quality, efficiency and speed of chemical hazard and 
risk assessments for new and existing chemicals.

Therefore, there is a need for advanced tools to enable chemists to 
more effectively assess the safety of new chemicals and materials 
at the design stage, and to help screen out chemicals with undesired 
(eco)toxicity characteristics (red flags). In the context of the SSbD 
Framework, the development of reliable NAMs and data gen-
erated using non-animal methods are of utmost importance 
for safety assessments. It is acknowledged that for the time being, 
NAMs cannot fully replace in vivo testing in a full safety assessment 
for all regulatory endpoints and all classes of chemicals. 

NAMs should encompass multiple predictive approaches, including 
a  suite  of  computational  tools  (such  as  pharmaceutical  libraries, 
diverse in silico models, etc.) which may be compiled from various 
sources  and  brought  into  one  central  repository,  accessible  to  all 
and accompanied with clear information on applicability domains. 

Recommendation 7: 

Stimulate cooperation between actors across 
value chains and all life cycle phases. 
Promote fora where stakeholders share data, infor-
mation and lessons learned in design and appli-
cation of SSbD across sectors and disciplines – to 
better protect health and the environment and 
promote societal wellbeing collaboratively.

Cooperation is essential as Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) 
requires a collective effort and collaborative learning, and an ex-
change of best practices. This necessitates a clear (cultural) para-
digm shift among all stakeholders. 

As  a  key  action  to  take  forward,  a  common  framework 
should be developed and agreed upon to guide and support 
innovation  processes  within  value  chains.  It  should  incorpo-
rate design principles for safe and sustainable dimensions with the 
product-application in mind. To be successful, the framework should 
be based on existing approaches, such as the sustainability portfolio 
steering approach (which helps organisations create tangible busi-
ness value by embedding sustainability into daily decision-making), 
and it should connect with overall innovation management.

The Commission should support the deployment of such a frame-
work, by providing a toolbox with a variety of assessment practic-
es for the user to choose from, and available FAIR data which al-
lows a specific safety and sustainability assessment depending on 
the stage an innovation is currently in. To arrive at such a fit-for-
purpose toolbox, a whole suite of innovation needs to be identified. 
This  could  make  the  application  of  the  SSbD  Framework  easier 
for innovators, and better position the concept in the value chain.

4

 
 
 
The general public should be considered as crucial to the success 
of the implementation of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainabil-
ity, and for its broader societal acceptance. There is a need for a 
more  efficient  way  to  disseminate  information  about  chemicals, 
including the “good news” about the successes brought about by 
the Strategy’s initiatives, to ensure that the general public is well 
informed.  The  media  could  play  a  more  positive  role  in  societal 
dialogue on chemicals.

Encouraging stakeholders 
to use the SRIP and 
SSbD Framework 
(Question 3)  

Suggestions/Examples 
for cooperation or 
information sharing:

OECD provides a forum where stakeholders 
can work together (e.g. advanced materials and 
nanomaterials, etc.) and share experience on how 
such fora can work in practice. 

UNEA called for stakeholders to take action 
to improve the implementation of green and 
sustainable chemistry; it created a forum to 
bring together multiple sectors and international 
agencies to work on issues of concern. In addition, 
it has agreed to establish an international science-
policy panel to contribute further to the sound 
management of chemicals and waste, and to 
prevent pollution (UNEA Resolution 5/8, 2 
March 2022).

The coordinated support action (CSA) project 
consortium on SSbD intends to create a network 
between industry, academia, research institutes 
and national authorities, around SSbD 
approaches towards materials, taking a life cycle 
approach, integrating safety, climate neutrality, 
circularity aspects, and functionality. 

Recommendation 8: 

Ensure that financing is clearly guided to 
support innovation that serves the larger 
public, societal needs and challenges. 
Support joint projects aiming to replace 
problematic chemicals/products/materials at 
EU, national and international level and in 
public-private collaboration. Both companies 
and public bodies have a societal role to play 
in making products and processes safer and 
more sustainable. Collaboration between 
academia, industry and regulators is therefore 
needed as a joint effort. 

