Keywords
Safe and sustainable by design - Safety - Sustainability - Innovation - Life cycle
- Value chain - Integration of safety and sustainability
The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework integrates safety and sustainability
throughout the innovation process in a holistic manner. It supports the (re)design
of chemicals, materials, processes, and products by combining risk assessment (RA)
and sustainability assessment (SA) with a life-cycle perspective, driving innovation
toward safer and more sustainable solutions. It is a collective effort and responsibility
across the value chain, and it represents a paradigm change in innovation and is a
key element for achieving the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability goals.
Introduction
The European Green Deal[1] aims to achieve climate neutrality, a circular economy, and a zero pollution/toxic-free
environment by 2050, supported by the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS)[2] and other initiatives. These policy initiatives are building on the so-called Brundtland
report,[3] which proposes long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development
and presents a global agenda for change.
The CSS acknowledges that chemicals are everywhere in our daily lives and play a fundamental
role in most of our activities. The CSS recognizes, at the same time, that chemicals
with hazardous properties can cause harm to human health and the environment. Thus,
the CSS promotes the design and development of safe and sustainable chemicals and
materials, including advanced, innovative chemicals and materials. Developing a new
framework to define criteria for Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) chemicals and
materials is a key enabler for this.
The European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) reviewed existing frameworks
related to SSbD to identify the safety and sustainability dimensions included for
each framework, identified parameters and indicators for assessing these dimensions,
and proposed assessment methods and tools.[4] Capitalizing on this information, the JRC developed, with support and advice from
experts, the European Union (EU) SSbD Framework for the definition of criteria and
evaluation procedures for chemicals and materials.[5] The SSbD framework represents a shift in paradigm, taking a holistic view of chemicals’
and materials’ safety and sustainability. It integrates several, until now virtually
independently practiced disciplines, addressing chemical/material risk and sustainability
together, from the early stages of innovation and with the entire life cycle perspective,
including the end-of-life. This requires the engagement of different research and
innovation communities as well as the creation of a common understanding of the scope
and implementation of the SSbD framework. To promote and improve the SSbD framework,
the European Commission (EC) published a recommendation,[6] addressed to EU member states, industry, academia, and research and technology organizations
(in short, the stakeholders). It proposes a European assessment framework for SSbD
chemicals and materials in research and innovation (R&I) activities. This proposed
framework is the JRC SSbD framework.
Here, the SSbD framework and issues identified around its operationalization are explained.
An additional aim of the paper is to be the starting point for creating a common understanding
of the SSbD framework, the paradigm shift it represents, and the interdisciplinary
efforts needed toward its operationalization.
The SSbD Framework: Concepts and Elements
The SSbD Framework: Concepts and Elements
Given the SSbD Framework’s interdisciplinary nature, it is of paramount importance
to have a common understanding of its underpinning concepts and the scope. The SSbD
framework, which is based on the concepts and holistic approach described in the introduction,
is composed of a set of elements ([Fig. 1]). In the following, we present an overview of these elements.
Fig. 1 Main elements of the SSbD framework.
An Innovation and Pre-market Approach: Scoping
By definition, SSbD is a pre-market approach, meaning that safety and sustainability
aspects are to be considered during the (re)design and development phases in R&I processes.
The SSbD Framework is not legally binding, i.e., voluntary. It is designed so that
innovations entering the EU market would be better prepared to comply with relevant
legislation. At the chemical/material level, innovations should comply with general
chemicals legislation such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction
of Chemicals, Regulation EC No 1907/2006)[7] or CLP (classification, labelling, and packaging of substances and mixtures, Regulation
EC No 1272/2008).[8] At the process level, compliance with, e.g., the Directives on Occupational Safety
and Health,[9] on waste[10] and industrial emissions[11] is necessary. At the product level, examples of legislation are Food Contact Materials,[12] Cosmetics,[13] Toys,[14] Biocides,[15] Plant Protection Products,[16] and EcoDesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).[17]
How safety and sustainability aspects are integrated in innovation to reach marketing
requirements, therefore, is of paramount importance. Hence, the contextualization
of SSbD within innovation requires a clear understanding of its scope.
Safety and Sustainability
An important and unique aspect of the SSbD Framework is that it puts together, for
the first time, safety, and sustainability dimensions in a holistic approach.
