expert inquiry on innovation options for cleaner production in the chemical industry

Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364www.cleanerproduction.net

Expert inquiry on innovation options for cleaner production in thechemical industry�

P. Eder∗

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, WTC, Isla de la Cartuja s/n, E-41092 Seville, Spain

Received 10 June 2000; accepted 9 March 2002

Abstract

The prospects of further progress in cleaner production in the chemical industry are explored by means of an expert inquirywhich looks at the ecological and economic potentials of different technological and business innovation options as well as barriersto their development. The outcome of the inquiry is analysed with a view to identify prospective priority areas for innovationsupport policies. The analysis shows that innovation leading to alternative synthetic pathways and a shift to selling services insteadof products have especially high potentials for both strong positive ecological effects and to be important factors for competitiveness.The utilisation of these potentials depends, however, on whether different types of innovation barriers can be overcome. Suggestionsare made as to how to develop policy measures to facilitate this. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Clean technologies; Innovation; Chemical industry; Expert inquiry

1. Introduction

Innovation leading to cleaner production has a longtradition in the chemical industry, and was practised longbefore the term ‘cleaner production’ came to be in com-mon use. Eco-efficiency in the form of raw material andenergy efficiency as well as waste minimisation througha sophisticated system of coupled production1 havealways been key competitiveness-determining factorsparticularly of bulk chemical production. Many histori-cal examples of how the chemical industry has improvedenvironmental as well as economic performance by cle-aner production can be found in Refs. [1–3].

The pace of innovation is, however, slowing down inlarge parts of the chemical industry and radical inno-vation is becoming less frequent [4,5]. Especially thosesubsectors with the biggest material and energy con-

∗ Tel.:+34-95-4488-452; fax:+34-95-4488-235.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Eder).

� This article is largely based on the IPTS technical report—EUR19055 EN, Part II B. The views expressed in this article do not neces-sarily reflect those of the European Commission.

1 Coupled production means the use of by-products of one processas raw material inputs into other processes.

0959-6526/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00060-4

sumption are in a mature state of development. Thisgives rise to the question as to how further importantimprovements in eco-efficiency can be achieved andhow a loss of competitiveness can be avoided.2

It is the aim of this article to shed light on this ques-tion. It seeks to identify the future prospects of techno-logical and business innovation that promise to bringimprovements or even breakthroughs leading to bothbetter environmental performance and competitivenessof the chemical industry, with particular reference to theEuropean situation.

The main focus of this article lies in an expert inquirythat assesses the economic and ecological potential ofa set of 36 innovation options as well as the expecteddevelopment of these options in a business-as-usual

2 Achilladelis et al. [4] show that there is a strong correlationbetween originality and market success of individual innovations, andthat a radical innovation may ultimately prove to be more profitablefor a company than an incremental innovation despite the high risksassociated with its development. This contrasts with findings that muchof the chemical industry in Europe faces fewer innovative opport-unities and diminishing returns to R & D [5]. The importance of radicalinnovation for environmental performance is, for example, stressed inRef. [6].

348 P. Eder / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364

scenario by the year 2010. Furthermore, the inquiryanalyses different potential barriers to the realisation ofthe innovation options. Based on the results of thisanalysis, a number of prospective priority areas areidentified for innovation support.

The analysis carried out in this article may be usefulfor any actor in the innovation system, comprisingresearchers and managers in academia and industry aswell as independent and knowledgeable investors [7]. Itis also of particular relevance to public policy aiming atfacilitating innovation that leads to cleaner production.

To understand the potential role of public policy, it isworth looking at those factors that are regarded as decis-ive for innovation in the sector. Achilladelis et al. [4]have analysed the most important driving forces for rad-ical innovation in the chemical industry in the period1950–1980. It turns out that the key factors were ‘ in-house expertise’ and ‘market demand’ , followed by‘science and technology advances’ and ‘ raw materials’(availability or scarcity of feedstocks). ‘Competition’came fifth and was followed by ‘governmental legis-lation’ and ‘societal needs’ .

While there is no doubt that the core responsibility ofinnovation lies with industry, there are important factorsthat can be influenced directly or indirectly by publicpolicy aiming to use the potential of innovation forenvironmental improvements. Subsidies and taxesinfluence raw material prices. Many science and tech-nology advances depend on publicly funded pre-com-petitive research. Market demand can partly be shapedthrough green public procurement and other market-based instruments of environmental policy. There is alsothe possibility of direct environmental regulationthrough government legislation. Furthermore, small andmedium-sized enterprise (SME) support programmescan help to compensate for the lack of strategic and oper-ational resources in SMEs.

Blazejczak et al. [8] pointed out that, in order to beeffective, the different policy lines need to act in combi-nation and support the different phases of innovation asa process. Furthermore, it is important to take intoaccount that the drivers of, and barriers to, innovationleading to cleaner production vary considerably betweenthe different subsectors of the chemical industry andeven between different products and processes withinone subsector [9]. Support needs, therefore, to be tunedto specific innovation options.

The inquiry and the analysis presented in this articlehave to be regarded as a first screening to initialise dis-cussions and further clarifications. Comments to theauthors or letters to the editors are especially welcomeas feedback from a broader circle of experts is essentialfor further developing the analysis.

2. Method

2.1. Approach

The expert inquiry was carried out in various stages.As a first step, a questionnaire was sent out to interrogatepotential experts in a systematic way. The results of thisprimary inquiry were evaluated and the analysis sent outagain to the respondents in a second round with a requestfor comments. Remarks were considered in a consoli-dated analysis, which was consequently discussed in anexpert workshop with representatives from academia,industry and the European Commission. Such anapproach represents a combination of the Delphi method,the critical/key technologies technique and expert panels,which are all typically used in technology foresight stud-ies. The Delphi method consists of interrogations ofexperts about a number of topics by means of successiveiterations of a given questionnaire in order to bring con-vergence of opinions and to identify clearly a possibleconsensus. The critical/key technologies approach con-sists of identifying technologies using special criteriasets against which the importance of a particular tech-nology can be measured. The use of expert panels ofsectoral and/or technological nature is common in mosttechnology foresight exercises to complement the moreformal methodologies employed for the gathering andanalysis of relevant information and knowledge, and forthe stimulation of new insights and creative views[10,11]. The chosen approach allowed the involvementof a relatively large number of experts and a systematicand multifaceted analysis as well as iterative feedbacksfrom experts in a time- and cost-efficient way.

2.2. Target group

The questionnaire was sent to 126 potential experts.‘Potential experts’ were people who had shown specialinterest in the subject of ‘sustainable chemistry’ or‘green chemistry’ by participating in a workshop organ-ised by the OECD in October 1998 [12], or because theyhad published relevant work on issues such assustainable/green chemistry, cleaner production, cleantechnologies, eco-efficiency or similar subjects.Although the inquiry aimed to develop perspectivesespecially for the European chemical industry, it wasdecided to include experts from outside Europe in theinquiry, as many important developments are under waythere. The selection of responses for analysis accordingto expertise is described in the discussion of the results.

2.3. Format

The questionnaire consisted of 13 questions on 36innovation options, which were grouped into nine categ-ories:

349P. Eder / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364

� system changes (two options);� alternative raw materials (four options);� alternative reagents (one option);� alternatives to solvents (four options);� process engineering (two options);� catalysis (four options);� separation/recycling (three options);� alternative products (11 options);� others (five options).