EU initiatives, such as the Industrial Strategy, must make addition-
al efforts to achieve, and even go beyond, objectives that address 
public and societal needs, for example as set out in the UN Sus-
tainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs).  This  includes  more  invest-
ment and technical support for SMEs.  

Although  certain  sectors,  including  energy-intensive  industries 
such as the chemicals sector, are setting environmental priorities, 
a gap still exists between these priorities and wider societal aims. 
Tension can exist between the role of governments providing pub-
lic money for innovation, and the benefits derived by the private 
sector in cases that lack demonstrable societal benefits. The situa-
tion could be improved, for example, by establishing a transparent 
set  of  criteria  defining  what  exactly  qualifies  for  public  funding. 
This should be a potential action for the Commission. 

Public money could co-fund public-private projects aimed at de-
veloping  a  generic  SSbD  Framework  that  can  also  be  generally 
applied by other companies/academic partners. Having such a ge-
neric SSbD approach will greatly facilitate the implementation of 
SSbD principles by other chemical producers, as they do not have 
to ‘reinvent the wheel’ themselves.

It  is  also  important  to  ensure  earlier  and  more  systematic  in-
volvement  of  civil  society  (e.g.  NGOs,  the  general  public)  in  the 
formulation of funding programmes. This should include financial 
support to enable the participation of civil society organisations in 
research and in setting the innovation agenda, through meaning-
ful engagement.

To  ensure  that  public  money  is  used  to  support  innovation  that 
serves  the  larger  public  good,  the  allocation  of  EU  research 
funds should be conditional on public returns, not only in 
terms  of  the  relevance  to  societal  needs  and  challenges, 
but also in terms of the accessibility (including affordability) 
of the innovation resulting from this research.

5

There  is  a  need  to  create  a  simpler,  more  efficient  system  to 
apply  for  public  funding,  and  to  distribute  public  money  for 
research,  so  that  money  is  spent  where  it  is  needed  and  not 
on  the  administration  around  projects.  Administrative  hurdles 
should  be  removed,  for  both  the  project  proposal  and  imple-
mentation stages.

There also needs to be a balance between public funds and pri-
vate financing. Private financing must represent a larger propor-
tion of total funds received.

Stakeholders  should  engage  in  setting  a  broad  research  agen-
da. This should take into account the specific needs of SMEs for 
good funding opportunities at national level to participate in R&I 
programmes  (not  least  for  risky  and  innovative  projects),  and 
also the needs of consumer organisations and other civil society 
groups. In addition, a mechanism to allow citizens to  feed  into 
the research agenda is needed.

Improving collaboration through good funding requires systemic 
thinking.  It  is  essential  to  achieve  an  agreement  on  goals/tar-
gets  between  diverse  actors,  otherwise  funding  mechanisms 
risk fomenting disagreement. For example, should one focus on 
the source prevention of chemical pollution, with quick decisions 
being made to remove harmful substances from the market or 
prevent them being placed on the market, or focus on other aims, 
which consider the broader SSbD concept.

Any  new  business  models  should  not  just  be  about  chemicals, 
but  also  about  service,  function  and  performance.  There  is  a 
need to prioritise impact/solution-driven R&I by focussing inno-
vation  firstly  on  needed  applications  and  on  the  wider  societal 
benefit, whilst ensuring accountability. It is also vital to prioritise 
entrance  into  the  market  of  new  innovation(s)  that  are  in  line 
with  what  the  market  demands/consumers  actually  want  (e.g. 
they do not just focus on affordability).

Funding support should embrace all arenas – economic, regula-
tory  and  technical,  health,  environment  and  sustainability.  Im-
portantly, it should also support the development of tools that 
are  fit  for  regulatory  purposes,  and  are  reusable.  EU  research 
funding  has  often  not  been  focused  on  such  needs,  rather  on 
collaborative research efforts. 