According to the SSbD framework, and when applied in the context of chemicals/materials,
sustainability is the ability of a chemical/material to deliver its function without
exceeding environmental and ecological boundaries along its entire life cycle, while
providing welfare, socioeconomic benefits, and reducing externalities.
(Eco)toxicological safety relates to the absence of unacceptable risk for humans and
the environment, by avoiding chemicals/materials that have adverse effects and reducing
or eliminating the exposure to them. Safety aspects are transversal in all sustainability
dimensions (environmental, social, and economic). In particular, (eco)toxicological
safety aspects are included in the environmental sustainability assessment. However,
these toxicity and ecotoxicity impact categories do not adequately reflect the complexity,
granularity, and broad scope of (eco)toxicological safety aspects. Thus, given their
special importance for chemicals/materials, safety aspects are in the SSbD framework
assessed on their own.
Life Cycle Thinking
The CSS imposes that safety and sustainability aspects must be considered, adopting
a life cycle perspective, i.e., the chemical/material-process-product system (value
chain) needs to be considered as a whole.
The SSbD framework thus consists of different building blocks (steps) that follow
this life cycle thinking and include (i) hazard identification/assessment of the evaluated
chemical/material, (ii) exposure and risk evaluation at the different life stages
considering the manufacturing and processing (including end of life (EoL)) of the
chemical/material, and (iii) at the product application stage, (iv) environmental
sustainability assessment in terms of a life cycle assessment (LCA) and (v) social
and economic sustainability assessment. The SSbD framework describes in more detail
the assessment methodologies that can be applied within each building block and presents
the dimensions, aspects, and indicators to be considered, and methods and tools that
can be used. It also proposes how to define criteria and evaluate the SSbD performance.
(Re)design
Even if SSbD is ideally a premarket approach, importantly, it can also be utilized
when improving an existing chemical, material, process, and/or product ((re)design).
The (re)design can happen at molecular, process, and/or product levels:
-
Molecular (re)design: it refers to the (re)design of chemicals and materials leading
to new intrinsic properties (which may affect the hazard profile).
-
Process (re)design: it refers to the design of new or improved processes along the
entire life cycle of chemicals, materials, and products. It does not change the intrinsic
properties of the chemical/material, but it can make the process safer and more sustainable.
-
Product (re)design: it refers to the design of the product in which the chemical/material
might be incorporated and used. It does not change the intrinsic properties of the
chemical/material, but it can make its use safer and more sustainable.
An Iterative Process
The SSbD framework integrates the safety and sustainability assessment throughout
innovation in a generally applicable iterative process ([Fig. 2]) in which the quality and amount of information increases in each iteration cycle.
To guide innovation, it proposes to apply well-established design principles (green
chemistry, sustainable chemistry, green engineering, etc.) that cover safety and sustainability
aspects and that can help the (re)design of chemicals and materials and the related
processes and products. Furthermore, functionality and performance are key aspects
of the (re)design.
[Fig. 2] shows how the key elements of SSbD are integrated with the innovation process and
the iterative nature of the SSbD approach.
Fig. 2 Integration of the SSbD assessment with the innovation process. The iterative nature
of this approach as the innovation proceeds is indicated by a sequence of circles
that include (re)design and assessment (TRL = technology readiness level).
SSbD Framework: The Safety and Sustainability Assessment
SSbD Framework: The Safety and Sustainability Assessment
The points below should be considered during the safety and sustainability assessment.
In the SSbD framework, they are presented via a stepwise approach, but in reality,
they should all be considered through an integrative and iterative process without
a predetermined starting point.
Safety Assessment
Hazard Assessment of the Chemical/Material
For the safety/risk assessment, there is a need to understand the hazards of the assessed
chemical/material. The SSbD approach follows the classification criteria established
in CLP[8] for human health, environmental, and physical hazard classification, and groups
them into the three main groups defined in the CSS[2] and the ESPR[17]: Most Harmful Substances, Substances of Concern, and Other Substances that are harmful
or of concern.
