Hosted by the European Chemical Regions Network (ECRN) under the umbrella of the ChemSkills project, the workshop promised to look beyond policy rhetoric, and into the skills, partnerships, and strategies that will shape Europe’s chemical future.
Welcome and introduction
ECRN President Guido Guidesi, also Lombardy’s Minister for Economic Development, welcomed participants with a reminder: regions are the laboratories of change. They are where European policies find roots, where businesses take risks, and where workers must adapt. He laid out four guiding pillars: technological neutrality, stronger supply chains, renewable and low-emission energy, and a serious investment in skills. New materials, he stressed, will be key for Europe’s competitiveness, but only if supported by a skilled workforce and functioning markets for secondary raw materials. He emphasised that circular economy is not a side project but a central market opportunity—a way to reduce dependence on imported raw materials, create value from waste, and strengthen Europe’s industrial resilience.
Perspective of the European Environmental Agency
Daniel Montalvo of the European Environment Agency explained the current state of circular economy in Europe, placing planetary boundaries in the context of industrial strategies. He spoke of stagnation: Europe’s material footprint has hovered around 14 tonnes per capita for two decades, waste generation has levelled at 5 tonnes per person, and recycling rates have plateaued. These figures, he reminded, are far above sustainable thresholds.
Yet, circularity offers a way forward. It is not merely about loops of material—it is about time and value. Products must last longer, retain higher value, and, when discarded, feed high-quality recycling streams rather than low-value downcycling. He stressed that circular economy policy is as much about competitiveness and industrial innovation as it is about climate and environment. Europe cannot afford to act alone: global governance, fair trade rules, and robust secondary raw material markets are essential.
Montalvo also pointed to emerging levers: product design rules, high-quality recycling standards, and new financial instruments. But he cautioned against relying solely on technology: systemic shifts are required—demand-side measures, sufficiency strategies, and closer involvement of regions and cities, where more than half of the circular transition will take place.
The Parliamentary voice
Pietro Fiocchi (Vice-Chair, ENVI Committee, European Parliament) highlighted challenges linked to transition costs, bureaucracy, and unfair competition from imports. He warned that overlapping regulations create legal uncertainty, making it difficult for companies to invest.
Europe, he argued, is dangerously dependent on critical raw materials—lithium, cobalt, rare earths—often sourced from geopolitically fragile suppliers. He urged the EU to treat circularity as a strategic opportunity to restore industrial autonomy. For him, recycling batteries is a success story; Europe recycles over 90% of lead-acid batteries, but lags dramatically in lithium and electronic components, leaving the continent vulnerable to China’s dominance. Circularity, if done right, could help Europe lead again in technology, materials, and intellectual property. If done wrong, SMEs will drown in red tape and lose out to global competitors.
Panel discussion
Industry perspective
Eric De Deckere (Cefic) insisted that circularity is not optional—it is central to respecting planetary boundaries and safeguarding Europe’s industrial base. He highlighted three focus areas:
- Industrial symbiosis and value networks: Chemical clusters already thrive on shared by-products and side-streams, but this must extend into circular value networks that cross supply chains and borders.
- Innovation and digitalisation: Circular business models must be embedded in boardrooms, supported by digital tools, and embraced in design—from reducing and rethinking to repairing and remanufacturing.
- Circular feedstocks: Waste, biomass, and CO₂ are all vital alternatives to fossil feedstock. Yet, scaling requires massive investment, clear calculation rules (like mass balance), and harmonised regulations.
He warned that too much of Europe’s waste and biomass still ends up in incineration or landfill. If we fail to harness our own feedstocks, Europe will fall behind.
Workers’ perspective
Sophie Grenade (industriAll Europe) brought the human dimension. Circularity will not succeed without workers, she stressed. The transition must be just: jobs will be lost in fossil-based sectors, but new ones will emerge in recycling, remanufacturing, and symbiosis networks. For workers, the concerns are clear:
- Job security in shifting industries.
- Health and safety in new recycling processes.
- Quality of jobs, avoiding a two-tier system of highly skilled engineers and low-paid precarious labour.
She argued that public investments must come with social conditionalities—training programmes, job safeguards, and strong social dialogue. Workers must not only be consulted, but co-shapers of the transition.
Academic perspective
Professor Elisabetta Arato (University of Genoa and TICAS President) highlighted the barrier of regulatory complexity. Definitions of waste, by-products, and “end-of-waste” vary across Member States, creating uncertainty and discouraging companies from pursuing industrial symbiosis and new material deployment.
Universities, she argued, can bridge the gap between research and industry. They must update curricula, foster interdisciplinary learning, and prepare graduates who combine chemistry with digital skills, sustainability thinking, and communication. She shared the example of brewing by-products being reclassified for reuse as feed or fertiliser, contrasted with the stricter rules stifling innovations like biochar. Without harmonised rules, innovation stalls at the pilot stage.
Skills perspective
Anni Siltanen (Head of Education policy and Skills, Kemianteollisuusry, ChemSkills Coordiantor) brought attention back to the heart of the project: skills. Europe has strong engineers and chemists, but the workforce now needs new layers of competence:
- Knowledge of regulation and compliance.
- A mindset of sustainability and responsibility across all roles.
- Stronger STEM foundations to keep pace with global competitors.
She emphasised that skills are a competitiveness factor, not a side issue. ChemSkills is mapping gaps across vocational and higher education but also faces the challenge of fragmented national education systems. She stressed that without targeted upskilling and reskilling; industry will not be able to scale new materials or meet circular economy targets. Europe must invest in lifelong learning, modular training, and cooperation between industry and education to stay ahead.
Key messages
The discussions converged on key messages:
- Technology alone is not enough—systemic changes, demand-side measures, and sufficiency are essential.
- Regulation must simplify and harmonise—without clarity, investment will flow elsewhere.
- Innovation in new materials is promising—bio-based, CO₂-based, smart and self-healing polymers—but must integrate recyclability and circular design.
- Skills and fairness are the real backbone—without trained workers and social acceptance, circularity will fail.
- Regions and local communities must be empowered—this is where partnerships, experimentation, and industrial clusters thrive.
Conclusion
The workshop concluded that Europe must accelerate circularity, treating circularity, new materials and skills as pillars of competitiveness. Circular economy is not just an environmental agenda but an industrial and social strategy. Europe must move faster, but also smarter—balancing environmental ambition with competitiveness and embedding skills and fairness at its core.
