Send message to Author

Short abstract:

The paper argues for using SSbD to develop the chemical sector towards a social-responsive attitude. It compares the approach with two prominent approaches and draws on a case study. The expectation is that SSbD facilitates responsible practices due to co-creation relations between stakeholders.

Long abstract:

The chemical domain and its innovations play a significant role in production networks and industrial systems. Nevertheless, several cases of high adverse social-environmental effects due to its activities have been historically documented. It follows that the need to develop a chemical sector towards a more societal-responsive attitude is imperative for future innovations in the field, thus making responsibility a fundamental value. In recent years, a new approach, Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD), has gained momentum in Europe. At the framework’s core is a holistic ecosystem approach, focusing on stakeholder engagement and aiming at co-development starting from the design stages. However, how SSbD approaches responsibility needs to be clarified. The paper aims to clarify such a question. To do so, the paper performs a conceptual analysis by comparing SSbD with other prevalent approaches to chemistry innovation activities and shaping them towards a socially responsive attitude, namely, Responsible Innovation (RI) and the 12 Principles for Green Chemistry (PGC). By reviewing the three approaches and comparing the main assumptions, it is possible to gain theoretical insight into how responsibility is enacted. The expectation is that RI and PGC have limitations in locating and embedding responsibility in complex innovation ecosystems. On the contrary, SSbD is expected to enable a response-ability capacity, allowing stakeholders’ co-creation relationship. To ground the theoretical understanding and practical possibilities, the findings are discussed by reading the historical PCE water contamination case study, suggesting the different outcomes the three approaches would have allowed if used.