Safe and Sustainable by Design: Why safe and sustainable innovations pay off for companies
St. Gallen, 09.04.2026 — Developing new materials and products that are harmless to both humans and the environment requires holistic approaches such as Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD). But how much effort does it take for companies to meet the associated requirements? A new Empa analysis now shows that many of these are already laid down in key EU legislation. Consistently implemented, SSbD thus helps companies to ensure regulatory compliance for innovations at an early stage, thereby avoiding costly missteps.
New chemicals, materials, products and technologies should be developed from the outset in such a way that they are safe for both humans and the environment – throughout their entire life cycle. This is the goal pursued by the European Union (EU) through a holistic innovation approach called Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD).
But what does this mean for companies? What additional effort will they have to put in? An international study led by Empa as part of the EU project IRISS shows for the first time that the SSbD approach aligns with around two-thirds of the relevant European environmental legislation. “Many companies are concerned that this holistic approach would create additional regulatory burdens for them,” says study author Akshat Sudheshwar from Empa. “Our analysis clearly shows that SSbD is a definite advantage for companies because this approach addresses many compliance requirements already during the early stages of the innovation process.”
Analysis of the most important EU legislation
In a first step, the research team identified the 15 key EU legislation that are particularly relevant to European industry – across all sectors and along the entire value chain, such as the Chemicals Regulations and the Battery Regulation. The researchers then systematically analyzed each piece of legislation and examined the extent to which it complies with the SSbD assessment framework. In particular, they looked at whether regulations contain binding requirements such as safety assessments, whether they specify measurable criteria such as recycling rates or limit values, and whether they prescribe certain methods, for example for life cycle analyses or ecotoxicity tests.
The results were presented in a so-called heat map and paint a clear picture: There was a 64 percent match between SSbD and current EU legislation. “This means that in many cases, SSbD requires exactly the kind of data and assessments that companies will need anyway later on for regulatory compliance,” explains Sudheshwar. The critical raw materials act, regulations for batteries and packaging, as well as the Waste Framework Directive, showed a particularly high degree of alignment.
PFAS shows why early action is crucial
The example of PFAS clearly illustrates why such an approach is necessary. The risks of these so-called forever chemicals were widely known when they were introduced but ignored for decades – with serious consequences for the environment, human health, and the economy. “Today, society is paying the price for the decisions made back then, because PFAS do not degrade in the environment, accumulate in organisms, and cause enormous costs,” says Sudheshwar. “With a holistic SSbD approach, these risks could have been addressed at an early stage, rather than having to carry out expensive remediation decades later. So, it's better to test early and correct simply, rather than react late and expensively.” This is precisely what the EU aptly describes with the principle of “fail early and fail cheap.”
However, the study also highlights current limitations of SSbD. This is particularly evident in the biodiversity impact assessments, which are increasingly relevant for corporate reporting and compliance. According to the Empa researcher, there is still a lack of reliable data, toxicological information, and robust methods. But the SSbD assessment framework explicitly acknowledges this gap and can be adapted as soon as suitable scientific methods and data become available.
SSbD as an opportunity for future-proof innovation
Despite these limitations, SSbD offers a strategic advantage for companies. Those who use the framework can simultaneously strengthen innovation, competitiveness, and environmental protection in the long term. “Of course, SSbD increases the effort in the early development phase – but it is precisely this additional effort that pays off in the long term. Investing a little more now will help avoid high costs later on due to bans, remediation, or market adjustments,” says Sudheshwar. It is crucial for companies to be able to consider safety and sustainability together at an early stage and to build up the necessary expertise in both areas.
The study also sees a need for action at the political level. According to Sudheshwar, incentives are needed to enable SSbD to be applied on a broad scale: “Short-term support, for example through regulatory relief, patent extensions, or economic benefits, could make it easier for companies to get started.” At the same time, SSbD must be incorporated more frequently into EU legislation – not necessarily as a mandatory standard in the medium term, but rather as a guideline for industry.
Literature
A Sudheshwar, C Apel, K Kümmerer, L G Soeteman‑Hernández, J K Scheper, A Falk, A Batel, J Markard, C Som, Z Wang, B Nowack: Safe and Sustainable‑by‑Design under the European Green Deal—regulatory readiness or pressure for companies?; Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (2025); doi: 10.1093/inteam/vjaf188
Further information
Akshat Sudheshwar
Empa, Technology and Society
Phone +41 58 765 79 43
akshat.sudheshwar@empa.ch