Green groups say EU-backed chemical alliance puts polluters first

The European Union's Critical Chemicals Alliance (CCA) is facing intense criticism from environmental watchdogs who claim the initiative has been co-opted by major industrial players to secure subsidies and avoid regulation. A report from the Corporate Europe Observatory and the European Environmental Bureau suggests that the alliance's governance is dominated by the European Chemical Industry Council, potentially compromising the EU's green transition goals. This development highlights a significant conflict within the chemical sector as companies seek public support to maintain competitiveness against global rivals while facing pressure to decarbonize and phase out hazardous substances.

The Critical Chemicals Alliance (CCA), launched in January 2026 with the endorsement of the European Commission, was designed to safeguard Europe’s industrial resilience by identifying chemical substances and production sites deemed critical to the economy. This designation is intended to facilitate billions in public funding and state aid for industry leaders like BASF, TotalEnergies, and Avantium. However, a joint report by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) asserts that the alliance has identified hazardous materials—including the carcinogen benzene, chlorine, and hydrofluoric acid—as priority molecules for public investment. The list also includes petrochemical feedstocks such as ethylene and propylene, which critics argue prioritizes traditional industrial capacity over environmental safety.

The watchdog report alleges structural corporate capture of the CCA, claiming that the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) dominates the initiative's governance and technical work. CEFIC representatives reportedly serve as vice-chair of the group defining critical molecules and chair of the trade working group, while the Commission’s industry department, DG GROW, is accused of allowing corporate interests to shape the agenda. Tatiana Santos of the EEB noted that substantial preparatory work appeared to involve only DG GROW and CEFIC, effectively sidelining environmental organizations from decision-making. This internal structure has reportedly led to a focus on maintaining existing production and deregulation rather than reducing hazardous substances or fossil fuel dependence.

Industry leaders have frequently cited high energy costs and competition from China as reasons for an existential crisis, a narrative reinforced by the Antwerp Declaration in February. However, the CEO-EEB report disputes these claims, highlighting that major chemical companies have generated hundreds of billions in profits over the last decade, much of which was paid out to shareholders instead of being used to modernize facilities. The report further points out that the sector already benefits from generous free carbon allowances under the EU’s Emissions Trading System. Consequently, the watchdogs are calling for stricter conditions on public funding and a shift in policy toward socially essential chemicals that serve vital public functions rather than those that are merely economically significant.