Safe and Sustainable by Design: Driving Innovation Toward Safer and More Sustainable Chemicals, Materials, Processes and Products

Abstract

The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework, developed by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, is described here. It is applicable to chemicals and materials, and the European Commission recommends its use in research and innovation activities. This framework is one means to facilitate achieving the goals of the European Union’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The implementation of the SSbD framework calls for a new way of thinking and a shift in current innovation practices. It thus requires safety and sustainability to be considered in an integrative manner from the early stages of innovation, and with a life cycle perspective. This article describes the policy context in which SSbD was developed, outlines the concepts underpinning SSbD, and its assessment steps. Furthermore, it presents some early implementation lessons learned, gives an overview of ongoing work to implement and advance its development, and provides an outlook for future developments. The transition to SSbD requires deeper integration of several disciplines, until now often independently practiced, that address chemical risk and sustainability. In addition, the implementation of these disciplines, from the early design phase of new chemicals, materials, processes, and products onward, makes the engagement of communities in the research and innovation fields paramount.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

Safe and sustainable by design - Safety - Sustainability - Innovation - Life cycle - Value chain - Integration of safety and sustainability

Significance

The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework integrates safety and sustainability throughout the innovation process in a holistic manner. It supports the (re)design of chemicals, materials, processes, and products by combining risk assessment (RA) and sustainability assessment (SA) with a life-cycle perspective, driving innovation toward safer and more sustainable solutions. It is a collective effort and responsibility across the value chain, and it represents a paradigm change in innovation and is a key element for achieving the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability goals.

Introduction

The European Green Deal[1] aims to achieve climate neutrality, a circular economy, and a zero pollution/toxic-free environment by 2050, supported by the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS)[2] and other initiatives. These policy initiatives are building on the so-called Brundtland report,[3] which proposes long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development and presents a global agenda for change.

The CSS acknowledges that chemicals are everywhere in our daily lives and play a fundamental role in most of our activities. The CSS recognizes, at the same time, that chemicals with hazardous properties can cause harm to human health and the environment. Thus, the CSS promotes the design and development of safe and sustainable chemicals and materials, including advanced, innovative chemicals and materials. Developing a new framework to define criteria for Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) chemicals and materials is a key enabler for this.

The European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) reviewed existing frameworks related to SSbD to identify the safety and sustainability dimensions included for each framework, identified parameters and indicators for assessing these dimensions, and proposed assessment methods and tools.[4] Capitalizing on this information, the JRC developed, with support and advice from experts, the European Union (EU) SSbD Framework for the definition of criteria and evaluation procedures for chemicals and materials.[5] The SSbD framework represents a shift in paradigm, taking a holistic view of chemicals’ and materials’ safety and sustainability. It integrates several, until now virtually independently practiced disciplines, addressing chemical/material risk and sustainability together, from the early stages of innovation and with the entire life cycle perspective, including the end-of-life. This requires the engagement of different research and innovation communities as well as the creation of a common understanding of the scope and implementation of the SSbD framework. To promote and improve the SSbD framework, the European Commission (EC) published a recommendation,[6] addressed to EU member states, industry, academia, and research and technology organizations (in short, the stakeholders). It proposes a European assessment framework for SSbD chemicals and materials in research and innovation (R&I) activities. This proposed framework is the JRC SSbD framework.

Here, the SSbD framework and issues identified around its operationalization are explained. An additional aim of the paper is to be the starting point for creating a common understanding of the SSbD framework, the paradigm shift it represents, and the interdisciplinary efforts needed toward its operationalization.

 

MissingLinkText

The SSbD Framework: Concepts and Elements

Given the SSbD Framework’s interdisciplinary nature, it is of paramount importance to have a common understanding of its underpinning concepts and the scope. The SSbD framework, which is based on the concepts and holistic approach described in the introduction, is composed of a set of elements ([Fig. 1]). In the following, we present an overview of these elements.

Fig. 1 Main elements of the SSbD framework.