Companies and public bodies have a societal role to play in mak-
ing products and materials safer, not only more sustainable, also 
for export in line with EU standards.

In addition, public funding should not be counted as private in-
vestment – the regulatory obligation must be paid for by those 
who want to put a product on the market, in line with the polluter 
pays principle. 

Innovation collaborations will vary depending on the stakehold-
ers  involved,  and  on  the  purpose  of  funding  (e.g.  developing  a 
new molecule or a new product). Collaborative projects can aim 
at  finding  substitutions  for  hazardous  products,  or  establishing 
new knowledge about alternative substances. The involvement 
of stakeholders along the entire value chain is the key for 
effectively removing the most harmful substances. 

Suggestions/Examples 
for financing to support 
innovation:

1. The Commission should focus on identifying 
concrete proposals for discussion among the 
High-Level Roundtable members, e.g. a dedicated 
Horizon Europe programme to deliver SSbD 
solutions for specific sectors in answer to 
real problems.

2. The PEPPER public-private platform for 
the pre-validation of endocrine disrupting chemical 
characterisation methods: www.ed-pepper.eu

Recommendation 9: 

Design financial and regulatory incentives 
to support frontrunners, help bring 
innovative solutions to market, and 
promote the use of Safe and Sustainable 
by Design with clear criteria.

When REACH was adopted, innovation spiked. Even though stronger 
laws also mean safer chemicals on the market, carrots as well as 
sticks are needed to promote responsible behaviour by chemicals, 
materials and products manufacturers. In addition, both regulatory 
and economic incentives, and criteria, are important to implement 
SSbD  –  and  this  includes  transparency.  Funded  initiatives  should 
provide solutions to existing challenges or problems while not creat-
ing new ones or shifting burdens to other impacts. This will require 
a robust set of rules, economic incentives (and disincentives) 
and taxonomy to be adopted (which should demonstrate in-
novation), to identify what can and cannot receive funding 
and what chemicals, materials and products should be discouraged. 
Furthermore, the polluter pays principle must be adhered to in SSbD.

Design criteria for SSbD chemicals, materials, products and process-
es are being used throughout the innovation process. The toolbox 
to assess those will move from qualitative to quantitative assess-
ments,  with  more  data  becoming  available  between  the  ideation 
phase and the pre-market stage. 

Financial incentives can help enable new applications and deal with 
incumbency  problems,  penalising  laggards  and  supporting  front-
runners in the implementation phase, and regulating the system to 
promote wider use of SSbD. It could be helpful to identify existing 
barriers in the regulatory system for new applications and also best 
practice examples of economic instruments used to disincentivise 
and promote substitution of hazardous substances.

6

3RD MEETING OF THE HIGH LEVEL ROUNDTABLE ON THE CHEMICALS STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABILITYIn general – given global competitiveness and the need for a level 
playing field – it is essential to consider the design/criteria of the 
incentives: the why, how and where in the innovation cycle they are 
applied by different sectors. ‘Incremental’ innovation is also import-
ant, so it would be useful to consider intermediate steps that can 
be incentivised.

Further, it is important that SSbD criteria, and economic and regula-
tory incentives, apply equally to chemicals produced in the EU and 
to those imported from abroad. 

All  stakeholders  must  be  involved,  including  the  financial  sector. 
Smaller  industries  have  more  difficulty  innovating  due  to  invest-
ment cycles, so access and support for SMEs must be ensured. 

Suggestions/Examples 
for financial and 
regulatory incentives:

The Sustainable Products Initiative is a 
potential global tool, with no distinction made 
between EU-produced and imported goods.

The Sustainable Finance Taxonomy.

The OECD database on policy instruments 
for the environment (PINE), a good example 
of a repository of ideas and inspiration. 

