The EU’s campaign to strengthen its chemicals sector has been captured by legacy industry interests at the expense of the bloc’s citizens, says chemicals watchdog Chemsec.
The initiative must be prevented from steering EU chemicals policy, which would risk propping up existing hazardous production and undermining investment in safer alternatives, said ChemSec, which is quitting the Critical Chemicals Alliance with immediate effect.
“We joined the Alliance to help shape a competitive chemicals industry that protects people and the environment. Instead, we have been given a seat on paper while industry holds the pen,” said Anne-Sofie Bäckar, Executive Director of ChemSec.
“We cannot lend legitimacy to a process that protects existing production at the expense of the green transformation Europe needs. The Critical Chemicals Alliance gives industry disproportionate influence while denying civil society meaningful participation. This is a short-cut to more pollution,” Bäckar said.
ChemSec calls on the European Commission to ensure the Alliance plays no guiding role in chemicals regulation, policy or legislative measures.
The Critical Chemicals Alliance was established in January 2026, ostensibly to identify chemicals and production capacity considered critical to Europe’s economy.
“It is now clear that its approach confuses dependence on existing chemicals with evidence that society needs them,” Bäckar said.
According to the Alliance, high energy use, high carbon emissions and even exposure to regulatory requirements can increases a chemical’s “vulnerability”, laying the groundwork for “critical” status and transforming reasons for changing production practices into reasons to protect them.
“A production process does not become critical because it uses too much energy or faces restrictions for harming people and the environment,” says Bäckar. “These are reasons to invest in change — they should not become a ticket to subsidies and weaker rules.”
Protecting existing production at the expense of innovation
While the work of the Alliance should have focused on investments and transition, we now see that it could undermine chemicals regulation as such by excluding them from regulatory action. Certain PFAS chemicals, for example, could fall within the proposed criticality criteria, undermining the EU’s proposed universal PFAS restriction.
“Europe cannot credibly work to phase out harmful chemicals while another part of the Commission builds a case for protecting their production,” says Bäckar. “Critical status must not become a back door exit from REACH.”
Preferential treatment would make established hazardous chemicals cheaper to produce and harder for safer alternatives to displace.
“Europe’s competitive advantage should come from cleaner production and safer chemistry,” says Bäckar. “Public money must help build that future, rather than shield yesterday’s business models from change.”
ChemSec further supports EEB and the opinions expressed in their latest report.