An Innovation and Pre-market Approach: Scoping

By definition, SSbD is a pre-market approach, meaning that safety and sustainability aspects are to be considered during the (re)design and development phases in R&I processes. The SSbD Framework is not legally binding, i.e., voluntary. It is designed so that innovations entering the EU market would be better prepared to comply with relevant legislation. At the chemical/material level, innovations should comply with general chemicals legislation such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, Regulation EC No 1907/2006)[7] or CLP (classification, labelling, and packaging of substances and mixtures, Regulation EC No 1272/2008).[8] At the process level, compliance with, e.g., the Directives on Occupational Safety and Health,[9] on waste[10] and industrial emissions[11] is necessary. At the product level, examples of legislation are Food Contact Materials,[12] Cosmetics,[13] Toys,[14] Biocides,[15] Plant Protection Products,[16] and EcoDesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).[17]

How safety and sustainability aspects are integrated in innovation to reach marketing requirements, therefore, is of paramount importance. Hence, the contextualization of SSbD within innovation requires a clear understanding of its scope.

 

MissingLinkText

Safety and Sustainability

An important and unique aspect of the SSbD Framework is that it puts together, for the first time, safety, and sustainability dimensions in a holistic approach.

According to the SSbD framework, and when applied in the context of chemicals/materials, sustainability is the ability of a chemical/material to deliver its function without exceeding environmental and ecological boundaries along its entire life cycle, while providing welfare, socioeconomic benefits, and reducing externalities.

(Eco)toxicological safety relates to the absence of unacceptable risk for humans and the environment, by avoiding chemicals/materials that have adverse effects and reducing or eliminating the exposure to them. Safety aspects are transversal in all sustainability dimensions (environmental, social, and economic). In particular, (eco)toxicological safety aspects are included in the environmental sustainability assessment. However, these toxicity and ecotoxicity impact categories do not adequately reflect the complexity, granularity, and broad scope of (eco)toxicological safety aspects. Thus, given their special importance for chemicals/materials, safety aspects are in the SSbD framework assessed on their own.

 

MissingLinkText

Life Cycle Thinking

The CSS imposes that safety and sustainability aspects must be considered, adopting a life cycle perspective, i.e., the chemical/material-process-product system (value chain) needs to be considered as a whole.

The SSbD framework thus consists of different building blocks (steps) that follow this life cycle thinking and include (i) hazard identification/assessment of the evaluated chemical/material, (ii) exposure and risk evaluation at the different life stages considering the manufacturing and processing (including end of life (EoL)) of the chemical/material, and (iii) at the product application stage, (iv) environmental sustainability assessment in terms of a life cycle assessment (LCA) and (v) social and economic sustainability assessment. The SSbD framework describes in more detail the assessment methodologies that can be applied within each building block and presents the dimensions, aspects, and indicators to be considered, and methods and tools that can be used. It also proposes how to define criteria and evaluate the SSbD performance.

 

MissingLinkText

(Re)design

Even if SSbD is ideally a premarket approach, importantly, it can also be utilized when improving an existing chemical, material, process, and/or product ((re)design). The (re)design can happen at molecular, process, and/or product levels:

• Molecular (re)design: it refers to the (re)design of chemicals and materials leading to new intrinsic properties (which may affect the hazard profile).

• Process (re)design: it refers to the design of new or improved processes along the entire life cycle of chemicals, materials, and products. It does not change the intrinsic properties of the chemical/material, but it can make the process safer and more sustainable.

• Product (re)design: it refers to the design of the product in which the chemical/material might be incorporated and used. It does not change the intrinsic properties of the chemical/material, but it can make its use safer and more sustainable.

 

MissingLinkText

An Iterative Process

The SSbD framework integrates the safety and sustainability assessment throughout innovation in a generally applicable iterative process ([Fig. 2]) in which the quality and amount of information increases in each iteration cycle.

To guide innovation, it proposes to apply well-established design principles (green chemistry, sustainable chemistry, green engineering, etc.) that cover safety and sustainability aspects and that can help the (re)design of chemicals and materials and the related processes and products. Furthermore, functionality and performance are key aspects of the (re)design.

[Fig. 2] shows how the key elements of SSbD are integrated with the innovation process and the iterative nature of the SSbD approach.

Fig. 2 Integration of the SSbD assessment with the innovation process. The iterative nature of this approach as the innovation proceeds is indicated by a sequence of circles that include (re)design and assessment (TRL = technology readiness level).