The innovation options were chosen and defined basedon the discussions with experts and a screening of rel-evant journals and research programmes. They were notdefined in an exclusive way; in fact, they were intention-ally overlapping in many cases. Furthermore, the expertswere asked to suggest additional innovation options andalso to answer the predefined questions for them.

2.4. The questions

The questions of the inquiry were related to four top-ics:

� ecological potential (two questions);� socioeconomic potential (three questions);� realisation by 2010 (one question);� barriers (seven types).

For the questions on the ecological potential and thesocioeconomic potential, the addressees were asked toassume that optimal framework conditions would existfor the development of innovation options, so that theirtechnological potential would be fully exploited. Thepurpose of this part of the inquiry was to get the experts’opinion on the effects of a full development of inno-vation options.

With regard to the ecological potential of the inno-vation options, the questionnaire asked experts for theiropinion on both:

� a possible increase in the technology’s ecologicalefficiency (product or function delivered per environ-mental pressure caused) through innovation; and

� the expected overall ecological effect of an innovationoption, which may be negative if the volume effectis bigger than the efficiency increase.

In order to calibrate the responses, the addresseeswere asked to consider indirect effects and to have thefollowing types of ecological impact or risk in mind:

� raw material consumption (including fossil, mineraland renewable raw materials, as well as water);

� land use;� energy consumption;� emissions to air and water;

� solid wastes;� risk/hazard by use of toxic/dangerous substances.

The questionnaire addressed three aspects related tothe socioeconomic potential:

� the expected economic importance or market size ifthe technological potential is fully utilised;

� the impact on competitiveness;� the impact on employment.

A question on realisation by 2010 was included to findout to what extent experts expect the innovation optionsto materialise under realistic conditions up to the year2010. For this, the addressees were asked to assume ascenario without important changes to the current frame-works for science and technology up to 2010 (business-as-usual).

In case the addressees did not expect a technology todevelop to its full potential by 2010, they were asked towhat extent they believed that the following factorswould be barriers to its development:

� technological feasibility;� structural/industrial/commercial barriers;� lack of research funds;� economic viability;� regulations/policy/standards;� education/skills;� lack of incentives/pressures to be environmentally fri-

endly.

Table 1 presents the exact formulation of the questionsasked on the innovation options and the possibleanswers.

3. Results

3.1. Response

In all, 72 questionnaires were completed and returned.This corresponds to a response rate of 57%. Not allrespondents answered all questions for all innovationoptions, but most respondents gave answers to a con-siderable number. The average number of answers forone of the 468 fields of the questionnaire matrix was 53;the lowest number of answers for a field was 40 and thehighest 67. Respondents came from 14 countries, ninefrom the EU and five from outside the EU (see Table 2).

The over-representation in Austria is due to good per-sonal contacts in this country, which allowed a highnumber of potential experts to be identified and guaran-teed a high response rate. The very low representationin France seems to reflect the hesitant participation ofthis country in the OECD sustainable chemistry activity,


Table 1Questions and possible answers presented in the questionnaire

Questions Possible answers

Q1: Eco-efficiencyHow would the full development of the technological potential of the innovations 1=no positive effectinfluence the ecological efficiency of affected products/processes? 2=weak positive effect

3=positive effect4=strong positive effect5=radical improvement (�factor 4)

Q2: Overall ecological impactHow would the full development of the technological potential of the innovations �2=strong negative effectinfluence the overall ecological impact of the European chemical industry? �1=weak negative effect

0=no effect+1=weak positive effect+2=strong positive effect

Q3: Expected economic importance/market sizeHow would the full development of the technological potential of the innovations 1=just an anecdotal episodeinfluence the economic importance/market size of new products/processes? 2=niche demand

3=important niche demand4=market demand5=a major source of European added value

Q4: Expected impact on competitivenessHow would the full development of the technological potential of the innovations 1=no positive effectinfluence the competitiveness of Europe’s chemical industry? 2=weak positive effect

3=positive effect4=strong positive effect5=brings huge advantages

Q5: Expected impact on employmentHow would the full development of the technological potential of the innovations �2=strong negative effectinfluence employment in Europe? �1=weak negative effect

0=no effect+1=weak positive effect+2=strong positive effect

Q6: Realisation in 2010Give your opinion on realisation in 2010 1=still only an idea

2=laboratory scale3= pilot plant4=first industrial plants5=wide industrial application

BarriersIn case you do not expect a technology to develop its full potential until 2010, to 1=no barrierwhat extent do the following factors hinder its development? 2=insignificant barrier

3=barrier4=important barrier5=decisive barrier

Q7: Technological feasibilityQ8: Structural/industrial/commercial barriersQ9: Lack of research fundsQ10: Economic viabilityQ11: Regulations/policy/standardsQ12: Education/skillsQ13: Lack of incentives/pressures to be environmentally friendly

while it is above average in Italy. Generally, the numberof responses from different countries correlates more orless to the degree of participation in the OECD sus-tainable chemistry activity. To check for a possible bias,the inquiry has also been evaluated without consideringAustrian responses. It turned out that this has only minoreffects on detailed results and does not affect at all themain findings and conclusions of the inquiry. Further-

more, the answers of respondents from the United Statesand from Europe have also been analysed separately toobtain some indication of regional differences in percep-tion. Some diverging tendencies could be identified andare presented below. However, they have to be under-stood as rather anecdotal due to the low number ofrespondents from the United States.

Table 2 also reflects the occupational position of the


Table 2Country distribution and occupational position of respondents

Country Number of Occupational Number ofrespondents position respondents

Austria 14 Corporate strategy 12Germany 12 Marketing/business 5

managementItaly 12 Production 1

operationsNetherlands 4 Academic research 24United 4 Industrial R&D 20KingdomBelgium 3 Research 16

managementSweden 3 Other 21France 1Spain 1United States 10Japan 4Switzerland 2China 1Mexico 1

respondents. The clear majority of respondents comefrom research-related activities, and a minority from cor-porate strategy and marketing/business management.

The answers are, of course, only characteristic of thisvery group of respondents and are not representative ofany consensus of opinion on a broader level. The groupdoes, however, constitute a very interesting and relevantcommunity with respect to the subject, as it bringstogether some of the most active and renowned expertsin the field of sustainable chemistry.

3.2. Expertise

It has been shown that addressees in expert inquiriesoften respond to questions for which they have no oronly little expertise. The challenge of ensuring anacceptable level of expertise is usually met by expertauto-assessment [11]. As regards this exercise, therespondents were asked to assess their expertise for eachof the 36 innovation options. They could choose one offive categories of expertise: unfamiliar, casuallyacquainted, familiar, knowledgeable and expert. For theevaluation of the questionnaire, only those responseswere considered for which the respondents consideredthemselves to be at least familiar with the innovationoption.

Based on this criterion, 52% of all responses to indi-vidual innovation could be considered for evaluation.However, the expertise varied widely between differentinnovation options. For the option with highest expertise(closing/interlinking of material flows and recycling)76% of all responses were considered; for the optionwith lowest expertise (microwave chemistry), however,only 28% were considered.

When we look at groups of innovation options, wesee that there are four groups with relatively high expert-ise of respondents: system changes (70% familiar andhigher), process engineering (67%), alternative reagents(65%) and alternatives to solvents (64%). Expertise wasaverage for alternative raw materials (54%), and rela-tively low for alternative products (47%), others (46%),catalysis (45%) and separation (46%).

3.3. Matrix classification of innovation options

In order to analyse the opportunities for cleaner pro-duction, the individual innovation options were classifiedby simultaneously applying four main criteria:

� ecological potential;� economic potential;� expected realisation in 2010;� technological feasibility.

