One of the biggest problems in all parts of industrial manufacturing for the past few years has been the increase in legislation. This is affecting the epoxy and sealant industry more than most, as the development of new products is a core part of the business. Added to this is that epoxies, adhesives and sealants have an ever growing range of uses, with increasing demands being made on them. It is no wonder that lawmakers focus so much of their time in ensuring that products meet necessary standards and that production techniques are safe.
However, when an industry is on the receiving end of near constant amendments to current legislation, or is faced with wide reaching overhauls of future legislation, such as REACH, the EU’s 849 page chemical regulation, then the impact on business can be severe. This is a point made by Julie O. Vaughn, Vice President, Marketing and Business Development at Emerald Performance Materials, when she said, “We see two challenges in the regulatory landscape that we increasingly must navigate: a new regulatory/legislative landscape for existing materials and tougher registration requirements for new materials. Like many in the chemical industry, we are impacted by both. Emerald currently offers many products that have little to no VOC’s [volatile organic compounds], but continues to expand the available technologies to drive increased performance and address certain unmet needs. There can be significant additional costs involved in terms of time, money and resources to develop innovative new materials and bring them to market. Because of REACH, TSCA SNUR [the ‘significant new use’ rule], TSCA SNUN [the ‘significant new use’ notification], the EU food packaging migration standards EC 10 (2011) and a myriad of other global registrations, the regulatory landscape adds requirements that must be addressed up front and early on in evaluating opportunities and developing new products.”
She continues by noting that, “One of the challenges is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ registration process. Another challenge is that some of the testing protocols are under development. More than ever, we focus on working closely with key customers to fully understand the intended and potential uses of a product, a critical piece to understanding all their requirements. In some cases, we rely on the expertise of firms such as Keller and Heckman and Huntingdon Life Sciences to interpret regulatory requirements, recommend appropriate testing protocols that will align with the requirements, and assist in the registration process.”
Clearly there is much to consider in the field of legislation. Even before a product is designed, regional laws for use, production and supply will need to be factored in, and Vaughn is not alone in taking the topic of regulation seriously.
John Duffy, the Manager at Easterly Research, notes the changes in business that new laws have caused. He said, “Our contract customers have changed how they address the regulatory/legislative landscape in two ways. First, they are centralizing the knowledge base to an individual or department charged with staying up to date, which can be critical with the increasing complexity of the landscape. As long as the designated department has a reasonable understanding of the company’s product line, its applications and customer needs (some of which, paradoxically, are not known to the customer), and the recognition that regulatory compliance has both legal and customer service components, this can be a very effective process. It does require rapid and continuous information exchange within and outside the company.
Second, they participate in the regulation-establishing process itself. Instead of being innocent but complaining bystanders as in the past, more companies are contributing data and opinions to the regulators. This does not detract in any way what we have seen from the activities of ASC (Accredited Standards Committee) or any of the coatings associations.”
It does seem to be logical that as legislation grows in complexity, that the formulation of laws would need to be assisted by the industry itself. Whilst there does need to be a line between legislators and the industry, any meaningful and effective controls must take into consideration the needs of business.
For many, including Greg Bunker, Global Business Director for Adhesives and Functional Materials at Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, this is a positive side to extensive lawmaking. He had this to say on the subject. “We view the regulatory environment as a challenge and as an opportunity. While many companies can provide adhesives and sealants, a company of our size has global reach, technical expertise in a vast number of markets, and state-of-the-art toxicology and analytical capabilities that provide customers and brand owners with clarity and confidence when navigating this difficult landscape.
As consumers grow more concerned with clean labels and want to understand what is in their food packaging, our teams’ deep understanding of our technologies at the molecular level and how the regulatory environment impacts them allows us to tailor specific solutions to meet customer and brand owner needs. Dow is also working closely with regulatory agencies as new standards are developed. This understanding can help customers comply with the ever-changing landscape, in the U.S. and around the world.”
But working to comply with legislation, working with legislators to help formulate rules and working to help customers understand the law, is exactly that: work. And that requires money and manpower, as Dan Marvin, Director of Technical Services at MAPEI Americas makes clear when outlining the new roles that his company has taken on, “MAPEI is fortunate to have a dedicated team of individuals that is active in regulatory circles and is able to foresee and react to new requirements such as the Globally Harmonized System of classification and labeling, which impacts most manufacturers’ labeling and Safety Data Sheets.” But he also points out the importance of sharing this workload with other businesses, stating that “We also maintain an active participation in trade groups that monitor and report on upcoming initiatives and allow the industry to have a larger voice in the discussion than individual companies might have on their own.”
This strategy is supported by Scott Coring, Vice President of Sales & Marketing at STI Polymer, when he said, “To address concerns and to stay abreast on the latest information, we turn to associations like ASC and RCMA to keep us informed. STI Polymer is a firm believer in the value that trade associations bring to our business, especially when it comes to being one voice to regulatory groups. Of course, running a polymerization facility comes with its own set of regulatory/legislative issues, so we also maintain dedicated staff allocated to nothing but EHS responsibilities.”
Evidently there is much to consider with regards to the law in the chemicals industry. Whilst teaming up in trade associations may help, it seems that dedicated legal staff is a must. Given the large number of changes in legislation over the past 20 years and the cost of well-informed staff, it is unclear if smaller companies can survive these added pressures.