OpenLobby.EU
Explore

EVONIK INDUSTRIES AG

Evonik is a German specialty chemicals company with 32,000 employees operating in over 100 countries.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Hans Ingels (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

21 Jan 2026 · Methylmethacrylate proposed for harmonised classification as respiratory sensiter category 1

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Jan 2026 · Auswirkungen von CBAM auf Methionin-Produktion

Meeting with Christine Schneider (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Dec 2025 · Methionine

Meeting with Jessika Van Leeuwen (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Nov 2025 · Carbon Leakage or Food Security?

Meeting with Estelle Goeger (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné) and Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. and

4 Nov 2025 · Overview of the Commission's Single Market Strategy.

Evonik Urges Swift EU Adoption of Chemical Recycling Rules

19 Aug 2025
Topic — EU initiative establishing rules for calculating recycled content in plastic bottles.
Message — Evonik calls for the swift adoption of rules by 2025 to ensure investment certainty. They support mass balance methods but warn against provisions that make using existing assets economically unviable.12
Why — This framework provides legal certainty for the company to invest in new recycling installations.3
Impact — General consumers could suffer from price inflation and an overall loss in welfare.4
Read full response

Evonik Urges Industry-Specific Solutions for EU Decarbonisation

8 Jul 2025
Topic — The Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act aims to speed up investments in energy-intensive industries.
Message — Evonik calls for industry-specific solutions and international energy policies to aid transformation. They note that decarbonizing chemical production is currently cost-intensive without economic benefits.12
Why — This approach would help the company overcome current competitiveness struggles and bureaucratic burdens.3
Impact — Policymakers seeking green lead markets lose a tool for driving green demand.4
Read full response

Response to EU emissions trading system for maritime, aviation and stationary installations, and market stability reserve - review

19 Jun 2025

Criticism of the EU emissions trading system Risk of carbon leakage: The industry sees a risk that rising CO costs will lead to production and investment being relocated to non-European countries where less stringent climate protection requirements apply. This shift threatens the competitiveness of European companies and could lead to a net increase in global emissions. Export disadvantages: European companies cannot pass on the additional CO costs caused by the EU ETS1/CBAM to customers in export markets, as competitors in other regions are not burdened with a CO price. This significantly impairs competitiveness on global markets and affects both upstream and downstream parts of the value chain. International price pressure: Large production capacities are emerging in the Far East, often leading to unfair global competition. The steadily increasing number of anti-dumping proceedings demonstrates this. High costs and unclear regulations influence investment decisions to the detriment of Germany and Europe as a business location, thereby promoting the relocation of entire value chains and the accompanying research landscape. Insufficient support for defossilisation: Despite high CO prices, industry does not consider the EU ETS to be sufficient to enable the necessary rapid and comprehensive transformation to climate-neutral production processes. Additional instruments and public support, such as contracts for difference (CCfDs) and support for accelerating innovation, will be necessary. Besides, those instruments need to be made much easier. Additionally, the industry is lacking affordable technological alternatives in many production processes as well as the necessary affordable infrastructure for power, CO2 and H2 as well as more renewable energy sources. Ideas for balancing/adjusting the system: Extending the free allocation of CO allowances for energy-intensive installations beyond 2030 to reduce the burden of purchasing allowances and prevent carbon leakage. The de facto reduction of energy costs in Europe (especially in Germany) must finally take place. This is because high energy prices impair the competitiveness of the industry and delay the transition. Limiting certificate prices or expanding the number of certificates to lower prices. o Extension of the CO cap or alignment with the EU's 2050 climate target o Immediate dissolution of the market stability reserve and auctioning all certificates currently hold in the reserve o Resumption of international emission allowances (Article 6 of the Paris Agreement) Full use of auction revenues to transform the EU ETS1 sectors for the 1. State aid for compensating CO2 costs included in the electricity price 2. Defossilisation measures by companies via an unbureaucratic legal framework for special accounts linked to the EU ETS1 (idea of the German Economic Council (CDU) to tunnel the paid certificate costs to a company wise account, where the company can use the money for transformation measures directly) Refund of CO taxes paid on products exported from the EU to ensure fair international trade. Idea for improving CBAM: setting up a system based on the state aid for compensating CO2 costs included in the electricity price to establish an export and domestic market protection mechanism. No further extension of the CBAM before 2030 and willing to take back the CBAM, if it does not avoid carbon leakage and safeguards EU competitiveness. Recognition of temporary CO2 storage within products (CCU) in the EU ETS as a transitional solution during the transformation phase The industry considers EU ETS to be a fundamentally good instrument but calls for adjustments to mitigate the burdens and ensure international competitiveness. In addition, the introduction of a functioning CO border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) must be discussed, which would impose a levy on imports from countries without comparable climate protection measures.
Read full response

Meeting with Heiko Kunst (Head of Unit Climate Action)

28 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the revision of the EU Emission Trading System and challenges faced by the chemical industry.