The resulting patterns are visualised in the innovationoptions matrix in Table 3.

The ecological potential and the economic potentialform the two dimensions of the matrix. The innovationoptions are placed in the matrix according to classi-fications of these potentials documented in Tables A1and A2 of Appendix A. (The classification for the econ-omic dimension reflects the potential economicimportant/market size. It has been found that there is astrong correlation between this parameter and theexpected competitiveness effects (see Table 4).) Thenumbers beside the denominations of the options rankthem according to their technological feasibility. Theoptions are printed red if more than 75% of qualifiedexperts see technological feasibility as a barrier,important barrier or decisive barrier. Innovation optionsare highlighted in dark blue if experts think that theywill find wide industrial application in 2010 anyway (ina business-as-usual scenario). They are highlighted inlight blue if experts believe that they will either findwide industrial application or at least be realised in firstindustrial plants. As regards the options printed in black,experts agree that they will definitely not be realised ona wide industrial scale.

As a general tendency, we see that there is quite astrong correlation between the ecological and economicpotential of the investigated innovation options. Onlyfew exceptions to this rule can be found for some tech-nologies that are economically very promising, but donot have a very big ecological potential (new drugs, newpolymers; to a lesser extent information technology andnew pesticides). Deviations from the rule are even lessimportant in the other half of the matrix, where justclosing/interlinking of material flows and recycling aswell as use of innocuous reagents seem somewhat betterecologically than economically.


Table 3Innovation options matrix

Ecology category 1— Ecology category 2—Weak to Ecology category 3—Weak Ecology category 4—Strong positive effects strong positive effects positive effects No effects to weak

positive effects

Economy category 1A major source of New drugs 20European added valueEconomy category 2Market demand or Alternative synthetic Information technology 6; new New polymers 17even a major source pathways 12; pesticides 18of European added heterogeneous catalysisvalue 7; services instead of

products 1Economy category 3Market demand Solvent-free reactions; solid phase New coatings/dyes 16; new marine

reactions 30; biocatalysis 22; new antifoulants 13; new adhesives 14;solvents and cleaning agents 29; new fertilisers 15; optimisation ofnew refrigerants 26; new established processes 2; Newdetergents/surfactants 9 blowing agents 35; water instead of

organic solvents 25; improvedseparation through membranes 10;microporous catalysis 28;molecular design 34; new processtechnology 19; extended use ofwaste as raw material 24;biomimetics 33; extended use ofchromatographic separation 8

Economy category 4Important niche Closing/interlinking of material Improved separation throughdemand or even a flows and recycling 5; use of microporous systems 27; extendedmarket demand innocuous reagents 23 use of starch as feedstock 4;

extended use of cellulose asfeedstock 11; extended use oflignin as raw material 32;liquid/supercritical CO2 as solvent21; nanotechnology 36

Economic category 5Niche demand or Alternative organic solvents 3 Microwave chemistryeven an important 31niche demand

The numbers following the innovation options rank them according to their technological feasibility (1 � best, 36 � worst technological feasibility).Ranking carried out according to the number of experts who see technological feasibility as no or insignificant barrier.Red: more than 75% of thequalified experts see technological feasibility as a barrier, important barrier or decisive barrier; dark blue: in a business-as-usual scenario, theinnovation option will find wide industrial application in 2010; light blue: in a business-as-usual scenario, the innovation option will find wideindustrial application in 2010 or at least be realised in first industrial plants.

Of the investigated innovation options, there areclearly three that have an especially high potential tocontribute to sustainable development by combiningboth high ecological and economic potentials:

� alternative synthetic pathways;� heterogeneous catalysis;� services instead of products.3

3 ‘Services instead of products’ was included in the questionnaire inorder to consider developments such as servicising or offering productservices. This means that products are indispensable as a componentof a service, and not that services are provided without products, whichobviously would not make any sense in the context of the chemicalindustry.

Alternative synthetic pathways have been identified asthe most promising innovation option to improve theecological efficiency and performance of the Europeanchemical industry. They will have a strong positiveeffect if their technological potential is fully utilised.They have the potential to find a market demand or evento become a major source of European added value andwould bring a strong positive effect or even a hugeadvantage for the competitiveness of the Europeanchemical industry. Technological feasibility and econ-omic viability are above average when compared withother options. However, there are important barriers tothe development and diffusion of this innovation option(see Table 5). In a business-as-usual scenario, alternative


Table 4Competitiveness: ranking of innovation options with the highest per-centage of qualified respondents rating them to bring a strong positiveeffect or a huge advantage to the European chemical industry

%

1. New polymers 752. New drugs 733. Heterogeneous catalysis 704. Information technology 675. New pesticides 666. Molecular design 637. Alternative synthetic pathways 628. New fertilisers 619. New coatings/dyes 5910. Biocatalysis 5827. Extended use of waste as raw material 3328. New refrigerants 3229. Closing/interlinking of material flows and 32

recycling30. Extended use of chromatographic separation 3031. Extended use of starch as feedstock 2432. Alternative organic solvents 2433. Liquid/supercritical CO2 as solvent 2334. Extended use of cellulose as feedstock 2135. Microwave chemistry 1536. Extended use of lignin as raw material 10

Table 5Average importance of barriers: the average percentage of expertsregarding the different factors as a barrier, important barrier or decis-ive barrier

%

1. Microwave chemistry 752. Biomimetics 693. Extended use of lignin as raw material 684. Nanotechnology 655. New solvents and cleaning agents 656. Alternative synthetic pathways 657. Extended use of waste as raw material 658. Molecular design 649. Biocatalysis 6429. Alternative organic solvents 5230. Extended use of starch as feedstock 5131. Heterogeneous catalysis 4932. Services instead of products 4733. Improved separation through 45

membranes34. Extended use of chromatographic 41

separation35. Information technology 4036. Optimisation of established processes 35

synthetic pathways are foreseen to be realised only infirst industrial plants in 2010. The barriers, however, toa large extent would be susceptible to policy action. Thehighest ranked barriers experience a lack ofincentives/pressures to be environmentally friendly, alack of research funds and

structural/industrial/commercial barriers.4 Existing regu-lation and technological feasibility are the leastimportant barriers. (Quantitative data on barriers can befound in Table A3 in Appendix A.)

The ecological potential of heterogeneous catalysis isranked second highest and its market potential is compa-rable to that of alternative synthetic pathways. There isan especially high incidence of expert opinions that itcan bring a strong positive effect or a huge competitiveadvantage to the European chemical industry. In contrastto alternative synthetic pathways, heterogeneous cataly-sis is expected to find wide industrial application by2010, even in a business-as-usual scenario. Generally,barriers are seen to be relatively low.

The sale of services instead of products is the thirdinnovation option with potential for strong positiveeffects on the overall ecological impact of the Europeanchemical industry. It has about the same good marketpotential as alternative synthetic pathways and hetero-geneous catalysis. Respondents are divided about theeffect on competitiveness, but the services instead ofproducts option has the highest percentage of qualifiedrespondents rating it as having the potential to bring ahuge advantage (30%). Of all the innovation options, ithas the highest ranking as regards employment effects.Generally, barriers to its realisation are seen to be rela-tively low; technological feasibility and economicviability are not significant barriers. However, the optionis faced with important structural/industrial/commercialbarriers and with a lack of respective education/skills.In a business-as-usual scenario, it is expected that thisinnovation option will find first or even wide industrialapplication in 2010. (The current role of servicing inmanufacturing, in general, and the chemical industry, inparticular, is analysed in Ref. [14].)

