Green groups say EU-backed chemical alliance puts polluters first

Green Groups Condemn EU Chemical Alliance as Industry-Driven

Green groups say EU backed chemical - The European Union's newly formed Critical Chemicals Alliance (CCA) has drawn sharp criticism from environmental watchdogs, who accuse it of prioritizing the interests of polluting industries over public health and ecological protection. A report released by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) highlights how the CCA, established in January 2026 with the backing of the European Commission, has become a platform for corporate lobbying that undermines efforts to reduce hazardous substances in industrial production.

The CCA's Strategic Role and Industry Influence

Originally framed as a strategic initiative to safeguard Europe's industrial resilience and competitiveness, the CCA aims to identify chemicals and production sites critical to the European economy. This designation could unlock significant public funding and state aid for these sectors. However, the report argues that the alliance is not neutral but instead driven by major chemical companies, such as BASF, TotalEnergies, and Avantium, which have positioned themselves as key stakeholders in shaping the program's priorities.

According to the watchdogs, the CCA’s focus on economic criticality has overshadowed environmental concerns. The report states that industry representatives hold dominant roles in defining which chemicals qualify as "critical," effectively steering the agenda toward deregulation and relaxed pollution standards. "Since the Alliance's launch, it has been clear that the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) is in the driving seat of this initiative, with the Commission's industry department unconcerned by the risks of the process being unduly influenced by corporate interests," the report notes.

Corporate Capture and Deregulation Push

The CCA's identification of chemicals like benzene, chlorine, and hydrofluoric acid as essential to the economy has sparked controversy. These substances, linked to long-lasting "forever chemicals" known as PFAS, are highlighted as potential beneficiaries of state support. Yet, the report challenges the notion that they are vital for economic stability, suggesting that the industry's claims are more about securing financial backing than addressing environmental harm.

The watchdogs emphasize that the CCA's structure reflects a broader trend of corporate capture within EU policy-making. They recall the Antwerp Declaration, organized by CEFIC in February 2026, which brought together industry leaders to demand "urgent and bold" measures to protect heavy industries. This declaration is seen as a precursor to the CCA’s formation, with CEFIC playing a central role in shaping its objectives. The report points out that CEFIC representatives serve as vice-chairs of the group defining critical molecules and as chairs of the trade working group, ensuring their influence permeates every decision.

"My impression, based on the way CEFIC presented things (...) the structure of the Steering Board and working groups, was that there must have been substantial preparatory work behind the scenes involving both DG GROW (Commission's industry department) and CEFIC," said Tatiana Santos, head of chemicals policy at the EEB. "My perception was that it was CEFIC running the show." This sentiment underscores the report’s claim that the CCA operates as a tool for industry interests rather than a genuine effort to prioritize environmental sustainability.

Profit Over Public Investment

While the CCA seeks to identify chemicals that require public support, the report questions the rationale behind such designations. It cites data showing that major chemical companies generated hundreds of billions of euros in profits over the past decade, with much of that wealth distributed to shareholders rather than reinvested in greener technologies or production upgrades. The authors argue that this profit-driven approach contradicts the goal of using public funds to transition toward sustainable practices.

Additionally, the report criticizes the EU's carbon market for providing generous free carbon allowances to the chemical sector. These allowances, part of the Emissions Trading System (ETS), have already given substantial financial relief to the industry, effectively reducing the cost of pollution. The watchdogs contend that this system should be reformed to ensure stricter environmental accountability, as the CCA’s current structure allows industries to exploit public funding without adequate oversight.

Environmental Priorities Under Threat

The report further argues that the CCA’s focus on maintaining industrial capacity has sidelined key environmental goals. Instead of targeting hazardous chemicals, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, or cutting plastic production, discussions have centered on investment support and deregulation. This shift, the authors claim, risks perpetuating the use of petrochemical feedstocks like ethylene and propylene, which are central to the industry’s current operations.

Climate measures promoted within the CCA, such as carbon capture and certain bio-based solutions, are also under scrutiny. The watchdogs warn that these initiatives may not significantly reduce fossil fuel dependence but could instead delay the transition to a fully decarbonized economy. "The CCA’s approach seems to prioritise short-term industrial stability over long-term environmental outcomes," the report states, highlighting a disconnect between the alliance’s stated mission and its actual impact.

The report calls for a reevaluation of how criticality is defined. Rather than focusing solely on economic factors, EU policymakers should consider which chemicals are socially essential—those necessary for health, safety, and vital ecological functions. This shift, the authors argue, would align public investment with broader sustainability goals and ensure that industry representatives do not dominate the decision-making process.

Structural Challenges and Call for Reform

Despite the Commission’s formal leadership of the CCA, the report asserts that its governance has been largely delegated to industry players. This delegation has allowed CEFIC to influence the alliance’s direction, with environmental organizations excluded from key decision-making roles. The authors stress that this structural imbalance—where corporate interests shape policy—threatens the integrity of the CCA and its ability to serve the public interest.

They conclude that the alliance exemplifies "structural corporate capture," a systemic issue where industries dominate policy frameworks to secure benefits at the expense of environmental and social priorities. To address this, the report urges the EU to impose stricter conditions on public funding for chemicals, ensuring conflicts of interest are resolved and that the alliance’s goals reflect a balanced approach to economic and ecological needs. Without such reforms, the CCA risks becoming a vehicle for expanding industrial influence rather than fostering sustainable innovation.