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament)

26 May 2025 · Visit of Marl Chemical Park

Meeting with Andrea Wechsler (Member of the European Parliament) and EUROGAS

19 May 2025 · EU Energy and industry policy

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Apr 2025 · Exchange on the The Competitiveness of the EU Chemical Industry Communication

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) and WACKER CHEMIE AG

17 Mar 2025 · Ongoing safeguards investigation into alloying elements (SAFE010)

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Feb 2025 · Industriepolitik

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Feb 2025 · Veranstaltung zum Thema klimaneutrale und effiziente Prozesswärme

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Jan 2025 · Austausch Industriepolitik

Meeting with Gabriele Bischoff (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Bayer AG and

24 Jan 2025 · Austausch mit dem Wirtschaftsforum der SPD e.V. zur Revision Eurobetriebsräte

Meeting with Bruno Tobback (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Jan 2025 · Hoge energieprijzen en uitdagingen voor de chemische industrie in Vlaanderen

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament) and WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle and Bundesverband Glasindustrie e.V.

30 Oct 2024 · Standortbesuch, Clean Industrial Deal

Response to Commission Roadmap to phase out animal testing

15 Oct 2024

Thank you for this initiative and for the opportunity to comment. We are in line with the goal of reducing and ultimately replacing animal testing and apply non animal methods when scientifically possible, feasible and have reached regulatory acceptance. We have the following comments: A harmonized effort for validation and regulatory acceptance of non animal tests and strategies is needed across geographies and regulatory frameworks to avoid duplication of testing and avoid redundant animal testing. Since we are a global company, we see the need for alignment and harmonization at OECD level. Likewise, a common and harmonized understanding between EU regulatory bodies is needed on how to address data needs and interpret results. Updated and new regulatory guidance documents are needed to ensure regulatory acceptance, especially for the transition period; this will bring regulatory certainty and planning security for industry and also CROs. Since we are committed to putting safe products on the market, we have to ensure, that safety assessments are based on reliable methods and strategies. Despite the acknowlegement, that validation of new, here non animal test methods need to be sped up, quality needs to prevail. Otherwise we may end up with unjustified bans of chemicals or may not protect human health and the environment suffienctly due to false positive or false negative results, respectively. In order to reduce/ avoid animal studies for complex endpoints already now, an exchange between regulators and industry on the acceptance of read across, grouping and waiver approaches should be further intensified. Difficult-to-test substances, UVCBs will continue to pose challenges for testing and assessment; the new paradigm will need to allow tailor-made approaches and substance-specific interpretation for specific chemistries (e.g. nanomaterials). At the early stages, we expect increased rather than reduced investments, costs, resources, expertise needs for CROS and companies when conducting and interpretating NAMs/NGRA data. Two examples for increased costs: GLP-compliant analytics in the EU for UVCBs may account for >100k (standard in vitro TK package), in vivo skin sensitization (LLNA) may cost a third compared to two to three in vitro skin sensitisation assays.
Read full response

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament) and Dow Europe GmbH and Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V.

16 Apr 2024 · Various

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Jan 2024 · Austausch

Meeting with Dimitri Lorenzani (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič), Helena Braun (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and

11 Sept 2023 · Restriction proposal on silicon

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Feb 2023 · Exchange of Views on the Industrial Emissions Directive

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

24 Jan 2023 · IED (& ETS)

Meeting with Dennis Radtke (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

13 Oct 2022 · European Works Councils Directive

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Aug 2022 · Fit for 55

Response to Soil Health Law – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils

15 Mar 2022

Evonik ist ein weltweit führendes Unternehmen der Spezialchemie mit ca. 40 Standorten allein in Europa. Viele dieser Standorte haben eine jahrzehntelange industrielle Historie, die zum Teil bis ins 19. Jahrhundert zurückreicht. Aufgrund von früheren industriellen Tätigkeiten kam es an einigen Standorten zu Verunreinigungen von Boden und Grundwasser, mit denen wir uns bis heute im Rahmen einer Altlastenbearbeitung befassen. Wir bieten an, diese Erfahrung in den laufenden Prozess der Erarbeitung eines Bodengesundheitsgesetzes einzubringen. Grundsätzlich sollte ein Bodengesundheitsgesetz die folgenden Grundsätze beachten: - Die Bewertung von Bodenkontaminationen erfordert stets eine fallbezogene Risikobewertung. Hierbei sind u.a. die Eigenschaften der Verunreinigungen (Persistenz, Toxizität, Mobilität usw.), deren Ausbreitung (Konzentrationen, absolute Mengen, betroffenes Bodenvolumen) und auch Risikopfade, Hintergrundbelastungen und die Standortnutzung zu betrachten. Bei letztere gilt es insbesondere industriell vorgenutzte Standorte („brownfields“) und bisher ungenutzte („greenfields“) zu unterscheiden. Als kontaminierte Standorte („contaminated sites“) können folglich nur solche Standorte angesehen werden, von denen nachgewiesenermaßen ein nicht akzeptables Umweltrisiko ausgeht. - Die Sicherung von Bodenkontaminationen (z.B. Einkapselung) ist gleichranging zu einer Bodensanierung zu sehen, sofern die Risikobetrachtung dies zulässt. - Grundsätzlich sind die Begriffe „Wiederherstellung“ („restoration“) und Sanierung („remediation“) zu unterscheiden. Eine Sanierung zielt i.d.R. auf eine Verringerung von Schadstoffen im Boden ab, während die Wiederherstellung z.B. die Remodellierung von Oberflächen zur Schaffung von Lebensräumen beinhaltet. - Bei Grundstückstransaktionen sollen die Parteien die Haftungsregelungen für (mögliche) Bodenkontaminationen weiterhin im Innenverhältnis regeln können. Zudem würden verpflichtende Umweltuntersuchungen Grundstückstransaktionen in vielen Fällen unverhältnismäßig erschweren oder sogar verhindern. - Der Schutz der Biodiversität in Böden an industriellen Standorten stellt eine besondere Herausforderung dar, da hier der Zugang zum Boden vielfach durch die Produktions- und sonstigen Anlagen erschwert ist. Bei der Erarbeitung entsprechender Vorgaben sollte die Industrie somit eng eingebunden werden. - In einigen Mitgliedsstaaten wie z.B. in Deutschland existiert seit vielen Jahren ein funktionierendes Bodenschutzrecht(Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz - BBodSchG). Die Erfahrungen aus der Anwendung und Weiterentwicklung dieser bestehenden Rechtsinstrumente sollte in jedem Fall bei der Erstellung der geplanten Prioritätsliste für neu aufkommende Schadstoffe berücksichtigt werden.
Read full response

Response to Waste Framework review to reduce waste and the environmental impact of waste management

18 Feb 2022

Evonik begrüßt die Überarbeitung der Abfallrahmenrichtlinie mit dem Ziel der Unterstützung der Klima- und Kreislaufwirtschaftsziele der EU. Die vorwiegend für ein lineares Wirtschaften erstellte Abfallrahmenrichtlinie muss auf die Anforderungen einer zirkulären Wirtschaft angepasst werden. Um dies zu erreichen, bedarf es u. a. einer grundsätzlichen neuen Definition von „Abfall“. Was heute als Abfall gilt muss zukünftig als Rohstoff betrachtet werden. Die überarbeitete Abfallrahmenrichtline muss sowohl Planungssicherheit zur Absicherung der notwendigen Investitionen gewährleisten als auch gleichzeitig Innovation ermöglichen und ein Level Playing Field für unterschiedliche Technologien schaffen. Dazu gehört auch eine bessere Umsetzung bzw. Stärkung der EU-Abfallhierarchie, um die Abfallvermeidung, die Vorbereitung zur Wiederverwendung und das Recycling zu optimieren. So lassen sich mit neuen innovativen Verfahren, z. B. aus dem Bereich des chemischen Recyclings, Kunststoffabfälle recyceln, die bisher nicht stofflich verwertet werden konnten. Hierbei wird der Kreislauf zudem von störenden Stoffen entfrachtet. Nachhaltige Abfallverwertung setzt voraus, dass die Abfallzusammensetzung den jeweils optimalen Verwertungsweg bestimmt. Daher müssen auch neue Verfahren wie etwa das chemische Recycling in Ergänzung zu mechanischen Verfahren diskriminierungsfrei betrachtet werden. Entscheidend bei der Wahl des besten Verwertungsweges muss sein, welches Verfahren am Ende die insgesamt beste Ökobilanz aufweist. Für Abfallströme, die nicht weiter verwertbar sind – z. B. Verbrennungsrückstände aus der energetischen Verwertung – muss zudem die Deponierung weiterhin möglich sein. Eine erfolgreiche Kreislaufwirtschaft benötigt im Grundsatz gleiche Bedingungen für alle im Kreislauf geführte Materialien, unabhängig davon, ob „neues“ Material oder „gebrauchtes“ Material vorliegt. Materialien, die im Kreislauf geführt werden, sollten demnach abfallrechtlich bessergestellt werden als Materialien, die lediglich energetisch verwertet oder gar beseitigt werden. Hierfür sollte ein neuer Begriff / Status des „zirkulären Rohstoffs“ o.ä. eingeführt werden. Der Abfall-Status sollte dann primär bei Materialien zum Tragen kommen, die tatsächlich dem Kreislauf entzogen werden (z. B. durch energetische Verwertung oder Beseitigung). Qualitätsgesichtetes Material hingegen, welches im Kreislauf verbleibt, sollte im Grundsatz kein Abfall mehr im bisherigen rechtlichen Sinne sein. Hierfür müsste dann beispielsweise die Abfalldefinition entsprechend angepasst werden oder das Ende der Abfalleigenschaft „vorverlagert“ werden. Im Abfallrecht wird stark auf die Erfüllung von Recycling-Quoten fokussiert. Dies führt in der Praxis zu einer Schwächung der Abfallhierarchie. Zahlreiche andere, die Kreislaufwirtschaft neben dem Recycling ebenfalls fördernde Aktivitäten, insbesondere im Bereich der Abfallvermeidung, finden keinen Eingang in diese Quoten. Hier gilt es entsprechende Ergänzungen zu entwickeln und zu verankern.
Read full response