The following options also seem promising from boththe ecological and economic point of view, although toa lesser extent than the three priority innovation optionsdiscussed previously: solvent-free reactions, solid phasereactions5; biocatalysis;6 new refrigerants; and newdetergents/surfactants.

New solvents and cleaning agents are seen as the pro-

4 According to Ref. [13], one important barrier to alternative tosynthetic pathways is entrenchment. Economies have developed skillsand sunk capital into particular solutions so that the cost (in terms ofrisk, time and capital) involved in moving to a fundamentally differentapproach becomes a serious deterrent. Tuning of facilitating actions toinvestment cycles is an important factor in overcoming this barrier[14].

5 This term was used in the questionnaire. As pointed out in a com-ment of an expert, it may have been more appropriate to call the inno-vation option ‘solid phase/state reactions’ .

6 Literature sees biotechnology (including biocatalysis) as the keyelement of a new technological take-off in low-mass high-value sub-sectors of the chemical industry (in particular, the pharmaceuticalindustry). See Refs. [16,17].


duct group that promises most in ecological terms, butat the same time is faced with the highest barriers,especially in the fields of regulations/policy/standardsand structural/industrial/commercial barriers.

Generally, the inquiry confirms that product inno-vation is a key factor for market success and competi-tiveness. New drugs, in particular, are seen to be theinnovation option with by far the biggest potential tobecome a major source of European added value.

Furthermore, the closing/interlinking of materials andrecycling (the innovation option for which the respon-dents rated their expertise highest) is not regarded ashaving a particularly high potential for eco-efficiencyimprovements (ranking 13) and its economic importanceis rated as only average. The potential contribution toimproved competitiveness is even perceived to be lowerthan the average of all the innovation options.

Interestingly, the extended use of renewable rawmaterials (more specifically starch, cellulose or lignin)is not identified as an especially promising strategy forthe chemical industry. Experts do not see the potentialto find more than a niche demand and expect only weakpositive ecological effects.

3.4. Additional innovation options suggested byrespondents

The respondents were asked to propose additionalinnovation options to those suggested in the question-naire; 23 respondents made use of this possibility andsuggested 44 further innovation options. The suggestedoptions are quite diverse and do not present a lot of over-lap with each other. They are listed in Appendix A.

3.5. Eco-efficiency and volume effect

The analysis confirms that high eco-efficiency of anindividual option does not automatically mean a strongpositive effect on the overall ecological impact. Forexample, new marine antifoulants are ranked first foreco-efficiency but are expected to have only a low over-all positive impact. (See Table 6 for a ranking of theinnovation options according to their eco-efficiency.)This may be due to the fact that the market share ofsubstitution is expected to be low or that the volumeeffect is expected to overcompensate eco-efficiencyimprovements.

3.6. Employment effects

Regarding employment effects, the general finding isthat for almost all innovation options no effects or weakpositive effects are expected. There are only two excep-tions. Weak to strong positive effects are expected forservices instead of products, as well as for informationtechnology. While there is an expectation that increased

Table 6Eco-efficiency: ranking of innovation options with the highest percent-age of qualified respondents expecting a strong positive effect on eco-efficiency or even a radical improvement ( � factor 4)

%

1. New marine antifoulants 772. New solvents and cleaning agents 773. Solvent-free reactions, solid phase 72

reactions4. Alternative synthetic pathways 715. Services instead of products 706. New pesticides 707. New detergents/surfactants 708. Biocatalysis 709. New refrigerants 6810. Heterogeneous catalysis 6630. Extended use of cellulose as feedstock 3931. Improved separation through 39

microporous systems32. Alternative organic solvents 3333. Optimisation of established processes 3234. Extended use of lignin as raw material 2635. Extended use of chromatographic 25

separation36. Microwave chemistry 20

competitiveness through innovation can at least compen-sate possible negative employment effects resulting fromincreases in efficiency, it is clear that deeper analysis isneeded to understand better this issue.

3.7. Private business and academia

The question arises as to whether business representa-tives have other opinions about the issues of this inquirythan the respondents from academia. For this purpose,the answers of both groups of respondents have beenevaluated separately. The business group is composed ofrespondents who indicated an occupational position incorporate strategy, marketing/business management,production operations or industrial R&D (38 respondentsin all). The academia group comprises those respondentswho indicated a position in academic research (24respondents). Some of the respondents had positions inboth business and academia and were considered in bothgroups (13 respondents). Respondents who only speci-fied a position in research management or ‘other’ couldnot be considered in either group (23 respondents).

In general terms, when we look at the average of allinnovation options, business respondents turn out to besomewhat more optimistic about positive ecologicalimpacts and competitiveness effects as well as on wideindustrial application in 2010 (difference 6% of totalresponse). Academia, on the other hand, is a little moreoptimistic concerning positive employment effects;32% of business think that existingregulations/policies/standards are no barrier, while only


19% of academics share this attitude. A lack ofeducation/skills is seen as a higher barrier by academiathan by business. Apart from this, there are no divergingtendencies that would be valid for all or most inno-vation options.

Alternative synthetic pathways are seen in a similarway by both groups, but academia is somewhat moreoptimistic concerning realisation in 2010 (a high per-centage of business respondents expect realisation onlyin pilot plants).

Some divergence can be detected concerning the opi-nion about shifting to service offers. While academiasees it as the absolute top option with respect to positiveecological effects, business is a little less enthusiasticfrom the ecological point of view and expects weak tostrong positive effects (category 2). On the other hand,as regards realisation in 2010, academia is clearly morepessimistic than business and expects pilots rather thanwide industrial application. So, in simple language, onecould put it that academia sees a big ecological potentialbut does not expect it to be utilised, while industrybelieves that a development from products to serviceswill occur to some extent but without overwhelming eco-logical benefits. Research activities and especiallyenhanced discussion between industry and academia areneeded to clarify this issue and to understand better therelationships between eco-efficiency and a trendtowards services.

Heterogeneous catalysis is largely evaluated ident-ically by business and academia, with a small divergencewith regard to economic importance/market size poten-tial, where academia sees a clear market demand, whilebusiness tends to expect the technology to become amajor source of European added value. Within the busi-ness group, those active in corporate strategy ormarketing/business management are, however, clearlymore pessimistic about this option, especially concerningits ecological benefits.

Business expects a little more from biocatalysis thanacademia in terms of competitiveness and it sees thepotential for strong positive ecological effects while aca-demia expects weak positive effects. Also, informationtechnology is evaluated better by business than by acad-emia. In this case, business sees the potential for thetechnology to be a major source of European addedvalue and a high percentage sees the possibility of strongpositive ecological effects. This is especially true ofthose respondents from business who are active in cor-porate strategy or marketing/business management.

The lack of optimism concerning renewable rawmaterials in terms of ecological and economic effects isespecially clear among business respondents but acade-mia do not see it as an especially promising option eith-er.

Molecular design, biomimetics and new marine anti-foulants are three innovation options which are clearly

better ranked by academia than by business regardingpositive competitiveness effects.

3.8. The viewpoint of respondents from the UnitedStates

It is not possible to get statistical evidence on differentopinions of the respondents from Europe and the UnitedStates, because only 10 responses were received fromthe latter and only an average of eight responses couldbe considered for individual innovation options accord-ing to the expertise criterion. However, the group ofAmerican respondents includes some of the country’smost recognised experts in sustainable or green chemis-try and so it seems worthwhile to report some specialcharacteristics of this response population subgroup asan anecdotal indication of possible differences in percep-tion between the regions.

