Michael Braungart has something of a celebrity status in countries such as the Netherlands and the U.S., where he has inspired politicians and celebrities alike with his Cradle to Cradle concept. In his home country of Germany, however, the chemist is often labeled as an enviro-nut - a monicker usually reserved for the Birkenstock-loving, health-food store frequenting population. But Braungart is more realist than idealist, and his idea is simple: Make products that are not "less bad," but rather products that are good for the environment. "We want to make triple top line designs: simultaneously good for the economy, good for society, and good for the environment," he says.
In an interview with Brandi Schuster, Braungart takes the European chemical industry to task and encourages a new line of thinking.

CHEManager Europe: Does green chemistry exist?

M. Braungart: No. There is either good chemistry or bad chemistry.

What kind of chemistry is the European chemical industry producing?

M. Braungart: The situation is somehow very tragic, particularly after the disasters that have happened over the past few decades, like Seveso, Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdes. We nearly lost a whole generation of good engineers, especially good chemists. One time I had a student tell me his girlfriend threatened to leave him if he continued to study chemistry. And so, now we have brilliant MBAs, we have great lawyers, but we don't have enough good scientists; a whole generation is missing. And many of those who did study chemistry did it out of opportunistic reasons. And others did it with a feeling of guilt: "Yes, I like to do chemistry, but it is a bad thing, so I try to make the best out of it."

Is the European chemical industry being run with a bad conscience?

M. Braungart: Yes; it is a type of guilt management thing. And this is a pity, because chemical industry gets marginalized because of this bad reputation.

Companies like Akzo Nobel and DSM make about 50% of their profit with products that are younger than seven years. If they don't reinvent themselves every year, they lose the potential for innovation. And this potential means having creative people, having fun, having spirit and optimism. These are the qualities that disappear when chemical industry makes bad stuff or causes disasters.

For example?

M. Braungart: Take Bisphenol A in polycarbonate, which is used to make bottles for babies. Or when toys are analyzed and more than 600 problematic chemicals are found. Also, 21 years of analyzing breast milk have shown that it contains over 2,500 different chemicals. When a company makes stuff that accumulates in biological systems, it is simply bad chemistry.

What does that mean for the industry?

M. Braungart: The consequence is that the chemical industry is losing the brightest minds and people with MBAs are taking over the management; people who don't really understand the brilliance and the beauty of innovation in chemicals. When someone doesn't understand the chemistry, all chemicals end up seeming like bad things. Because of this culture of guilt management, many companies are trying to be less bad by becoming "eco-efficient", trying to be less bad. Instead of seeing the opportunities and potential of innovation in chemistry, they are wasting their time feeling guilty about existing.

Have you found that innovation in chemical companies has slowed down since the economic downturn, something that has also generated fear in the industry?

M. Braungart: Yes, but it's not only that. Companies are also laying off people who are not directly involved in production, because they cannot measure creativity in productive terms so easily. For example, EDTA can be made much cheaper in China and Korea than here in Europe. So when it is produced here, companies end up laying off all the people who aren't involved in the manufacturing. This means that innovations that are there don't reach the market, because the highly optimized wrong systems are dominating the market and these highly optimized wrong systems can be done much cheaper in China.
With Reach, the erosion will go even faster. If you look at black dyes for T-shirts, for bras, etc., they need to go through Reach. When the same bloody T-shirt comes with most toxic dye from China, it doesn't need to go through Reach. The legislation basically forces problematic production into other countries and makes extra costs for innovation here. Reach basically means regulating the past instead of organizing the future; it doesn't celebrate innovation. It just means stagnation on the existing level. And that means that the chemical industry will become more and more irrelevant.

What about programs like Responsible Care or the use of the word "sustainability" as proof of environmental stewardship?