Preventing regrettable substitution through regulatory frameworks: Using REACH regulation and Stockholm Convention as case studies

Preventing regrettable substitution through regulatory frameworks: Using REACH regulation and Stockholm Convention as case studies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Preventing regrettable substitution through regulatory frameworks: Using REACH regulation and Stockholm Convention as case studies Olasunkanmi Dosunmu, Rob Whiting, Avtar S. Matharu, Nigel Watson, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263677/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Regrettable substitution (RS), which involves the replacement of a hazardous chemical with an alternative that later proves equally harmful or introduces new risks, remains an ongoing significant challenge for chemical regulation. As regulatory frameworks such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) and the Stockholm Convention (SC) increasingly drive transitions away from the use of hazardous substances, the need to prevent RS has become central to effective chemicals management. This study examines how RS can be prevented through deliberate regulatory design and implementation. Using REACH and the SC as case studies, we conducted 31 semi‑structured interviews with regulators, industry, NGOs, academics, consultants, and trade associations, alongside qualitative analysis of 17 regulatory, policy, and guidance documents. Results Reflexive thematic analysis generated eight interconnected themes that collectively identify how regulatory frameworks can potentially prevent RS. These include improving the reliability, completeness, and transparency of regulatory data to support informed substitution; using incentives and structured regulatory support to promote innovation in safe(r) alternatives; establishing coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches that reduce fragmentation; strengthening partnerships among regulators, industry, and scientific actors to enhance information flow; adopting proactive and precautionary regulatory strategies, including early screening; and reinforcing compliance through enhanced monitoring and enforcement. Conclusions The findings demonstrate that RS is not merely a scientific or technical failure but a systemic regulatory issue arising from late hazard identification, incomplete exposure and performance information, siloed regulatory structures, and uneven innovation incentives. The study concludes that preventing RS requires regulatory frameworks that are anticipatory, integrated, transparent, and adaptive that can actively steer the substitution process toward genuinely safe(r) and sustainable chemical solutions. REACH Stockholm Convention Chemical sustainability Substances of very high concern (SVHC) persistent organic pollutants (POPs) Regrettable substitution Hazardous substances Reflexive thematic analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Background Society’s reliance on chemicals accelerated rapidly following the industrial revolution in Europe (c. 1750–1850), when chemical production expanded significantly after 1830 to support the transition from agrarian economies to industrialised nations (Homburg, 2018 ; M Rowe, 1930 ; Pollard, 1997 ). Since then, chemicals and the chemical industry have become embedded in modern life, driving technological development, economic growth, and societal wellbeing. Today, chemicals are indispensable to innovation and play a central role in achieving multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), including zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13) (United Nations, n.d.). Yet the same properties that make many chemicals useful also create significant concerns. Uncontrolled production, widespread use, and the introduction of novel chemistries have been associated with human health concerns, biodiversity loss, persistent environmental contamination, and potential disruption of planetary systems (European Commission, 2001 ; Fantke & Illner, 2019 ; Geiser, 2015 ; Matlin et al., 2016 ; Richardson et al., 2023 ). These concerns are particularly acute for chemicals identified as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Article 57 such as carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic (CMR Cat 1A/1B), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), (very)persistent and (very)bioaccumulative ((v)P(v)B, and those of equivalent concern (EqC) (e.g., endocrine disruptors, EDs) and for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention (SC), which are characterised by Long‑Range Environmental Transport (LRET) (European Commission, 2006 ; UNEP, n.d.-c). Both REACH and the SC were implemented to address these serious risks and protect human health and the environment (UNEP, 2020 ). Chemical regulations such as REACH and the SC therefore perform a crucial role in controlling hazardous substances and in driving their substitution with safe(r) alternatives (Andreassen et al., 2025 ; Dosunmu et al., 2025 ; ECHA, 2018 ; Garralaga et al., 2022 ; Matthies et al., 2016 ; OECD, 2023 ; Persson et al., 2017 ; Sackmann et al., 2018 ; Tickner et al., 2019 ; UNEP, 2020 ; Wang et al., 2020 ). The SC lists chemicals for global restriction or elimination based on their hazard profiles of persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity and LRET (UNEP, n.d.-b), while REACH regulates SVHCs and EqC substances through authorisation, restriction, or bans (ECHA, n.d.-d; Health and Safety Executive, n.d.). As a result, many hazardous chemicals are replaced with alternatives; however, instances of regrettable substitution (RS), the hazard replacement of one harmful chemical with another that is equally harmful or where the impact of the chemical is shifted from one concern to another are well documented. Examples include (see Fig. 1 ) the substitution of bisphenol A (BPA) with bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS); polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) with organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) such as tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (TDBPP); perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) with perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA or FRD903, with its ammonium salt known as GenX or FRD 902); methylene chloride (dichloromethane or DCM) with 1‑bromopropane (n-PB); and 1,1,2-trichloroethylene (TCE) with n‑hexane. These substitutes initially introduced as safer alternatives, have themselves raised concerns, perpetuating cycles of harm or negative impact rather than resolving them (Bailes et al., 2025 ; Blum et al., 2019 ; Cordner et al., 2025 ; Dosunmu et al., 2025 ; Maertens et al., 2021 ; Reininger & Oehlmann, 2024 ; Sweetman, 2020 ; Trasande, 2017 ; Zimmerman & Anastas, 2015 ). Given that chemical regulations are major drivers of chemical substitution, and because regulatory frameworks shape the timing, direction, and nature of those substitutions, it is important to acknowledge that chemical regulations can unintentionally drive RS under certain conditions. This recognition is essential for improving the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks. This article therefore examines how RS can be prevented through more robust, coherent, and proactive regulatory frameworks, using REACH and the SC as case studies. Preventing RS is critical not only because chemicals play a fundamental role in achieving the UN SDGs and in delivering a greener, more sustainable Europe, including the ambitions of the European Union (EU) Green Deal to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 (ECHA, 2018 ; European Commission, 2019 ). Also, because the repeated cycle in which hazardous chemicals are replaced by equally harmful alternatives must not continue. By analysing the working of existing regulatory frameworks, this study provides insights into how regulatory design and implementation can reduce the likelihood of RS and support the transition toward truly safe(r) and sustainable chemical use. Methodology This study employed a qualitative research design combining document analysis with semi‑structured interviews. A total of 31 interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams between November 2024 and March 2025. Policy, regulatory, and guidance documents were also analysed (N = 17), with particular attention to REACH and the SC. Table 1 provides the full list of documents reviewed. Table 1 List of documents analysed Regulatory documents Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (REACH Regulation EC No. 1907/2006) Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation) dated Dec. 2023 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common data platform on chemicals, laying down rules to ensure that the data contained in it are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable and establishing a monitoring and outlook framework for chemicals Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1435 of 9 October 2020 on the duties placed on registrants to update their registrations under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Treaties, Agreements and related Documents UNEP: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Texts and Annexes: Revised in 2023 Policy documents WHITE PAPER Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy The European Green Deal Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) Towards a Toxic-Free Environment Guidance documents Guidance on the preparation of an application for authorisation Guidance on the preparation of socio-economic analysis as part of an application for authorisation Guidance for the preparation of an Annex XV dossier for restrictions Generic Exemptions from the Authorisation Requirement How to apply for authorisation Changes of market volumes of chemicals subject to authorisation in 2010–2021 Guidance on registration Report of the POP Review Committee: General Guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals A purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify individuals with direct professional experience in chemical regulation, risk management, and chemical substitution. Participants were drawn from key stakeholder groups, including government (regulatory and policy), non‑governmental organisations (NGOs), trade associations, consultancies, academia, and industry. Demographic information of the participants is summarised in Fig. 2 . To further broaden participation, a snowball sampling technique was used, whereby interviewees recommended additional individuals within their professional networks who met the inclusion criteria. Before each interview, participants received detailed information about the study and provided informed consent. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymised, and cleaned, that is identifiable information removed before analysis to ensure confidentiality and data integrity. Following transcription, both interview data and documents were imported into NVivo (version 15.2.2, https://lumivero.com/ ) to support systematic organisation and coding. Analysis followed Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) as developed by Braun and Clarke (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019 , 2021 , 2022 ). RTA is a theoretically flexible method for identifying, analysing, and interpreting patterns across qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2022 ). It is especially suited to studies focused on subjective understanding, meaning-making, and stakeholder perspectives, making it an appropriate approach for this study. Importantly, RTA positions the researcher as an active, interpretive agent in the development of themes, acknowledging that meaning is co-constructed through iterative engagement and reflexivity with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2019 , 2022 ; Byrne, 2022 ). The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six‑phase iterative process; in Phase 1 (Familiarisation), interview summaries were prepared, transcripts reviewed and cleaned, and initial engagement with the dataset began, focusing on semantic meanings. In Phase 2 (Systematic Coding), data were coded inductively within NVivo, generating concise labels that captured recurring ideas and patterns. Coding proceeded in two rounds to strengthen interpretive judgement and enhance rigour. NVivo served as an organisational tool; however, the coding process itself remained researcher‑driven and reflexive. Phase 3 (Generating Initial Candidate Themes) entailed exporting codes into Microsoft Excel for clustering into early groups, using semantic and latent coding to explore connections and shared meanings. Colour‑coding was used to sort related codes and identify shared conceptual meanings, ultimately forming initial candidate themes. In Phase 4 (Reviewing Themes), the candidate themes created in Phase 3 were evaluated against both the coded dataset and the full dataset. Themes that lacked coherence or alignment with the research aims were modified or discarded. Phases 5 and 6 (Defining, Naming, and Writing Up Themes) overlapped, refining theme definitions, finalising names, and writing descriptions that clarified central meanings and boundaries. This process produced a thematic map and laid the foundation for reporting the findings. The resulting thematic findings are presented in Fig. 3 . Throughout, transparency and rigour were maintained through systematic engagement with the data, reflexive interpretation, and active theme construction, enabling nuanced insights into the data. Results and Discussions Many hazardous substances are substituted as a result of regulatory action, ensuring that chemicals on the market and used by industry and consumers are without negative impacts on human health or the environment. The findings from our thematic analysis discussed under the following interconnected themes reinforce how regulatory frameworks can ensure adequate and efficient risk management of hazardous chemicals, encourage informed substitution and reduce unintended consequences. Build capacity for efficient regulatory decision-making Regulatory risk management of chemicals pre-REACH was widely recognised as slow and resource intensive. This culminated in the 2001 European Commission’s (EC) review which concluded that “… the risk assessment process is slow and resource-intensive and does not allow the system to work efficiently and effectively …” (European Commission, 2001 ). While REACH has since improved data availability and created more coherent procedures, the pace of regulatory action is hampered by significant capacity and resource limitations within regulatory agencies. The REACH restriction roadmap explicitly states that delivering effective risk management depends on adequate resources among European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and Member States (MS) to conduct Risk Management Option Analyses, hazard identification, and restriction work (European Commission, 2022 ). Even with a robust legislative framework, the ability to act swiftly depends heavily on the institutional capacity behind it. The UK faces similar challenges. Jones & Burns, ( 2024 ) highlight that the UK REACH system currently lacks the expertise, staff capacity, and technical capability required to keep pace with EU regulatory developments. This issue risks increasing regulatory divergence and associated consequences on industry compliance and cross-border trade, and the UK’s ability to adapt to evolving scientific evidence. A participant from government reflected this limitation, noting that although the staffing in the UK Chemicals Assessment Unit, Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Defra has increased since the EU exit, these resources, “… can't compare to all of the Member States working together and/or everybody working at ECHA …”, leading to an inevitably slower pace of restrictions and risk management actions. The capacity constraints are not limited to REACH. The effectiveness of the SC also depends heavily on Parties’ institutional and scientific capabilities to implement its obligations (Akinrinade et al., 2024 ; Guardans, 2024 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). Although, the SC provides a robust framework for identifying and eliminating POPs, its practical impact depends on whether countries can gather the evidence required for POP nominations, participate meaningfully in the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) process and translate global decisions into domestic implementation. Where capacity is limited, the process of identifying and restricting hazardous chemicals is often delayed, prolonging exposure and undermining the SC’s objectives. Capacity limitations have direct implications not only for the speed of regulatory action but also for preventing RS. Alternatives assessment relies on expert knowledge, high‑quality data, and the technical ability to evaluate the comparative safety and performance of potential substitutes. As UNEP notes, “… in many cases impact will have to be assessed by using expert judgement. The very nature of expert judgement is such that it is difficult to provide guidance on how to exercise such judgement …” (UNEP, 2009 ). Where regulatory bodies lack the resources or technical skill to conduct robust alternatives assessment, the risk increases that substitutes will be inadequately scrutinised, perpetuating cycles of RS. Strengthening scientific and technical capability is therefore essential. Developing expertise in lifecycle analysis, alternatives assessment, and emerging hazard identification would enable authorities to move beyond procedural compliance toward more proactive and precautionary risk management. Improved capacity ensures that chemical data is not merely collected but critically evaluated and translated into timely regulatory action avoiding a situation where information exists but cannot be effectively used. There is therefore a need to mobilise expertise beyond regulatory agencies alone to drive timely risk management. One participant from academia noted, “… the scientific community is not really mobilised yet …”, emphasising the need for stronger pathways for researchers and public-sector scientists to contribute to hazard identification and substitution efforts. Enhanced collaboration between regulatory bodies, academia, and industry would increase the depth of available expertise and stimulate innovation in risk assessment and substitution. Increasing regulatory capacity is also critical for accelerating the pace of chemical control and for incentivising industry transition (ECHA, 2018 ). A participant from an NGO summarised the urgency, “… I think that we still lack some speed when it comes to how many chemicals we ban and restrict, there is still a lot of chemicals that fulfil criteria for being banned and regulated and… substituted… we need more speed…we need more pace or faster pace when it comes to regulation… we need a faster pace that will …make more companies prone to do substitution …”. Improved capacity both in staffing and in knowledge would enable regulators to make quicker, more informed decisions on both hazardous chemicals and their alternatives and encourages companies to proactively seek safe(r) alternatives rather than waiting for regulatory action. Therefore, underlining the need for regulatory frameworks such as REACH and the SC to be supported by sustained investment in regulatory capacity, staffing, expertise and tools required if they are to effectively prevent RS. Ensuring that regulatory ambition is matched by institutional capability is essential to achieving timely, science‑based decision‑making and ensuring that chemical substitutions result in genuine, long‑term reductions in risk. One practical way to achieve this is for policymakers and regulators to systematically involve academic experts in processes such as POPRC. This would require reducing institutional reticence toward academic input and creating clearer, more transparent mechanisms for scientific engagement. Structured participation of academia through expert consultations, commissioned reviews and collaborative research platforms can strengthen the evidence needed for risk evaluation and support the identification of safe(r) alternatives. Ensure reliability and transparency in regulatory data To ensure the development of safe(r) alternatives, high quality, complete, and transparent regulatory data are important elements. When substitution decisions rely only on the specific hazard(s) that triggered regulatory concern, such as ED, persistence, or carcinogenicity, there is a substantial risk of RS. This narrow focus often becomes a proxy for data collection and evaluation rather than a comprehensive hazard assessment (Maertens et al., 2021 ). Substituting a well‑characterised chemical with one that has been tested only for the original concern, or with one that has not been robustly tested at all, can shift risks to other endpoints. This burden‑shifting is one of the main contributors to RS, highlighting the need for regulatory frameworks to prioritise the generation and communication of reliable data. REACH requires data to be generated based on the annual market volume, with more extensive information applying to chemicals produced at > 1000 t/y. Tonnage is used as a proxy for exposure (Coria, 2018 ), meaning that substances placed on the market at 1–10 t/y may lack chronic toxicity, developmental toxicity, or chronic aquatic toxicity data. If such data gaps exist for substances considered as alternatives to well-studied SVHCs or POPs, these gaps can directly undermine informed substitution decisions and delay early regulatory intervention (Bechu et al., 2024 ; Fantke et al., 2020 ; Maertens et al., 2021 ). As the example of BPA shows, regulatory pressure can rapidly shift market dynamics, while BPA has been extensively studied following decades of regulatory scrutiny, the volumes of BPA analogues (see Fig. 1 ) such as BPS and BPF increased substantially, despite far more limited data on their hazards (Yang & Yu, 2025 ). This creates an environment where the introduction of alternatives proceeds faster than the accumulation of evidence needed to ensure their safety. Given this, regulatory frameworks should adopt enhanced data requirements for alternatives to SVHC or restricted chemicals, regardless of the tonnage at which these alternatives are produced. Enhanced requirements should include early screening for persistence, bioaccumulation, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and chronic aquatic effects. This could be achieved by developing and generating high-throughput screening methods, such as in silico models, which can act as a vehicle for front-loading hazard data at the point where a decision on alternatives is to be made (Benfenati et al., 2011 ) and intervention is still possible and cost effective. Across sectors such as agrochemicals, industry already uses computational models, predictive toxicology, and early‑phase screening tools, including in silico genotoxicity and endocrine assays, as well as in vitro fish toxicity tests to filter candidate molecules before investing in full regulatory testing (Henriquez et al., 2024 ). For example, programs such as the US Environmental Protection Agency ToxCast/Tox21 provide large-scale screening of thousands of chemicals across biological assays (US EPA, 2025 ). Such methods are especially useful when alternatives have limited data required for decision making. Using predictive methods as an initial screening layer followed by targeted in vivo or in vitro studies where required would allow regulators to balance pragmatism with precaution, ensuring alternatives do not enter the market with significant unknowns (Ellis & Dosunmu, 2025 ). Another way of preventing RS is for regulatory agencies to establish a formal mechanism for back-reporting of data, whereby authorities can signal data reliability concerns, revised interpretations, or outstanding information requests directly on the disseminated REACH dossier webpage. Under REACH, submitted data in registration dossiers is made publicly available through the ECHA’s dissemination platform (ECHA CHEM, n.d.). The current incomplete feedback loop between regulatory evaluation and dissemination of REACH data creates an additional barrier that can perpetuate RS. Although REACH registration dossiers are publicly available through the ECHA’s dissemination platform and widely used and treated as authoritative by industry, regulators, and civil society, the platform does not systematically communicate on-going regulatory scrutiny. When authorities identify unreliable studies, request new data, or reinterpret results during substance evaluation, these conclusions are not reflected in the disseminated dossier. As a result, contested or downgraded studies continue to appear unqualified, creating a transparency gap that can inadvertently support RS by allowing questionable data to guide substitution decisions. It is therefore important for regulatory authorities to signal data reliability concerns, revised interpretations, or outstanding information requests directly on the disseminated webpage. Such a mechanism would not require disclosure of confidential business information nor alter data ownership; rather, it would use standardised indicators such as annotations, symbols, or status tags linked to individual studies or endpoints. These indicators would highlight where regulatory review has raised concerns about reliability, situations where the conclusions differ from those presented by the registrant, or where additional data have been required to resolve uncertainty. Implementing this measure would significantly strengthen the integrity and usability of publicly accessible REACH data. It would support industry in making informed and precautionary substitution decisions, enhance transparency for downstream users and regulators, and improve regulatory credibility. Crucially, this recommendation does not introduce new testing obligations but instead improves the interpretive environment in which existing data are used. By formally closing the feedback loop between evaluation and dissemination, back-reporting could play a direct role in preventing RS. Use incentives and support to drive change towards sustainable chemical transition The use of incentives and structured regulatory support play an essential role in encouraging innovation and the development of safe(r) alternatives. Under REACH, the authorisation process links continued market access to a time‑limited review period, the duration of which partly depends on the applicant’s substitution plan. In principle, this mechanism is meant to stimulate substitution by making the continuation of authorised uses contingent on demonstrable progress toward adopting safe(r) alternatives (ECHA, n.d.