Compared with the European respondents, the Amer-ican respondents are more optimistic regarding both theecological and economic potential of the innovationoptions. On average, they expect that 35% of the inno-vation options will have strong positive effects on theoverall ecological impact and that 23% of the optionscan bring radical improvements in eco-efficiency(Europeans 25 and 13%). The American respondents arealso more optimistic with respect to the potential econ-omic importance/market size of the innovation options;they expect that 25% of the innovation options canbecome a major source of European added value(Europeans 19%). This contrasts to the finding that theAmerican respondents are less optimistic about realis-ation in the year 2010. On average, the Americans expectthat only 58% of the innovation options will be appliedin first industrial plants or find wide industrial appli-cation. The corresponding value is 72% for Europeanrespondents. This indicates that the American respon-dents are clearly less confident that Europe can utilisethe technological potential for innovation than the Euro-pean respondents.

While there is coincidence between American andEuropean respondents that alternative synthetic path-ways, service instead of products and heterogeneouscatalysis have the potential for strong positive effects onecological impacts, the Americans additionally see suchhigh potential for new solvents and cleaning agents; newdetergents/surfactants; the closing/interlinking ofmaterial flows and recycling; and especially for solvent-free reactions and solid phase reactions.

Regarding information technology, the Americans areless optimistic on both the potential economicimportance/market size and realisation in Europe by2010 than the Europeans. On the other hand, they clearlysee more market potential for biocatalysis, for which alleight American respondents with higher expertise expectmore than a niche demand (Europe only 56%).


3.9. Check concerning expert bias

Specialists in a certain field may have a particularviewpoint. They have a very deep understanding of cer-tain aspects and so their judgment can be extremely wellfounded. On the other hand, they often tend to beespecially optimistic about the potential of this field [11].For this reason, we checked how the opinion of thoserespondents who classified themselves as experts for acertain innovation option influences the results of theanalysis. It turns out that the experts are indeed moreoptimistic than those respondents who rate themselvesas knowledgeable or casually acquainted with an inno-vation option. The percentage of experts who chose themost optimistic answer to the questions on the ecologicaland economic effects is around 10% higher than for theentire population of respondents who were considered inthe evaluation. Barriers are seen as somewhat lessimportant by experts than by the other respondents, withthe exception of education/skills, which is regarded asmore important by the experts. This sort of bias, how-ever, has only a very low impact on the results of theanalysis due to the fact that the percentage of respon-dents who rate themselves as experts for an innovationoption is low (7% of the entire population ofrespondents). If we exclude for each innovation optionthose respondents who have rated themselves as expertsfrom the evaluation, this changes the categorisation ofthe innovation options only slightly and in very fewcases. The ecological categorisation of new drugsbecomes less clear and expectations about realisation by2010 are somewhat less optimistic. Alternative syntheticpathways drop from economy category 2 to 3 (comparewith Table A2 in Appendix A), and the realisation poten-tial of nanotechnology for 2010 is seen slightly moreoptimistically. Apart from these changes, the categoris-ation is the same whether the opinion of supposedspecialists is considered or not.

4. Conclusions

The inquiry confirms that there is an important poten-tial for further progress in cleaner production in thechemical industry, in particular in Europe. It has ident-ified a number of innovation options that promise strongpositive effects on the ecological impact of this industry.These options have, at the same time, a big marketpotential and can improve considerably the competi-tiveness of European industry. However, for some of themost promising options, there are important barriers thatprevent the utilisation of their full potential if business-as-usual is continued.

Alternative synthetic pathways are an innovationoption that deserve special attention because they arevery promising in economic and ecological terms and

seem at the same time adaptable in facilitating policymeasures. More information needs to be collected on thetechnological, economic and ecological characteristics ofconcrete processes and technologies related to specificnew pathways. The very generic term used in the ques-tionnaire refers to a wide range of routes for the trans-formation of substances and materials and requiresspecification. Based on a closer definition, there shouldbe an analysis of the extent to which alternative syntheticpathways are actually emerging as new technologies andwith which diffusion environment particular cases areconfronted at the business, industry- and economy-widelevels. The relationships between pre-competitiveresearch, corporate R&D and industrial realisation ofnew pathways should be explored for them. Barriers anddrivers have to be analysed more closely, and mech-anisms should be investigated through which diffusioncan be accelerated. Comparisons between the situationsin the United States, Japan and Europe could bring aboutinteresting insights.

Heterogeneous catalysis is a technology that isalready widely used and still has considerable potentialfor further diffusion. The position of Europe in thisfield in comparison with its main competitors shouldbe clarified in order to assess the need for additionalefforts to make use of the double dividend promised bythis technology.

A number of projects have already been carried outwhich have investigated a shift from supplying servicesinstead of products in the manufacturing industry, ingeneral, and the chemical industry in particular [15,18].There is still, however, the need for a systematicappreciation of the importance of this approach withinthe structure of the European and other chemical indus-tries and of its market potential. This would be the basethat allows the development of sector-specific policyimplications. Special attention should be paid to frame-works that ensure that shifts from products to servicesare carried out in a way that allow the ecological poten-tial of this approach to be exploited in an optimal man-ner.

While the inquiry reported in this article had amedium-term view, it would be worthwhile developinga dynamic picture of innovation that also takes intoaccount long-term developments. Such an exerciseshould involve all important players in the innovationsystem, especially industry. The aim of further researchcould be to develop a vision and a technology road map(see Refs. [19,20] for an interesting example of such avision or road map) of how to approach sustainable pro-duction of substances and materials integrating differenttechnological disciplines and promising lines of inno-vation. Finally, such a process can develop into facilitat-ing mechanisms in key innovation areas for cleaner pro-duction.


Appendix A. List of further innovation optionssuggested by respondents (reproduction of originalwording)

100% yield by gas/solid reactions: no solvent, noworkup;100% yield by solid/solid reactions: no solvent, noworkup;Alternative energy use;Alternative source-(raw)-materials (e.g. plants,fibres, renewable resources, etc.);Approach to using CO2 soluble polymers+adhesivesto enable CO2 sol. to be used;Biomass into energy conversion;Biotechnology (genetic engineering);Carbon sequestration;Chitin/chitosan;Colours, dyes, renewables;Composites from renewable raw materials;Composites of metal and organic fibres;Direct electrochemical processes for organic andinorganic synthesis;Distributed processing-mf. at site of use;Extended use of oils+fats as raw materials;Extraction of metals;Fluorous phase and aqueous soluble homogeneouscatalysis (two-phase catalysis);Gaseous phase polymerisation;Heterogeneous catalysis in conjunction with ultra-sound or microwave activation;Homogeneous catalysis;Indirect electrochemical processes—complexes forasymmetric synthesis;

Indirect electrochemical processes—transition metalion complexes as reagents and catalysts;Indirect electrochemical processes—transition metalions as reagents in water;Intensified processes, e.g. micro-reactors intensiveconditions;Light protection, antioxidants, renewables;Metrics for environmental impact and improvementneed to be established to guide industry, regulatorsand society;Multiple cascade reactions with high yield;New innovation strategies (e.g. eco-design, eco-technology);New insulation;New management systems (e.g. learningorganisation);New process strategies (e.g. cascadic use, zero emis-sion, aquaculture);No conservation/disinfecting, renewables;Photocatalysis (hydrocarbon activation);Photovoltaic cells;Process synthesis in combination with industrialecology design methods;Risk description of processes;Risk description of products;Robotics and automation in process optimisation;Solvent-free microwave chemistry with mineraloxides or supported reagents;Sustainable agr. (combination of many conceptspractices and technologies);Systems engineering;Tools for early economic and ecological assessmentof products and processes;Use of solar energy in chemistry;Water-saving technologies.