Meeting with Agne Razmislaviciute-Palioniene (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and

14 Jul 2021 · Handover joint letter Micro-Algae coalition for sustainable fisheries

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

7 Jun 2021 · Pact for skills: re/upskilling needs for a successful green and digital transition in the energy intensive industries ecosystem

Response to Revision of EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals

28 May 2021

GHS creates an international level playing field for a growing number of countries, hereby contributing to the implementation of SAICM (Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management), which is a key objective of the Commission’s global agenda reiterated in the CSS. - In order to achieve global harmonisation, jurisdictions should avoid introducing regional specificities and implementing classifications above and beyond those covered by the UN GHS. Any unilateral implementation of new hazard classes without consultation of the UN GHS is contradictory in this regard. - Implementing new hazard classes as a basis for generic risk management, e.g. for endocrine disrupting mode of action, PBT/vPvB and newly proposed PMT/vPvM substances, seem to be based on a general misunderstanding of the Globally Harmonised System. The proposed new hazard classes and criteria do not meet the OECD definition of “hazard”. Moreover, adverse effects triggered by endocrine disruptors, such as carcinogenic or reproductive toxic effects are already covered by existing CLP hazard classes. The introduction of new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors may result in double classification, which would lead to confusion. - The idea of introducing new hazard classes into the GHS as a means to identify chemicals to be automatically restricted or banned for certain uses without any risk assessment is in clear contradiction to the internationally agreed principles of the GHS and therefore cannot be supported. We regret that the Commission does not intend to consider these consequences in its impact assessment. - Since no single substance is 100% pure the majority of the substances may qualify as MOCS (More than One Constituent Substances). It is not viable to isolate and test individual MOCS components down to 0.1%, especially for UVCB substances. This would hamper the whole hazard and risk information at a substance level concept in REACH and substantially increase animal testing, time and costs for data generation and evaluation. Any change to the current process of classification of mixtures and some complex substances should be assessed in the IA. - The UN GHS clearly states that it is “not intended to harmonize risk assessment procedures or risk management decisions i.e. as establishment of a permissible exposure limit for employee exposure, which generally require some risk assessment in addition to hazard classification”. Thus, any procedures on setting harmonized environmental and safety values, would be clearly beyond the scope of GHS, and would mix up hazard classification and risk assessment decisions. - Expanding the PCN notification obligation from mixtures to substances would not bring any added value as the information on substance(s) is already available in the ECHA database. - We support clarifying obligations for distributors for the notification of mixtures by means of including into the CLP impact assessment. - We do not support a mandate for Commission to request ECHA to develop new harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossiers because in article 37 (5), CLP, the role of the Commission includes an assessment whether or not a proposed harmonized classification is justified. We doubt that an independent assessment of appropriateness beyond the submitters intention to harmonize can be assured if submission and assessment is in the same hand. - We fully support to facilitate the use of multilingual fold-out labels and welcome further simplification of labelling that would be in line with digitalization under UN GHS. - Regarding a prioritization mechanism for harmonising the classification of certain chemicals we support a clear hazard based prioritization mechanism. - Evonik is in favour of simplification and a general reduction of administrative costs for all actors, including the high costs for re-labelling. The Impact Assessment will need to clarify which administrative costs or processes will be simplified.
Read full response