The SSbD Framework promotes the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), which can
provide data for an initial understanding of possible safety issues in a more ethical
and economic way and thus guide the innovation processes. NAMs include in vitro and
in silico methods, and as NAMs reflect new approaches for data generation, the innovator
can use any NAM that generates data adequate for the purpose. This is especially important
at the early innovation stages in which very little data and information are available;
hence, a tiered data generation approach, based on NAMs, is recommended for hazard
identification in the design phase. If the innovation reaches the market, regulatory
acceptable data will be needed.
Human Health and Safety Aspects in the Chemical/Material Production and Processing
Phase
This part assesses the occupational health and safety during the production and processing
of the chemical or material, including the EoL of the product in which the chemical/material
is integrated.
The assessment considers the hazard and fate of the chemical/material and the potential
exposure to it during the production and/or processing. The threshold values (concentration
of chemical/material), below which no, or minimal, effect is observed for workers,
respectively the derived no effect level (DNEL) or derived minimal effect level (DMEL),
are based on the identified hazard. These threshold values are compared to the potential
for exposure during the production and processing, which is estimated, taking into
consideration the physical-chemical properties of the chemical/material and the production/processing
exposure scenarios. The latter is the compilation of the contributing scenarios that
describe each contributing activity within the identified use (formulating, compounding,
etc.). The contributing scenario is a set of conditions, including operational conditions
and risk management measures, that describe how the chemical/material is manufactured
or used during its lifecycle.
Similarly to hazard assessment, a tiered approach is considered for the risk assessment,
depending on the data and information available for the assessment. The tiered approach
starts with qualitative/simplified models, e.g., control banding models,[18] and as (more) data become available, semi-quantitative, higher-tier tools can be
used. The fully quantitative assessment will be possible when monitoring data becomes
available.
Human Health and Environmental Aspects in the Final Application Phase
Also, the risks of the final product, which integrates the material or chemical, are
assessed. This includes the potential of the chemical/material to be released during
the application or service life of the product. The safety assessment of the final
applications phase considers the hazard and fate properties of the chemical/material
and the exposure to this chemical/material during its use.
The application scenarios take into consideration the use conditions (e.g., frequency
and duration of exposure, concentration in the product, outdoor/indoor use) together
with the potential for release. Together with the Risk Mitigation Measures (e.g.,
instructions for use), these will determine the likelihood of exposure to the chemical/material
as well as the potential routes of exposure.
Similarly to hazard assessment, a tiered approach can be considered depending on the
data/information availability.
Sustainability Assessment
Environmental Sustainability Assessment
In this part, an LCA considers environmental sustainability impacts along the entire
chemical/material life cycle. LCA revolves around a functional unit, for which several
definitions are available. ISO 14040:2006 defines it as “functional unit: quantified
performance of a product system for use as a reference unit”.
An LCA can be divided into four different phases:
-
Goal and scope definition, defining the aims of the study, including the functional
unit.
-
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis, involving the data collection and calculation
procedures for the quantification of inputs and outputs of the studied system.
-
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) where LCI results are associated with environmental
impact categories and indicators through LCIA methods, which first classify emissions
into impact categories and secondly convert them to common units to allow comparison.
-
Life Cycle Interpretation phase, where results from LCI and LCIA are interpreted according
to the stated goal and scope.
For the LCA, the SSbD Framework recommends using the environmental footprint impact
assessment method, PEF (product environmental footprint), which is proposed by the
European Commission as a common way of measuring environmental performance. It relies
on 16 different impact categories.[19]
Social and Economic Sustainability Assessment
This assessment addresses socioeconomic impacts. Social assessment describes the relevant
stakeholders and related social aspects that could be used. The economic assessment
focuses on non-financial aspects, e.g., the identification and monetization of externalities
arising during the life cycle of a chemical or a material. Given the limited level
of implementation and methodological maturity, it is in an exploratory phase.
Initial Applications of the SSbD Framework
Initial Applications of the SSbD Framework
The SSbD framework has been intensely tested by the JRC with Stakeholders. The experience
and feedback thus acquired contribute to the provision of methodological guidance
for its operationalization and for future update(s) of the SSbD framework.
The SSbD framework was tested in case studies[20] to:
-
Evaluate the practical feasibility and applicability of the SSbD Framework.
-
Identify the challenges and limitations in the application of the SSbD Framework for
consideration in future developments.
-
Identify needs or gaps with regard to data/information, methods/tools, expertise/skills.
-
Identify overlaps between the steps.