Table A1Categorisation of innovation options according to the expected effect on the overall ecological impact of Europe’s chemical industrya

Ecology category 1: strong positive effectsPercentage of experts expecting a strongpositive effect

Alternative synthetic pathways 62Heterogeneous catalysis 50Services instead of products 50Ecology category 2: weak to strong positive effects

Percentage of experts expecting a weak Percentage of experts expecting a strongpositive effect positive effect

Closing/interlinking of material flows and 52 41recyclingSolvent-free reactions, solid phase reactions 50 42Biocatalysis 49 40New solvents and cleaning agents 49 40New refrigerants 48 39New detergents/surfactants 54 38Use of innocuous reagents 48 37Ecology category 3: weak positive effectsAll innovation options not listed under categories 1, 2 or 4 belong to this categoryEcology category 4: no effects to weak positive effects

Percentage of experts expecting no effect Percentage of experts expecting a weakpositive effect

Microwave chemistry 50 45New drugs 40 30New polymers 36 41

a Assuming that the technological potential of the innovation will be fully exploited.


Table A2Categorisation of innovation options according to their economic importance/market size potentiala

Economy category 1: a major source of European added valuePercentage of experts expecting the option to become a major source of European added value

New drugs 47b

Economy category 2: market demand or even a major source of European added valuePercentage of experts expecting the option to Percentage of experts expecting the option tofind a market demand become a major source of European added

valueInformation technology 41 41New polymers 49 40Heterogeneous catalysis 41 38Alternative synthetic pathways 33 38New pesticides 54 35Services instead of products 45 33Economy category 3: market demand

Percentage of experts expecting the option to find a market demandNew solvents and cleaning agents 67New refrigerants 65New coatings/dyes 61New marine antifoulants 59New detergents/surfactants 58New adhesives 57New fertilisers 56Optimisation of established processes 55New blowing agents 55Water instead of organic solvents 49Improved separation through membranes 49Microporous catalysis 48Molecular design 46Extended use of waste as raw material 46New process technology 45Biomimetics 44Solvent-free reactions, solid phase reactions 43Extended use of chromatographic separation 41Biocatalysis 39Economic category 4: important niche demand or even a market demand

Percentage of experts expecting the option to Percentage of experts expecting the option tofind an important niche demand find a market demand

Improved separation through microporous 39 46systemsExtended use of starch as feedstock 38 47Closing/interlinking of material flows and 34 45recyclingExtended use of cellulose as feedstock 34 39Extended use of lignin as raw material 42 32Liquid/supercritical CO2 as solvent 37 33Use of innocuous reagents 30 37Nanotechnology 33 33Economy category 5: niche demand or even an important niche demand

Percentage of experts expecting the option to Percentage of experts expecting the option tofind a niche demand find an important niche demand

Microwave chemistry 30 30Alternative organic solventsc 35 27

a Assuming that the technological potential of the innovation options is fully exploited.b The consensus of expert opinion is relatively low for this innovation option. Theclassification can therefore be tentative only.c Experts are divided on this innovation option: 29% see the chance to find a market demand.

360 P. Eder / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364T

able

A3

Popu

latio

nof

answ

ers

byqu

alifi

edre

spon

dent

sin

perc

ent

Num

ber

ofE

co-e

ffici

ency

Ove

rall

ecol

ogic

alim

pact

Eco

nom

icC

ompe

titiv

enes

sE

mpl

oym

ent

Rea

lisat

ion

in20

10re

spon

dent

sim

port

ance

/mar

ket

size

Que

stio

nnu

mbe

rQ

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

5Q

6

Pos

sibl

ean

swer

s(s

ee1

23

45

�2

�1

0+1

+21

23

45

12

34

5�

2�

10

+1+2

12

34

5T

able

1fo

rve

rbal

isat

ion)

1.A

ltern

ativ

esy

nthe

tic46

22

2447

242

02

3362

07

2233

382

1322

4022

07

3643

140

229

4622

path

way

s2.

Clo

sing

/in

terl

inki

ng55

013

2450

132

06

5241

09

3445

114

2342

284

27

3550

62

014

4044

ofm

ater

ial

flow

san

dre

cycl

ing

3.E

xten

ded

use

of39

513

4224

160

1124

5114

313

3439

1116

1845

165

03

4946

30

931

546

cellu

lose

asfe

edst

ock

4.E

xten

ded

use

of35

318

3238

90

924

4521

09

3847

612

1252

213

03

3658

30

626

5513

star

chas

feed

stoc

k5.

Ext

ende

dus

eof

313

2645

233

010

2753

103

1642

326

1323

556

30

357

373

426

3730

4lig

nin

asra

wm

ater

ial

6.E

xten

ded

use

of51

412

2539

202

212

5133

016

2446

144

2043

276

22

2657

132

628

3826

was

teas

raw

mat

eria

l7.

Use

ofin

nocu

ous

474

1526

4113

20

1348

370

1530

3717

722

3331

70

262

279

09

2349

19re

agen

ts8.

Solv

ent-

free

360

622

4231

03

650

423

920

4326

312

2944

120

342

486

015

4129

15re

actio

ns,

solid

phas

ere

actio

ns9.

Liq

uid/

supe

rcri

tical

474

1138

3017

04

2061

150

2237

339

730

4116

70

563

267

05

1866

11C

O2

asso

lven

t10

.W

ater

inst

ead

of52

610

3339

122

616

6116

014

2949

88

2430

344

20

6331

42

722

4326

orga

nic

solv

ents

11.

Alte

rnat

ive

orga

nic

494

2241

294

20

4250

60

3527

298

1122

4324

00

264

330

07

1445

34so

lven

ts12

.N

ewpr

oces

s44

011

3243

140

011

6127

05

2948

192

1237

3910

010

3749

53

325

4525

tech

nolo

gy13

.O

ptim

isat

ion

of53

017

5126

60

025

5125

010

2455

122

1835

3312

66

5131

60

28

2961

esta

blis

hed

proc

esse

s14

.H

eter

ogen

eous

385

524

4224

00

1634

500

814

4138

511

1451

190

940

466

00

634

59ca

taly

sis

(con

tinu

edon

next

page

)

361P. Eder / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364T

able

A3

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofE

co-e

ffici

ency

Ove

rall

ecol

ogic

alim

pact

Eco

nom

icC

ompe

titiv

enes

sE

mpl

oym

ent

Rea

lisat

ion

in20

10re

spon

dent

sim

port

ance

/mar

ket

size

Que

stio

nnu

mbe

rQ

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

5Q

6

Pos

sibl

ean

swer

s(s

ee1

23

45

�2

�1

0+1

+21

23

45

12

34

5�

2�

10

+1+2

12

34

5T

able

1fo

rve

rbal

isat

ion)

15.

Mic

ropo

rous

280

739

4311

00

2146

320

1522

4815

47

4426

190

452

368

04

3939

17ca

taly

sis

16.

Bio

cata

lysi

s44

25

2345

250

012

4940

014

2039

272

1228

499

00

3853

103

1114

4627

17.

