Blog

8:40 AM — Planning the Day

I try to get into the office by 8am, but it’s my turn to take the kids to school today, so I’m in a little later than usual.

During my second cup of coffee, I jot down a priority list: RFQs (requests for quotes) to answer, orders to finalise, and two potential new suppliers to vet. In this job, adaptability is key. The chemical trading world doesn’t run on a perfect schedule — prices move, shipments get delayed, regulations change — and I need to be ready for it.

10:00 AM — Customer Communication & Deal-Making

My day properly kicks off with back-to-back calls. A distributor in Poland wants better payment terms, then a buyer in Italy is concerned about the lead time for ethyl acetate.

I negotiate, advise, and try to strike a balance between profitability and service. Product knowledge is critical — I need to know why one solvent works better than another, or how a small contaminant might affect a client’s production.

11:30 AM — Logistics and Paperwork

A freight forwarder calls: there’s a hold-up with a shipment in Hamburg due to a missing certificate. I coordinate with the supplier, arrange for re-issuance, and notify the client. Meanwhile, I double-check the SDS [safety data sheet] for a new batch of IPA [isopropyl alcohol] we’re sourcing, ensuring it aligns with REACH compliance and traceability standards.

1:00 PM — Trading in the Digital Era

Some on the team are using digital platforms for industrial chemical sourcing. Over the last decade or so, they’ve become an integral part of modern chemical trading. From online marketplaces that match buyers and sellers to cloud-based contract management tools, much of the process has shifted online. These platforms offer speed and transparency, but they do little to maintain personal connections in a screen-driven environment.

I often use them for buying and selling individual batches of spot chemicals—the leftovers and last bits of stock from cancelled contracts. I do this because online trading rarely replicates the build-up of a trading relationship made over time during the monthly supply of a chemical product from a long-term contract.

But for spot chemical prices and negotiations, I find online marketplaces a great place for trading. They enhance efficiency and enable quick price and product comparisons.

2:00 PM — Stock Awareness and Market Watching

After lunch, it’s time to review stock levels. A regional shortage in a key feedstock might present a short-term opportunity — or risk. We sometimes find advantages in acting fast to lock in margins before the market shifts.

3:30 PM — Internal Meetings and Supplier Check-Ins

We discuss a new product line from an Indian manufacturer. I bring up concerns about documentation standards and purity levels. Logistics from India can also be a challenge, but if there is trust between the two parties, then I always believe that every hurdle can be overcome.

4:30 PM — The Shadow of Automation

Lately, there’s been a growing unease about the role of AI in our profession. Algorithms can already crunch market data faster than any human, generate pricing forecasts, and even automate parts of the negotiation process.

While these tools can boost productivity, there’s a fear in many procurement and sales teams that the nuanced judgement and personal relationships that define good chemical trading might be undervalued or replaced. We often wonder what this job will look like in ten years’ time, or even if it will exist at all. For now, I use AI as an invaluable tool to make my time more efficient. I just can’t imagine it replacing all of the tasks I do, but then what office job is safe these days?

5:00 PM — Wrapping Up and Looking Ahead

I clear my inbox (again) and confirm a shipment for tomorrow. Then I have a quick de-brief with the boss and discuss plans for the rest of the week. Then I’m off home, although I keep my phone nearby in case something goes horribly wrong with a shipment — although it very rarely does.

Final Thoughts

Being an industrial chemicals trader is more than buying low and selling high. It’s about managing relationships, navigating regulations, understanding the products, and making smart decisions — often with incomplete information and limited time.

My partner thinks that I’m just go shopping for a living, while my friends see me more as Wall-Street-trader type. Neither opinion is very accurate, as much of the work is more mundane—where the key to success is being thorough and precise. That said, it does have its stressful moments and the intense satisfaction of making the right call under pressure.

It’s occasions like that which keep the job real. It’s that and the team around me that make it all worthwhile.

Note: To learn more about online trading, visit the industrial chemical hub at SPOTCHEMI. They sponsor this webpage and since 2013 have been operating a remote space for chemical industry professionals to meet, compare, discuss, and do business.

Note: This article is based on composite experiences of professionals in the chemical trading sector.

Photo credit: Seaview N on Unsplash, Israelandrxde, & SPOTCHEMI

Europe’s chemical industry is entering a new chapter. One where sustainability, regulatory pressure, and shifting consumer preferences are pushing the sector towards greener alternatives.

The result is a surge in demand for biochemicals—derived from renewable biological sources—as the raw materials which are increasingly replacing traditional petrochemicals.

This is providing new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), independent chemical traders, or any manufacturer looking to make more sustainable products. As unlike larger manufacturers or chemical companies which are burdened by legacy infrastructure, SMEs and smaller operators in the chemical sector can pivot quickly, adapt to emerging trends, and carve out profitable niches.

