Bridging Innovation and Education: John Warner on Closing the Green Chemistry Skills Gap

What does it take to turn the promise of green chemistry into a universal reality? According to John Warner, co-founder of Green Chemistry, it’s not just desire—it’s skills, collaboration, and a radical rethinking of the systems driving innovation.

With decades of experience as a chemist, inventor, and educator, Warner offers a candid assessment of where green chemistry stands today—and what must happen next to bridge the gap between intention and implementation. As the field of green chemistry continues to grow, challenges and opportunities abound. Despite increased interest from universities, companies, and society at large, the implementation of green chemistry faces a critical gap: skills. While the desire to adopt greener practices is strong, the expertise required to innovate and apply these principles often lags behind. This disparity underscores the need for a systemic shift in education and investment.

John Warner has dedicated his career to addressing these challenges. From developing the first Ph.D. program in Green Chemistry to co-founding the chemistry education nonprofit Beyond Benign, Warner's work emphasizes the integration of sustainability into chemical education, innovation, and policy.

In a conversation with Change Chemistry, Warner discussed the state of green chemistry, the barriers it faces, and the pathways forward. His insights shed light on how collaboration, education, and investment can bridge the gap between intention and implementation, ultimately driving a more sustainable future.

How would you assess the current state of green and sustainable chemistry?

John Warner: I’m super excited about the growth of green chemistry. There’s still a long way to go, but many universities are teaching green chemistry, and many companies have embraced its principles in their R&D. It’s exciting to see this change happening. The desire for green chemistry seems to be on an excellent upward trajectory.

However, people don’t fully appreciate that green chemistry isn’t something you do just because you want to; it’s a skill set that scientists must learn at university. While the teaching of green chemistry is increasing, it’s lagging behind the desire for it. This lag creates misunderstandings. People think green chemistry isn’t wanted or is being resisted, but in reality, people often can’t do it because they don’t have the skills. It’s like wanting to play the violin without a teacher or practice—all you can do is talk about it.

A significant challenge is how to implement green chemistry universally. I’m still shocked that, after all this time, we’re debating definitions and meanings. My book came out in 1998 with a chapter defining green chemistry and its 12 principles. When someone says, “Green chemistry confuses me,” we should tell them to read the book instead of holding conferences to discuss definitions. Prolonging these debates maintains the status quo. If a company doesn’t want to change, they can just claim confusion. We need to say, “Knock it off and get going.” This pandering to feigned ignorance is one of the biggest barriers.

You mentioned a gap in skill sets. What do you see as the best mechanisms for addressing this?

John: This might sound self-serving, but Beyond Benign, the nonprofit my wife and I founded in 2007, has been addressing this for 11 years with the Green Chemistry Commitment. This initiative works with colleges and universities to incorporate green chemistry into required curricula. Over 220 institutions worldwide have signed the commitment, freely sharing syllabi and approaches. For example, I recently visited Jordan, where universities expressed enthusiasm for green chemistry but didn’t know where to start. By joining the Green Chemistry Commitment, they don’t have to reinvent the wheel. As more universities join, their students will graduate with the skills to practice green chemistry and refuse to work without it.

Another major roadblock is the investment community. Scientists, society, and research have embraced change, but investors remain focused on short-term returns. For example, several pharmaceutical companies recently abandoned antibiotic research due to insufficient financial returns, even though antibiotics are crucial as climate change fuels microbial resistance. This highlights how the financial system, prioritizing high returns, obstructs critical advancements. The problem isn’t a lack of innovation—we’ve seen incredible technologies emerge in the last 20 years. But when investors demand immediate, massive returns, they stifle the long-term development necessary for systemic change. Look at the antibiotic issue: the pharmaceutical companies know we need them, but they choose more profitable ventures instead, like lifestyle drugs. This short-term mindset is unsustainable for humanity. Until we fundamentally change the way investment works, we’ll continue to face these roadblocks. Investors are the gating step; they decide whether innovation sees the light of day or is shelved indefinitely.

I also spend a great deal of time giving green chemistry and innovation workshops to companies and trade associations. This is important to me because once someone has the skills, they will go on to do amazing things.

At the Change Chemistry Innovators Roundtable, you mentioned that necessary technologies for sustainability haven’t been invented yet. Could you expand on that?

John: There’s a misconception that shaking fists and demanding change will make industry comply. But it’s not about desire—it’s about invention. If a company could sell a product with better performance, cost, and environmental impact, they’d do it. The issue is that the needed technologies often don’t exist. Many “pitch contests” or startups claim breakthroughs, but most aren’t scalable or viable. The science isn’t there yet.

When a sustainable technology doesn’t succeed, it’s not always due to systemic resistance but rather because the technology isn’t developed enough. We’re stuck reapplying materials from 30 years ago rather than inventing new ones. That’s why laws forcing change won’t help—companies will just resist if the science isn’t ready.

And frankly, I’ll say it—bullsh*t. If something works better, costs less, and is better for human health and the environment, it’s a clear winner. Often, when new technologies fail, it’s because they’re simply not good enough yet, not because people are rejecting sustainability. We need better science, better inventions, and better investments—not excuses.

Do you see promising developments in green chemistry that excite you?

John: Yes, though I’d rather not list specifics to avoid omitting anyone. However, I feel that we’re not achieving the breakthrough innovation needed. Many discussions today mirror those from 10-15 years ago. The investment community still prioritizes short-term returns, which stifles progress. Sustainability is incompatible with this economic model that demands massive profits for a few while others suffer. Until this changes, meaningful innovation will remain limited.

Do you think policy changes could help the green chemistry movement?

John: Policies can help, but they need to be well-timed. Laws don’t create inventions; they facilitate the adoption of new technologies. For example, regulations can encourage companies to switch to new products by banning outdated ones. However, if regulations are implemented before the technology exists, they suppress invention. Companies will invest in fighting the regulation rather than developing solutions.

Right now, regulatory processes often demand perfection from new technologies, which hinders progress. We’re allowing harmful existing technologies to persist while blocking alternatives that are better but not perfect. Incremental improvements should be encouraged to create a faster cycle of innovation. Perfection is unattainable, and waiting for it stalls progress.

What advice would you give to young chemists or entrepreneurs in this field?

John: Humility is key. There’s a tendency to aim only for massive, transformative solutions. While those are important, progress often comes from small, incremental improvements. We need to value meaningful work, even if it doesn’t generate massive profits or headlines.

The sustainability movement will only succeed if it aligns with our economic system. However, if profit remains the sole priority, critical advancements will be neglected. Focus on making the world a better place, and if financial success follows, that’s a bonus.

How important is collaboration in advancing green chemistry?

John: Collaboration is absolutely essential. When people from different worlds come together, they can inspire completely new approaches. Spontaneous relationships often lead to breakthrough ideas. For example, when networks of experienced individuals identify flaws and work together to address them, amazing progress can happen. However, I don’t believe collaboration can be engineered. Forcing people to work together often fails. Instead, creating environments where people can naturally encounter and engage with each other leads to the best outcomes.

Events like the Change Chemistry Roundtable exemplify this by bringing together a diverse mix of people and allowing them to connect organically. The magic happens when people want to work together and find their own ways to do so. Collaboration cannot be mandated—it needs to arise from mutual interest and shared goals.

What message would you like to share with the green chemistry community for the new year?

John: Thank you for your determination. The road is difficult, but few things are more worthy of our time and effort. Keep humility at the forefront, whether in celebrating successes or addressing challenges. Progress doesn’t have to be perfect or monumental—what matters is that we keep moving forward.