-a). In practice, however, there is no systematic regulatory engagement and follow‑up during the authorisation period. Once authorisation is granted, interactions between regulatory agencies and authorisation holders generally do not resume until about eighteen months before the review period expires, when the holder submits a re‑application. According to REACH Article 61, “ authorisations granted… shall be regarded as valid until the Commission decides to amend or withdraw the authorisation in the context of a review, provided that the holder of the authorisation submits a review report at least 18 months before the expiry of the time-limited review period. A holder of an authorisation granted… shall submit an update of the analysis of alternatives…, including information about any relevant research and development activities by the applicant, if appropriate, and any substitution plan …”. This absence of interim engagement means that regulators remain largely unaware of actual progress achieved, challenges encountered, or any deviation from the original substitution plans. Authorisation is an important regulatory tool, particularly given that not all hazardous chemicals can be substituted in the short or medium term. It allows continued use of hazardous substances where risks can be adequately controlled or where socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risks. Yet without structured, regular touchpoints and follow‑up, the process risks functioning more as a static end-of-line permission than as an active driver of innovation. To ensure that authorisation remains a dynamic instrument for promoting substitution, regulatory agencies should establish a formal feedback loop between regulators and authorisation holders, consisting of proportionate, regular touchpoints during the review period. These touchpoints should assess progress against substitution plans, identify emerging technical or economic barriers, and clarify whether additional guidance or regulatory support is needed. For example, the proposed EU Substitution Centre aiming to support businesses in replacing hazardous chemicals could provide an avenue to assign an authorisation holder to a given centre for progress checking and support provision. Importantly, their frequency should be tailored to the complexity of the use and the feasibility of available alternatives. This approach would provide regulators with real‑time insight into substitution progress and would offer companies constructive, practical engagement rather than retrospective assessment at the point of re‑application. Increasing the visibility of existing alternatives is another important mechanism for accelerating substitution. Regulatory agencies already gather substantial information on potential alternatives during authorisation, restriction, and related processes under the SC, yet this information remains difficult for industry and other stakeholders to identify and use. Therefore, regulatory agencies should expand public communication by highlighting where alternatives to Annex XIV and restricted substances already exist making this information easily accessible. The publication of the main alternatives to Annex XIV substances by ECHA represents an important step (ECHA, n.d.-b), but broader dissemination and regular updating are needed. Such disclosure should exclude confidential business information but include chemical names, functional groups, uses or sectors, and technical functions. Making alternatives visible reduces duplicated effort across the industry, improves transparency, and supports more rapid decision‑making on substitution. Chemical regulations are a strong driver of innovation strategies within industry. In practice, regulations create a two-tier landscape of frontrunners and slow-to-respond. Frontrunners are firms that proactively respond to regulatory signals, often substituting hazardous chemicals well before regulatory actions become mandatory. They internalise regulatory risk and align innovation activities with anticipated restrictions or evolving market expectations (McFadden, 2011 ; Ujaczki et al., 2022 ). Such organisations are motivated by strategic advantages which include enhanced corporate reputation, reduced long-term compliance costs, improved market access and corporate sustainability goals (ECHA, 2020a ; Ujaczki et al., 2022 ). Contrarily, slow-to-respond firms tend to defer actions until regulatory intervention becomes unavoidable such as inclusion in REACH Annex XIV, POP Annex, restriction or ban. ECHA’s survey data illustrate this, nearly one‑fifth of surveyed companies reported substituting chemicals only after a REACH restriction entered into force, while a further fraction acted only after listing on the Candidate or Authorisation Lists. Customer pressure and internal sustainability strategies, although influential for some, were less frequent triggers (ECHA, 2020a ). This disparity creates an imbalance in which frontrunners bear the early costs and risks of innovation, while slow-to-respond firms benefit from delayed action and from knowledge generated by others. To correct this imbalance, the use of targeted policy incentives such as risk‑based environmental levies, differentiated compliance costs, or application of the precautionary polluter‑pays principle (4-P approach) to continued use of hazardous substances should be considered (Coria, 2018 ). These measures would discourage strategic delay, make early substitution economically advantageous, and more fairly distribute the costs of transitioning toward safe(r) chemicals. Another important source of delay in substitution decision‑making arises from the limited incentives for alternative providers and other third parties to participate meaningfully in regulatory consultations. Regulators often rely on these submissions to evaluate technical feasibility and availability of alternatives, yet third‑party engagement varies considerably. To this end, there is a need to strengthen incentives for alternative providers by offering targeted support such as certification schemes, regulatory recognition, or assistance in overcoming market and adoption barriers to encourage their participation in public consultations. These measures would ensure that regulators receive timely and relevant evidence, reduce delays in restriction and authorisation decisions, and foster a more robust innovation towards safe(r) alternatives. Crucially, the effectiveness of incentives depends on regulatory certainty and clarity. Innovation flourishes only when companies have confidence that investments in substitution will be recognised and rewarded with stable market access and predictable regulatory outcomes (Ellis & Dosunmu, 2025 ). Uncertainty regarding the acceptance of alternatives or the durability of regulatory approvals can discourage innovation even among proactive firms (Dosunmu et al., 2025 ). Strengthening regulatory certainty by developing clear acceptance criteria for alternatives, offering early and ongoing regulatory engagement for chemical developers and establishing streamlined or fast-track evaluation pathways for demonstrably safe(r) substitutes can encourage broader participation in innovation (Ellis & Dosunmu, 2025 ). Such measures would create a level playing field, reward early innovators, and ensure that regulatory frameworks support and not hinder the transition to safe(r) and more sustainable chemical alternatives. Create coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches Use-based chemical regulation allows authorities to tailor risk management to specific sectors and develop specialised expertise. However, this structure also creates fragmented and siloed regulatory regimes, where the same chemical may be assessed differently depending on the competent authority and regulatory framework (Dosunmu et al., 2025 ; European Commission, 2020 ; van Dijk et al., 2021 ). Oltmanns et al., ( 2023 ) mapped data requirements for chemical assessment under use-specific regulations and observed differences between regulations which included variation in the endpoints to be addressed, the stage at which data for particular endpoints are required, and the testing methods applied. Divergences in risk assessment methodologies may also influence regulatory conclusions, including differences in the reliance on modelled versus measured exposure data, and the application of assessment factors. Such inconsistencies can lead to different regulatory conclusions and undermine confidence in regulatory outcomes. It is therefore important for regulatory agencies to create a coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches. One way of doing this is to consider the use of consistent terms and requirements across regulatory frameworks. An evaluation performed by Andreassen et al., ( 2025 ) found inconsistencies in the requirements for chemical identifiers across regulatory frameworks. For example, under REACH, the term SVHC refers to chemicals presenting serious hazards. However, plant protection products (PPPs) legislation uses the term Candidate for Substitution (CfS) for active substances meeting certain hazard criteria, including PBT, carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive toxicity Cat 1A/1B, or endocrine disruptor according to Point 4 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (European Commission, 2009). Although both systems aim to encourage substitution of substances with comparable hazard profiles, their differing terms and criteria create unnecessary complexity. Aligning these definitions and establishing consistent identification criteria would support clearer, more predictable regulatory outcomes and facilitate substitution across sectors. A deeper structural inconsistency arises in how time‑limited market access is treated. PPP active substances are approved for limited periods (typically 7–15 years), followed by systematic re‑evaluation against current scientific and regulatory standards. This ensures that older approvals remain aligned with evolving knowledge and policy. In contrast, REACH provides registrants with continued market access once a dossier passes completeness checks, even though this does not constitute a safety approval (Dosunmu et al., 2025 ; European Commission, 2006 ). Subsequent scrutiny occurs only selectively through dossier evaluation, substance evaluation, or risk management processes such as restriction or authorisation, often years after registration and is heavily limited by regulatory capacity. As a result, substances may remain on the market for extended periods despite advances in scientific understanding or the identification of new hazards. Therefore, adopting periodic re-evaluation and time-limited registration within REACH would strengthen regulatory oversight. Introducing a requirement for re‑registration at defined intervals, grounded in updated scientific standards, would reduce reliance on reactive measures and better align industrial chemical regulation with modern safety expectations. The EU proposal to introduce a 10‑year validity period for chemical registrations, with ECHA empowered to revoke dossiers that are outdated or non‑compliant, represents an important step (European Parliament, 2025 ). Such a shift would enhance regulatory oversight and provide clearer incentives for the development and uptake of safe(r) alternatives. Fragmentation across regulatory regimes is increasingly recognised as a systemic issue in the EU. A single substance may undergo multiple hazard or risk assessments under different frameworks, industrial chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, biocides, and consumer product regulations, with inconsistent outcomes. These discrepancies create inefficiencies, increase burdens for regulators and industry, and weaken regulatory predictability (Andreassen et al., 2025 ; Dosunmu et al., 2025 ; van Dijk et al., 2021 ). The One Substance One Assessment (OSOA) initiative, a central pillar of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), seeks to address these challenges by ensuring that chemicals are assessed consistently and only once across relevant legislative frameworks (European Commission, 2020 ). OSOA aims to consolidate scientific data, streamline assessments, and strengthen cooperation among agencies such as ECHA and EFSA, thereby improving coherence and reducing duplication (EFSA, 2020). OSOA presents an opportunity for a fully harmonised cross-sectoral assessment system that operationalises OSOA through shared data platforms, joint scientific evaluations, and coordinated decision-making processes. Such an approach would encourage earlier regulatory action on emerging risks, improve efficiency, and reduce opportunities for companies to shift hazardous substances between regulatory silos. It would also lower compliance costs by providing clearer and more predictable regulatory expectations and better align chemical safety assessments with broader objectives under the European Green Deal (European Commission, 2023 ). Crucially, harmonised assessments would strengthen incentives for safe(r) substitution by ensuring that hazard classifications, risk assessments, and regulatory signals are consistent across all uses and frameworks. A unified European system would enhance transparency, improve the usability of regulatory data, and promote the efficient allocation of regulatory resources. It would also offer the industry more stable and coherent signals, enabling strategic planning and investment in safe(r) alternatives rather than piecemeal compliance with fragmented regimes. Build partnerships to drive effective regulatory and innovation outcomes Preventing RS requires policymakers to build multi‑stakeholder partnerships that bring together scientific, regulatory, and industry expertise. Effective chemical management cannot rely solely on hazard‑driven bans or isolated regulatory action; rather, it requires a coordinated innovation environment that actively supports the development, assessment, and uptake of safe(r) alternatives. Strong partnerships create conditions under which information flows more freely, duplication of efforts is reduced, and actors across the supply chain can jointly identify opportunities and barriers to substitution (ECHA, n.d.-c). While REACH provides mechanisms that encourage communication, such as authorisation and downstream user obligations, these interactions remain limited by broader systemic constraints. Early in the implementation of REACH, registrants had more frequent opportunities for direct dialogue with ECHA, including in‑person meetings to discuss chemical safety assessments and approaches. Over time, these opportunities diminished in favour of letter‑based and online interactions, narrowing the space for collaborative problem‑solving and shared learning. Because risk management of chemicals is the responsibility of all, regulators should adopt an open-door approach that enables ongoing, structured dialogue with supply-chain actors, ensuring that the challenges in risk assessment and substitution can be clarified and addressed in real time. An example of collaboration is the use of Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs) under REACH, which enabled registrants to share data, avoid unnecessary duplication of studies, and develop a more harmonised understanding of hazards and risks. Similarly, the proposed EU Substitution Centre has the potential to become a focal point for collaboration (RISE, n.d.); by enabling systematic exchange of hazard data and lifecycle assessments for alternatives, it could also provide structured channels for dialogue between regulators and innovators, helping to ensure that regulatory expectations under REACH and related frameworks align with the pace and direction of development. Enhanced communication of this kind can help industry actors navigate the complexity of substitution (OECD, 2023 ) and reduce both the financial and logistical burdens associated with identifying and testing alternatives. Partnership challenges extend beyond European regulatory frameworks to global conventions. Under the SC, Article 9 requires Parties to promote information exchange and cooperation. Yet communication remains fragmented across jurisdictions and regulatory silos, and disparities in technical capacity and access to toxicological data, particularly between developed and developing countries, limit shared learning and hinder informed decision‑making (Akinrinade et al., 2024 ; Scheringer et al., 2012 ; UNEP, 2025 a; Wang et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, experiences with substitution, including failures and unintended consequences, are rarely communicated systematically increasing the likelihood of RS (Bechu et al., 2024 ; Biggi et al., 2025 ). The limited involvement of innovation actors and downstream users in SC processes further weakens the feedback loop between regulatory objectives and chemical design, slowing the translation of hazard-based policy signals into safe(r) products (Bechu et al., 2024 ; Biggi et al., 2025 ). To address these gaps, the SC should establish structured international platforms dedicated specifically to sharing substitution outcomes for POPs, including both successful and unsuccessful cases. In parallel, the SC should implement formal mechanisms to ensure meaningful participation from innovation actors, downstream users, and technical experts throughout its processes, thereby strengthening the feedback loop between regulatory objectives and chemical design (OECD, 2023 ; UNEP, 2025 b). Communication and partnership barriers also occur within industry. Chemical innovation too often operates in disciplinary silos, with chemists, toxicologists, exposure scientists, and sustainability experts working independently. This separation limits the integration of safety considerations at the design stage, increasing the likelihood that alternatives introduced to the market may later be found hazardous. To reduce the risk of RS and accelerate the development of safe(r) alternatives, policy frameworks should promote cross-disciplinary communication and encourage education and awareness within chemical innovation processes. Strengthening internal and supply-chain communication in this way would align industrial innovation with the objectives of the SC and advance SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by embedding collaboration as a core component of sound chemicals management. These actions show the necessity of building strong, coordinated partnerships across regulatory agencies, industry, scientific communities, and international frameworks. Robust collaboration not only reduces duplication and inefficiency but also ensures that the development and implementation of safe(r) alternatives are grounded in shared knowledge, transparent communication, and a collective commitment to preventing future RS. Strengthen regulation through improved policy measures The authorisation and restriction elements of REACH encourage the substitution of the most harmful chemicals. Yet, in practice, decision-making is often hindered by late receipt or lack of information on alternatives. When essential information on potential substitutes, uses, and exposure is provided only at the point of public consultation or even later, regulators face significant challenges in designing effective and proportionate risk management measures e.g., transition periods, derogations, and phase‑out. The ongoing universal PFAS restriction proposal illustrates this challenge. PFAS manufacture, use, and placing on the market would be prohibited above specified thresholds, with exemptions only where technically or economically viable alternatives are lacking. Transition periods of five to twelve years were proposed, while essential uses in fields such as medicines, PPPs, and biocides are excluded (ECHA, 2024 , 2025). A participant from government explains, “…o ne of the big problems that we're seeing…is that information on alternatives comes far too late in the process. So, what we are also doing as part of the REACH revision is to see whether we can get more information on the uses, on exposure and alternatives…earlier in the process so that the discussions that we can have on restrictions are better informed …”. Highlighting the need for the adoption of policy measures that secure early access to information on alternatives, uses, and exposure, ensuring that authorisation and restriction processes are informed from the outset. Earlier access to such information would allow regulators to set transition periods