Europe is actively driving the global green transformation where the EU’s Green Deal is setting ambitious goals, including climate neutrality by 2050, while regulations like REACH and CLP are being designed to protect human health and the environment. For decades, manufacturers and consumers have consistently maintained a clear trend favouring chemicals that are sustainably sourced with low toxicity and biodegradability.

Furthermore, national governments have held bioeconomy strategies in countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands which inject funding and foster collaboration into the bio-based sector.

These combined factors of regulatory alignment from government and demand from consumers are providing a generational event in industrial chemical markets.

As Wayne Ashton, a senior vice president at International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) made clear in a recent interview with the industry journal CE&N, “The customer base [for biochemicals] is in Europe.” Adding that, “It’s also important to say that the European customers are probably a little bit more advanced in wanting sustainability.”

With this in mind, it is worth looking at some of the bio-based chemicals which are showing the strongest commercial promise. These include:

• Lactic acid and citric acid: Widely used in food, pharmaceuticals, and cleaning agents.
• Bio-based solvents: Such as ethyl lactate and D-limonene, replacing traditional VOC-heavy solvents.
• Bioplastics: Polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) are gaining traction in packaging and agriculture.
• Enzymes and fermentation products: Used in food processing, textiles, and bio-detergents.

These products are not only in demand but often command premium pricing, especially when backed by sustainability credentials like EU Ecolabel, USDA BioPreferred, or ISCC+ certification.

Moreover, it is important to note that European chemical companies are leading the way in investment in this field. While the Middle East will always attempt to gain market advantage from its oil reserves and with President Trump seemingly happy to ignore the problem of climate change, there is a clear market niche which is rapidly growing for biochemical products.

“European agricultural companies are getting involved with bioproduction firms to find ways to use all available streams,” notes the CE&N report. “In May, for example, Südzucker, Europe’s number 1 supplier of sugar products, renewed a raw material partnership with the biotech company Afyren. Under the agreement, Südzucker supplies nonfood agricultural by-products such as feedstocks for fermentation-based conversion to a family of seven carboxylic acids—chemicals such as butyric acid and valeric acid—at Afyren’s facility in Carling Saint-Avold, France.”

Additionally, the Südzucker group of enterprises’ major ethanol producer, CropEnergies, plans to build a factory in Elsteraue, Germany, in 2026 to turn its biomass-derived ethanol into ethyl acetate. The factory will generate hydrogen as a byproduct and produce 50,000 t of the solvent annually when it opens.

Caroline Petigny, chief sustainability officer at Afyren, believes that this growth in biochemical investment is based on market demand. “Europe is the region in the world which, in terms of consumers,” she explains, “is the most advanced in understanding, knowledge, and expectation of sustainability.”

For many though, the Europe’s boom in biochemicals is not just a chance to jump on the green bandwagon. Nor is it a case of large multi-national corporations ‘green washing’. Instead, it is the opportunity to get value from Europe’s unique position as a leader in sustainability. A way to gain intellectual advantage and capture the value to be had by avoiding petrochemicals and the burden of fossil fuel dependency.

Related articles: What Europe Can Learn from the U.S. Chemical Safety Debate or How Chemical Companies Can Handle Traceability

Because whichever side you sit on in terms of climate change, there is the compelling argument of raw material independency. For a region with dwindling supplies in oil and hard to reach coal, which has had the threat of Russia turning off its gas, the notion of being self-sufficient and sustainable in industrial chemicals is tempting.

As Afyren’s Petigny notes, “The bioeconomy is, by essence, a regional value chain. “We need to be self-confident in Europe and keep the strategy of investing in our industry so we can make sure we have the important value chains in our country and not depend on others.”

For smaller manufacturers and independent industrial chemical traders that is a very good reason to take another look at biochemical industry supply, demand, and bottom line.

Photo credit: Freepik, Freepik, Freepik, & Freepik

The Trump administration’s approach to regulation, especially in the chemical sector, reflects a broad political ethos: eliminate perceived bureaucratic inefficiencies, reduce federal oversight, and promote business growth.

One of its most controversial moves in this direction is the proposed elimination of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. The CSB) is a small but influential federal agency which Republicans believe is an unnecessary burden to economic growth in the chemical industry.

As the UK journal Chemistry World reports, “The [Trump] administration claims in the CSB’s budget request that the agency ‘duplicates substantial capabilities’ in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to investigate chemical-related mishaps. It also says the agency generates ‘unprompted studies of the chemical industry and recommends policies that they have no authority to create or enforce,’ suggesting that this function should reside within agencies that have authority to issue regulations.”

The plan to shutter the CSB has sparked a divided reaction. On one side are proponents of deregulation who tout economic freedom and competitiveness; on the other, critics warn of increased risk to public safety and environmental health.

