Tensions between regulation and innovation are as old as industry itself, and in the chemicals sector, this dynamic is particularly acute. The long arc of asbestos, from industrial marvel to global health crisis, serves as a reminder of the cost of delayed regulation and the importance of foresight. At the heart of this history lies a nagging dilemma: how can companies earn public trust without stifling the very innovation that drives progress in the first place?
Around the world, regulatory frameworks are shifting, but not in step. Europe is notorious for leading with robust regulations, the U.S. is leaning into deregulation, Latin America wrestles with enforcement and Asia adapts amid rapid industrialization. As Michael Lefenfeld, president and CEO of Hexion Inc., puts it: “Regulatory environments vary significantly worldwide. While Europe leads in sustainability standards, North America follows closely and Asia is catching up. Despite these disparities, the industry’s evolution requires collaboration, regulatory alignment and a willingness to disrupt established practices.”
On one side of the Atlantic Ocean, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has identified over 247 substances of very high concern that need replacing with safer alternatives. Meanwhile, in the U.S., recent policy moves, such as the EPA’s March 2025 initiative to update chemical review processes under the Toxic Substances Control Act, hint at an effort to safeguard health and the environment but without unduly burdening innovation. In this fragmented regulatory landscape, collaboration and strong partnerships will ensure innovation can flourish while public confidence is secured.
This is particularly true in adjacent sectors like hydrogen technologies, which rely heavily on chemical innovations and advanced materials. Håkon Volldal, CEO of Nel Hydrogen, notes that while policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act initially accelerated momentum, the lack of clear regulatory definitions slowed progress. Reflecting on the need for action, he points out that while subsidies are not a sustainable option in the long run, they are necessary to drive adoption: “Businesses need predictability. I hope subsidies can end soon, but we’re not there yet. We’ll have missed the window if clean hydrogen isn’t widely adopted by 2030. So, I say: spend the money now, not spread it thin over 10 years—frontload it and make it happen.”
That tension between advancing progress and ensuring safety is where industry players are channelling their focus, since well-intentioned policies can create unintended headaches for businesses. Kenneth Lane, CEO, Olin, points to one such example: “The EPA recently banned a small chemical used in furniture finishes, claiming manufacturers couldn’t control employee exposure. Based on the assumption that employees weren’t using protective equipment, this decision ignores OSHA standards and has unintended consequences, such as harming U.S. furniture refinishing businesses.”
While regulators like the EPA work to streamline reviews, companies are urging for greater clarity and more proportionate enforcement. Eric R. Byer, president and CEO, Alliance for Chemical Distribution, stresses that misallocated resources place unnecessary financial and operational strain on businesses and calls for a more balanced approach: “Over-regulation occurs when enforcement shifts from targeting bad actors to penalizing companies with good safety and compliance records over minor paperwork infractions.” As science leaps ahead, Amber Wellman, chief sustainability officer, Chemours, similarly advocates for greater nuance, pointing out that, by some definitions, PFAS could include thousands of different compounds that vary significantly in properties, uses and safety profiles: “Unfortunately, some regulatory discussions often fail to account for these differences and lump these compounds together. Such a broad approach is not scientifically sound and would be like regulating olive oil and gasoline the same way because both are hydrocarbons.”
These challenges are particularly cumbersome for midsize and growing companies, which, though not necessarily the intended targets of such policies, given the consolidated nature of the sector, often must contend with fewer resources despite having disproportionate potential for innovation. “Regulation has increased significantly. Running a business today is much more complex and expensive. As companies grow, they face more scrutiny. Regulators focus on bigger players rather than smaller ones, making compliance more demanding as we expand,” comments Edward Polen, CEO, EMCO Chemical Distributors.
Ultimately, when shaped by sound science, mutual trust and a willingness to adapt, regulation and innovation can move forward together. The road ahead won’t be simple, but it offers true catalysts for doing better: making chemicals safer, processes cleaner and partnerships stronger.
This is where resilience matters: not just withstanding pressure but responding with clarity and intent. The chemical industry has always been about transformation; now it’s time to show that real change, much like good chemistry, starts with the right reactions.