Response to Chemicals strategy for sustainability

19 Jun 2020

Evonik sieht die in der Roadmap vorgestellten Ansätze, Bewährtes zu erhalten sowie die in der Vergangenheit identifizierten Verbesserungs-potentiale und insbesondere neue wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse bei der Umsetzung der neuen Chemikalienstrategie zu berücksichtigen, sehr positiv. Evonik ermöglicht unserer Gesellschaft bereits heute durch umfassende Forschung und Entwicklungsaktivitäten sowie mit innovativen Produkten ein hohes Niveau beim Gesundheits- und Umweltschutz. Somit tragen wir mit unseren Produkten entscheidend zur stetigen Verbesserung der Lebensqualität und Wertschöpfung in Europa und der Welt bei. Aus unserer Sicht sollte die Chemikalienstrategie unter anderem folgende Rahmenbedingungen und Leitmotive umfassen: Planungssicherheit und stabiles regulatorisches Umfeld: Ein wichtiger Punkt für wettbewerbsfähige Unternehmen in der EU ist die Planungssicherheit, basierend auf einem stabilen regulatorischen Umfeld. Die Kommission hat mit ihrer Schlussfolgerung im REACH-Bericht von 2018 deutlich gemacht, dass weiterhin keine Veranlassung besteht, den verfügenden Teil der REACH-Verordnung zu ändern und hat damit zu einer verbesserten Planungssicherheit beigetragen. In jedem Fall muss der für 2022 vorgesehene Review abgewartet und dessen Ergebnisse bei der Ausgestaltung der Chemikalienstrategie berücksichtigt werden. Risikobasierter Ansatz: Der gefahrenbasierte Ansatz erscheint aufgrund seiner geringeren Komplexität einfacher und transparenter. Allerdings berücksichtigt nur der risikobasierte Ansatz zusätzlich die Exposition. In den meisten Fällen ermöglicht daher nur ein risikobasierter Ansatz die Ableitung wirksamer, effizienter und verhältnismäßiger Risikomanagementmaßnahmen. Die REACH-Verordnung berücksichtigt diesen Ansatz teilweise. Allerdings wird der gefahrenbasierte Ansatz erneut angeführt, so z. B. der Beschränkungsvorschlag zu Mikroplastik oder der Identifizierung von EDs. Zudem besteht die Gefahr, dass weltweit unterschiedliche Ansätze (Gefahr vs Risikobasiert) zu Nachteilen in Bezug auf das Welthandelsabkommen führen können, da Stoffe mit unterschiedlicher Bewertung auf den Markt gebracht werden müssten. Zudem hat die Kommission in ihrer Mitteilung zur REFIT-Bewertung des Chemikalienrechts den Begriff der „generic risk consideration“ neu eingeführt. Solche Ansätze können eine echte Risikobewertung nicht ersetzen, da auch sie die verwendungsabhängige Exposition nicht berücksichtigen. REACH-Datenbank: Evonik hat bisher für mehr als 800 Stoffe umfangreiche Registrierungsdossiers bei der Europäischen Chemikalienagentur ECHA eingereicht und damit zur Schaffung einer weltweit einzigartige Datenbasis beigetragen. Wir müssen nun gemeinsam die Datenlage weiter verbessern und wo nötig vervollständigen. Die sinnvolle Nutzung dieser Daten z.B. auch für den Arbeitsschutz ist zu propagieren. Die Forderung nach neuen Daten muss eine Fall zu Fall Entscheidung bleiben und im Sinne des Tierschutzes erfolgen Nachhaltigkeit und gefährliche Stoffe sind kein Widerspruch: Neue, nachhaltige Produkte entstehen zum Teil aus Stoffen, die miteinander reagieren. Stoffe, die reagieren können, aber zugleich ein mögliches Gefahrenpotential aufweisen. Auf Basis einer wissenschaftlich abgeleiteten Risikobewertung können gefährliche Stoffe sicher gehandhabt werden und die resultierenden nachhaltigen Produkte können helfen, z.B. die Nachhaltigkeitsziele der Vereinten Nationen sowie die Ziele des Green Deals zu erreichen. So ist z.B. Wasserstoff einerseits hochentzündlich und damit gefährlich. Sinnvoll eingesetzt ist er aber auch eine Schlüsselkomponente einer Brennstoffzelle für die Elektromobilität, einem wichtigen Beitrag zur Klimastrategie und Nachhaltigkeit. Rolle von EU-Agenturen und Behörden: Es ist wichtig, dass die Zusammenarbeit sowie die Bewertungsgrundsätze harmonisiert und abgestimmt werden, um Doppelarbeit und widersprüchliche Bewertungen zu vermeiden. Letzter führen zu Verunsicherung in Industrie, Bevölkerung und Behörden.
Read full response

