The production and use of chemicals and materials have both advantages and drawbacks for human and ecosystem health. This has led to a demand for carefully guided, safe, and sustainable innovation in the production of chemicals and materials, taking into consideration their entire life cycle. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has released the Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework, which aims to support this objective. The SSbD framework consists of two components that are intended to be iteratively implemented throughout the innovation process: (1) the application of design principles phase, and (2) the safety and sustainability assessment phase. However, the operationalization of the framework is currently challenging. This article maps the challenges and proposes ways to address them effectively. The mapping, which is based on a literature review and stakeholder opinions, resulted in 35 challenges. The highest priority challenge is “integration of SSbD framework into the innovation process.” To begin addressing this issue, this article recommends conducting a scoping analysis to define the SSbD study. This can be achieved through implementing a tiered approach that aligns with the objectives of the innovation and the growing expertise that comes with it. The second priority challenge is “data availability, quality and uncertainty.” This can be supported by using Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (FAIR) principles and by optimizing in silico methods at early stages of the innovation process. An infrastructure for data and communication is necessary to effectively engage with the entire value chain. The third priority challenge is “integration of safety and sustainability aspects,” which requires a clear definition of how to integrate those aspects in the SSbD context, and harmonization, as far as possible, of input data, assumptions, and scenario construction. This review is the first step in accelerating the operationalization of the novel SSbD concept and framework into industrial practice.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) computes potential environmental impacts of a product or process. However, LCAs in the industrial sector are generally delivered through static yearly analyses which cannot capture any temporal dynamics of inventory data. Moreover, LCA must deal with differences across background models, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods and specific rules of environmental labels, together with their developments over time and the difficulty of the non-expert organization staff to effectively interpret LCA results. A case study which discusses how to manage these barriers and their relevance is currently lacking. Here, we fill this gap by proposing a general methodology to develop a modular tool which integrates spreadsheets, LCA software, coding and visualization modules that can be independently modified while leaving the architecture unchanged. We test the tool within the ORI Martin secondary steelmaking plant, finding that it can manage (i) a high amount of primary foreground data to build a dynamic LCA; (ii) different background models, LCIA methods and environmental labels rules; (iii) interactive visualizations. Then, we outline the relevance of these capabilities since (i) temporal dynamics of foreground inventory data affect monthly LCA results, which may vary by ±14% around the yearly value; (ii) background datasets, LCIA methods and environmental label rules may alter LCA results by 20%; (iii) more than 10⁵ LCA values can be clearly visualized through dynamically updated dashboards. Our work paves the way towards near-real-time LCA monitoring of single product batches, while contextualizing the company sustainability targets within global environmental trends.

The explosive growth of the global market for Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) and the lack of a closing loop strategy of composite waste have raised environmental concerns. Circular economy studies, including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC), have investigated composite recycling and new bio-based materials to substitute both carbon fibers and matrices. However, few studies have addressed composite repair. Studies focused on bio-based composites coupled with recycling and repairing are also lacking. Within this framework, the paper aims at presenting opportunities and challenges of the new thermosetting composite developed at the laboratory including the criteria of repairing, recycling, and use of bio-based materials in industrial applications through an ex ante LCA coupled with LCC. Implementing the three criteria mentioned above would reduce the environmental impact from 50% to 86% compared to the baseline scenario with the highest benefits obtained by implementing the only repairing. LCC results indicate that manufacturing and repairing parts built from bio-based CFRP is economically sustainable. However, recycling can only be economically sustainable under a specific condition. Managerial strategies are proposed to mitigate the uncertainties of the recycling business. The findings of this study can provide valuable guidance on supporting decisions for companies making strategic plans.

The assessment of toxicity-related aspects in the Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework relies on several tools and methods. Each tool and method has specific goals and scopes, requiring knowledge of the underpinning characteristics for sound application and results interpretation. This study evaluates some of these tools and methods. A case study on plasticizers in food contact materials was developed by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) to test the applicability of the European Commission’s SSbD framework. The case study is used here to evaluate tools and methods that were used with respect to receptors relevant for SSbD (workers, consumers, the environment, and the population exposed via the environment). The tools and methods assessed were developed in the context of Risk Assessment (Chesar v.3.7.2, ConsExpo v.3, and Vermeer v.3.4) and Life Cycle Assessment (USEtox 3.0beta 6c and ProScale 1.5). Overall, common ground was identified within the characteristics of those tools, which enabled undertaking alignment adaptations to the tools to improve the consistency of the results. However, the analysis shows limited consistency among outcomes, especially for workers and consumers, mainly driven by methodological differences across the application contexts of the various tools. Slightly higher consistency was found for tools analyzing environmental aspects. This work may guide applications of the SSbD framework toward identifying those elements of highest relevance when considering choosing tools and methods that best address the assessment of toxicity-related aspects.

Enabling effective early-stage screening of chemicals is essential for advancing safety and sustainability, as highlighted by the European Commission’s Safe and Sustainable by Design framework. However, such screening is often constrained by the limitedavailability of ecotoxicity data. Here, we investigate how chemical screening can be performed under data-limitedconditions. We analyzed 132 chemicals with extensive chronic ecotoxicity data and derived Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) metrics─Environmental Threshold Concentrations (ETCs) and Ecotoxicity Effect Factors (EEFs). Eight data-reduction scenarios were compared with a data-rich reference, varying (i) acute versus chronic endpoints, (ii) taxonomic coverage (single species vs three trophic levels: algae-fish-crustaceans), and (iii) calculation method. Across ERA and LCA, the scenario including three trophic levels and chronic data showed the lowest uncertainty and best agreement with the reference. Single-species scenarios introduced substantial uncertainty, particularly for specifically acting chemicals. Replacing chronic with acute data increased uncertainty only moderately. For ERA, ETCs from the lowest toxicity value aligned more closely with the reference than ETCs from species sensitivity distributions. For LCA, the calculation method had limited influence on EEFs. Our approach can support transparent decision-making for the safe and sustainable design of chemicals, where large uncertainties are unavoidable.