Mic

row

ave

2020

1545

200

05

5045

015

3030

1510

1530

4010

50

1168

210

029

5318

0ch

emis

try

18.

Impr

oved

390

1041

418

03

1174

133

1033

495

518

3237

80

344

448

00

947

44se

para

tion

thro

ugh

mem

bran

es19

.Im

prov

ed28

011

5032

70

022

707

47

3946

411

1130

444

00

6028

120

043

3917

sepa

ratio

nth

roug

hm

icro

poro

ussy

stem

s20

.E

xten

ded

use

of32

1322

4119

63

337

533

622

2841

313

2037

273

33

7023

00

1132

3918

chro

mat

ogra

phic

sepa

ratio

n21

.N

ewpo

lym

ers

454

2222

3120

05

3641

180

74

4940

59

1155

200

021

5326

05

1056

2922

.N

ewre

frig

eran

ts31

36

2358

100

013

4839

00

2665

103

1945

266

00

5340

70

415

4238

23.

New

blow

ing

220

1423

5014

00

1459

270

527

5514

523

3236

50

055

3214

06

1744

33ag

ents

24.

New

solv

ents

and

430

519

5819

00

1249

400

29

6721

212

3044

120

044

4412

00

1161

29cl

eani

ngag

ents

25.

New

drug

s31

1723

740

130

740

3023

03

1733

473

717

4330

03

1455

280

00

5644

26.

New

coat

ings

/dye

s36

017

2943

110

39

6424

03

1561

213

928

509

00

3658

60

323

3935

27.

New

pest

icid

es38

05

2449

220

35

5735

03

854

353

626

4026

00

3953

80

321

5324

28.

New

mar

ine

220

518

5523

00

073

270

923

599

510

4833

50

064

360

00

2653

21an

tifou

lant

s29

.N

ew41

05

2550

200

08

5438

03

1358

283

337

4513

00

3955

50

314

4439

dete

rgen

ts/s

urfa

ctan

ts30

.N

ewad

hesi

ves

300

3020

4010

03

2459

140

1017

5717

419

2641

110

052

444

04

2742

2731

.N

ewfe

rtili

sers

320

628

4422

06

963

220

016

5628

36

2948

130

038

566

03

2053

2332

.M

olec

ular

desi

gn36

614

3417

290

029

4329

06

2346

263

629

4320

00

4144

160

2332

2619

33.

Nan

otec

hnol

ogy

235

1827

3614

00

3055

150

1033

3324

019

3324

240

529

4819

032

2637

534

.In

form

atio

n39

815

2633

180

321

4433

53

1041

413

1515

4423

93

1434

400

39

2464

tech

nolo

gy35

.B

iom

imet

ics

260

1325

4221

00

2060

200

2024

4412

420

2444

80

046

468

426

4813

936

.Se

rvic

esin

stea

dof

423

1315

4525

00

1040

500

815

4533

315

2825

300

53

5141

30

2242

33pr

oduc

ts

(con

tinu

edon

next

page

)

362 P. Eder / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364T

able

A3

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofB

arri

er:

tech

nolo

gica

lSt

ruct

ural

/indu

stri

al/

Bar

rier

:la

ckof

rese

arch

Bar

rier

:ec

onom

icB

arri

er:

regu

latio

ns/

Bar

rier

:ed

ucat

ion/

skill

sB

arri

er:

lack

ofre

spon

dent

sfe

asib

ility

com

mer

cial

barr

iers

fund

svi

abili

typo

licy/

stan

dard

sin

cent

ives

/pre

ssur

esto

been

viro

nmen

tally

frie

ndly

Que

stio

nnu

mbe

rQ

7Q

8Q

9Q

10Q

11Q

12Q

13

Pos

sibl

ean

swer

s(s

ee1

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

Tab

le1

for

verb

alis

atio

n)

1.A

ltern

ativ

esy

nthe

tic46

1435

3316

25

2633

315

520

3528

1310

2452

77

2222

3220

510

2330

2810

1020

2027

24pa

thw

ays

2.C

losi

ng/

inte

rlin

king

5523

3531

82

1132

4013

420

2742

110

1726

3021

632

1723

199

2033

2817

29

2128

2815

ofm

ater

ial

flow

san

dre

cycl

ing

3.E

xten

ded

use

of39

1733

3119

03

2937

239

634

3420

69

2326

349

3131

1714

69

3529

243

1429

2320

14ce

llulo

seas

feed

stoc

k4.

Ext

ende

dus

eof

3513

4728

130

039

3516

103

3248

133

1332

2913

1332

2923

106

750

2020

313

3532

316

star

chas

feed

stoc

k5.

Ext

ende

dus

eof

3111

1136

367

426

3033

70

2237

374

719

3726

1133

2226

117

423

5415

47

3726

1119

ligni

nas

raw

mat

eria

l6.

Ext

ende

dus

eof

5118

2041

147

721

3530

712

2741

155

1221

2429

1414

1440

239

740

2424

510

2133

2610

was

teas

raw

mat

eria

l7.

Use

ofin

nocu

ous

4715

2429

292

537

3417

78

3033

238

740

3519

031

2631

102

1034

3222

213

3330

188

reag

ents

8.So

lven

t-fr

eere

actio

ns,

369

1530

450

639

2130

36

2136

2412

1218

3330

633

2424

153

930

2721

129

2727

1818

solid

phas

ere

actio

ns9.

Liq

uid/

supe

rcri

tical

4710

3140

145

527

3927

28

3841

103

77

3932

1535

2328

133

1033

3523

013

2823

2313

CO

2as

solv

ent

10.

Wat

erin

sead

of52

1621

3326

510

3331

242

1029

3126

517

3631

107

4319

2112

512

3136

175

1726

2624

7or

gani

cso

lven

ts11

.A

ltern

ativ

eor

gani

c49

2142

2314

05

5024

210

1823

4315

310

2933

262

2525

2020

1018

3528

183

1028

3023

10so

lven

ts12

.N

ewpr

oces

s44

1329

3418

58

4431

135

832

3718

513

3437

115

3825

2013

513

2540

185

1533

2818

5te

chno

logy

13.

Opt

imis

atio

nof

5328

5020

20

2350

1411

225

3427

112

3339

177

435

2828

72

2036

2713

411

4118

237

esta

blis

hed

proc

esse

s14

.H

eter

ogen

eous

3816

3939

60

1645

2316

00

3248

163

1935

3210

334

3122

130

1533

3018

319

2231

1613

cata

lysi

s15

.M

icro

poro

us28

825

5017

04

4621

290

025

3833

48

3342

134

3232

1620

08

3823

310

2032

2416

8ca

taly

sis

16.

Bio

cata

lysi

s44

1821

2137

30

4224

268

622

5611

611

1839

1813

2418

1824

1611

2434

248

1919

3816

817

.M

icro

wav

e20

022

3339

60

3928

330

012

5329

60

639

3322

2912

476

66

656

286

1229

2918

12ch

emis

try

18.