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

11 May 2020 · Discussion on the impact of COVID-19

Response to Revision of the ETS State aid Guidelines

16 Jan 2019

Die Evonik Industries AG begrüßt die Revision der EU-Beihilfeleitlinie und die Anpassung der Vorschriften über den Ausgleich der indirekten Emissionskosten, um den Verschärfungen der Regeln des EU-Emissionshandels (EU ETS) für die 4. Handelsperiode zu begegnen, die die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Industrie nicht erleichtern. Beihilfen für emissionshandelsbedingte indirekte CO2-Kosten sind für Evonik als ein im internationalen Wettbewerb stehendes und energieintensives Unternehmen der Spezialchemie ein wichtiger Bestandteil zum Schutz der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Dabei nimmt die Bedeutung direkter und indirekter CO2-Kosten deutlich zu. Aufgrund eines nach wie vor fehlenden einheitlichen Bepreisungssystems für THG-Emissionen auf globaler oder zumindest auf G20-Ebene sowie eines massiven CO2-Preisanstiegs im EU ETS, ist die Strompreiskompensation von besonderer Bedeutung. Die Evonik Industries AG leistet daher gerne einen Diskussionsbeitrag zur Novellierung der Beihilfeleitlinien und nimmt dabei zu einigen Punkten wie folgt Stellung: 1) Die Beihilfe muss deutlich erhöht, Abschlagsfaktoren abgebaut werden 2) CO2-Emissionsfaktor des Stroms muss auf Basis des preissetzenden Kraftwerks definiert sein 3) Eine Überkompensation findet nicht statt 4) Obergrenzen für die Beihilfe sind aus unserer Sicht nicht sinnvoll 5) Gegenleistungen für den Erhalt der Beihilfe lehnt Evonik ab Unsere ausführliche Stellungnahme inklusive Erläuterungen entnehmen Sie bitte dem beigefügten Dokument.
Read full response

Response to Free allocation of emission allowances

9 Nov 2018

Impacts of a change in the heat benchmarks’ methodology 1. The determination of the new heat benchmark in the fourth trading period needs to remain comparable to the previous methodology. Therefore it should be based on: a) Energy source natural gas, because of its high level of availability and relatively low CO2-intensity compared to other fossil energy sources, b) Natural gas fired boiler as heat generator. 2. Benchmark methodology needs to remain unchanged. We reject a change of the heat benchmarks’ methodology analogous to the product benchmark which is based on the 10% best heat producers. 3. With the change of the benchmarks’ methodology Evonik would face considerable additional costs on top of the expected increasing costs in the fourth trading period.
Read full response

Response to Towards a more comprehensive EU framework on endocrine disruptors

17 Jul 2018

For Chemical Industry, especially for Evonik Industries AG, it is essential to assure that our products do not harm people and the environment when used properly. Therefore, we are fully committed to test method development and data generation on adverse effect dose-response relationship to enable risk identification and management – either for endocrine disruptors (ED) or any other chemical with other modes of action. Evonik is in favor of full enforcement of regulations which support appropriate use of chemicals, to achieve the public health benefit intended by the regulations and to ensure a level playing field for industry. Regarding ED, the EU policy and legal framework is comprehensive already. For example, the criteria for identification ED under the plant protection products and biocides regulations have been adopted. Moreover, regarding chemicals, the REACH regulation covers identification of ED as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). Here, related risk management options are in place e.g. authorisation or restriction. Especially with a highly politicised topic such as ED, it is essential that EU Commission relies on advice and assessments prepared through established evaluation and decision-making procedures in the competent EU scientific authorities such as EFSA. Otherwise, political and commercial decisions risk will be based on speculative evidence and will fail to achieve the intended benefits (for human health/environment). Before further steps will be taken to develop and strengthen legislation, experience with the practical implementation and possible impacts of the existing regulations must be evaluated. There are scientific questions open, such as to better understand the nature of health concerns and causal relationships, as well as relevant sources of the health concerns. From a public health and general societal perspective, it is detrimental to treat endocrine disrupting natural food ingredients, behaviours, drugs and synthetic chemicals by different approaches. A common scientific approach is needed when assessing the endocrine disrupting properties of any substance. Future research should be targeted towards validated health and environmental issues to achieve a consistent approach and proportionality in EU regulations. Further EU research should be focused on understanding specific scientifically contentious topics, such as the dose-response relationship for endocrine disrupting and other substances, and postulated knowledge gaps such as appropriate animal and in vitro models for cognitive impairment by different modes of action. Evonik supports development and validation at OECD level of new test methods which serve public and environmental health . Protecting humans and the environment from harm caused by exposure to natural or synthetic materials requires relevant methods for detecting adverse effects and the range of doses for which there is no adverse effect. Methods investigating the mode of actions causing a given adverse effect are nice to have, but not necessary for safety assurance in first tier safety assessments as long as the effect methods are relevant. By and large, the toxicology toolbox applied to assure safety of drugs, food and chemicals alike can be assumed to work well, especially when considering non-therapeutic doses. One endpoint for which further work on effect models is warranted is cognitive impairment, regardless of potential modes of action. This is an area where the EU Commission should consider research funding into the possible causes and relevant effect models. It is conceivable that such effects (once validated) are not related to the exposure to chemicals but are explained by other mechanisms/modes of action. We fully support the development of predictive toxicological and eco-toxicological research as this reduces the need for animal testing whether evidence is needed to demonstrate a positive or negative effect.
Read full response