more accurately, prioritise uses where rapid action is feasible, and ensure that risk management measures are appropriate. Exposure and lifecycle information remain equally key for informed substitution and regulatory risk management. Although REACH Article 37(2) requires downstream users (DUs) to provide upstream suppliers with information needed to include their uses in exposure assessments, the information supplied is often minimal and fails to reflect site‑specific conditions. Registrants must therefore depend on generic assumptions that may not correspond to real‑world practices, increasing the risk of RS when substitutes are introduced under uncertain exposure conditions (Dosunmu et al., 2025 ). The substitution of brominated flame retardants with OPFRs demonstrates how incomplete exposure assessment can lead to unintended consequences(Maertens et al., 2021 ). Under the UK REACH Alternative Transitional Registration model, provision of detailed information on use and exposure is emphasised over duplicating full hazard datasets (Defra, 2023 ). At present, unlike authorisation, REACH registration does not require DUs to submit site‑specific exposure information directly to regulators (ECHA, 2021 ). These differences indicate the need for downstream users, as a minimum, to confirm whether upstream exposure assessments accurately represent their site conditions, and where they do not, to submit site‑specific exposure scenarios or be required to provide more detail information that will ensure exposure assessment is close to reality. A participant from Industry explains, “… each manufacturing site is different… the chances are our site would be set up differently, potential discharges to the environment, you might have a sewage treatment plant on site, I might not. …so, for me it would make more sense if people took the data on the material and then calculate based on their own personal exposure, can you use that safely ... We just submit uses that we're told about by our customers, but rather than us gather all the uses and put them through some generic calculations, would it not be better for customers to do their own more specific exposure calculations ? …”. Effective substitution requires not only understanding what a chemical does (function) but also how well it must perform to be viable in a given application. While REACH requires registrants to describe the function and sector of use, current descriptions are often too basic to inform high‑quality regulatory decisions. For example, while a flame retardant’s function may be to reduce flammability, its performance relates to how long it delays ignition, reduces heat release, or maintains structural integrity under various conditions. A participant from the Consultancy sector explains, ‘performance needs differ across uses, for oil repellents, permeability may be critical, whereas for fluoropolymers, lifespan and resistance to aggressive conditions may be decisive’. Without information on these performance considerations, regulators cannot fully evaluate whether an alternative genuinely meets functional requirements or whether exemptions or transition periods are justified. Thus, emphasising the need to expand REACH registration requirements to include detailed information on necessary performance criteria (the technical properties that a substance can provide for the product's full and desired function) and technical specifications relevant to each identified use. ECHA’s authorisation guidance already emphasises inclusion of technical criteria and functional requirements (ECHA, 2021 ); extending this expectation to registration would give regulators an early understanding of the specific performance demands that influence substitution need. To address the issue with confidentiality, such information may be required as part of the follow-on registrant dossier submission. Such information would give regulators a more complete picture of why a particular substance is used and help prevent narrow, drop‑in substitution that fail to account for essential performance properties. Alongside these improvements, chemical grouping has emerged as a powerful regulatory tool for accelerating risk management and preventing RS. Grouping assesses substances collectively by class, structure, function, or use rather than individually, offering more efficient oversight and reducing opportunities for drop‑in substitutions involving closely related chemicals (ECHA, 2020a ). This approach has been central to several major regulatory initiatives, including group‑based management of PFAS, bisphenols, dioxins, and asbestos (ECHA, 2025; Wohlleben et al., 2023 ). The EU’s universal PFAS restriction proposal is a notable recent example arising from the CSS (European Commission, 2020 ), reflecting the Commission’s adoption of grouping as an interim but strategic measure. The EU restriction roadmap similarly prioritises entire chemical groups such as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMRs), EDs, (v)P(v)BT), immunotoxicants, neurotoxicants, and respiratory sensitisers for broad group restrictions across all uses (European Commission, 2020 , 2022 ). Grouping helps prevent RS by discouraging substitution within the same chemical class, but its scope is not unlimited. Grouping provides a mechanism for preventing RS since it can be used based on the precautionary principle, where there is limited data for group members (Chirsir et al., 2024 ). A participant from academia explains, “… substance grouping is one strategy to avoid RS…it's not a solution to (all) RS. It's just a solution to this type of RS when it's with this drop in substitution pathway because…you can get burden shifting …”. It is therefore important for grouping to be implemented as a flexible, living regulatory approach, allowing for refinement as new evidence emerges. Chemicals within a group that demonstrate genuinely lower hazard profiles are permitted as the case with the substitution of alkyl sulfonates indicate (Sweetman, 2020 ). Minimum hazard datasets for group members are essential for this approach to function effectively, especially since risk management proposals must justify group inclusion on a case‑by‑case basis. At the same time, grouping presents challenges for industry innovation. Once an entire class is earmarked for restriction or ban, companies must rapidly identify alternatives, which may be chemical or non‑chemical in nature for business continuity. The rapid introduction of alternatives to PFOS/PFOA is an example of this (Dosunmu et al., 2025 ). This requires regulatory frameworks that are both adaptive and responsive, ensuring that emerging risks can be tracked and addressed before RS occurs. We therefore recommend that grouping be paired with adaptive, rapid risk‑management measures capable of monitoring innovation pathways and preventing burden shifting. Take early action and build a proactive regulatory regime Effective chemical risk management requires regulatory frameworks to be proactive rather than reactive, taking early action guided by the precautionary and preventative principles. This implies avoiding paralysis by analysis, where gathering extensive weight of evidence is required to justify regulatory control. The examples of BPA and PFAS demonstrate that delayed actions can lead to widespread environmental risk, despite early signals of concern; regulatory action was incremental and slow, enabling widespread exposure and environmental pollution. In the EU, the first restriction on PFOS was in 2006, yet regulatory risk management for the broader PFAS class was not proposed until nearly two decades later (Dosunmu et al., 2025 ; ECHA, 2025). A similar delay occurred under the SC, where it took ten years to move from listing PFOS to the inclusion of PFOA. These patterns indicate the long-recognised need for hazards to be identified and acted upon before chemicals reach high production volumes and widespread use (European Commission, 2001 ). One way of doing this is by incorporating pre‑market screening mechanisms into chemical regulatory regimes. This can involve using a stage‑gate system, as shown in Fig. 4 , in which chemicals undergo an initial hazard‑based screening before registration and market access. In the first stage, a traffic‑light categorisation of green (low concern), amber (borderline concern), and red (high concern) could be applied using criteria consistent with existing REACH Article 57 SVHC definitions. This would allow regulators to identify potential priority substances early, enabling precautionary monitoring or early risk‑management consideration. In the second stage, substances in amber and red categories could be granted temporary registrations (for example, two to five years) and subjected to conditions that limit widespread exposure while further assessment is undertaken. This proactive approach would enable SVHC to be detected upstream, years before traditional substance evaluation processes would identify them, and would ensure that alternatives being considered to replace restricted or banned chemicals are also screened early to support genuinely safe(r) substitution. The EU’s Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework promotes the intentional and proactive (re)design of chemicals, creating an important opportunity to integrate risk management from the earliest stages of innovation (Caldeira et al., 2022 ). As a key outcome of the EU Green Deal and the CSS, SSbD represents a pragmatic shift in how chemicals and materials are developed ensuring that safety and sustainability considerations are integrated from the start. While SSbD offers the much-needed transformation, several challenges have been identified, including its methodological complexity and the significant data and resource requirements involved (Abbate et al., 2025 ; Apel et al., 2024 ; van Dijk et al., 2025 ). Despite these, SSbD has strong potential to drive the development of safe(r) and more sustainable chemicals and ultimately reduce ongoing human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances. A proactive regulatory regime is equally required at the global level. For the SC to function effectively, Parties should be encouraged to include screening of LRET in their national regulation. By so doing, chemicals that possess POP-like characteristics can be identified early within individual jurisdictions and adequately controlled. Such a measure would complement, rather than replace, the SC’s nomination process; allowing chemicals not banned or controlled at the local level to still be nominated for global control. Parties with strong regulatory capacity could identify and act on potential POPs early, while countries with more limited capacity would retain the ability to nominate substances that are not yet controlled domestically. To illustrate, REACH which emanates from the EU and adopted by regions such as the UK, Turkey, and South Korea, is well-positioned to integrate LRET alongside existing hazard categories (e.g., (v)P(v)BT, (v)P(v)MT, CMR). Doing so would support early local and regional bans, facilitate innovation in safe(r) alternatives, and reinforce the SC’s objective of eliminating POP‑like chemicals from global circulation. This is especially important given that global effectiveness ultimately depends on national‑level regulatory action; when early screening is embedded in domestic systems, and hazardous chemicals are identified and controlled before they become persistent global pollutants. Strengthen compliance through regulatory monitoring and enforcement Effective chemical regulation depends not only on strong legal frameworks but also on the robustness of monitoring and enforcement systems. Without consistent oversight, even well‑designed policies risk becoming aspirational rather than operational. Monitoring and enforcement allow regulators to determine whether restrictions, authorisation conditions, and broader risk‑management measures are functioning as intended, i.e., reducing risks to human health and the environment, improving substitution outcomes (Bailes et al., 2025 ; Fiedler et al., 2019 ), and ensuring a level playing field for all stakeholders. They also generate vital information on emerging risks, helping authorities adapt regulatory responses as new scientific and technical evidence becomes available. A significant weakness within the current REACH system is that substances manufactured or imported at < 1 tonne per year fall outside registration requirements. This gap leaves policymakers unaware of where and how those substances are used in commerce and should be addressed by introducing a basic reporting obligation for low‑tonnage substances, requiring manufacturers and importers to provide core information on function, sector of use, and product types. Even minimal reporting would provide important baseline data, enable more effective risk management and support early identification of emerging concerns. Risk assessments themselves often rely heavily on assumptions and estimated release concentrations, particularly when real‑world monitoring data are scarce. Where monitoring data is available and reliable, this can be used to provide real-world information needed to improve risk assessment approaches. Targeted monitoring can provide essential validation or ground‑truthing of modelled assessments. An industry participant explains, “… what we need is more real-world measurements. After we undertake… desk based environmental risk assessment. We need to follow up post regulatory monitoring so we can actually see if we're being too conservative... with that ground truthing, improve the application of our methods. So, for example, perhaps if we have more monitoring data, we can reduce the use of assessment factors, which means that there's more scope for the use of the chemical, which in turn promotes innovation …”. Although, monitoring is important, it is also challenging, “… monitoring in the strict sense is difficult … Participant from Government”, since it may be difficult to attribute observed environmental effects to specific chemicals. Given these difficulties, monitoring efforts should prioritise high‑volume and widely dispersed substances, where the potential for cumulative and far‑reaching impacts is greatest. Targeted environmental and exposure monitoring would strengthen the evidence base for regulatory decisions, highlight emerging risks earlier, and provide a more realistic understanding of chemical behaviour under actual use conditions. At the international level, the SC provides a model for global monitoring through its Global Monitoring Plan (GMP). Established under Article 16, the GMP generates harmonised environmental and human biomonitoring data on POPs, enabling Parties to track trends and assess whether global controls are achieving their intended outcomes (Fiedler et al., 2019 ; Magulova & Priceputu, 2016 ; UNEP, n.d.-a). Through coordinated regional networks, capacity‑building activities, and periodic synthesis reports, the GMP plays a central role in linking scientific evidence to global policy decisions. However, its effectiveness remains uneven due to regional disparities in technical capacity, data gaps, and the challenges associated with monitoring newly listed or emerging POP‑like substances (Akinrinade et al., 2024 ; Magulova & Priceputu, 2016 ). While the GMP excels at tracking long‑term environmental trends, it is less effective in supporting rapid policy responses or anticipatory regulation. Strengthening long‑term monitoring infrastructure, improving the integration of monitoring results into regulatory and policy processes, and adopting more adaptive monitoring approaches that can accommodate emerging chemical groups would improve both the responsiveness and the preventative capacity of the SC. Effective monitoring and enforcement are equally important for driving meaningful substitution. When oversight is weak, substitution becomes largely voluntary, resulting in slow and uneven uptake of safe(r) alternatives (ECHA, 2020b ). Therefore, for strong enforcement and monitoring, other community regulations such as water framework directive and industrial emissions directive need not be considered in isolation. This is because, “… REACH can identify the hazard and…say … continue using that substance … for that particular product or process, but it isn't REACH that then will enforce things and say well, right…you've got to now make sure that hazardous material is never released from your factory in a form that could cause harm to human beings and environment … Participant from an Industry Association”. This would strengthen compliance, promote a fair and competitive market environment, and contribute to more successful substitution outcomes (OECD, 2021 ). Conclusions The findings from this study demonstrate that preventing RS requires more than identifying hazardous chemicals; it demands regulatory systems that are anticipatory, coherent, and capable of shaping innovation toward genuinely safe(r) outcomes. Through analysis of REACH and the SC, we show that RS stems not only from scientific uncertainty but from structural and procedural features of regulatory design, including fragmented regulatory frameworks, delayed hazard identification, incomplete exposure and performance information, uneven incentives for innovation, and limited communication across supply chains and international frameworks. Strengthening regulatory frameworks, therefore, requires integrating early screening mechanisms, improving data availability and transparency, coordinating assessments across regulatory silos, and embedding precautionary action before chemicals become widespread in commerce. Together, these measures could shift chemical management from a reactive model to one that actively steers substitution away from hazardous drop‑in replacements and toward safe(r) and more sustainable solutions. At the same time, preventing RS relies on strong partnerships, enforcement, and long‑term regulatory oversight. Effective collaboration among regulators, industry, scientific experts, and civil society, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, is necessary to ensure the flow of information needed to evaluate alternatives, anticipate emerging risks, and reduce duplication of effort. Enhanced monitoring and enforcement can generate real‑world evidence that can refine risk assessments and ensure consistent compliance, while targeted incentives and regulatory clarity support innovators developing safe(r) alternatives. By embedding transparency, adaptability, and cross‑sectoral cooperation within regulatory practice, frameworks such as REACH and the SC can break the persistent cycle of replacing one harmful chemical with another. In doing so, they can better align chemical management with sustainability objectives, protect human and environmental health, and support the transition to a more resilient and sustainable chemical future. For regulators and policymakers, the findings identify key requirements such as early hazard screening, coordinated assessment processes, improved data flows, and adaptive risk‑management that can be integrated into emerging reforms under REACH, national-level frameworks, and global agreements like the SC. For industry, the study highlights the value of transparent hazard and performance data, proactive substitution planning, and cross‑functional innovation for anticipating regulatory expectations and avoiding costly future transitions. By clarifying how regulatory conditions currently shape substitution decisions and highlighting routes for improvement, the study equips both regulators and industry actors with the knowledge needed to steer innovation toward genuinely safe(r), sustainable alternatives and prevent RS from becoming an entrenched feature of chemical management. What is now needed is strong political commitment from national governments, regulatory authorities and industry to ensure that chemical substitution is handled more carefully and responsibly and without future regrets. Declarations Research ethics The proposal for this research was reviewed and approved by the Lancaster University Faculty of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee (ref. FST-2023-3427-RECR-3) before data collection Funding statement This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment Towards Sustainable Chemical Use (ECORISC) Centre for Doctoral Training under Grant No. NE/VO13041/1 Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge all participants who dedicated their time to sharing valuable experiences and insights that informed and enriched the findings of this study Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request Author Contribution OD acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. Drafted manuscript.RW provided input into study design, comments and edits.ASM provided input into study design, comments and edits.NW provided input into study design, comments and edits.AJS provided comments and edits, approved the version to be published. References Abbate, E., Ragas, A. M. J., Caldeira, C., Posthuma, L., Aguirre, I. G., Devic, A. C., Soeteman-Hernandez, L. G., Huijbregts, M. A. J., & Sala, S. (2025). Operationalization of the safe and sustainable by design framework for chemicals and materials: challenges and proposed actions. In Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (Vol. 21, Number 2). https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjae031 Akinrinade, O. E., Agunbiade, F. O., Alani, R., & Ayejuyo, O. O. (2024). Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Africa - progress, challenges, and recommendations after 20 years. In Environmental Science: Advances (Vol. 3, Number 5). https://doi.org/10.1039/d3va00347g Andreassen, M., Rudén, C., & Ågerstrand, M. (2025). Mapping chemicals across EU’s legal frameworks towards a ‘one substance, one assessment’ approach. Environment International , 199 , 109460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109460 Apel, C., Sudheshwar, A., Kümmerer, K., Nowack, B., Midander, K., Strömberg, E., & Soeteman-Hernández, L. G. (2024). Safe-and-sustainable-by-design roadmap: identifying research, competencies, and knowledge sharing needs. In RSC Sustainability (Vol. 2, Number 10). https://doi.org/10.1039/d4su00310a Bailes, I. R., Phillips, R. A., Barber, J. L., Losada, S., Peck, L. S., Green, C., & Sweetman, A. J. (2025). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Sub-Antarctic Seabirds: Insights into Long-Range Transport and Bioaccumulation of Legacy and Replacement Chemicals. ACS Environmental Au , 5 (6), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00102 Bechu, A. M., Roy, M. A., Jacobs, M., & Tickner, J. A. (2024). Alternatives assessment: An analysis on progress and future needs for research and practice. In Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (Vol. 20, Number 5). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4882 Benfenati, E., Diaza, R. G., Cassano, A., Pardoe, S., Gini, G., Mays, C., Knauf, R., & Benighaus, L. (2011). The acceptance of in silico models for REACH: Requirements, barriers, and perspectives. In Chemistry Central Journal (Vol. 5, Number 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-5-58 Biggi, G., Giuliani, E., Martinelli, A., & Mazzei, J. (2025). Rethinking Directed Technical Change: When Substitution Leads to Regret . https://www.lem.santannapisa.it/WPLem/files/2025-23.pdf Blum, A., Behl, M., Birnbaum, L. S., Diamond, M. L., Phillips, A., Singla, V., Sipes, N. S., Stapleton, H. M., & Venier, M. (2019). Organophosphate Ester Flame Retardants: Are They a Regrettable Substitution for Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers? In Environmental Science and Technology Letters (Vol. 6, Number 11, pp. 638–649). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00582 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Braun, V., Clarke, V .Using thematic analysis in psychology., 3:2 (2006), 77–101. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 . Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. In Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health (Vol. 11, Number 4, pp. 589–597). https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18 (3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. QMiP Bulletin , 1 (33). https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46 Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity , 56 (3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y Caldeira, C., Farcal, R., Garmendia Aguirre, I., Mancini, L., Tosches, D., Amelio, A., Rasmussen, K., Rauscher, H., Riego Sintes, J., & Sala, S. (2022). Safe and Sustainable by Design chemicals and materials - Framework for the definition of criteria and evaluation procedure for chemicals and materials. EUR 31100 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-53264-4, Doi:10.2760/487955, JRC128591 . https://doi.org/10.2760/487955 Chirsir, P., Palm, E. H., Baskaran, S., Schymanski, E. L., Wang, Z., Wolf, R., Hale, S. E., & Arp, H. P. H. (2024). Grouping strategies for assessing and managing persistent and mobile substances. In Environmental Sciences Europe (Vol. 36, Number 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00919-4 Cordner, A., Allgeyer, A., Tallon, L. A., & Brown, P. (2025). Regrettable for whom? GenX chemicals as a case study in detrimental chemical substitution. Environmental Science & Policy , 174 , 104262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104262 Coria, J. (2018). The economics of toxic substance control and the REACH directive. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 12 (2), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rey003 Defra. (2023, November 9). Policy paper UK REACH alternative transitional registration model (ATRm) . https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-reach-alternative-transitional-registration-model-atrm/uk-reach-alternative-transitional-registration-model-atrm Dosunmu, O., Whiting, R., Matharu, A., Watson, N., & Sweetman, A. J. (2025). The unintentional role of chemical regulation in regrettable substitution: The case of PFAS. Environmental Science & Policy , 174 , 104275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104275 ECHA. (n.d.-a). Authorisation process . Retrieved 6 April 2024, from https://echa.europa.eu/authorisation-process ECHA. (n.d.-b). Main alternatives to harmful substances subject to REACH authorisation . Retrieved 6 January 2026, from https://echa.europa.eu/alternatives-to-harmful-substances-subject-to-authorisation ECHA. (n.d.-c). Substances of concern: Why and how to substitute? Retrieved 20 October 2023, from https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3079426/why_and_how_to_substitute_en.pdf/ 93e9c055-483c-743a-52cb-1d1201478bc1 ECHA. (n.d.-d). Understanding REACH . Retrieved 10 August 2023, from https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach ECHA. (2018). Strategy to promote substitution to safer chemicals through innovation . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2823/99862 ECHA. (2020a). Impacts of REACH Restriction and Authorisation processes on substitution in the EU . https://doi.org/10.2823/39789 ECHA. (2020b, July 8). Restriction and authorisation found to drive replacement of harmful chemicals . https://echa.europa.eu/-/restriction-and-authorisation-found-to-drive-replacement-of-harmful-chemicals ECHA. (2021). How to apply for authorisation . https://doi.org/10.2823/2445 ECHA. (2024, March 13). Next steps for PFAS restriction proposal . https://echa.europa.eu/-/next-steps-for-pfas-restriction-proposal ECHA. (2025, August 20). ECHA publishes updated PFAS restriction proposal . https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-updated-pfas-restriction-proposal?utm ECHA CHEM. (n.d.). Welcome to ECHA CHEM . Retrieved 5 January 2026, from https://chem.echa.europa.eu/ EFSA. (2020, October 14). In support of the EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: One substance – one assessment . https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/osoa?utm Ellis, S., & Dosunmu, O. (2025). Greening agriculture: accelerating safe- and sustainable-by-design plant protection products through innovation and incentives in the European Union. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management . https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf158 European Commission. (2001). Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy . European Commission. (2006, December 18). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32006R 1907 European Commission. (2009). REGULATION (EC) No 1107/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. In Official Journal of the European Union (Vol. 24, Number 8). European Commission. (2019). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The European Green Deal . European Commission. (2020). Chemicals strategy for sustainability: towards a toxic-free environment. COM(2020b) 667 Final. Available at Http://Ec.Europa.Eu. European Commission. (2022). Restrictions Roadmap under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability . European Commission. (2023). Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks to the European Chemicals Agency . https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/COM_2023_781_1_EN_ACT_part1_v5_0.pdf?utm European Parliament. (2025, December 14). Revision of the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) In “A new plan for Europe’s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness” . https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-plan-for-europe-s-sustainable-prosperity-and-competitiveness/file-revision-of-the-reach-regulation Fantke, P., Aurisano, N., Provoost, J., Karamertzanis, P. G., & Hauschild, M. (2020). Toward effective use of REACH data for science and policy. In Environment International (Vol. 135). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105336 Fantke, P., & Illner, N. (2019). Goods that are good enough: Introducing an absolute sustainability perspective for managing chemicals in consumer products. In Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry (Vol. 15, pp. 91–97). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.12.001 Fiedler, H., Kallenborn, R., Boer, J. de, & Sydnes, L. K. (2019). The Stockholm Convention: A Tool for the Global Regulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants. Chemistry International , 41 (2), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/ci-2019-0202 Garralaga, M. P., Lomba, L., Zuriaga, E., Santander, S., & Giner, B. (2022). Key Properties for the Toxicity Classification of Chemicals: A Comparison of the REACH Regulation and Scientific Studies Trends. Applied Sciences , 12 (22), 11710. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211710 Geiser, K. (2015). Chemicals Without Harm: Policies for a Sustainable World . MIT Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lancaster/detail.action?docID=3433783 . Guardans, R. (2024). Global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in biota, water and sediments: its role in screening for unregulated POPs, in compiling time trends of regulated POPs under the Stockholm Convention (SC) and their relevance for biodiversity in a changing climate. In Environmental Science: Advances (Vol. 3, Number 8). https://doi.org/10.1039/d4va00023d Health and Safety Executive. (n.d.). UK REACH explained . Retrieved 17 September 2023, from https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/about.htm Henriquez, J. E., Badwaik, V. D., Bianchi, E., Chen, W., Corvaro, M., LaRocca, J., Lunsman, T. D., Zu, C., & Johnson, K. J. (2024). From Pipeline to Plant Protection Products: Using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in Agrochemical Safety Assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry , 72 (19), 10710–10724. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.4c00958 Homburg, E. (2018). Chemistry and Industry: A Tale of Two Moving Targets. ISIS , 109 (3), 565–575. Jones, L. B., & Burns, C. J. (2024). REACHing for divergence?—UK chemical regulation post-Brexit. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management , 20 (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4941 M Rowe, D. J. (1930). History of the chemical industry, 1750 to 1930 -an outline . Maertens, A., Golden, E., & Hartung, T. (2021). Avoiding Regrettable Substitutions: Green Toxicology for Sustainable Chemistry. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering , 9 (23), 7749–7758. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACSSUSCHEMENG.0C09435/ASSET /IMAGES/LARGE/SC0C09435_0001.JPEG Magulova, K., & Priceputu, A. (2016). Global monitoring plan for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention: Triggering, streamlining and catalyzing global POPs monitoring. Environmental Pollution , 217 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.022 Matlin, S. A., Mehta, G., Hopf, H., & Krief, A. (2016). One-world chemistry and systems thinking. In Nature Chemistry (Vol. 8, Number 5, pp. 393–398). Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2498 Matthies, M., Solomon, K., Vighi, M., Gilman, A., & Tarazona, J. V. (2016). The origin and evolution of assessment criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts (Vol. 18, Number 9, pp. 1114–1128). Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6em00311g McFadden, R. D. (2011). The business case for transitioning to safer chemicals. New Solutions , 21 (3). https://doi.org/10.2190/NS.21.3.g OECD. (2021). Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives Series on Risk Management No. 60 . https://saicmknowledge.org/library/guidance-key-considerations-identification-and-selection-safer-chemical-alternatives OECD. (2023). Cross Country Analysis: Approaches to Support Alternatives Assessment and Substitution of Chemicals of Concern– 2nd edition, OECD Series on Risk Management of Chemicals No. 77 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/71bd2f91-en Oltmanns, J., Macherey, M., Schwarz, M., Manžuch, Z., Hayleck, M., & Heine, K. (2023). Mapping of Data Requirements and Assessment Methodologies Linked to the Regulatory Frameworks and Remits of the Relevant EU Agencies (ECHA, EFSA and EMA) and EC Scientific Committees (SCCS and SCHEER). EFSA Supporting Publications , 20 (12). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8540 Persson, L., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Lai, A., Persson, Å., & Fick, S. (2017). The globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals-Explaining the legal implementation gap. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 9 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122176 Pollard, S. (1997). The Industrial Revolution and the Location of Proto-Industry. In Marginal Europe (pp. 221–254). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206385.003.0011 Reininger, N., & Oehlmann, J. (2024). Regrettable substitution? Comparative study of the effect profile of bisphenol A and eleven analogues in an in vitro test battery. Environmental Sciences Europe , 36 (1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00900-1 Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., Drüke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., … Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances , 9 (37). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 RISE. (n.d.). Shaping the future of EU substitution centres for hazardous chemicals . Retrieved 9 February 2026, from https://www.ri.se/en/chemicals/chemical-products-and-processes/project/shaping-the-future-of-eu-substitution-centres-for Sackmann, K., Reemtsma, T., Rahmberg, M., & Bunke, D. (2018). Impact of European chemicals regulation on the industrial use of plasticizers and patterns of substitution in Scandinavia. Environment International , 119 , 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.037 Scheringer, M., Strempel, S., Hukari, S., Ng, C. A., Blepp, M., & Hungerbuhler, K. (2012). How many persistent organic pollutants should we expect? Atmospheric Pollution Research , 3 (4), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.5094/APR.2012.044 Sweetman, A. (2020). A Grand Challenge for Environmental Organic Chemistry: How Can We Avoid Regrettable Substitution? Frontiers in Environmental Chemistry , 0 , 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/FENVC.2020.00007 Tickner, J., Jacobs, M. M., & Mack, N. B. (2019). Alternatives assessment and informed substitution: A global landscape assessment of drivers, methods, policies and needs. In Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy (Vol. 13). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2019.100161 Trasande, L. (2017). Exploring regrettable substitution: replacements for bisphenol A. In The Lancet Planetary Health (Vol. 1, Number 3, pp. e88–e89). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30046-3 Ujaczki, É., Stark-Rogel, V., Olbrich, M., Fuetsch, M., & Backmann, J. (2022). Experiences and consequences of phasing out substances of concern in a multinational healthcare company. Environmental Sciences Europe , 34 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00678-0 UNEP. (n.d.-a). Global Monitoring Plan . Retrieved 5 March 2026, from https://www.pops.int/implementation/globalmonitoringplan/overview/tabid/83/default.aspx UNEP. (n.d.-b). The POPs . Retrieved 22 December 2025, from https://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx UNEP. (n.d.-c). What are POPs? Retrieved 9 January 2024, from https://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/tabid/673/Default.aspx UNEP. (2009). Report of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee on the work of its fifth meeting Addendum General guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals . https://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-POPRC.5-10-Add.1.English.pdf UNEP. (2020). An Assessment Report on Issues of Concern: Chemicals and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment . https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste UNEP. (2025a). Second effectiveness evaluation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants . https://www.pops.int/Implementation/EffectivenessEvaluation/Outcomes/2023Outcomes/Digitalreport/tabid/10210/Default.aspx?p=intro-report UNEP. (2025b, April 22). Improving the transmission of information for POPs . https://www.unep.org/topics/chemicals-and-pollution-action/chemicals-management/pollution-and-health/persistent-organic United Nations. (n.d.). THE 17 GOALS . Retrieved 22 December 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals US EPA. (2025, February 25). Exploring ToxCast Data . https://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/exploring-toxcast-data van Dijk, J., Gustavsson, M., Dekker, S. C., & van Wezel, A. P. (2021). Towards ‘one substance – one assessment’: An analysis of EU chemical registration and aquatic risk assessment frameworks. In Journal of Environmental Management (Vol. 280). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111692 van Dijk, J., Sharma, A., Nowack, B., Wang, Z., & Scheringer, M. (2025). From Ambition to Action: Navigating Obstacles and Opportunities of “Safe and Sustainable by Design”. Environmental Science & Technology , 59 (29), 14832–14841. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c09863 Wang, Z., Adu-Kumi, S., Diamond, M. L., Guardans, R., Harner, T., Harte, A., Kajiwara, N., Klánová, J., Liu, J., Moreira, E. G., Muir, D. C. G., Suzuki, N., Pinas, V., Seppälä, T., Weber, R., & Yuan, B. (2022). Enhancing Scientific Support for the Stockholm Convention’s Implementation: An Analysis of Policy Needs for Scientific Evidence. Environmental Science and Technology , 56 (5), 2936–2949. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.1C06120 Wang, Z., Cousins, I. T., Scheringer, M., & Hungerbuehler, K. (2015). Hazard assessment of fluorinated alternatives to long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their precursors: Status quo, ongoing challenges and possible solutions. Environment International , 75 , 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.013 Wang, Z., Walker, G. W., Muir, D. C. G., & Nagatani-Yoshida, K. (2020). Toward a Global Understanding of Chemical Pollution: A First Comprehensive Analysis of National and Regional Chemical Inventories. Environmental Science and Technology , 54 (5), 2575–2584. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06379 Wohlleben, W., Mehling, A., & Landsiedel, R. (2023). Lessons Learned from the Grouping of Chemicals to Assess Risks to Human Health. In Angewandte Chemie - International Edition (Vol. 62, Number 22). https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202210651 Yang, X., & Yu, Y. (2025). A health conundrum of bisphenol A and its alternatives: charting a path beyond the structural analogue substitution pitfall. Journal of Environmental Exposure Assessment , 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.20517/jeea.2025.39 Zimmerman, J. B., & Anastas, P. T. (2015). Toward substitution with no regrets: Advances in chemical design are needed to create safe alternatives to harmful chemicals. In Science (Vol. 347, Number 6227, pp. 1198–1199). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0812 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 04 May, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 30 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9263677","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":638542473,"identity":"f9753990-d6d2-4386-b3cd-701015e83129","order_by":0,"name":"Olasunkanmi Dosunmu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lancaster University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olasunkanmi","middleName":"","lastName":"Dosunmu","suffix":""},{"id":638542476,"identity":"3abe41b5-f918-40ae-8fac-4ef73aadc013","order_by":1,"name":"Rob Whiting","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"WSP","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rob","middleName":"","lastName":"Whiting","suffix":""},{"id":638542477,"identity":"8bc55c33-3e0b-4e16-ac1b-6e4ae776fff6","order_by":2,"name":"Avtar S. Matharu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of York","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Avtar","middleName":"S.","lastName":"Matharu","suffix":""},{"id":638542480,"identity":"39aef4c2-19be-43d3-9b49-d8b6f57f68b9","order_by":3,"name":"Nigel Watson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lancaster University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nigel","middleName":"","lastName":"Watson","suffix":""},{"id":638542483,"identity":"fb5609bf-8687-4077-a882-908cc859c582","order_by":4,"name":"Andrew J. Sweetman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lancaster University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrew","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Sweetman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-30 07:38:45","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263677/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263677/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109170002,"identity":"77e8834e-7958-4c63-9c04-23d6e1fb9297","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 08:45:37","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55264,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExamples of regrettable substitutions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263677/v1/fb9ea84085a2e1030aa8df76.jpeg"},{"id":109170073,"identity":"f9e55f54-81aa-4df1-b6f5-71a99da8c9de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 08:46:00","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30123,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDemographics of semi-structured interview participants; where, Other = Professional body.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263677/v1/47400452e6f10d7594644fe4.png"},{"id":109169974,"identity":"67bdbd09-c5d7-49b1-92e5-2bf8ecd2155b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 08:45:30","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":131974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThematic map showing how regrettable substitution can be prevented through regulatory frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263677/v1/de2153ba7137df55391cc146.png"},{"id":109170040,"identity":"a1d1f751-f8dd-4d97-a826-0db3373eca1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 08:45:44","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStage gate REACH pre-registration screening\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263677/v1/0122d26d965777935de32de4.jpeg"},{"id":109170253,"identity":"e77e394f-d862-4c52-8659-a43b4a2ed8d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 08:46:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":683697,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9263677/v1/602b75e6-6a21-4a35-91bf-1b2614f5a0f2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Preventing regrettable substitution through regulatory frameworks: Using REACH regulation and Stockholm Convention as case studies","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eSociety\u0026rsquo;s reliance on chemicals accelerated rapidly following the industrial revolution in Europe (c. 1750\u0026ndash;1850), when chemical production expanded significantly after 1830 to support the transition from agrarian economies to industrialised nations (Homburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; M Rowe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1930\u003c/span\u003e; Pollard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Since then, chemicals and the chemical industry have become embedded in modern life, driving technological development, economic growth, and societal wellbeing. Today, chemicals are indispensable to innovation and play a central role in achieving multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), including zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), and climate action (SDG 13) (United Nations, n.d.). Yet the same properties that make many chemicals useful also create significant concerns. Uncontrolled production, widespread use, and the introduction of novel chemistries have been associated with human health concerns, biodiversity loss, persistent environmental contamination, and potential disruption of planetary systems (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Fantke \u0026amp; Illner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Geiser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Matlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Richardson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese concerns are particularly acute for chemicals identified as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Article 57 such as carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic (CMR Cat 1A/1B), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), (very)persistent and (very)bioaccumulative ((v)P(v)B, and those of equivalent concern (EqC) (e.g., endocrine disruptors, EDs) and for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention (SC), which are characterised by Long‑Range Environmental Transport (LRET) (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP, n.d.