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

SSbD Framework: The Safety and Sustainability Assessment

The points below should be considered during the safety and sustainability assessment. In the SSbD framework, they are presented via a stepwise approach, but in reality, they should all be considered through an integrative and iterative process without a predetermined starting point.

Safety Assessment

Hazard Assessment of the Chemical/Material

For the safety/risk assessment, there is a need to understand the hazards of the assessed chemical/material. The SSbD approach follows the classification criteria established in CLP[8] for human health, environmental, and physical hazard classification, and groups them into the three main groups defined in the CSS[2] and the ESPR[17]: Most Harmful Substances, Substances of Concern, and Other Substances that are harmful or of concern.

The SSbD Framework promotes the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), which can provide data for an initial understanding of possible safety issues in a more ethical and economic way and thus guide the innovation processes. NAMs include in vitro and in silico methods, and as NAMs reflect new approaches for data generation, the innovator can use any NAM that generates data adequate for the purpose. This is especially important at the early innovation stages in which very little data and information are available; hence, a tiered data generation approach, based on NAMs, is recommended for hazard identification in the design phase. If the innovation reaches the market, regulatory acceptable data will be needed.

 

MissingLinkText

Human Health and Safety Aspects in the Chemical/Material Production and Processing Phase

This part assesses the occupational health and safety during the production and processing of the chemical or material, including the EoL of the product in which the chemical/material is integrated.

The assessment considers the hazard and fate of the chemical/material and the potential exposure to it during the production and/or processing. The threshold values (concentration of chemical/material), below which no, or minimal, effect is observed for workers, respectively the derived no effect level (DNEL) or derived minimal effect level (DMEL), are based on the identified hazard. These threshold values are compared to the potential for exposure during the production and processing, which is estimated, taking into consideration the physical-chemical properties of the chemical/material and the production/processing exposure scenarios. The latter is the compilation of the contributing scenarios that describe each contributing activity within the identified use (formulating, compounding, etc.). The contributing scenario is a set of conditions, including operational conditions and risk management measures, that describe how the chemical/material is manufactured or used during its lifecycle.

Similarly to hazard assessment, a tiered approach is considered for the risk assessment, depending on the data and information available for the assessment. The tiered approach starts with qualitative/simplified models, e.g., control banding models,[18] and as (more) data become available, semi-quantitative, higher-tier tools can be used. The fully quantitative assessment will be possible when monitoring data becomes available.

 

MissingLinkText

Human Health and Environmental Aspects in the Final Application Phase

Also, the risks of the final product, which integrates the material or chemical, are assessed. This includes the potential of the chemical/material to be released during the application or service life of the product. The safety assessment of the final applications phase considers the hazard and fate properties of the chemical/material and the exposure to this chemical/material during its use.

The application scenarios take into consideration the use conditions (e.g., frequency and duration of exposure, concentration in the product, outdoor/indoor use) together with the potential for release. Together with the Risk Mitigation Measures (e.g., instructions for use), these will determine the likelihood of exposure to the chemical/material as well as the potential routes of exposure.

Similarly to hazard assessment, a tiered approach can be considered depending on the data/information availability.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Sustainability Assessment

Environmental Sustainability Assessment

In this part, an LCA considers environmental sustainability impacts along the entire chemical/material life cycle. LCA revolves around a functional unit, for which several definitions are available. ISO 14040:2006 defines it as “functional unit: quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit”.

An LCA can be divided into four different phases:

• Goal and scope definition, defining the aims of the study, including the functional unit.

• Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis, involving the data collection and calculation procedures for the quantification of inputs and outputs of the studied system.

• Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) where LCI results are associated with environmental impact categories and indicators through LCIA methods, which first classify emissions into impact categories and secondly convert them to common units to allow comparison.

• Life Cycle Interpretation phase, where results from LCI and LCIA are interpreted according to the stated goal and scope.

