Change Chemistry Director of Partnerships & Bus. Dev. Rui Resendes on Molecular Accounting
We urgently need to move beyond carbon accounting – this is the message I delivered and reinforced at this year’s ChemCon Americas Conference where Change Chemistry had a strong presence in both shaping the agenda and in presentations. To be clear, I’m not questioning the importance of de-fossilization and green energy in transitioning to sustainable manufacturing; both are critical. What I am saying is that carbon accounting is not enough.
To transition towards a sustainable manufacturing future, we need to transition to sustainable chemistry. So, we need to focus holistically on the molecules that underpin manufacturing. And it’s not just about the molecules embodied within a particular consumer good – it’s about all the molecules that enter and exit the various nodes of the consumer good’s manufacturing value chain and what then becomes of those molecules, including once a product reaches its “end of life”. This level of “molecular accounting” paints a more holistic chemical picture. Such a picture – that identifies all chemical inputs and byproducts leading up to a final product – not only helps identify “hot spots” and avoid potential regrettable substitutes, but it can also better highlight sustainable chemistry innovation needs and guide the prioritization of chemicals for replacement with safer and more sustainable alternatives.
Anyone who has worked on chemical transparency knows that it is no easy task to get a complete picture of chemical ingredients in a specific product, let alone an entire value chain. This is why the collaboration and open communication we foster at Change Chemistry is key. Notwithstanding the difficulty of such an undertaking, chemical accounting to this level of granularity is going to take a lot of time and cost a lot of money. This begs the question – “Can I afford to do this?”. The better question is – “Can I afford not to?”.
Avoiding or delaying the transition to safer and more sustainable chemistry can be expensive – in terms of direct costs of impacts and the reputational, regulatory, and litigation risks of not understanding this broader set of chemical inputs. We are all familiar with the still unfolding PFAS story; a story that is seeing “economic externalities” become “economic internalities” to the tune of $11.5B in settlements and counting. Just recently, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, reveals how microplastics are hindering photosynthesis, including in crucial food crops, by up to 12%. Not only does this jeopardize global food production, but it also further exacerbates climate change (i.e., hindered photosynthesis equates to hindered carbon fixation). Addressing these two challenges and avoiding similar ones in the future will require more extensive molecular accounting that tracks the range of chemical inputs, outputs and emissions across entire value chains over the entirety of product life cycles.
Value chain chemical transparency has challenged our members for over two decades, and while our efforts have contributed to progress on policies, tools and collaborations to increase chemical ingredient information, the level of molecular accounting proposed here reminds us that we are just at the beginning. This may seem overwhelming and perhaps even a bit daunting, but we have to start somewhere – so let’s start!
Throughout the year, our team will be discussing this challenge while continuing to explore how our community can accelerate progress. Look for us at Circularity 2025, Rethink Materials, World BioMarkets and Renewable Materials ’25, and join us at our 2025 Innovator’s Roundtable to talk about how you can become involved with this effort and our mission.
Carbon accounting is important. But we need to move beyond it. Increasing global demands to transition to sustainable manufacturing demands that we also transition to sustainable chemistry. Complementing carbon accounting with a molecular accounting framework will allow us to better identify and prioritize chemistries whose replacement with safer and more sustainable alternatives will advance safety, circularity and environmental justice. This will be good for our health, good for our planet and good for business.