-c). Both REACH and the SC were implemented to address these serious risks and protect human health and the environment (UNEP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChemical regulations such as REACH and the SC therefore perform a crucial role in controlling hazardous substances and in driving their substitution with safe(r) alternatives (Andreassen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Garralaga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Matthies et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Persson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sackmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Tickner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The SC lists chemicals for global restriction or elimination based on their hazard profiles of persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity and LRET (UNEP, n.d.-b), while REACH regulates SVHCs and EqC substances through authorisation, restriction, or bans (ECHA, n.d.-d; Health and Safety Executive, n.d.). As a result, many hazardous chemicals are replaced with alternatives; however, instances of regrettable substitution (RS), the hazard replacement of one harmful chemical with another that is equally harmful or where the impact of the chemical is shifted from one concern to another are well documented. Examples include (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) the substitution of bisphenol A (BPA) with bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS); polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) with organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) such as tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (TDBPP); perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) with perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA or FRD903, with its ammonium salt known as GenX or FRD 902); methylene chloride (dichloromethane or DCM) with 1‑bromopropane (n-PB); and 1,1,2-trichloroethylene (TCE) with n‑hexane.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese substitutes initially introduced as safer alternatives, have themselves raised concerns, perpetuating cycles of harm or negative impact rather than resolving them (Bailes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Blum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Cordner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Maertens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Reininger \u0026amp; Oehlmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sweetman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Trasande, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zimmerman \u0026amp; Anastas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Given that chemical regulations are major drivers of chemical substitution, and because regulatory frameworks shape the timing, direction, and nature of those substitutions, it is important to acknowledge that chemical regulations can unintentionally drive RS under certain conditions. This recognition is essential for improving the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks. This article therefore examines how RS can be prevented through more robust, coherent, and proactive regulatory frameworks, using REACH and the SC as case studies. Preventing RS is critical not only because chemicals play a fundamental role in achieving the UN SDGs and in delivering a greener, more sustainable Europe, including the ambitions of the European Union (EU) Green Deal to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Also, because the repeated cycle in which hazardous chemicals are replaced by equally harmful alternatives must not continue. By analysing the working of existing regulatory frameworks, this study provides insights into how regulatory design and implementation can reduce the likelihood of RS and support the transition toward truly safe(r) and sustainable chemical use.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative research design combining document analysis with semi‑structured interviews. A total of 31 interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams between November 2024 and March 2025. Policy, regulatory, and guidance documents were also analysed (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17), with particular attention to REACH and the SC. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides the full list of documents reviewed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of documents analysed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"1\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory documents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (REACH Regulation EC No. 1907/2006)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation) dated Dec. 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common data platform on chemicals, laying down rules to ensure that the data contained in it are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable and establishing a monitoring and outlook framework for chemicals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1435 of 9 October 2020 on the duties placed on registrants to update their registrations under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreaties, Agreements and related Documents UNEP: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Texts and Annexes: Revised in 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePolicy documents\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWHITE PAPER Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe European Green Deal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) Towards a Toxic-Free Environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGuidance documents\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuidance on the preparation of an application for authorisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuidance on the preparation of socio-economic analysis as part of an application for authorisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuidance for the preparation of an Annex XV dossier for restrictions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneric Exemptions from the Authorisation Requirement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow to apply for authorisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChanges of market volumes of chemicals subject to authorisation in 2010\u0026ndash;2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuidance on registration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReport of the POP Review Committee: General Guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify individuals with direct professional experience in chemical regulation, risk management, and chemical substitution. Participants were drawn from key stakeholder groups, including government (regulatory and policy), non‑governmental organisations (NGOs), trade associations, consultancies, academia, and industry. Demographic information of the participants is summarised in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. To further broaden participation, a snowball sampling technique was used, whereby interviewees recommended additional individuals within their professional networks who met the inclusion criteria. Before each interview, participants received detailed information about the study and provided informed consent. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymised, and cleaned, that is identifiable information removed before analysis to ensure confidentiality and data integrity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing transcription, both interview data and documents were imported into NVivo (version 15.2.2, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://lumivero.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://lumivero.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) to support systematic organisation and coding. Analysis followed Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) as developed by Braun and Clarke (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, 2006, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). RTA is a theoretically flexible method for identifying, analysing, and interpreting patterns across qualitative data (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). It is especially suited to studies focused on subjective understanding, meaning-making, and stakeholder perspectives, making it an appropriate approach for this study. Importantly, RTA positions the researcher as an active, interpretive agent in the development of themes, acknowledging that meaning is co-constructed through iterative engagement and reflexivity with the data (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Byrne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis followed Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s six‑phase iterative process; in Phase 1 (Familiarisation), interview summaries were prepared, transcripts reviewed and cleaned, and initial engagement with the dataset began, focusing on semantic meanings. In Phase 2 (Systematic Coding), data were coded inductively within NVivo, generating concise labels that captured recurring ideas and patterns. Coding proceeded in two rounds to strengthen interpretive judgement and enhance rigour. NVivo served as an organisational tool; however, the coding process itself remained researcher‑driven and reflexive. Phase 3 (Generating Initial Candidate Themes) entailed exporting codes into Microsoft Excel for clustering into early groups, using semantic and latent coding to explore connections and shared meanings. Colour‑coding was used to sort related codes and identify shared conceptual meanings, ultimately forming initial candidate themes. In Phase 4 (Reviewing Themes), the candidate themes created in Phase 3 were evaluated against both the coded dataset and the full dataset. Themes that lacked coherence or alignment with the research aims were modified or discarded. Phases 5 and 6 (Defining, Naming, and Writing Up Themes) overlapped, refining theme definitions, finalising names, and writing descriptions that clarified central meanings and boundaries. This process produced a thematic map and laid the foundation for reporting the findings. The resulting thematic findings are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Throughout, transparency and rigour were maintained through systematic engagement with the data, reflexive interpretation, and active theme construction, enabling nuanced insights into the data.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Results and Discussions","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany hazardous substances are substituted as a result of regulatory action, ensuring that chemicals on the market and used by industry and consumers are without negative impacts on human health or the environment. The findings from our thematic analysis discussed under the following interconnected themes reinforce how regulatory frameworks can ensure adequate and efficient risk management of hazardous chemicals, encourage informed substitution and reduce unintended consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBuild capacity for efficient regulatory decision-making\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegulatory risk management of chemicals pre-REACH was widely recognised as slow and resource intensive. This culminated in the 2001 European Commission\u0026rsquo;s (EC) review which concluded that \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003ethe risk assessment process is slow and resource-intensive and does not allow the system to work efficiently and effectively\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). While REACH has since improved data availability and created more coherent procedures, the pace of regulatory action is hampered by significant capacity and resource limitations within regulatory agencies. The REACH restriction roadmap explicitly states that delivering effective risk management depends on adequate resources among European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and Member States (MS) to conduct Risk Management Option Analyses, hazard identification, and restriction work (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Even with a robust legislative framework, the ability to act swiftly depends heavily on the institutional capacity behind it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe UK faces similar challenges. Jones \u0026amp; Burns, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that the UK REACH system currently lacks the expertise, staff capacity, and technical capability required to keep pace with EU regulatory developments. This issue risks increasing regulatory divergence and associated consequences on industry compliance and cross-border trade, and the UK\u0026rsquo;s ability to adapt to evolving scientific evidence. A participant from government reflected this limitation, noting that although the staffing in the UK Chemicals Assessment Unit, Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Defra has increased since the EU exit, these resources, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003ecan't compare to all of the Member States working together and/or everybody working at ECHA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;, leading to an inevitably slower pace of restrictions and risk management actions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe capacity constraints are not limited to REACH. The effectiveness of the SC also depends heavily on Parties\u0026rsquo; institutional and scientific capabilities to implement its obligations (Akinrinade et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Guardans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Although, the SC provides a robust framework for identifying and eliminating POPs, its practical impact depends on whether countries can gather the evidence required for POP nominations, participate meaningfully in the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) process and translate global decisions into domestic implementation. Where capacity is limited, the process of identifying and restricting hazardous chemicals is often delayed, prolonging exposure and undermining the SC\u0026rsquo;s objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapacity limitations have direct implications not only for the speed of regulatory action but also for preventing RS. Alternatives assessment relies on expert knowledge, high‑quality data, and the technical ability to evaluate the comparative safety and performance of potential substitutes. As UNEP notes, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003ein many cases impact will have to be assessed by using expert judgement. The very nature of expert judgement is such that it is difficult to provide guidance on how to exercise such judgement\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; (UNEP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Where regulatory bodies lack the resources or technical skill to conduct robust alternatives assessment, the risk increases that substitutes will be inadequately scrutinised, perpetuating cycles of RS. Strengthening scientific and technical capability is therefore essential. Developing expertise in lifecycle analysis, alternatives assessment, and emerging hazard identification would enable authorities to move beyond procedural compliance toward more proactive and precautionary risk management. Improved capacity ensures that chemical data is not merely collected but critically evaluated and translated into timely regulatory action avoiding a situation where information exists but cannot be effectively used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is therefore a need to mobilise expertise beyond regulatory agencies alone to drive timely risk management. One participant from academia noted, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003ethe scientific community is not really mobilised yet\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;, emphasising the need for stronger pathways for researchers and public-sector scientists to contribute to hazard identification and substitution efforts. Enhanced collaboration between regulatory bodies, academia, and industry would increase the depth of available expertise and stimulate innovation in risk assessment and substitution. Increasing regulatory capacity is also critical for accelerating the pace of chemical control and for incentivising industry transition (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). A participant from an NGO summarised the urgency, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003eI think that we still lack some speed when it comes to how many chemicals we ban and restrict, there is still a lot of chemicals that fulfil criteria for being banned and regulated and\u0026hellip; substituted\u0026hellip; we need more speed\u0026hellip;we need more pace or faster pace when it comes to regulation\u0026hellip; we need a faster pace that will \u0026hellip;make more companies prone to do substitution\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;. Improved capacity both in staffing and in knowledge would enable regulators to make quicker, more informed decisions on both hazardous chemicals and their alternatives and encourages companies to proactively seek safe(r) alternatives rather than waiting for regulatory action.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, underlining the need for regulatory frameworks such as REACH and the SC to be supported by sustained investment in regulatory capacity, staffing, expertise and tools required if they are to effectively prevent RS. Ensuring that regulatory ambition is matched by institutional capability is essential to achieving timely, science‑based decision‑making and ensuring that chemical substitutions result in genuine, long‑term reductions in risk. One practical way to achieve this is for policymakers and regulators to systematically involve academic experts in processes such as POPRC. This would require reducing institutional reticence toward academic input and creating clearer, more transparent mechanisms for scientific engagement. Structured participation of academia through expert consultations, commissioned reviews and collaborative research platforms can strengthen the evidence needed for risk evaluation and support the identification of safe(r) alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEnsure reliability and transparency in regulatory data\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the development of safe(r) alternatives, high quality, complete, and transparent regulatory data are important elements. When substitution decisions rely only on the specific hazard(s) that triggered regulatory concern, such as ED, persistence, or carcinogenicity, there is a substantial risk of RS. This narrow focus often becomes a proxy for data collection and evaluation rather than a comprehensive hazard assessment (Maertens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Substituting a well‑characterised chemical with one that has been tested only for the original concern, or with one that has not been robustly tested at all, can shift risks to other endpoints. This burden‑shifting is one of the main contributors to RS, highlighting the need for regulatory frameworks to prioritise the generation and communication of reliable data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eREACH requires data to be generated based on the annual market volume, with more extensive information applying to chemicals produced at \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1000 t/y. Tonnage is used as a proxy for exposure (Coria, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), meaning that substances placed on the market at 1\u0026ndash;10 t/y may lack chronic toxicity, developmental toxicity, or chronic aquatic toxicity data. If such data gaps exist for substances considered as alternatives to well-studied SVHCs or POPs, these gaps can directly undermine informed substitution decisions and delay early regulatory intervention (Bechu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Fantke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Maertens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). As the example of BPA shows, regulatory pressure can rapidly shift market dynamics, while BPA has been extensively studied following decades of regulatory scrutiny, the volumes of BPA analogues (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) such as BPS and BPF increased substantially, despite far more limited data on their hazards (Yang \u0026amp; Yu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This creates an environment where the introduction of alternatives proceeds faster than the accumulation of evidence needed to ensure their safety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven this, regulatory frameworks should adopt enhanced data requirements for alternatives to SVHC or restricted chemicals, regardless of the tonnage at which these alternatives are produced. Enhanced requirements should include early screening for persistence, bioaccumulation, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and chronic aquatic effects. This could be achieved by developing and generating high-throughput screening methods, such as in silico models, which can act as a vehicle for front-loading hazard data at the point where a decision on alternatives is to be made (Benfenati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and intervention is still possible and cost effective. Across sectors such as agrochemicals, industry already uses computational models, predictive toxicology, and early‑phase screening tools, including in silico genotoxicity and endocrine assays, as well as in vitro fish toxicity tests to filter candidate molecules before investing in full regulatory testing (Henriquez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For example, programs such as the US Environmental Protection Agency ToxCast/Tox21 provide large-scale screening of thousands of chemicals across biological assays (US EPA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Such methods are especially useful when alternatives have limited data required for decision making. Using predictive methods as an initial screening layer followed by targeted in vivo or in vitro studies where required would allow regulators to balance pragmatism with precaution, ensuring alternatives do not enter the market with significant unknowns (Ellis \u0026amp; Dosunmu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother way of preventing RS is for regulatory agencies to establish a formal mechanism for back-reporting of data, whereby authorities can signal data reliability concerns, revised interpretations, or outstanding information requests directly on the disseminated REACH dossier webpage. Under REACH, submitted data in registration dossiers is made publicly available through the ECHA\u0026rsquo;s dissemination platform (ECHA CHEM, n.d.). The current incomplete feedback loop between regulatory evaluation and dissemination of REACH data creates an additional barrier that can perpetuate RS. Although REACH registration dossiers are publicly available through the ECHA\u0026rsquo;s dissemination platform and widely used and treated as authoritative by industry, regulators, and civil society, the platform does not systematically communicate on-going regulatory scrutiny. When authorities identify unreliable studies, request new data, or reinterpret results during substance evaluation, these conclusions are not reflected in the disseminated dossier. As a result, contested or downgraded studies continue to appear unqualified, creating a transparency gap that can inadvertently support RS by allowing questionable data to guide substitution decisions. It is therefore important for regulatory authorities to signal data reliability concerns, revised interpretations, or outstanding information requests directly on the disseminated webpage. Such a mechanism would not require disclosure of confidential business information nor alter data ownership; rather, it would use standardised indicators such as annotations, symbols, or status tags linked to individual studies or endpoints. These indicators would highlight where regulatory review has raised concerns about reliability, situations where the conclusions differ from those presented by the registrant, or where additional data have been required to resolve uncertainty. Implementing this measure would significantly strengthen the integrity and usability of publicly accessible REACH data. It would support industry in making informed and precautionary substitution decisions, enhance transparency for downstream users and regulators, and improve regulatory credibility. Crucially, this recommendation does not introduce new testing obligations but instead improves the interpretive environment in which existing data are used. By formally closing the feedback loop between evaluation and dissemination, back-reporting could play a direct role in preventing RS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eUse incentives and support to drive change towards sustainable chemical transition\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of incentives and structured regulatory support play an essential role in encouraging innovation and the development of safe(r) alternatives. Under REACH, the authorisation process links continued market access to a time‑limited review period, the duration of which partly depends on the applicant\u0026rsquo;s substitution plan. In principle, this mechanism is meant to stimulate substitution by making the continuation of authorised uses contingent on demonstrable progress toward adopting safe(r) alternatives (ECHA, n.d.