The OECD work on economic instruments for 
environmental protection (green finance).

The Danish Pesticides Tax, introduced in 1987 
with the aim of protecting human health and the 
environment, succeeded in reducing pesticides 
use in Denmark.

Recommendation 10: 

Educate and train current and next 
generation students and labour force in 
basic SSbD principles, and in regulatory 
requirements, to avoid creating novel 
problems for future innovations.

Implementing  SSbD  will  depend  heavily  on  the  availability  of 
a  skilled  labour  force  and  qualified  technicians.  Much  more 
attention  needs  to  be  put  on  training  the  next  genera-
tion  of  students,  researchers  and  academics,  and  most 
importantly, the current professional workforce. Although 
there  are  some  initiatives  to  embed  green  and/or  sustainable 
chemistry principles in curricula, more targeted action is need-
ed  to  develop  skills  and  knowledge  across  specific  domains  – 
technical, economic, regulatory and cultural. This could be part-
ly driven by establishing more consultative bodies at local level 
to work together, as already exist at national level. 

Training  should  cover  basic  SSbD  aspects  to  support  a  new 
green (or, rather, sustainable) chemistry education that equips 
the  future  workforce  to  consult  for  industry  and  regulators, 
helping avoid potential future problems. At the academic level, 
we should train the next generation in toxicology and regulato-
ry requirements (e.g. REACH, CLP), and also so they can address 
possible novel problems of innovation not yet covered by reg-
ulation, to ensure relevant skills for industry. It is important to 
foster systems thinking rather than finding punctual solutions. 
Industry should be encouraged to further participate in the nec-
essary training. 

In addition, training on SSbD principles should be mainstreamed 
earlier in the educational setting (e.g. in schools). It is also im-
portant to increase the attractiveness of university courses on 
chemicals and materials for future students, and to make train-
ing available outside the EU.

When  developing  training  packages  or  curricula,  a  common 
language should be used for SSbD as well as a unique meth-
odology and framework. In addition, it is important to have an 
adequate network in place. 

7

2.

Main 
players

 
In response to Question 4a, asked by the Commission in their background document (see introduction).

Main players

Examples

Justification

Industry

Industry networks 
(e.g. AISE, Charter members)

Business organisations (Green Chemistry Commerce 
Council, Renewable Carbon Initiative )

Individual companies (Novozymes, DSM)

Purpose driven

Companies volunteering to test substitutes/frontrunners

Companies with Ecolabel

ChemSec Business group

NGO

Governments

EU/national agencies

ECHA, EFSA, EEA, EIC

International 
organisations

OECD, UNEP, WHO

Research funding 
institutions

Educators, trainers

Venture funds such as the ECBF

UNEP training manual on green and sustainable 
education. EUChemS: online courses on Green and 
Sustainable Chemistry; Leuphana University: courses 
on green and sustainable issues; Cefic Sustainable and 
Green Chemistry Bootcamps with Prof John Warner; 
the WBCSD PSA methodology; Green Chemistry Change 
Manager courses by Austrian Government; SETAC 
Europe education and training of professionals in 
environmental toxicology and chemistry

Network of frontrunners

Define priorities, funding, 
support collaborations

Data, expertise, 
methodologies

Harmonisation, data 
repository, fora to 
exchange experience

Educate and train the range 
of interested stakeholders

Research institutes

Toxics Use Reduction Institute

Resources and tools to 
support substitution

Stakeholders 
dialogues, 
forums

Best practices

Forum Waschen in Germany, ISC3, 
SusChem platform, SETAC Europe

OEKOTEX® Standard 100, German AgBB scheme, return 
systems, Swedish Centre for Chemical Substitution; 
Danish Centre for Chemical Substitution; Subsport

Others

Materials Manifesto 2030

Sustainable Public Affair (consultant)

Supporting frontrunners

Criteria for sustainable finance

CSA project building SSbD community

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.