For the LCA, the SSbD Framework recommends using the environmental footprint impact assessment method, PEF (product environmental footprint), which is proposed by the European Commission as a common way of measuring environmental performance. It relies on 16 different impact categories.[19]

 

MissingLinkText

Social and Economic Sustainability Assessment

This assessment addresses socioeconomic impacts. Social assessment describes the relevant stakeholders and related social aspects that could be used. The economic assessment focuses on non-financial aspects, e.g., the identification and monetization of externalities arising during the life cycle of a chemical or a material. Given the limited level of implementation and methodological maturity, it is in an exploratory phase.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Initial Applications of the SSbD Framework

The SSbD framework has been intensely tested by the JRC with Stakeholders. The experience and feedback thus acquired contribute to the provision of methodological guidance for its operationalization and for future update(s) of the SSbD framework.

The SSbD framework was tested in case studies[20] to:

• Evaluate the practical feasibility and applicability of the SSbD Framework.

• Identify the challenges and limitations in the application of the SSbD Framework for consideration in future developments.

• Identify needs or gaps with regard to data/information, methods/tools, expertise/skills.

• Identify overlaps between the steps.

Several challenges to be addressed and opportunities for improvement were identified,[21] also from additional stakeholder feedback referring to other cases.

Two Boot Camps were held (in 2023 and 2024) to provide hands-on training on SSbD. The first one, organized by the JRC, aimed to bring together experts in different fields and provide the opportunity to discuss real case studies, exchange knowledge, and critically reflect on the different aspects of the SSbD concept and propose solutions to identified challenges. The second Boot Camp, focusing on tools, was organized by the PARC (Partnership for the Assessment of Risk from Chemicals). The Boot Camps also contributed to increasing the understanding of the four bullet points listed above for the case studies.

The SSbD Framework was also tested in the context of the EC Recommendation[6] with the aim of improving the relevance, reliability, and operability of the SSbD Framework in R&I activities. The recommendation is addressed to EU member states, industry, academia, and research and technology organizations and invites them to test the SSbD Framework and provide feedback. It considers a two-year testing period since its publication, with 2 testing phases in 2023 and 2024.

 

MissingLinkText

The Methodological Guidance: New Key Elements of the SSbD Framework

The Scoping Analysis

A Methodological Guidance[22] complements the SSbD framework by introducing the scoping analysis as a key element that supports the contextualization of the assessment phase of the SSbD framework in R&I activities. The scoping analysis builds on the system definition, the (re)design definition, the definition of the system boundaries, and engagement with the actors along the life cycle.

An understanding of the system(s) to which the SSbD framework is applied is fundamental. The SSbD framework is chemical/material specific, but it is implemented with a life cycle perspective. The definition of the chemical/material-process-product system (SSbD system) is thus of fundamental importance for its implementation, to allow an understanding of the system boundaries, framing the focus for innovation and thereby the nature of the (re)design ([Fig. 3]). This will also help to focus the assessment, identify the scope as well as the safety and sustainability aspects and indicators affected by the (re)design, and the roles and responsibilities in the value chain. This enables a case-by-case tailoring of the SSbD Framework to the different scenarios and specific needs. [Fig. 3] illustrates possible different scenarios, depending on the nature of the (re)design. The initial SSbD system X might change as the innovation develops, for example, when a chemical/material of the initial SSbD system X is exchanged as a result of chemical/material, process, or product (re)design considerations. The exchange leads to a different and additional SSbD system Y that also needs to be considered.

Additionally, different aspects and indicators, considerations, and decisions during the R&I processes can have an impact on other aspects of the system and the overall SSbD approach, making it crucial to identify and monitor them throughout the entire R&I process.

Fig. 3 Possible different scenarios, depending on the nature of the (re)design (EoL = End of life).

 

MissingLinkText

Integrating the SSbD Framework in Innovation

The Methodological Guidance[22] elaborates the safety and sustainability assessment outlined in the SSbD Framework, emphasizing that these are applied in an iterative manner throughout the entire R&I process. The different sections describe how to address uncertainties and collect and generate data and information in a tiered approach as the innovation progresses.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Towards Operationalization of SSbD

Creating a Common Understanding

The SSbD framework introduces a holistic approach to safety and sustainability considerations in R&I activities. It is essential to create a common understanding of terms and fundamental concepts underpinning the SSbD framework to make it implementable. Some terms are used both in the safety and sustainability fields, albeit with different meanings (e.g., “intermediate”). Other terms have been incorporated from one discipline to the other in an integration attempt (e.g., indicators). Moreover, the scope and dimensions considered for risk assessment and sustainability assessment are different. Risk assessment (RA) is often company-specific/local, whereas sustainability is often addressed at the global level.