Several challenges to be addressed and opportunities for improvement were identified,[21] also from additional stakeholder feedback referring to other cases.
Two Boot Camps were held (in 2023 and 2024) to provide hands-on training on SSbD.
The first one, organized by the JRC, aimed to bring together experts in different
fields and provide the opportunity to discuss real case studies, exchange knowledge,
and critically reflect on the different aspects of the SSbD concept and propose solutions
to identified challenges. The second Boot Camp, focusing on tools, was organized by
the PARC (Partnership for the Assessment of Risk from Chemicals). The Boot Camps also
contributed to increasing the understanding of the four bullet points listed above
for the case studies.
The SSbD Framework was also tested in the context of the EC Recommendation[6] with the aim of improving the relevance, reliability, and operability of the SSbD
Framework in R&I activities. The recommendation is addressed to EU member states,
industry, academia, and research and technology organizations and invites them to
test the SSbD Framework and provide feedback. It considers a two-year testing period
since its publication, with 2 testing phases in 2023 and 2024.
The Methodological Guidance: New Key Elements of the SSbD Framework
The Methodological Guidance: New Key Elements of the SSbD Framework
The Scoping Analysis
A Methodological Guidance[22] complements the SSbD framework by introducing the scoping analysis as a key element
that supports the contextualization of the assessment phase of the SSbD framework
in R&I activities. The scoping analysis builds on the system definition, the (re)design
definition, the definition of the system boundaries, and engagement with the actors
along the life cycle.
An understanding of the system(s) to which the SSbD framework is applied is fundamental.
The SSbD framework is chemical/material specific, but it is implemented with a life
cycle perspective. The definition of the chemical/material-process-product system
(SSbD system) is thus of fundamental importance for its implementation, to allow an
understanding of the system boundaries, framing the focus for innovation and thereby
the nature of the (re)design ([Fig. 3]). This will also help to focus the assessment, identify the scope as well as the
safety and sustainability aspects and indicators affected by the (re)design, and the
roles and responsibilities in the value chain. This enables a case-by-case tailoring
of the SSbD Framework to the different scenarios and specific needs. [Fig. 3] illustrates possible different scenarios, depending on the nature of the (re)design.
The initial SSbD system X might change as the innovation develops, for example, when
a chemical/material of the initial SSbD system X is exchanged as a result of chemical/material,
process, or product (re)design considerations. The exchange leads to a different and
additional SSbD system Y that also needs to be considered.
Additionally, different aspects and indicators, considerations, and decisions during
the R&I processes can have an impact on other aspects of the system and the overall
SSbD approach, making it crucial to identify and monitor them throughout the entire
R&I process.
Fig. 3 Possible different scenarios, depending on the nature of the (re)design (EoL = End
of life).
Integrating the SSbD Framework in Innovation
The Methodological Guidance[22] elaborates the safety and sustainability assessment outlined in the SSbD Framework,
emphasizing that these are applied in an iterative manner throughout the entire R&I
process. The different sections describe how to address uncertainties and collect
and generate data and information in a tiered approach as the innovation progresses.
Towards Operationalization of SSbD
Towards Operationalization of SSbD
Creating a Common Understanding
The SSbD framework introduces a holistic approach to safety and sustainability considerations
in R&I activities. It is essential to create a common understanding of terms and fundamental
concepts underpinning the SSbD framework to make it implementable. Some terms are
used both in the safety and sustainability fields, albeit with different meanings
(e.g., “intermediate”). Other terms have been incorporated from one discipline to
the other in an integration attempt (e.g., indicators). Moreover, the scope and dimensions
considered for risk assessment and sustainability assessment are different. Risk assessment
(RA) is often company-specific/local, whereas sustainability is often addressed at
the global level.
Risk Assessment of Chemicals/Materials and Life Cycle Assessment of Products
In addition to the uniqueness of the SSbD concept outlined above under Safety and
Sustainability, it should be noted that RA assesses the safety for the specific worker/consumer
depending on the work activities/product use leading to exposure of the worker/consumer
to the assessed chemical/material. In contrast, under LCA the exposure to the different
chemicals in the life cycle of the assessed chemical/material (including e.g., exposure
to gasoline of the truck driver transporting the chemical/material) is allocated to
the same/generic target population (worker), considering one single/worst case scenario
and regardless of whether actual exposure takes place or not.