Response to Amendments of the Annexes to REACH for registration of nanomaterials

6 Nov 2017

Evonik Industries AG welcomes the possibility to comment on the draft of the nanospecific REACH annexes. Evonik supports the comments already submitted by CEFIC, VCI, VdMi and ASASP (attached for reference). In addition, Evonik would like to highlight and elaborate on specific comments. Nanomaterials may be hazardous or may be not: An important recognition of the decision of the Board of Appeal (BoA) on SAS material is that being a nanomaterial is insufficient on its own to justify a potential concern. The BoA notes that some nanomaterials are hazardous whilst others are not. Nanomaterial is a categorisation of a substance solely by its size. However, the fact that a substance is a nanomaterial neither implies a specific risk nor does it necessarily mean that the substance has different hazard properties compared to its non-nano ‘form’. Therefore, Evonik thinks that all additionally requested information should be given to increase transparency when a concern arises. Generating additional data that are not requested in already for nanomaterials adapted OECD test guidelines appears disproportionate, and in the case of toxicological testing to be not in compliance with animal welfare. Therefore, we are in line with Article 1 of REACH, that animal testing shall be the last resort. That is also supported by the European Commission in its second regulatory review on nanomaterials where it is concluded that nanomaterials are similar to normal chemicals in that some may be hazardous and some may not. Surface Treatment: The proposed Annex VI calls for information not only on the surface chemistry itself but also on the surface treating agents used. In our opinion that should be read as “or” instead of “and”. Registrants must be able to show that the surface-treated material is safe, which can either be done by consideration of the surface chemistry itself or by consideration of the surface-treating agent. To disclose each and every surface-treating agent – even if it leads to the same surface chemistry as others – hinders innovation and causes high confidentiality problems without making the substance more safe or the registration clearer. Information requirements depending on volume: The information requirements for each nanoform are determined by the total registered tonnage. When several nanoforms exist and especially when new nanoforms are created; this could be viewed as a very high barrier for R&D products by hindering innovation and increasing cost. Flexible approach: A pragmatic and flexible approach for grouping and read across is absolutely essential in order to guarantee the safe use of nanomaterials without an unreasonable increment on the registration burden. Communication among authorities and registrants will be an essential need to comply with the amendments in a workable manner.
Read full response