-a). In practice, however, there is no systematic regulatory engagement and follow‑up during the authorisation period. Once authorisation is granted, interactions between regulatory agencies and authorisation holders generally do not resume until about eighteen months before the review period expires, when the holder submits a re‑application. According to REACH Article 61, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eauthorisations granted\u0026hellip; shall be regarded as valid until the Commission decides to amend or withdraw the authorisation in the context of a review, provided that the holder of the authorisation submits a review report at least 18 months before the expiry of the time-limited review period. A holder of an authorisation granted\u0026hellip; shall submit an update of the analysis of alternatives\u0026hellip;, including information about any relevant research and development activities by the applicant, if appropriate, and any substitution plan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;. This absence of interim engagement means that regulators remain largely unaware of actual progress achieved, challenges encountered, or any deviation from the original substitution plans.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthorisation is an important regulatory tool, particularly given that not all hazardous chemicals can be substituted in the short or medium term. It allows continued use of hazardous substances where risks can be adequately controlled or where socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risks. Yet without structured, regular touchpoints and follow‑up, the process risks functioning more as a static end-of-line permission than as an active driver of innovation. To ensure that authorisation remains a dynamic instrument for promoting substitution, regulatory agencies should establish a formal feedback loop between regulators and authorisation holders, consisting of proportionate, regular touchpoints during the review period. These touchpoints should assess progress against substitution plans, identify emerging technical or economic barriers, and clarify whether additional guidance or regulatory support is needed. For example, the proposed EU Substitution Centre aiming to support businesses in replacing hazardous chemicals could provide an avenue to assign an authorisation holder to a given centre for progress checking and support provision. Importantly, their frequency should be tailored to the complexity of the use and the feasibility of available alternatives. This approach would provide regulators with real‑time insight into substitution progress and would offer companies constructive, practical engagement rather than retrospective assessment at the point of re‑application.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreasing the visibility of existing alternatives is another important mechanism for accelerating substitution. Regulatory agencies already gather substantial information on potential alternatives during authorisation, restriction, and related processes under the SC, yet this information remains difficult for industry and other stakeholders to identify and use. Therefore, regulatory agencies should expand public communication by highlighting where alternatives to Annex XIV and restricted substances already exist making this information easily accessible. The publication of the main alternatives to Annex XIV substances by ECHA represents an important step (ECHA, n.d.-b), but broader dissemination and regular updating are needed. Such disclosure should exclude confidential business information but include chemical names, functional groups, uses or sectors, and technical functions. Making alternatives visible reduces duplicated effort across the industry, improves transparency, and supports more rapid decision‑making on substitution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChemical regulations are a strong driver of innovation strategies within industry. In practice, regulations create a two-tier landscape of frontrunners and slow-to-respond. Frontrunners are firms that proactively respond to regulatory signals, often substituting hazardous chemicals well before regulatory actions become mandatory. They internalise regulatory risk and align innovation activities with anticipated restrictions or evolving market expectations (McFadden, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Ujaczki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Such organisations are motivated by strategic advantages which include enhanced corporate reputation, reduced long-term compliance costs, improved market access and corporate sustainability goals (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e; Ujaczki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Contrarily, slow-to-respond firms tend to defer actions until regulatory intervention becomes unavoidable such as inclusion in REACH Annex XIV, POP Annex, restriction or ban. ECHA\u0026rsquo;s survey data illustrate this, nearly one‑fifth of surveyed companies reported substituting chemicals only after a REACH restriction entered into force, while a further fraction acted only after listing on the Candidate or Authorisation Lists. Customer pressure and internal sustainability strategies, although influential for some, were less frequent triggers (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e). This disparity creates an imbalance in which frontrunners bear the early costs and risks of innovation, while slow-to-respond firms benefit from delayed action and from knowledge generated by others. To correct this imbalance, the use of targeted policy incentives such as risk‑based environmental levies, differentiated compliance costs, or application of the precautionary polluter‑pays principle (4-P approach) to continued use of hazardous substances should be considered (Coria, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These measures would discourage strategic delay, make early substitution economically advantageous, and more fairly distribute the costs of transitioning toward safe(r) chemicals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important source of delay in substitution decision‑making arises from the limited incentives for alternative providers and other third parties to participate meaningfully in regulatory consultations. Regulators often rely on these submissions to evaluate technical feasibility and availability of alternatives, yet third‑party engagement varies considerably. To this end, there is a need to strengthen incentives for alternative providers by offering targeted support such as certification schemes, regulatory recognition, or assistance in overcoming market and adoption barriers to encourage their participation in public consultations. These measures would ensure that regulators receive timely and relevant evidence, reduce delays in restriction and authorisation decisions, and foster a more robust innovation towards safe(r) alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrucially, the effectiveness of incentives depends on regulatory certainty and clarity. Innovation flourishes only when companies have confidence that investments in substitution will be recognised and rewarded with stable market access and predictable regulatory outcomes (Ellis \u0026amp; Dosunmu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Uncertainty regarding the acceptance of alternatives or the durability of regulatory approvals can discourage innovation even among proactive firms (Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Strengthening regulatory certainty by developing clear acceptance criteria for alternatives, offering early and ongoing regulatory engagement for chemical developers and establishing streamlined or fast-track evaluation pathways for demonstrably safe(r) substitutes can encourage broader participation in innovation (Ellis \u0026amp; Dosunmu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Such measures would create a level playing field, reward early innovators, and ensure that regulatory frameworks support and not hinder the transition to safe(r) and more sustainable chemical alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCreate coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUse-based chemical regulation allows authorities to tailor risk management to specific sectors and develop specialised expertise. However, this structure also creates fragmented and siloed regulatory regimes, where the same chemical may be assessed differently depending on the competent authority and regulatory framework (Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; van Dijk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Oltmanns et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) mapped data requirements for chemical assessment under use-specific regulations and observed differences between regulations which included variation in the endpoints to be addressed, the stage at which data for particular endpoints are required, and the testing methods applied. Divergences in risk assessment methodologies may also influence regulatory conclusions, including differences in the reliance on modelled versus measured exposure data, and the application of assessment factors. Such inconsistencies can lead to different regulatory conclusions and undermine confidence in regulatory outcomes. It is therefore important for regulatory agencies to create a coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches. One way of doing this is to consider the use of consistent terms and requirements across regulatory frameworks. An evaluation performed by Andreassen et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found inconsistencies in the requirements for chemical identifiers across regulatory frameworks. For example, under REACH, the term SVHC refers to chemicals presenting serious hazards. However, plant protection products (PPPs) legislation uses the term Candidate for Substitution (CfS) for active substances meeting certain hazard criteria, including PBT, carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive toxicity Cat 1A/1B, or endocrine disruptor according to Point 4 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (European Commission, 2009). Although both systems aim to encourage substitution of substances with comparable hazard profiles, their differing terms and criteria create unnecessary complexity. Aligning these definitions and establishing consistent identification criteria would support clearer, more predictable regulatory outcomes and facilitate substitution across sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA deeper structural inconsistency arises in how time‑limited market access is treated. PPP active substances are approved for limited periods (typically 7\u0026ndash;15 years), followed by systematic re‑evaluation against current scientific and regulatory standards. This ensures that older approvals remain aligned with evolving knowledge and policy. In contrast, REACH provides registrants with continued market access once a dossier passes completeness checks, even though this does not constitute a safety approval (Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Subsequent scrutiny occurs only selectively through dossier evaluation, substance evaluation, or risk management processes such as restriction or authorisation, often years after registration and is heavily limited by regulatory capacity. As a result, substances may remain on the market for extended periods despite advances in scientific understanding or the identification of new hazards. Therefore, adopting periodic re-evaluation and time-limited registration within REACH would strengthen regulatory oversight. Introducing a requirement for re‑registration at defined intervals, grounded in updated scientific standards, would reduce reliance on reactive measures and better align industrial chemical regulation with modern safety expectations. The EU proposal to introduce a 10‑year validity period for chemical registrations, with ECHA empowered to revoke dossiers that are outdated or non‑compliant, represents an important step (European Parliament, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Such a shift would enhance regulatory oversight and provide clearer incentives for the development and uptake of safe(r) alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragmentation across regulatory regimes is increasingly recognised as a systemic issue in the EU. A single substance may undergo multiple hazard or risk assessments under different frameworks, industrial chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, biocides, and consumer product regulations, with inconsistent outcomes. These discrepancies create inefficiencies, increase burdens for regulators and industry, and weaken regulatory predictability (Andreassen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; van Dijk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The One Substance One Assessment (OSOA) initiative, a central pillar of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), seeks to address these challenges by ensuring that chemicals are assessed consistently and only once across relevant legislative frameworks (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). OSOA aims to consolidate scientific data, streamline assessments, and strengthen cooperation among agencies such as ECHA and EFSA, thereby improving coherence and reducing duplication (EFSA, 2020). OSOA presents an opportunity for a fully harmonised cross-sectoral assessment system that operationalises OSOA through shared data platforms, joint scientific evaluations, and coordinated decision-making processes. Such an approach would encourage earlier regulatory action on emerging risks, improve efficiency, and reduce opportunities for companies to shift hazardous substances between regulatory silos. It would also lower compliance costs by providing clearer and more predictable regulatory expectations and better align chemical safety assessments with broader objectives under the European Green Deal (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Crucially, harmonised assessments would strengthen incentives for safe(r) substitution by ensuring that hazard classifications, risk assessments, and regulatory signals are consistent across all uses and frameworks. A unified European system would enhance transparency, improve the usability of regulatory data, and promote the efficient allocation of regulatory resources. It would also offer the industry more stable and coherent signals, enabling strategic planning and investment in safe(r) alternatives rather than piecemeal compliance with fragmented regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBuild partnerships to drive effective regulatory and innovation outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreventing RS requires policymakers to build multi‑stakeholder partnerships that bring together scientific, regulatory, and industry expertise. Effective chemical management cannot rely solely on hazard‑driven bans or isolated regulatory action; rather, it requires a coordinated innovation environment that actively supports the development, assessment, and uptake of safe(r) alternatives. Strong partnerships create conditions under which information flows more freely, duplication of efforts is reduced, and actors across the supply chain can jointly identify opportunities and barriers to substitution (ECHA, n.d.-c). While REACH provides mechanisms that encourage communication, such as authorisation and downstream user obligations, these interactions remain limited by broader systemic constraints. Early in the implementation of REACH, registrants had more frequent opportunities for direct dialogue with ECHA, including in‑person meetings to discuss chemical safety assessments and approaches. Over time, these opportunities diminished in favour of letter‑based and online interactions, narrowing the space for collaborative problem‑solving and shared learning. Because risk management of chemicals is the responsibility of all, regulators should adopt an open-door approach that enables ongoing, structured dialogue with supply-chain actors, ensuring that the challenges in risk assessment and substitution can be clarified and addressed in real time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn example of collaboration is the use of Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs) under REACH, which enabled registrants to share data, avoid unnecessary duplication of studies, and develop a more harmonised understanding of hazards and risks. Similarly, the proposed EU Substitution Centre has the potential to become a focal point for collaboration (RISE, n.d.); by enabling systematic exchange of hazard data and lifecycle assessments for alternatives, it could also provide structured channels for dialogue between regulators and innovators, helping to ensure that regulatory expectations under REACH and related frameworks align with the pace and direction of development. Enhanced communication of this kind can help industry actors navigate the complexity of substitution (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and reduce both the financial and logistical burdens associated with identifying and testing alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartnership challenges extend beyond European regulatory frameworks to global conventions. Under the SC, Article 9 requires Parties to promote information exchange and cooperation. Yet communication remains fragmented across jurisdictions and regulatory silos, and disparities in technical capacity and access to toxicological data, particularly between developed and developing countries, limit shared learning and hinder informed decision‑making (Akinrinade et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Scheringer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003ea; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, experiences with substitution, including failures and unintended consequences, are rarely communicated systematically increasing the likelihood of RS (Bechu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Biggi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The limited involvement of innovation actors and downstream users in SC processes further weakens the feedback loop between regulatory objectives and chemical design, slowing the translation of hazard-based policy signals into safe(r) products (Bechu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Biggi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). To address these gaps, the SC should establish structured international platforms dedicated specifically to sharing substitution outcomes for POPs, including both successful and unsuccessful cases. In parallel, the SC should implement formal mechanisms to ensure meaningful participation from innovation actors, downstream users, and technical experts throughout its processes, thereby strengthening the feedback loop between regulatory objectives and chemical design (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication and partnership barriers also occur within industry. Chemical innovation too often operates in disciplinary silos, with chemists, toxicologists, exposure scientists, and sustainability experts working independently. This separation limits the integration of safety considerations at the design stage, increasing the likelihood that alternatives introduced to the market may later be found hazardous. To reduce the risk of RS and accelerate the development of safe(r) alternatives, policy frameworks should promote cross-disciplinary communication and encourage education and awareness within chemical innovation processes. Strengthening internal and supply-chain communication in this way would align industrial innovation with the objectives of the SC and advance SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by embedding collaboration as a core component of sound chemicals management. These actions show the necessity of building strong, coordinated partnerships across regulatory agencies, industry, scientific communities, and international frameworks. Robust collaboration not only reduces duplication and inefficiency but also ensures that the development and implementation of safe(r) alternatives are grounded in shared knowledge, transparent communication, and a collective commitment to preventing future RS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStrengthen regulation through improved policy measures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authorisation and restriction elements of REACH encourage the substitution of the most harmful chemicals. Yet, in practice, decision-making is often hindered by late receipt or lack of information on alternatives. When essential information on potential substitutes, uses, and exposure is provided only at the point of public consultation or even later, regulators face significant challenges in designing effective and proportionate risk management measures e.g., transition periods, derogations, and phase‑out. The ongoing universal PFAS restriction proposal illustrates this challenge. PFAS manufacture, use, and placing on the market would be prohibited above specified thresholds, with exemptions only where technically or economically viable alternatives are lacking. Transition periods of five to twelve years were proposed, while essential uses in fields such as medicines, PPPs, and biocides are excluded (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, 2025). A participant from government explains, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;o\u003cem\u003ene