Funding 
opportunities 

10

In response to Question 4b, asked by the Commission in their background document (see introduction).

Funding opportunity 

Examples

EU programmes

Horizon Europe, e.g. PARC initiative 
(Partnership for the Assessment of Risks 
from Chemicals); EIC, EIT, LIFE

National research foundations 

Ministries 

Research Institutes and foundations

Private sector platforms

Federal Ministry of Research and 
Education in Germany)

Charter for Sustainable Cleaning 
https://www.charter2020.eu/ 

Platforms chemical producers/
downstream users 

Private-public funding platforms

Including but not limited to EC, MS, business, 
scientists and educational institutions

More industrial oriented funding 
projects in the EU

Industry driven funds

Market uptake incentives 

Foundations

Financial sector, including banks

Investor funding of start-ups

Venture funds

Others

European Circular Bioeconomy 
Fund (ECBF), EIC

Crossroad Bank for Enterprises (CBE), 
Invest NL, SHIFT

11

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex. 
Methodology and process
leading to the Joint Report 

To begin, Members sent suggestions for four ‘areas of recommendation’, 
based upon a Background Document circulated by the Commission. 

Firstly, members proposed a maximum of three recommendations on 
the Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) and the framework 
and criteria for Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD). Secondly, they 
proposed one strategic recommendation to encourage stakeholders to 
promote and use both initiatives. Thirdly, members indicated important 
players/player collaborations as frontrunners to test the SSbD Framework, 
and provided concrete examples of possible funding opportunities. 

The  top  five  recommendations  for  the 
two  initiatives  were  retained  (one  was 
dropped  due  to  controversy).  Each  was 
taken  into  two  rounds  of  three  paral-
lel  sessions  comprising  ten  members  in 
each, with participants re-sorted between 
rounds.  A  rapporteur  for  each  reported 
back to Plenary. The popular recommen-
dations  were  listed,  with  a  summary  of 
the  discussions,  in  a  google  drive  doc-
ument. 

The  sherpas  had  a  week  to  insert  their 
comments,  and  then  the  document  was 
discussed in a Webex meeting on 3 May. 
Before  this  meeting,  a  “group  of  four” 
(Cefic, ChemSec, EEB, and IndustriAll) re-
vised a number of recommendations and 
merged  others,  and  found  an  accepted 
rephrasing for a controversial recommen-
dation (no 2). At the meeting, a member 
objected to the text on the recommenda-
tion  about  NAMs  (no  4),  after  which  an 
ad-hoc group of 11 members worked on 
a text that was agreed by all on 13 May. 

Members  then  voted  for  their  top  three 
preferences  for  recommendations  –  as 
proposed  by  others  –  for  the  first  area; 
and  on  their  top  single  recommendation 
for  the  second.  They  suggested  ways 
of  bundling  similar  recommendations. 
Members  could  also  ‘negatively  vote’ 
for  recommendations  they  considered 
controversial, to retain only those where 
common ground is likely to be found. This 
approach was a ‘lesson learned’ from the 
previous ‘Enforcement’ workshop to facil-
itate consensus-building.

As  a  result  of  voting,  13  proposals 
for  the  first  area  of  recommenda-
tion, and 8 proposals for the second, 
were selected for further voting and 
discussion  in  the  workshop.  Recom-
mendations for the two other areas, 
frontrunners  and  funding  opportu-
nities, were also collated for review 
(some  members  did  not  vote  ahead 
of the workshop). 

30  members  attended  the  workshop  on 
1 April 2022. In the opening Plenary, the 
moderator  presented  the  proposals  and 
members  ‘live’  voted  using  the  SLIDO 
tool.  Each  member  voted  on  their  top 
three recommendations for the SRIP and 
SSbD Framework, and on their top three 
recommendations for encouraging stake-
holders to use them. 

12

13

K
H
-
0
7
-
2
2
-
5
9
8
-
E
N
-
N