Brussels, 1 October – The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) today announced its withdrawal from the Critical Chemicals Alliance (CCA), warning that the initiative is set to preserve current chemical production, including hazardous, carbon-intensive and fossil-dependent chemicals, rather than driving the transformation Europe needs.

The CCA, launched by the European Commission to identify chemicals and production capacities considered critical to Europe’s economy and address concerns around supply and competitiveness [1], is approaching the adoption of its recommendations at its second General Assembly, taking place on 8 October in France.

After eight months of participation, the EEB has concluded, in a detailed briefing, that fundamental shortcomings in governance and methodology pave the way for weakening key EU health, environmental and climate safeguards.

Tatiana Santos, Head of Chemicals Policy at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said: “We joined the Alliance to defend that criticality should be about securing what society genuinely needs, not protecting whatever Europe happens to produce today. But the process has moved in the opposite direction. Criticality risks becoming a shield for incumbent production, and a back door to weakening the very policies designed to drive the transition. We can no longer support a process that has systematically sidelined public-interest perspectives.”

From “critical” chemicals to regulatory rollback

From the disclosed list of 49 chemicals identified as critical by the CCA, over half are petrochemicals or organic intermediates. More than three-quarters are classified as hazardous under EU chemicals legislation. The vast majority (nearly 90%) are industrial chemicals bound to stringent EU environmental, health and climate rules, including EU ETS. Yet under the CCA’s own methodology, the more energy-intensive, carbon-intensive or exposed to regulation a production process is, the more vulnerable, and therefore the more “critical”, it can become.

As a result, the list includes a string of hazardous petrochemicals such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene, toluene, xylene, phenol and styrene. The list also includes other highly problematic chemicals and materials that are subject of ongoing EU efforts to reduce their risks and uses, such as PVC plastic, included in the EU Restrictions Roadmap, and a PFAS, PTFE, the fluoropolymer marketed as Teflon™, used to produce frying pans that is in the scope of the proposed EU-wide PFAS restriction.

For all identified critical chemicals and their sites producing them, the CCA recommends to ease permitting requirements for critical sites, further reduce their exposure to EU ETS costs beyond 2038, and introduce greater ‘flexibility’ in the application of environmental and chemicals rules, including the Industrial Emissions Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Other measures include trade protection and massive public funding [2].

An industry-dominated process

Despite repeated concerns raised by the EEB and other civil society organisations to the European Commission’s industry department, DG GROW, about industry influence and the resulting governance and public-interest safeguards, this structural imbalance was not addressed. From the outset, DG GROW agreed with the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) that civil society would have no seat on the CCA Steering Board. The final report was drafted by a restricted group of 22 members, with no environmental or public health organisations included in the drafting group, while incumbent industry has played a central role in shaping the Alliance’s methodology and recommendations.

Tatiana Santos, Head of Chemicals Policy at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said: “The outcome is hardly surprising when vested interests are allowed to shape industrial policy and public spending. This is not addressing the sector’s key challenges; it is perpetuating them. The EU should not be using public money to lock in production that its own policies are seeking to phase out”

A Different Vision for Criticality

The EEB stresses in its briefing that Europe needs a resilient, competitive and future-proof chemicals sector, but argues that resilience cannot mean preserving every existing production capacity, nor can competitiveness mean making unsustainable production cheaper.

As the briefing highlights, a credible criticality framework should focus on securing essential societal needs, reducing genuine supply vulnerabilities, accelerating safer alternatives, and directing public investment towards a transformed and sustainable European chemicals industry.

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS

[1]

The Critical Chemicals Alliance was created by the European Commission to identify critical chemical molecules and production capacities, support investment and address supply and competitiveness challenges in the European chemicals sector. But the EEB warns that the process risks answering the wrong question: instead of asking what Europe needs for essential societal functions – and how to secure those needs safely and sustainably – it starts from existing industrial dependencies and risks turning them into a case for continued support.

Timeline

• December 2024 France presented a proposal influenced by France Chimie, the French chemical industry association, and its EU election priorities.
• July 2025 The proposal was announced as part of the European Commission’s Chemicals Industry Action Plan.
• January 2026 The Critical Chemicals Alliance (CCA) was launched, with its first General Assembly.
• February–June 2026 Working groups met intensively to develop the proposals.
• 8 October 2026 The second General Assembly will take place.

[2]

Many are already subject to significant EU health and environmental regulation — and some are precisely the substances for which Europe is seeking to reduce risks or dependency.

PFAS and PVC illustrate the contradiction particularly clearly. While EU authorities are examining regulatory measures on PFAS and PVC and its additives, the CCA is simultaneously classifying them as critical.

The NGOs warn that the Alliance’s recommendations could also create pressure to:

• weaken or delay REACH restrictions, including action on PFAS and PVC;
• maintain free ETS allowances and reduce the carbon-cost pressure on energy- and carbon-intensive chemical production;
• give “critical” chemical sites fast-track permitting and overriding-public-interest status, potentially weakening environmental scrutiny;
• reduce requirements under the Industrial Emissions Directive and other pollution rules;
• weaken core principles and objectives of the Water Framework Directive which would reduce obligations for companies to take pollution-prevention measures;
• maintain dependence on fossil-based petrochemical production rather than accelerating substitution, circularity and safer alternatives.

CONTACTS

• Tatiana Santos, European Environmental Bureau Head of Chemicals Policy santos@eeb.org; +32 488918597
• Beatriz Ortiz Martínez, European Environmental Senior Communications Officer for Chemicals ortiz-martinez@eeb.org; +34 6526 95003

———–

Upcoming press briefing to hear more about the CCA’s internal functioning, the concerns raised by the EEB, and what could be at stake as the Alliance prepares to adopt its recommendations.

Monday 5 October | 10:30–11:15 CET | Register via this link.