Efforts to integrate RA and LCA continue despite such obvious differences. It might
be more beneficial to focus on building an understanding and recognizing the differences
between the two disciplines, followed by the identification of the best possible way(s)
to combine them. An additional challenge that needs to be overcome is that the scopes
and objectives of RA and LCA are different. While RA is an absolute approach and evaluates
one chemical/material with possibly thousands of applications in products, LCA is
a comparative approach and analyses one product with potentially thousands of chemical/materials
in its life cycle. The SSbD Framework brings about the opportunity to examine the
interface between these two disciplines and ways that they can complement each other.
Data Availability and Quality
Data availability, including FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable)
data,[23] is crucial for applying the SSbD Framework. Any Data generation requires special
attention as the data quality is crucial to ensure informed decisions. Attributes
that define data quality and reliability include accuracy, consistency, completeness,
and relevance. For SSbD also timeliness, i.e., the needed data are available at the
relevant point in time, is important.
The SSbD Framework is not legally binding and can thus promote the use of the latest
scientific knowledge, including alternative approaches like NAMs for data generation,
thus providing information in a timely manner.
At the start of the innovation process for a new chemical/material, very little data
will be available, so when formulating the problem, the availability of any data will
have more weight than its uncertainty. As the innovation progresses, more data will
become available, and the uncertainty and the weight of the associated evidence will
need to be iteratively re-evaluated. In the case of performing a comparative SSbD
assessment, e.g., with the aim of selecting the ‘best’ chemical from an array of possibilities,
data must be comparable to make informed choices.
The greatest opportunity that the SSbD Framework presents concerns new scientific
knowledge and developments for the sustainability dimension, where the data gaps are
by far bigger than for the safety dimension. The method proposed by the SSbD Framework
is the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). Alternative methods to the PEF, as well
as in silico tools to predict the impact categories, are conceivable but scarce.
Entire Life Cycle Effort and Responsibility
SSbD requires multidisciplinary multistakeholder activity. Challenges like the generation
and availability of data for the entire life cycle of a chemical/material can only
be overcome by involving the entire value chain of the chemical/material. This needs
clarity regarding roles and the definition of responsibilities.
To achieve this, early engagement with the value chain in the innovation and implementation
of the SSbD is essential. Such engagement ensures that all relevant aspects and potential
concerns of the entire life cycle of the chemicals and materials, and the Stakeholders
involved, are considered in the implementation of the SSbD. Early engagement will
allow all stakeholders to contribute to the scoping analysis, where the goals of the
innovation, aspects to be considered, and principles to follow are framed together
with the definition of roles and responsibilities. This will improve the support and
contribution of all actors, creating a trusted environment where all Stakeholders
feel owners and beneficiaries of the implementation of the SSbD.
Traceability and Communication
In addition, the data and information exchange could be improved using standardized
and reliable communication tools that ensure traceability of safety and sustainability
along the entire chemical/material life cycle, including EoL.
Under REACH, ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) created the collaborative Exchange Network
on Exposure Scenarios for RA. It aims to identify and promote good practices for preparing
and implementing exposure scenarios, and to develop an effective communication exchange
between supply chain actors. The extended Safety Data Sheets (Annex II of REACH) with
use scenarios provide information on how to control the exposure of workers, consumers,
and the environment to substances. The use map concept aims to improve the quality
of the information on use and conditions of use communicated up the supply chain and
the efficiency of this communication process. Capitalizing on such well-established
approaches for RA and extending them to environmental sustainability is worth exploring.
Furthermore, it is relevant to explore how this information could be digitalized for
communication purposes while maintaining confidentiality and how this information
could be aligned with relevant digital requirements like the digital product passport.
This unique identifier of the product’s life cycle is designed to close the gap between
public demands for transparency and the current lack of reliable product data.
