Executive Summary

A new Empa study within the EU project IRISS shows that the holistic innovation approach "Safe and Sustainable by Design" (SSbD) already aligns with central European environmental regulations by 64 percent. The analysis examined 15 relevant EU regulations across industries and identified particularly high alignment in battery, raw material, and packaging regulations. The research report was published on April 9, 2026 in St. Gallen and demonstrates that SSbD helps companies meet regulatory requirements early.

People

Topics

  • Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD)
  • European Regulation
  • Product Innovation and Sustainability
  • Chemical Management

Clarus Lead

For European companies, SSbD creates no additional regulatory risk – quite the opposite. The study refutes widespread concerns that the holistic approach leads to increased burden. Instead, it shows: companies that apply SSbD principles early in development avoid costly failed developments, bans, and remediation later. This becomes particularly relevant as the EU Commission increasingly integrates SSbD into new regulations, making it a de facto standard for safe innovation.

Detailed Summary

The international research team led by Empa first systematized the 15 EU regulations that are central to European industry along the entire value chain – including the Chemicals Regulation and the Battery Regulation. The researchers then examined the extent to which these regulations already contain SSbD requirements such as safety assessments, measurable criteria (recycling rates, limit values), and prescribed methods (life cycle analyses, ecotoxicity tests). The results were visualized in a heat map.

The analysis revealed high congruence: 64 percent of the examined regulations align with SSbD requirements. This means that companies can gather data and assessments needed for regulatory compliance through SSbD processes already in the development phase. Alignment is particularly strong for battery, critical raw material, packaging regulations, and the waste framework directive.

The PFAS case study illustrates the value of this approach: the risks of "forever chemicals" were known when they entered the market but were ignored for decades. Today, society bears the costs of environmental contamination and health consequences. An SSbD approach would have made these risks addressable early – following the EU principle of "fail early and fail cheap." However, the study also acknowledges limitations: reliable data, toxicological information, and robust methods are lacking in assessing biodiversity impacts. However, the SSbD framework is explicitly adaptive and can adjust to new scientific standards.

Key Messages

  • 64 Percent Regulatory Alignment: SSbD requirements are already anchored in two-thirds of relevant EU regulations, not in addition to them.
  • Early Cost Savings: Investments in safe and sustainable development in early phases avoid costly bans, remediation, and market adjustments later.
  • Strategic Competitive Advantage: Companies that use the SSbD framework strengthen innovation, competitiveness, and environmental protection simultaneously in the long term.

Critical Questions

  1. Data Quality and Validity: The study analyzes 15 EU regulations – how representative is this selection for the entire European regulatory landscape, particularly for sectors outside the examined industries?

  2. Conflicts of Interest: Empa is a public research institution with close ties to industry and politics – how could an institutional interest in promoting SSbD have influenced the interpretation of results?

  3. Causality and Alternative Hypotheses: Does SSbD actually lead to cost savings, or do already innovation-strong companies benefit from both (SSbD and compliance)? Could the effect also be explained by other factors such as corporate culture?

  4. Implementation Risks: The study mentions missing methods for biodiversity assessment – how many other "blind spots" in the SSbD framework could only become apparent in practical application, and who bears the financial risk then?

  5. Political Incentives: The article calls for "regulatory relief" and "patent extensions" for SSbD users – who finances these incentives, and could they lead to competitive distortions?

Source Directory

Primary Source: Safe and Sustainable by Design: Why Safe and Sustainable Innovations Pay Off for Companies – news.admin.ch, 09.04.2026

Scientific Publication: Sudheshwar, A. et al. (2025). Safe and Sustainable-by-Design under the European Green Deal—regulatory readiness or pressure for companies? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf188

Contact: Akshat Sudheshwar, Empa Technology and Society, [email protected]

Verification Status: ✓ 09.04.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 09.04.2026