 

MissingLinkText

Risk Assessment of Chemicals/Materials and Life Cycle Assessment of Products

In addition to the uniqueness of the SSbD concept outlined above under Safety and Sustainability, it should be noted that RA assesses the safety for the specific worker/consumer depending on the work activities/product use leading to exposure of the worker/consumer to the assessed chemical/material. In contrast, under LCA the exposure to the different chemicals in the life cycle of the assessed chemical/material (including e.g., exposure to gasoline of the truck driver transporting the chemical/material) is allocated to the same/generic target population (worker), considering one single/worst case scenario and regardless of whether actual exposure takes place or not.

Efforts to integrate RA and LCA continue despite such obvious differences. It might be more beneficial to focus on building an understanding and recognizing the differences between the two disciplines, followed by the identification of the best possible way(s) to combine them. An additional challenge that needs to be overcome is that the scopes and objectives of RA and LCA are different. While RA is an absolute approach and evaluates one chemical/material with possibly thousands of applications in products, LCA is a comparative approach and analyses one product with potentially thousands of chemical/materials in its life cycle. The SSbD Framework brings about the opportunity to examine the interface between these two disciplines and ways that they can complement each other.

 

MissingLinkText

Data Availability and Quality

Data availability, including FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) data,[23] is crucial for applying the SSbD Framework. Any Data generation requires special attention as the data quality is crucial to ensure informed decisions. Attributes that define data quality and reliability include accuracy, consistency, completeness, and relevance. For SSbD also timeliness, i.e., the needed data are available at the relevant point in time, is important.

The SSbD Framework is not legally binding and can thus promote the use of the latest scientific knowledge, including alternative approaches like NAMs for data generation, thus providing information in a timely manner.

At the start of the innovation process for a new chemical/material, very little data will be available, so when formulating the problem, the availability of any data will have more weight than its uncertainty. As the innovation progresses, more data will become available, and the uncertainty and the weight of the associated evidence will need to be iteratively re-evaluated. In the case of performing a comparative SSbD assessment, e.g., with the aim of selecting the ‘best’ chemical from an array of possibilities, data must be comparable to make informed choices.

The greatest opportunity that the SSbD Framework presents concerns new scientific knowledge and developments for the sustainability dimension, where the data gaps are by far bigger than for the safety dimension. The method proposed by the SSbD Framework is the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). Alternative methods to the PEF, as well as in silico tools to predict the impact categories, are conceivable but scarce.

 

MissingLinkText

Entire Life Cycle Effort and Responsibility

SSbD requires multidisciplinary multistakeholder activity. Challenges like the generation and availability of data for the entire life cycle of a chemical/material can only be overcome by involving the entire value chain of the chemical/material. This needs clarity regarding roles and the definition of responsibilities.

To achieve this, early engagement with the value chain in the innovation and implementation of the SSbD is essential. Such engagement ensures that all relevant aspects and potential concerns of the entire life cycle of the chemicals and materials, and the Stakeholders involved, are considered in the implementation of the SSbD. Early engagement will allow all stakeholders to contribute to the scoping analysis, where the goals of the innovation, aspects to be considered, and principles to follow are framed together with the definition of roles and responsibilities. This will improve the support and contribution of all actors, creating a trusted environment where all Stakeholders feel owners and beneficiaries of the implementation of the SSbD.

 

MissingLinkText

Traceability and Communication

In addition, the data and information exchange could be improved using standardized and reliable communication tools that ensure traceability of safety and sustainability along the entire chemical/material life cycle, including EoL.

Under REACH, ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) created the collaborative Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios for RA. It aims to identify and promote good practices for preparing and implementing exposure scenarios, and to develop an effective communication exchange between supply chain actors. The extended Safety Data Sheets (Annex II of REACH) with use scenarios provide information on how to control the exposure of workers, consumers, and the environment to substances. The use map concept aims to improve the quality of the information on use and conditions of use communicated up the supply chain and the efficiency of this communication process. Capitalizing on such well-established approaches for RA and extending them to environmental sustainability is worth exploring.