Impr

oved

sepa

ratio

n39

1634

2822

013

4816

230

348

3810

06

2342

290

3841

173

014

3929

180

1053

2313

0th

roug

hm

embr

anes

(con

tinu

edon

next

page

)

363P. Eder / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 347–364T

able

A3

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofB

arri

er:

tech

nolo

gica

lSt

ruct

ural

/indu

stri

al/

Bar

rier

:la

ckof

rese

arch

Bar

rier

:ec

onom

icB

arri

er:

regu

latio

ns/

Bar

rier

:ed

ucat

ion/

skill

sB

arri

er:

lack

ofre

spon

dent

sfe

asib

ility

com

mer

cial

barr

iers

fund

svi

abili

typo

licy/

stan

dard

sin

cent

ives

/pre

ssur

esto

been

viro

nmen

tally

frie

ndly

Que

stio

nnu

mbe

rQ

7Q

8Q

9Q

10Q

11Q

12Q

13

Pos

sibl

ean

swer

s(s

ee1

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

Tab

le1

for

verb

alis

atio

n)

19.

Impr

oved

2813

2138

290

838

2921

45

3236

235

417

5029

035

3017

134

1738

2121

426

3026

134

sepa

ratio

nth

roug

hm

icro

poro

ussy

stem

s20

.E

xten

ded

use

of32

1439

2114

110

6418

144

831

4215

44

3232

257

3352

114

022

4119

190

1952

197

4ch

rom

atog

raph

icse

para

tion

21.

New

poly

mer

s45

538

4015

33

3530

285

837

2624

55

2843

188

2331

2310

135

3638

155

1323

2821

1522

.N

ewre

frig

eran

ts31

1321

548

413

3825

214

943

3017

04

1746

294

821

2521

254

4832

160

2529

2513

823

.N

ewbl

owin

g22

126

5924

06

3328

330

635

3518

66

2844

176

1616

3221

165

4726

210

2126

1621

16ag

ents

24.

New

solv

ents

and

438

2261

80

328

3928

36

3829

243

325

4719

68

2528

2811

336

4219

017

2026

2314

clea

ning

agen

ts25

.N

ewdr

ugs

3121

2121

334

1733

2917

426

1735

174

2513

3825

017

1321

2921

1624

2428

829

2921

138

26.

New

coat

ings

/dye

s36

1132

4311

414

3128

243

1139

3214

410

3434

210

2717

3317

717

4030

103

1728

2814

1427

.N

ewpe

stic

ides

389

3327

300

336

3021

96

3933

183

624

4221

69

2612

2924

933

2133

321

1518

3312

28.

New

mar

ine

2220

2545

100

040

4015

50

4530

1510

1025

5015

015

2525

1025

1520

2535

510

2525

2020

antif

oula

nts

29.

New

4115

3841

60

344

3812

36

3253

90

918

4426

311

2228

318

1736

3114

317

2026

2611

dete

rgen

ts/s

urfa

ctan

ts30

.N

ewad

hesi

ves

3012

3236

200

442

3317

48

2546

210

1224

4420

012

4428

88

1632

3612

416

2824

2012

31.

New

fert

ilise

rs32

1330

3713

70

4030

237

733

3720

310

1737

2313

2027

2020

1317

2730

207

1717

2330

1332

.M

olec

ular

desi

gn36

99

3144

63

3441

166

327

3027

139

2534

229

3913

2619

136

1641

1919

3223

3210

333

.N

anot

echn

olog

y23

016

4242

00

3737

215

526

3226

116

2228

3311

2030

3020

010

2525

355

2520

4010

534

.In

form

atio

n39

2929

2613

316

3939

60

2932

266

629

4219

100

4532

163

313

2932

1610

2929

353

3te

chno

logy

35.

Bio

mim

etic

s26

417

2946

40

2525

428

1713

1735

1717

1738

1713

1726

2217

1713

1326

3017

930

3517

936

.Se

rvic

esin

stea

dof

4244

3813

60

629

1829

1827

2724

183

2638

2112

341

1812

219

1518

3621

924

2127

189

prod

ucts


References

[1] Faber M, Jost F, Muller-Furstenberger G. ‘Umweltschutz undEffizienz in der chemischen Industrie—Eine empirische Untersu-chung mit 33 Fallstudien’ , Diskussionschriften, Universitat Heid-elberg, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultat; 1994.

[2] Porter ME, van der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending thestalemate. Harvard Business Review, September–October 1995.

[3] Christ C, editor. Production-integrated environmental protectionand waste management in the chemical industry. Wiley-VCH;Weinheim; 1999.

[4] Achilladelis B, Schwarzkopf A, Cines M. The dynamics of tech-nological innovation: the case of the chemical industry. Res Pol-icy 1990;19:1–34.

[5] Albach H, Audretsch D, Fleischer M, Greb R, Hofs E, Roller L-H, Schulz I. Innovation in the European chemical industry. Con-ference: ‘ Innovation measurement and policies’ , European Com-mission; 1997. p. 182–7. ISBN 92-828-2043-2.

[6] Weterings R, Kuijper J, Smeets E. 81 options: technology forsustainable development—Final report of the environment-ori-ented technology foresight study. Apeldoorn; 1997.

[7] Bower DJ, Keogh W. Changing patterns of innovation in a pro-cess-dominated industry. Int J Technol Manage1996;12(2):209–20.

[8] Blazejczak J, Edler D, Hemmelskamp J, Janicke M. Umweltpoli-tik und Innovation: Politikmuster und Innovationswirkungen iminternationalen Vergleich. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik undUmweltrecht 1999;22(1):1–32.

[9] Clayton A, Spinardi G, Williams R. What shapes the implemen-tation of cleaner technology?—Conclusions and recommen-dations. In: Clayton A, Spinardi G, Williams R, editors. Policiesfor cleaner technology—A new agenda for government andindustry. London: Earthscan; 1999.

[10] Gavigan JP, Scapolo F. A comparison of national foresight exer-cises. Foresight 1999;1(6):491–513.

[11] Cameron H, Loveridge D, Cabrera J, Castanier L, Presmanes B,Vazquez L, van der Meulen B. Technology foresight: perspec-tives for European and international cooperation. PREST, Univer-sity of Manchester; 1996.

[12] OECD. Proceedings of the OECD workshop on sustainablechemistry, Venice,October 15–17, 1998.

[13] Clayton A, Ryan B, Williams R. Cleaner technologies and thegreening of industry: an introduction. In: Clayton A, Spinardi G,Williams R, editors. Policies for cleaner technology–A newagenda for government and industry. London: Earthscan; 1999.

[14] Duffy N, Ryan B. Fine chemicals sector. In: Clayton A, SpinardiG, Williams R, editors. Policies for cleaner technology—A newagenda for government and industry. London: Earthscan; 1999.

[15] White AL, Stoughton M, Feng L. Servicizing: the quiet transitionto extended producer responsibility. Boston: Tellus Institute,1999.

[16] Andersen B, Walsh V. Co-evolution within chemical technologysystems: a competence bloc approach. Indus Innovat2000;7(1):77–115.

[17] Miller JA. Life sciences in the chemical industry: the case forsynergy. Chem Innovat 2000;30(9):33–7.

[18] Creating eco-efficient producer service, research project fundedby the European Commission, 4th framework programme. Projectreference: ENV4980725.

[19] US Department of Energy. Plant/crop-based renewable resources2020—A vision to enhance US economic security through renew-able plant/crop-based resource use, DOE/GO-10097-385; 1998(http://www.oit.doe.gov/agriculture/).

[20] US Department of Energy. The technology road map forplant/crop-based renewable resources 2020’ , DOE/GO-10099-706; 1999 (http://www.oit.doe.gov/agriculture/).

http://www.oit.doe.gov/agriculture/

http://www.oit.doe.gov/agriculture/

expert inquiry on innovation options for cleaner production in the chemical industry

Documents