But how do these arguments stand up and would Trump’s model of deregulation be viable in a European context?

What is the Chemical Safety Board?

Established in 1990 as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the CSB is an independent federal agency tasked with investigating industrial chemical accidents. Unlike regulatory agencies such as the EPA or OSHA, the CSB does not issue fines or enforce rules. Instead, its power lies in conducting thorough investigations, publishing detailed reports, and making non-binding but influential safety recommendations. Over the years, the CSB has contributed significantly to improving chemical safety in industries ranging from oil refining to fertilizer production.

The Trump Administration’s Proposal

Since the 2018 budget, the Trump administration has been suggesting that the CSB should be shutdown, calling it unneeded and wasteful. The White House claims that its abolition would save taxpayers about $14 million a year and that its tasks could be taken over by already-existing agencies. This proposal was in line with President Trump’s executive order to reduce federal regulations, which famously required the elimination of two existing regulations for every new one submitted.

Is Deregulation Good for Business?

Supporters of the proposal, largely those in business and on the right of the political spectrum, contend that doing away with the CSB will simplify regulations and enable job growth. Overlapping jurisdictions and redundant inspections have long been criticised by the chemical industry, which claims that these practices hinder innovation and increase needless expenses.

Efforts to simplify regulations have received widespread support from industry-backed organisations like the American Chemistry Council. They believe that by dismantling what they perceive to be an advisory-only organisation, funds could be re-allocated to more effective enforcement or to the advancement of technology. The Trump administration’s broader plan, which includes easing enforcement and reversing EPA regulations is being hailed as a corner stone of the Make America Great Again slogan—a way to boost American manufacturing and guarantee energy independence.

Is Deregulation Gambling with Safety?

However, critics view the proposed closure of the CSB as a risk too far. They cite how the agency has played a unique role in uncovering systemic failures in chemical safety and how it has pushed for improvements when other agencies have been slow to react to chemical industry accidents.

This is largely because while the OSHA and the EPA have enforcement powers neither is equipped to conduct the kind of root-cause investigations that the CSB undertakes.

Certainly, CSB reports have led to critical reforms in tank design, alarm systems, and explosion mitigation, while its work was also instrumental in understanding chemical industry disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the 2013 explosion at a Texan fertilizer plant. Without the CSB acting as an independent investigative body, critics argue, that the public and policymakers may lose an impartial source of safety information. Moreover, communities near industrial sites—often low-income or marginalised—would be at greater risk.

Related articles: How Chemical Companies Can Handle Traceability or What the EU-UK Trade Deal Means for the Chemical Sector

One former employee of the CSB believes that the money saved does not justify the risks involved. Jordan Barab, worked on workplace safety and also served as a deputy assistant secretary of OSHA from 2009 to 2017, and has spoken out against the Administration’s plans, stating on social media that, “Trump wants to shut down the Chemical Safety Board which has a unique role investigating chemical plant incidents. The result: more chemical releases, worker deaths and community pollution. All to save $14 million.”

Even though the CSB was not ultimately defunded by Congress, the repeated attempts to do so undermined staff morale and long-term planning. It also sent a message that chemical safety might no longer be a federal priority.

Is Trump’s Chemical Industry Regulatory Model Suitable for Europe?

Europe’s approach to chemical safety regulation differs significantly. The European Union operates under the precautionary principle, often requiring proof of safety before chemicals can be marketed. Regulatory frameworks like REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) and CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) are stringent and prevention oriented.

European agencies such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) focus on risk assessment and hazard communication, rather than post-incident analysis. However, some European countries do have independent safety boards for transport and industrial accidents. These are often integrated more closely with enforcement bodies than the CSB is in the U.S.

Adopting a deregulatory, industry-led model in Europe would likely face resistance—not only from regulators but also from the public and environmental NGOs. The EU’s high safety standards are part of its global brand and a foundation for public trust in industry. A shift toward U.S.-style deregulation could undermine both.

The Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board highlights a basic divide: should governments prioritise economic growth by reducing regulatory oversight, or is independent investigation of chemical industry safety essential for public and environmental protection?

While business groups see deregulation as a boost for competitiveness, critics argue that it exposes nature and communities to preventable risks.

Europe’s more stringent, preventive model offers a contrasting approach—one rooted in the belief that safety must be built in, not just investigated after the fact. Whether the U.S. approach represents pragmatic streamlining or reckless cost-cutting remains a question of political philosophy and public values.

Nowhere is this debate more relevant than in the chemical industry—where innovation is essential, yet mistakes can be deadly. As such, the balance between progress and economic growth versus regulation and public/environmental health remains ongoing.

Photo credit: Aleksander Littlewolf, Flickr, Nara, Wikipedia, & Flickr