Furthermore, it is relevant to explore how this information could be digitalized for communication purposes while maintaining confidentiality and how this information could be aligned with relevant digital requirements like the digital product passport. This unique identifier of the product’s life cycle is designed to close the gap between public demands for transparency and the current lack of reliable product data.

 

MissingLinkText

Creating an SSbD Ecosystem: Transdisciplinary Training

The transition to SSbD will require the integration of several, until now, independent disciplines. The combination of chemical risk, environmental, social, and economic sustainability, and research and innovation disciplines and communities is necessary to implement the SSbD Framework and develop holistic methodologies and tools. Furthermore, the future SSbD implementation will rely on gathering, generating, and integrating large volumes of data, information, knowledge, and tools from a broad spectrum of disciplines. It is thus timely to raise awareness and create an SSbD ecosystem engaging widely with research and innovation communities across disciplines to achieve a successful implementation of the SSbD concept. EU Horizon Europe projects contribute to this, e.g., the international ecosystem for accelerating the transition to Safe-and-Sustainable-by-design chemicals/materials, products, and processes (IRISS), which aims to connect, synergize and transform the SSbD community in Europe, and globally, towards life cycle thinking. Another example is PARC, which supports European and national chemical RA and management authorities. It supports the operationalization of the SSbD Framework, e.g., by gathering Stakeholder feedback on applicability, and by developing a toolbox to support SSbD implementation. The future PARCopedia will include a new, dedicated SSbD knowledge and information platform. New educational material will ensure that innovators and younger generations will embed SSbD in their mindset and way of working.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusions and Outlook

As recognized in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, the SSbD Framework is one key enabler of the Green Transition ambition of the European Union. The SSbD Framework is an R&I approach that will enable the development of safe and sustainable chemical/materials, processes, and products in a wide range of sectors. Cross-disciplinary expertise and skills are necessary for its successful operationalization and application.

In summary, the SSbD Framework:

• introduces a holistic approach that integrates safety and sustainability considerations in R&I activities

• is a voluntary approach to be implemented iteratively in the R&I processes, which makes it the perfect platform to use, test, and promote the latest scientific knowledge when (re)designing for SSbD

• needs a collaborative effort between the involved disciplines and Stakeholders for its operationalization

• provides a basis for evaluating the safety and sustainability at the (re)design stage of a chemical/material, a process, and/or a product

• presents a great opportunity for the sustainability dimension, which has important data gaps, to generate new scientific knowledge and development, e.g., exploring the availability of other methods than PEF for the SSbD Framework

• brings about the opportunity to analyze the interface between sustainability and safety dimensions for chemicals and materials assessment and identify ways that allow these dimensions to complement each other.

Furthermore,

• A common understanding of underpinning terms and fundamental concepts, and the system, including its boundaries, to which the SSbD Framework is applied, is fundamental.

• The data availability and quality are important for the SSbD Framework, which, being non-regulatory, can promote the use of the latest scientific knowledge, including alternative approaches like NAMs.

• The approach described by the SSbD Framework can be applied to any chemical or material. There is no fundamental difference in the approach when applied to more traditional chemicals or advanced (innovative) materials; the difference is rather in the data and the system definition. Developing methodologies for assessing SSbD dimensions for chemicals has been ongoing for decades, whereas the same assessment methodologies for materials and processes are less advanced, and even more effort may be required for materials and processes.

• The use of standardized and reliable communication tools should be explored to improve/overcome data and information gaps and ensure safety and sustainability traceability along the entire chemical/material life cycle.

• It is timely to raise awareness and create an SSbD ecosystem engaging widely with R&I communities across disciplines to achieve a successful implementation of the SSbD concept.

Capitalizing on the testing of the SSbD Framework, in 2025, the JRC will start revising the SSbD Framework and defining criteria for ‘safe and sustainable by design’ chemicals and materials.