of the big problems that we're seeing\u0026hellip;is that information on alternatives comes far too late in the process. So, what we are also doing as part of the REACH revision is to see whether we can get more information on the uses, on exposure and alternatives\u0026hellip;earlier in the process so that the discussions that we can have on restrictions are better informed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;. Highlighting the need for the adoption of policy measures that secure early access to information on alternatives, uses, and exposure, ensuring that authorisation and restriction processes are informed from the outset. Earlier access to such information would allow regulators to set transition periods more accurately, prioritise uses where rapid action is feasible, and ensure that risk management measures are appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExposure and lifecycle information remain equally key for informed substitution and regulatory risk management. Although REACH Article 37(2) requires downstream users (DUs) to provide upstream suppliers with information needed to include their uses in exposure assessments, the information supplied is often minimal and fails to reflect site‑specific conditions. Registrants must therefore depend on generic assumptions that may not correspond to real‑world practices, increasing the risk of RS when substitutes are introduced under uncertain exposure conditions (Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The substitution of brominated flame retardants with OPFRs demonstrates how incomplete exposure assessment can lead to unintended consequences(Maertens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Under the UK REACH Alternative Transitional Registration model, provision of detailed information on use and exposure is emphasised over duplicating full hazard datasets (Defra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). At present, unlike authorisation, REACH registration does not require DUs to submit site‑specific exposure information directly to regulators (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These differences indicate the need for downstream users, as a minimum, to confirm whether upstream exposure assessments accurately represent their site conditions, and where they do not, to submit site‑specific exposure scenarios or be required to provide more detail information that will ensure exposure assessment is close to reality. A participant from Industry explains, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; \u003cem\u003eeach manufacturing site is different\u0026hellip; the chances are our site would be set up differently, potential discharges to the environment, you might have a sewage treatment plant on site, I might not. \u0026hellip;so, for me it would make more sense if people took the data on the material and then calculate based on their own personal exposure, can you use that safely\u003c/em\u003e ... \u003cem\u003eWe just submit uses that we're told about by our customers, but rather than us gather all the uses and put them through some generic calculations, would it not be better for customers to do their own more specific exposure calculations\u003c/em\u003e? \u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective substitution requires not only understanding what a chemical does (function) but also how well it must perform to be viable in a given application. While REACH requires registrants to describe the function and sector of use, current descriptions are often too basic to inform high‑quality regulatory decisions. For example, while a flame retardant\u0026rsquo;s function may be to reduce flammability, its performance relates to how long it delays ignition, reduces heat release, or maintains structural integrity under various conditions. A participant from the Consultancy sector explains, \u0026lsquo;performance needs differ across uses, for oil repellents, permeability may be critical, whereas for fluoropolymers, lifespan and resistance to aggressive conditions may be decisive\u0026rsquo;. Without information on these performance considerations, regulators cannot fully evaluate whether an alternative genuinely meets functional requirements or whether exemptions or transition periods are justified. Thus, emphasising the need to expand REACH registration requirements to include detailed information on necessary performance criteria (the technical properties that a substance can provide for the product's full and desired function) and technical specifications relevant to each identified use. ECHA\u0026rsquo;s authorisation guidance already emphasises inclusion of technical criteria and functional requirements (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); extending this expectation to registration would give regulators an early understanding of the specific performance demands that influence substitution need. To address the issue with confidentiality, such information may be required as part of the follow-on registrant dossier submission. Such information would give regulators a more complete picture of why a particular substance is used and help prevent narrow, drop‑in substitution that fail to account for essential performance properties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlongside these improvements, chemical grouping has emerged as a powerful regulatory tool for accelerating risk management and preventing RS. Grouping assesses substances collectively by class, structure, function, or use rather than individually, offering more efficient oversight and reducing opportunities for drop‑in substitutions involving closely related chemicals (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e). This approach has been central to several major regulatory initiatives, including group‑based management of PFAS, bisphenols, dioxins, and asbestos (ECHA, 2025; Wohlleben et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The EU\u0026rsquo;s universal PFAS restriction proposal is a notable recent example arising from the CSS (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), reflecting the Commission\u0026rsquo;s adoption of grouping as an interim but strategic measure. The EU restriction roadmap similarly prioritises entire chemical groups such as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMRs), EDs, (v)P(v)BT), immunotoxicants, neurotoxicants, and respiratory sensitisers for broad group restrictions across all uses (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrouping helps prevent RS by discouraging substitution within the same chemical class, but its scope is not unlimited. Grouping provides a mechanism for preventing RS since it can be used based on the precautionary principle, where there is limited data for group members (Chirsir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A participant from academia explains, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003esubstance grouping is one strategy to avoid RS\u0026hellip;it's not a solution to (all) RS. It's just a solution to this type of RS when it's with this drop in substitution pathway because\u0026hellip;you can get burden shifting\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;. It is therefore important for grouping to be implemented as a flexible, living regulatory approach, allowing for refinement as new evidence emerges. Chemicals within a group that demonstrate genuinely lower hazard profiles are permitted as the case with the substitution of alkyl sulfonates indicate (Sweetman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Minimum hazard datasets for group members are essential for this approach to function effectively, especially since risk management proposals must justify group inclusion on a case‑by‑case basis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, grouping presents challenges for industry innovation. Once an entire class is earmarked for restriction or ban, companies must rapidly identify alternatives, which may be chemical or non‑chemical in nature for business continuity. The rapid introduction of alternatives to PFOS/PFOA is an example of this (Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This requires regulatory frameworks that are both adaptive and responsive, ensuring that emerging risks can be tracked and addressed before RS occurs. We therefore recommend that grouping be paired with adaptive, rapid risk‑management measures capable of monitoring innovation pathways and preventing burden shifting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTake early action and build a proactive regulatory regime\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffective chemical risk management requires regulatory frameworks to be proactive rather than reactive, taking early action guided by the precautionary and preventative principles. This implies avoiding paralysis by analysis, where gathering extensive weight of evidence is required to justify regulatory control. The examples of BPA and PFAS demonstrate that delayed actions can lead to widespread environmental risk, despite early signals of concern; regulatory action was incremental and slow, enabling widespread exposure and environmental pollution. In the EU, the first restriction on PFOS was in 2006, yet regulatory risk management for the broader PFAS class was not proposed until nearly two decades later (Dosunmu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; ECHA, 2025). A similar delay occurred under the SC, where it took ten years to move from listing PFOS to the inclusion of PFOA. These patterns indicate the long-recognised need for hazards to be identified and acted upon before chemicals reach high production volumes and widespread use (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). One way of doing this is by incorporating pre‑market screening mechanisms into chemical regulatory regimes. This can involve using a stage‑gate system, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, in which chemicals undergo an initial hazard‑based screening before registration and market access. In the first stage, a traffic‑light categorisation of green (low concern), amber (borderline concern), and red (high concern) could be applied using criteria consistent with existing REACH Article 57 SVHC definitions. This would allow regulators to identify potential priority substances early, enabling precautionary monitoring or early risk‑management consideration. In the second stage, substances in amber and red categories could be granted temporary registrations (for example, two to five years) and subjected to conditions that limit widespread exposure while further assessment is undertaken. This proactive approach would enable SVHC to be detected upstream, years before traditional substance evaluation processes would identify them, and would ensure that alternatives being considered to replace restricted or banned chemicals are also screened early to support genuinely safe(r) substitution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe EU\u0026rsquo;s Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework promotes the intentional and proactive (re)design of chemicals, creating an important opportunity to integrate risk management from the earliest stages of innovation (Caldeira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As a key outcome of the EU Green Deal and the CSS, SSbD represents a pragmatic shift in how chemicals and materials are developed ensuring that safety and sustainability considerations are integrated from the start. While SSbD offers the much-needed transformation, several challenges have been identified, including its methodological complexity and the significant data and resource requirements involved (Abbate et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Apel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; van Dijk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these, SSbD has strong potential to drive the development of safe(r) and more sustainable chemicals and ultimately reduce ongoing human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA proactive regulatory regime is equally required at the global level. For the SC to function effectively, Parties should be encouraged to include screening of LRET in their national regulation. By so doing, chemicals that possess POP-like characteristics can be identified early within individual jurisdictions and adequately controlled. Such a measure would complement, rather than replace, the SC\u0026rsquo;s nomination process; allowing chemicals not banned or controlled at the local level to still be nominated for global control. Parties with strong regulatory capacity could identify and act on potential POPs early, while countries with more limited capacity would retain the ability to nominate substances that are not yet controlled domestically. To illustrate, REACH which emanates from the EU and adopted by regions such as the UK, Turkey, and South Korea, is well-positioned to integrate LRET alongside existing hazard categories (e.g., (v)P(v)BT, (v)P(v)MT, CMR). Doing so would support early local and regional bans, facilitate innovation in safe(r) alternatives, and reinforce the SC\u0026rsquo;s objective of eliminating POP‑like chemicals from global circulation. This is especially important given that global effectiveness ultimately depends on national‑level regulatory action; when early screening is embedded in domestic systems, and hazardous chemicals are identified and controlled before they become persistent global pollutants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengthen compliance through regulatory monitoring and enforcement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective chemical regulation depends not only on strong legal frameworks but also on the robustness of monitoring and enforcement systems. Without consistent oversight, even well‑designed policies risk becoming aspirational rather than operational. Monitoring and enforcement allow regulators to determine whether restrictions, authorisation conditions, and broader risk‑management measures are functioning as intended, i.e., reducing risks to human health and the environment, improving substitution outcomes (Bailes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Fiedler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and ensuring a level playing field for all stakeholders. They also generate vital information on emerging risks, helping authorities adapt regulatory responses as new scientific and technical evidence becomes available.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA significant weakness within the current REACH system is that substances manufactured or imported at \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1 tonne per year fall outside registration requirements. This gap leaves policymakers unaware of where and how those substances are used in commerce and should be addressed by introducing a basic reporting obligation for low‑tonnage substances, requiring manufacturers and importers to provide core information on function, sector of use, and product types. Even minimal reporting would provide important baseline data, enable more effective risk management and support early identification of emerging concerns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk assessments themselves often rely heavily on assumptions and estimated release concentrations, particularly when real‑world monitoring data are scarce. Where monitoring data is available and reliable, this can be used to provide real-world information needed to improve risk assessment approaches. Targeted monitoring can provide essential validation or ground‑truthing of modelled assessments. An industry participant explains, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003ewhat we need is more real-world measurements. After we undertake\u0026hellip; desk based environmental risk assessment. We need to follow up post regulatory monitoring so we can actually see if we're being too conservative... with that ground truthing, improve the application of our methods. So, for example, perhaps if we have more monitoring data, we can reduce the use of assessment factors, which means that there's more scope for the use of the chemical, which in turn promotes innovation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;. Although, monitoring is important, it is also challenging, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003emonitoring in the strict sense is difficult\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip; Participant from Government\u0026rdquo;, since it may be difficult to attribute observed environmental effects to specific chemicals. Given these difficulties, monitoring efforts should prioritise high‑volume and widely dispersed substances, where the potential for cumulative and far‑reaching impacts is greatest. Targeted environmental and exposure monitoring would strengthen the evidence base for regulatory decisions, highlight emerging risks earlier, and provide a more realistic understanding of chemical behaviour under actual use conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the international level, the SC provides a model for global monitoring through its Global Monitoring Plan (GMP). Established under Article 16, the GMP generates harmonised environmental and human biomonitoring data on POPs, enabling Parties to track trends and assess whether global controls are achieving their intended outcomes (Fiedler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Magulova \u0026amp; Priceputu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP, n.d.-a). Through coordinated regional networks, capacity‑building activities, and periodic synthesis reports, the GMP plays a central role in linking scientific evidence to global policy decisions. However, its effectiveness remains uneven due to regional disparities in technical capacity, data gaps, and the challenges associated with monitoring newly listed or emerging POP‑like substances (Akinrinade et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Magulova \u0026amp; Priceputu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). While the GMP excels at tracking long‑term environmental trends, it is less effective in supporting rapid policy responses or anticipatory regulation. Strengthening long‑term monitoring infrastructure, improving the integration of monitoring results into regulatory and policy processes, and adopting more adaptive monitoring approaches that can accommodate emerging chemical groups would improve both the responsiveness and the preventative capacity of the SC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective monitoring and enforcement are equally important for driving meaningful substitution. When oversight is weak, substitution becomes largely voluntary, resulting in slow and uneven uptake of safe(r) alternatives (ECHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020b\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, for strong enforcement and monitoring, other community regulations such as water framework directive and industrial emissions directive need not be considered in isolation. This is because, \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;\u003cem\u003eREACH can identify the hazard and\u0026hellip;say \u0026hellip; continue using that substance \u0026hellip; for that particular product or process, but it isn't REACH that then will enforce things and say well, right\u0026hellip;you've got to now make sure that hazardous material is never released from your factory in a form that could cause harm to human beings and environment\u003c/em\u003e\u0026hellip; Participant from an Industry Association\u0026rdquo;. This would strengthen compliance, promote a fair and competitive market environment, and contribute to more successful substitution outcomes (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings from this study demonstrate that preventing RS requires more than identifying hazardous chemicals; it demands regulatory systems that are anticipatory, coherent, and capable of shaping innovation toward genuinely safe(r) outcomes. Through analysis of REACH and the SC, we show that RS stems not only from scientific uncertainty but from structural and procedural features of regulatory design, including fragmented regulatory frameworks, delayed hazard identification, incomplete exposure and performance information, uneven incentives for innovation, and limited communication across supply chains and international frameworks. Strengthening regulatory frameworks, therefore, requires integrating early screening mechanisms, improving data availability and transparency, coordinating assessments across regulatory silos, and embedding precautionary action before chemicals become widespread in commerce. Together, these measures could shift chemical management from a reactive model to one that actively steers substitution away from hazardous drop‑in replacements and toward safe(r) and more sustainable solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, preventing RS relies on strong partnerships, enforcement, and long‑term regulatory oversight. Effective collaboration among regulators, industry, scientific experts, and civil society, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, is necessary to ensure the flow of information needed to evaluate alternatives, anticipate emerging risks, and reduce duplication of effort. Enhanced monitoring and enforcement can generate real‑world evidence that can refine risk assessments and ensure consistent compliance, while targeted incentives and regulatory clarity support innovators developing safe(r) alternatives. By embedding transparency, adaptability, and cross‑sectoral cooperation within regulatory practice, frameworks such as REACH and the SC can break the persistent cycle of replacing one harmful chemical with another. In doing so, they can better align chemical management with sustainability objectives, protect human and environmental health, and support the transition to a more resilient and sustainable chemical future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor regulators and policymakers, the findings identify key requirements such as early hazard screening, coordinated assessment processes, improved data flows, and adaptive risk‑management that can be integrated into emerging reforms under REACH, national-level frameworks, and global agreements like the SC. For industry, the study highlights the value of transparent hazard and performance data, proactive substitution planning, and cross‑functional innovation for anticipating regulatory expectations and avoiding costly future transitions. By clarifying how regulatory conditions currently shape substitution decisions and highlighting routes for improvement, the study equips both regulators and industry actors with the knowledge needed to steer innovation toward genuinely safe(r), sustainable alternatives and prevent RS from becoming an entrenched feature of chemical management. What is now needed is strong political commitment from national governments, regulatory authorities and industry to ensure that chemical substitution is handled more carefully and responsibly and without future regrets.