Response to Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products

27 Jul 2016

From Evonik´s perspective, the criteria presented by the European Commission do not suitably differentiate between substances that can be used safely and substances in need of regulation. We acknowledge that the presented criteria for ED are based on the WHO definition. Moreover, a “weight of evidence” approach is foreseen for the assessment of all relevant scientific information. These are basic requirements to determine the relevance of endocrine activity of a substance for a particular endpoint. However, essential points are lacking to scientifically assess the real hazard potential of a substance. 1. Only one category “endocrine disruptors of regulatory concern” is needed a) Establishing different categories of what may be an endocrine disruptor does not help to define what an endocrine disruptor is in the context of biocides and pesticides. b) Such categorisation of plant protection ingredients would decrease legal certainty for both, regulators and stakeholders, without established benefits in terms of protection of health and environment. c) To make a clear categorisation, a lot of additional animal tests are expected without a real benefit. d) CMR properties are endpoint-driven with a varying degree of evidence to cause effects in humans. The objective of the ED criteria is to determine the mode of action by which a substance causes harm. It is not about classifying varying degrees of scientific evidence. 2. Potency and severity of effects To clearly distinguish between those substances which are of high regulatory concern and those which are not, potency, severity, lead toxicity, and (ir)reversibility should also be included in the final criteria. The scientific consensus in Berlin confirmed that these elements belong to the hazard characterisation and not to the risk assessment. 3. Give more consideration to the results of the impact assessment Under Plant Protection Regulations, no active substance – whether its mode of action is known or not – would be authorised in the EU if an unacceptable risk of causing adverse effects to human health or the environment is identified. This is because the regulations are based on a prior approval system and on a highly comprehensive set of data requirements. The Commission confirms that all options based on the WHO definition provide a high level of protection. However, only Option 4 ranks consistently as the best option in the analysis along the dimensions of effectiveness, coherence, and efficiency, looking specifically at economic, social and environmental aspects. Hence, it is illogical that the Commission did not propose Option 4, including well-established principles of risk characterisation and essential factors like potency and severity of effects. The proposed set of criteria (Option 2), therefore, is not of benefit in terms of environmental and consumer protection, while there are negative impacts on trade and economy. 4. Risk assessments are essential for decision-making The Commission proposal enables the taking into account of risk and exposure elements only in exceptional cases. For this purpose, the decision-making basis in the Regulation on Plant Protection Products is to be changed from “negligible exposure” to “negligible risk”, as is already provided under the Biocidal Products Regulation. This is an important step in the right direction. However, regulation exclusively by way of exemptions is critical, because this cannot ensure the necessary planning and legal certainty for manufacturers. Major adverse impacts on competitiveness and the ability to innovate must be expected.
Read full response

Response to Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for biocidal products

27 Jul 2016

From Evonik´s perspective, the criteria presented by the European Commission do not suitably differentiate between substances that can be used safely and substances in need of regulation. We acknowledge that the presented criteria for ED are based on the WHO definition. Moreover, a “weight of evidence” approach is foreseen for the assessment of all relevant scientific information. These are basic requirements to determine the relevance of endocrine activity of a substance for a particular endpoint. However, essential points are lacking to scientifically assess the real hazard potential of a substance. 1. Only one category “endocrine disruptors of regulatory concern” is needed a) Establishing different categories of what may be an endocrine disruptor does not help to define what an endocrine disruptor is in the context of biocides and pesticides. b) Such categorisation of biocides would decrease legal certainty for both, regulators and stakeholders, without established benefits in terms of protection of health and environment. c) To make a clear categorisation, a lot of additional animal tests are expected without a real benefit. d) CMR properties are endpoint-driven with a varying degree of evidence to cause effects in humans. The objective of the ED criteria is to determine the mode of action by which a substance causes harm. It is not about classifying varying degrees of scientific evidence. 2. Potency and severity of effects To clearly distinguish between those substances which are of high regulatory concern and those which are not, potency, severity, lead toxicity, and (ir)reversibility should also be included in the final criteria. The scientific consensus in Berlin confirmed that these elements belong to the hazard characterisation and not to the risk assessment. 3. Give more consideration to the results of the impact assessment Under Biocides Regulations, no active substance – whether its mode of action is known or not – would be authorised in the EU if an unacceptable risk of causing adverse effects to human health or the environment is identified. This is because the regulations are based on a prior approval system and on a highly comprehensive set of data requirements. The Commission confirms that all options based on the WHO definition provide a high level of protection. However, only Option 4 ranks consistently as the best option in the analysis along the dimensions of effectiveness, coherence, and efficiency, looking specifically at economic, social and environmental aspects. Hence, it is illogical that the Commission did not propose Option 4, including well-established principles of risk characterisation and essential factors like potency and severity of effects. The proposed set of criteria (Option 2), therefore, is not of benefit in terms of environmental and consumer protection, while there are negative impacts on trade and economy. 4. Risk assessments are essential for decision-making The Commission proposal enables the taking into account of risk and exposure elements only in exceptional cases (“negligible risk”). This is an important step in the right direction. However, regulation exclusively by way of exemptions is critical, because this cannot ensure the necessary planning and legal certainty for manufacturers. Major adverse impacts on competitiveness and the ability to innovate must be expected.
Read full response

Meeting with Bernardus Smulders (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and DIGITALEUROPE and

14 Jan 2016 · AECA Round-Table on “Dealing with Regulatory Burden

Meeting with Kilian Gross (Digital Economy)

7 Jan 2016 · anti-dumping duties against Chinese silicon metal imports

Meeting with Nele Eichhorn (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and WACKER CHEMIE AG

7 Jan 2016 · silicon metal

Meeting with Kilian Gross (Digital Economy)

7 Jan 2016 · anti-dumping duties

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

13 Oct 2015 · Industry 4.0

Meeting with Bodo Lehmann (Digital Economy)

4 Feb 2015 · Industry Policy