The new Competitiveness Compass for the EU[24] highlights the need to revive a virtuous innovation cycle. Advanced, innovative materials will play a crucial role here. Demand for such materials will increase dramatically in the coming years. At the same time, the EU firmly intends to stay the course of the Green Deal objectives.[25] The SSbD Framework proposes a paradigm change in innovation with a view to the whole life cycle and with a total absence of additional regulatory burden. Development of advanced materials and other innovative chemicals according to the SSbD Framework, hence, contributes to achieving the goals of two of the most important policy initiatives in the EU. The SSbD Framework unites the Green Deal and the Competitiveness Compass.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Contributorsʼ Statement

Conception and design of the work, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting the manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript: I. Garmendia Aguirre, K. Rasmussen and H. Rauscher contributed equally to the work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the past and present European Commission colleagues who contributed to the development of the framework for safe and sustainable by design chemicals and materials. We are also grateful to G. Roebben (DG GROW), C. Markouli, and S. Nørager (DG RTD) for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Disclaimer

The content expressed in this paper is solely the opinion of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission.

• References

• 1 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal, COM (2019) 640 final.
• 2 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, COM (2020) 667 final.
• 3 World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press; 1987. ISBN: 019282080X https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
• 4 Caldeira C, Farcal R, Moretti C. et al. Safe and Sustainable by Design Chemicals and Materials. Review of Safety and Sustainability Dimensions, Aspects, Methods, Indicators, and Tools. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2022. JRC127109, EUR 30991 EN
• 5 Caldeira C, Farcal R, Garmendia Aguirre I. et al. Safe and Sustainable by Design Chemicals and Materials. Framework for the Definition of Criteria and Evaluation Procedure for Chemicals and Materials. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2022. JRC128591, EUR 31100 EN
• 6 European Commission. Commission Recommendation of 8.12.2022 establishing a European assessment framework for ‘safe and sustainable by design’ chemicals and materials, C (2022) 8854 final. Official Journal of the European Union 20.12.2022, L325/179-205. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2022/2510/oj
• 7 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.2006, L 396/1–849 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1907/oj
• 8 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Official Journal of the European Union 31.12.2008, L 353/1–1355 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1272/oj
• 9 Council of the European Communities. Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Official Journal of the European Union 29.6.1989, L 183/1–8 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1989/391/oj
• 10 European Parliament and Council. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union 22.11.2008, L 312, pp. 3–30 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/oj
• 11 European Parliament and Council. Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial and livestock rearing emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Official Journal of the European Union, Luxembourg, 17.12.2010, L334/17-119 Recast: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/2024-08-04
• 12 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union 13.11.2004, L 338/4–17 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/1935/oj
• 13 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (recast). Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2009, L 342/59–209 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1223/oj
• 14 European Parliament and Council. Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys. Official Journal of the European Union 30.6.2009, L 170/1–37 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/48/oj
• 15 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. Official Journal of the European Union 27.6.2012, L 167/1–123 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/528/oj
• 16 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009, L 309/1–50 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj
• 17 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 28.6.2024, 2024/1781 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1781/oj
• 18 NIOSH. Qualitative Risk Characterization and Management of Occupational Hazards: Control Banding (CB). A Literature Review and Critical Analysis. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009–152; 2009. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-152/pdfs/2009-152.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB2009152
• 19 European Commission. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations C/2021/9332. Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.2021, L 471/1–396 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2021/2279/oj
• 20 Caldeira C, Garmendia Aguirre I, Tosches D. et al. Safe and Sustainable by Design Chemicals and Materials. Application of the SSbD Framework to Case Studies. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2022. JRC131878, EUR 31528 EN
• 21 Abbate E, Ragas AMJ, Caldeira C. et al. Integrated Environ Assess Manage 2025; 21 (2) 245-262
• 22 Abbate E, Garmendia Aguirre I, Bracalente G. et al. Safe and Sustainable by Design Chemicals and Materials – Methodological Guidance. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2024. JRC138035, EUR 31942 EN
• 23 Karakoltzidis A, Battistelli CL, Bossa C. et al. RSC Sustainability 2024; 2: 3464-3477
• 24 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Competitiveness Compass for the EU, COM (2025) 30 final.
• 25 von der Leyen U. Europe’s Choice. Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2024−2029. 18 July 2024 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf

Publication History

Received: 20 December 2024

Accepted after revision: 08 May 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
13 June 2025

Article published online:
11 July 2025