Creating an SSbD Ecosystem: Transdisciplinary Training
The transition to SSbD will require the integration of several, until now, independent
disciplines. The combination of chemical risk, environmental, social, and economic
sustainability, and research and innovation disciplines and communities is necessary
to implement the SSbD Framework and develop holistic methodologies and tools. Furthermore,
the future SSbD implementation will rely on gathering, generating, and integrating
large volumes of data, information, knowledge, and tools from a broad spectrum of
disciplines. It is thus timely to raise awareness and create an SSbD ecosystem engaging
widely with research and innovation communities across disciplines to achieve a successful
implementation of the SSbD concept. EU Horizon Europe projects contribute to this,
e.g., the international ecosystem for accelerating the transition to Safe-and-Sustainable-by-design
chemicals/materials, products, and processes (IRISS), which aims to connect, synergize
and transform the SSbD community in Europe, and globally, towards life cycle thinking.
Another example is PARC, which supports European and national chemical RA and management
authorities. It supports the operationalization of the SSbD Framework, e.g., by gathering
Stakeholder feedback on applicability, and by developing a toolbox to support SSbD
implementation. The future PARCopedia will include a new, dedicated SSbD knowledge
and information platform. New educational material will ensure that innovators and
younger generations will embed SSbD in their mindset and way of working.
Conclusions and Outlook
As recognized in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, the SSbD Framework is
one key enabler of the Green Transition ambition of the European Union. The SSbD Framework
is an R&I approach that will enable the development of safe and sustainable chemical/materials,
processes, and products in a wide range of sectors. Cross-disciplinary expertise and
skills are necessary for its successful operationalization and application.
In summary, the SSbD Framework:
-
introduces a holistic approach that integrates safety and sustainability considerations
in R&I activities
-
is a voluntary approach to be implemented iteratively in the R&I processes, which
makes it the perfect platform to use, test, and promote the latest scientific knowledge
when (re)designing for SSbD
-
needs a collaborative effort between the involved disciplines and Stakeholders for
its operationalization
-
provides a basis for evaluating the safety and sustainability at the (re)design stage
of a chemical/material, a process, and/or a product
-
presents a great opportunity for the sustainability dimension, which has important
data gaps, to generate new scientific knowledge and development, e.g., exploring the
availability of other methods than PEF for the SSbD Framework
-
brings about the opportunity to analyze the interface between sustainability and safety
dimensions for chemicals and materials assessment and identify ways that allow these
dimensions to complement each other.
Furthermore,
-
A common understanding of underpinning terms and fundamental concepts, and the system,
including its boundaries, to which the SSbD Framework is applied, is fundamental.
-
The data availability and quality are important for the SSbD Framework, which, being
non-regulatory, can promote the use of the latest scientific knowledge, including
alternative approaches like NAMs.
-
The approach described by the SSbD Framework can be applied to any chemical or material.
There is no fundamental difference in the approach when applied to more traditional
chemicals or advanced (innovative) materials; the difference is rather in the data
and the system definition. Developing methodologies for assessing SSbD dimensions
for chemicals has been ongoing for decades, whereas the same assessment methodologies
for materials and processes are less advanced, and even more effort may be required
for materials and processes.
-
The use of standardized and reliable communication tools should be explored to improve/overcome
data and information gaps and ensure safety and sustainability traceability along
the entire chemical/material life cycle.
-
It is timely to raise awareness and create an SSbD ecosystem engaging widely with
R&I communities across disciplines to achieve a successful implementation of the SSbD
concept.
Capitalizing on the testing of the SSbD Framework, in 2025, the JRC will start revising
the SSbD Framework and defining criteria for ‘safe and sustainable by design’ chemicals
and materials.
The new Competitiveness Compass for the EU[24] highlights the need to revive a virtuous innovation cycle. Advanced, innovative
materials will play a crucial role here. Demand for such materials will increase dramatically
in the coming years. At the same time, the EU firmly intends to stay the course of
the Green Deal objectives.[25] The SSbD Framework proposes a paradigm change in innovation with a view to the whole
life cycle and with a total absence of additional regulatory burden. Development of
advanced materials and other innovative chemicals according to the SSbD Framework,
hence, contributes to achieving the goals of two of the most important policy initiatives
in the EU. The SSbD Framework unites the Green Deal and the Competitiveness Compass.
Bibliographical Record
Irantzu Garmendia Aguirre, Kirsten Rasmussen, Hubert Rauscher. Safe and Sustainable
by Design: Driving Innovation Toward Safer and More Sustainable Chemicals, Materials,
Processes and Products. Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2025; 02: a26361704.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2636-1704