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch ethics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe proposal for this research was reviewed and approved by the Lancaster University Faculty of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee (ref. FST-2023-3427-RECR-3) before data collection\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment Towards Sustainable Chemical Use (ECORISC) Centre for Doctoral Training under Grant No. NE/VO13041/1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge all participants who dedicated their time to sharing valuable experiences and insights that informed and enriched the findings of this study\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOD acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. Drafted manuscript.RW provided input into study design, comments and edits.ASM provided input into study design, comments and edits.NW provided input into study design, comments and edits.AJS provided comments and edits, approved the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbate, E., Ragas, A. M. J., Caldeira, C., Posthuma, L., Aguirre, I. G., Devic, A. C., Soeteman-Hernandez, L. G., Huijbregts, M. A. J., \u0026amp; Sala, S. (2025). Operationalization of the safe and sustainable by design framework for chemicals and materials: challenges and proposed actions. In \u003cem\u003eIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 21, Number 2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjae031\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/inteam/vjae031\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkinrinade, O. E., Agunbiade, F. O., Alani, R., \u0026amp; Ayejuyo, O. O. (2024). Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Africa - progress, challenges, and recommendations after 20 years. In \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science: Advances\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 3, Number 5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1039/d3va00347g\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1039/d3va00347g\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndreassen, M., Rud\u0026eacute;n, C., \u0026amp; \u0026Aring;gerstrand, M. (2025). Mapping chemicals across EU\u0026rsquo;s legal frameworks towards a \u0026lsquo;one substance, one assessment\u0026rsquo; approach. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e199\u003c/em\u003e, 109460. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109460\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envint.2025.109460\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApel, C., Sudheshwar, A., K\u0026uuml;mmerer, K., Nowack, B., Midander, K., Str\u0026ouml;mberg, E., \u0026amp; Soeteman-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, L. G. (2024). Safe-and-sustainable-by-design roadmap: identifying research, competencies, and knowledge sharing needs. In \u003cem\u003eRSC Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, Number 10). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1039/d4su00310a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1039/d4su00310a\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBailes, I. R., Phillips, R. A., Barber, J. L., Losada, S., Peck, L. S., Green, C., \u0026amp; Sweetman, A. J. (2025). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Sub-Antarctic Seabirds: Insights into Long-Range Transport and Bioaccumulation of Legacy and Replacement Chemicals. \u003cem\u003eACS Environmental Au\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(6), 603\u0026ndash;615. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBechu, A. M., Roy, M. A., Jacobs, M., \u0026amp; Tickner, J. A. (2024). Alternatives assessment: An analysis on progress and future needs for research and practice. In \u003cem\u003eIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 20, Number 5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4882\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ieam.4882\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenfenati, E., Diaza, R. G., Cassano, A., Pardoe, S., Gini, G., Mays, C., Knauf, R., \u0026amp; Benighaus, L. (2011). The acceptance of in silico models for REACH: Requirements, barriers, and perspectives. In \u003cem\u003eChemistry Central Journal\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 5, Number 1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-5-58\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/1752-153X-5-58\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggi, G., Giuliani, E., Martinelli, A., \u0026amp; Mazzei, J. (2025). \u003cem\u003eRethinking Directed Technical Change: When Substitution Leads to Regret\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.lem.santannapisa.it/WPLem/files/2025-23.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.lem.santannapisa.it/WPLem/files/2025-23.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlum, A., Behl, M., Birnbaum, L. S., Diamond, M. L., Phillips, A., Singla, V., Sipes, N. S., Stapleton, H. M., \u0026amp; Venier, M. (2019). Organophosphate Ester Flame Retardants: Are They a Regrettable Substitution for Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers? In \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Technology Letters\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 6, Number 11, pp. 638\u0026ndash;649). American Chemical Society. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00582\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00582\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Braun, V., Clarke, V .Using thematic analysis in psychology., 3:2 (2006), 77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. In \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 11, Number 4, pp. 589\u0026ndash;597). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. \u003cem\u003eQMiP Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(33). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eByrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. \u003cem\u003eQuality \u0026amp; Quantity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1391\u0026ndash;1412. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaldeira, C., Farcal, R., Garmendia Aguirre, I., Mancini, L., Tosches, D., Amelio, A., Rasmussen, K., Rauscher, H., Riego Sintes, J., \u0026amp; Sala, S. (2022). Safe and Sustainable by Design chemicals and materials - Framework for the definition of criteria and evaluation procedure for chemicals and materials. \u003cem\u003eEUR 31100 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-53264-4, Doi:10.2760/487955, JRC128591\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2760/487955\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2760/487955\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChirsir, P., Palm, E. H., Baskaran, S., Schymanski, E. L., Wang, Z., Wolf, R., Hale, S. E., \u0026amp; Arp, H. P. H. (2024). Grouping strategies for assessing and managing persistent and mobile substances. In \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Sciences Europe\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 36, Number 1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00919-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12302-024-00919-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCordner, A., Allgeyer, A., Tallon, L. A., \u0026amp; Brown, P. (2025). Regrettable for whom? GenX chemicals as a case study in detrimental chemical substitution. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e174\u003c/em\u003e, 104262. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104262\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104262\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoria, J. (2018). The economics of toxic substance control and the REACH directive. \u003cem\u003eReview of Environmental Economics and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 342\u0026ndash;358. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rey003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/reep/rey003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDefra. (2023, November 9). \u003cem\u003ePolicy paper UK REACH alternative transitional registration model (ATRm)\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-reach-alternative-transitional-registration-model-atrm/uk-reach-alternative-transitional-registration-model-atrm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-reach-alternative-transitional-registration-model-atrm/uk-reach-alternative-transitional-registration-model-atrm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDosunmu, O., Whiting, R., Matharu, A., Watson, N., \u0026amp; Sweetman, A. J. (2025). The unintentional role of chemical regulation in regrettable substitution: The case of PFAS. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e174\u003c/em\u003e, 104275. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104275\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104275\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (n.d.-a). \u003cem\u003eAuthorisation process\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 6 April 2024, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/authorisation-process\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/authorisation-process\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (n.d.-b). \u003cem\u003eMain alternatives to harmful substances subject to REACH authorisation\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 6 January 2026, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/alternatives-to-harmful-substances-subject-to-authorisation\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/alternatives-to-harmful-substances-subject-to-authorisation\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (n.d.-c). \u003cem\u003eSubstances of concern: Why and how to substitute?\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved 20 October 2023, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3079426/why_and_how_to_substitute_en.pdf/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3079426/why_and_how_to_substitute_en.pdf/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e93e9c055-483c-743a-52cb-1d1201478bc1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (n.d.-d). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding REACH\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 10 August 2023, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (2018). \u003cem\u003eStrategy to promote substitution to safer chemicals through innovation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2823/99862\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2823/99862\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (2020a). \u003cem\u003eImpacts of REACH Restriction and Authorisation processes on substitution in the EU\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2823/39789\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2823/39789\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (2020b, July 8). \u003cem\u003eRestriction and authorisation found to drive replacement of harmful chemicals\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/-/restriction-and-authorisation-found-to-drive-replacement-of-harmful-chemicals\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/-/restriction-and-authorisation-found-to-drive-replacement-of-harmful-chemicals\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (2021). \u003cem\u003eHow to apply for authorisation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2823/2445\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2823/2445\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (2024, March 13). \u003cem\u003eNext steps for PFAS restriction proposal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/-/next-steps-for-pfas-restriction-proposal\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/-/next-steps-for-pfas-restriction-proposal\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA. (2025, August 20). \u003cem\u003eECHA publishes updated PFAS restriction proposal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-updated-pfas-restriction-proposal?utm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-updated-pfas-restriction-proposal?utm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eECHA CHEM. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eWelcome to ECHA CHEM\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 5 January 2026, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://chem.echa.europa.eu/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://chem.echa.europa.eu/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEFSA. (2020, October 14). \u003cem\u003eIn support of the EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: One substance \u0026ndash; one assessment\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/osoa?utm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/osoa?utm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllis, S., \u0026amp; Dosunmu, O. (2025). Greening agriculture: accelerating safe- and sustainable-by-design plant protection products through innovation and incentives in the European Union. \u003cem\u003eIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf158\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/inteam/vjaf158\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2001). \u003cem\u003eStrategy for a future Chemicals Policy\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2006, December 18). \u003cem\u003eRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32006R\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32006R\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e1907\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2009). REGULATION (EC) No 1107/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. In \u003cem\u003eOfficial Journal of the European Union\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 24, Number 8).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2019). \u003cem\u003eCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The European Green Deal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2020). Chemicals strategy for sustainability: towards a toxic-free environment. \u003cem\u003eCOM(2020b) 667 Final. Available at Http://Ec.Europa.Eu.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2022). \u003cem\u003eRestrictions Roadmap under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. (2023). \u003cem\u003eProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks to the European Chemicals Agency\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/COM_2023_781_1_EN_ACT_part1_v5_0.pdf?utm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/COM_2023_781_1_EN_ACT_part1_v5_0.pdf?utm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Parliament. (2025, December 14). \u003cem\u003eRevision of the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) In \u0026ldquo;A new plan for Europe\u0026rsquo;s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-plan-for-europe-s-sustainable-prosperity-and-competitiveness/file-revision-of-the-reach-regulation\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-plan-for-europe-s-sustainable-prosperity-and-competitiveness/file-revision-of-the-reach-regulation\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFantke, P., Aurisano, N., Provoost, J., Karamertzanis, P. G., \u0026amp; Hauschild, M. (2020). Toward effective use of REACH data for science and policy. In \u003cem\u003eEnvironment International\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 135). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105336\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envint.2019.105336\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFantke, P., \u0026amp; Illner, N. (2019). Goods that are good enough: Introducing an absolute sustainability perspective for managing chemicals in consumer products. In \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 15, pp. 91\u0026ndash;97). Elsevier B.V. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.12.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.12.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFiedler, H., Kallenborn, R., Boer, J. de, \u0026amp; Sydnes, L. K. (2019). The Stockholm Convention: A Tool for the Global Regulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants. \u003cem\u003eChemistry International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 4\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/ci-2019-0202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/ci-2019-0202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarralaga, M. P., Lomba, L., Zuriaga, E., Santander, S., \u0026amp; Giner, B. (2022). Key Properties for the Toxicity Classification of Chemicals: A Comparison of the REACH Regulation and Scientific Studies Trends. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(22), 11710. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/app122211710\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/app122211710\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeiser, K. (2015). \u003cem\u003eChemicals Without Harm: Policies for a Sustainable World\u003c/em\u003e. MIT Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lancaster/detail.action?docID=3433783\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lancaster/detail.action?docID=3433783\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuardans, R. (2024). Global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in biota, water and sediments: its role in screening for unregulated POPs, in compiling time trends of regulated POPs under the Stockholm Convention (SC) and their relevance for biodiversity in a changing climate. In \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science: Advances\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 3, Number 8). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1039/d4va00023d\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1039/d4va00023d\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHealth and Safety Executive. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eUK REACH explained\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 17 September 2023, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/about.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/about.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenriquez, J. E., Badwaik, V. D., Bianchi, E., Chen, W., Corvaro, M., LaRocca, J., Lunsman, T. D., Zu, C., \u0026amp; Johnson, K. J. (2024). From Pipeline to Plant Protection Products: Using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in Agrochemical Safety Assessment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(19), 10710\u0026ndash;10724. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.4c00958\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acs.jafc.4c00958\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHomburg, E. (2018). Chemistry and Industry: A Tale of Two Moving Targets. \u003cem\u003eISIS\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e109\u003c/em\u003e(3), 565\u0026ndash;575.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones, L. B., \u0026amp; Burns, C. J. (2024). REACHing for divergence?\u0026mdash;UK chemical regulation post-Brexit. \u003cem\u003eIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4941\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ieam.4941\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM Rowe, D. J. (1930). \u003cem\u003eHistory of the chemical industry, 1750 to 1930 -an outline\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaertens, A., Golden, E., \u0026amp; Hartung, T. (2021). Avoiding Regrettable Substitutions: Green Toxicology for Sustainable Chemistry. \u003cem\u003eACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(23), 7749\u0026ndash;7758. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/ACSSUSCHEMENG.0C09435/ASSET\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/ACSSUSCHEMENG.0C09435/ASSET\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e/IMAGES/LARGE/SC0C09435_0001.JPEG\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http:///IMAGES/LARGE/SC0C09435_0001.JPEG\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagulova, K., \u0026amp; Priceputu, A. (2016). Global monitoring plan for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention: Triggering, streamlining and catalyzing global POPs monitoring. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Pollution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e217\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatlin, S. A., Mehta, G., Hopf, H., \u0026amp; Krief, A. (2016). One-world chemistry and systems thinking. In \u003cem\u003eNature Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 8, Number 5, pp. 393\u0026ndash;398). Nature Publishing Group. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2498\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/nchem.2498\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatthies, M., Solomon, K., Vighi, M., Gilman, A., \u0026amp; Tarazona, J. V. (2016). The origin and evolution of assessment criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science: Processes and Impacts\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 18, Number 9, pp. 1114\u0026ndash;1128). Royal Society of Chemistry. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1039/c6em00311g\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1039/c6em00311g\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcFadden, R. D. (2011). The business case for transitioning to safer chemicals. \u003cem\u003eNew Solutions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2190/NS.21.3.g\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2190/NS.21.3.g\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2021). \u003cem\u003eGuidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives Series on Risk Management No. 60\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://saicmknowledge.org/library/guidance-key-considerations-identification-and-selection-safer-chemical-alternatives\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://saicmknowledge.org/library/guidance-key-considerations-identification-and-selection-safer-chemical-alternatives\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2023). \u003cem\u003eCross Country Analysis: Approaches to Support Alternatives Assessment and Substitution of Chemicals of Concern\u0026ndash; 2nd edition, OECD Series on Risk Management of Chemicals No. 77\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/71bd2f91-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/71bd2f91-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOltmanns, J., Macherey, M., Schwarz, M., Manžuch, Z., Hayleck, M., \u0026amp; Heine, K. (2023). Mapping of Data Requirements and Assessment Methodologies Linked to the Regulatory Frameworks and Remits of the Relevant EU Agencies (ECHA, EFSA and EMA) and EC Scientific Committees (SCCS and SCHEER). \u003cem\u003eEFSA Supporting Publications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(12). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8540\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8540\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePersson, L., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Lai, A., Persson, \u0026Aring;., \u0026amp; Fick, S. (2017). The globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals-Explaining the legal implementation gap. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(12). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su9122176\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su9122176\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePollard, S. (1997). The Industrial Revolution and the Location of Proto-Industry. In \u003cem\u003eMarginal Europe\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 221\u0026ndash;254). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206385.003.0011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206385.003.0011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReininger, N., \u0026amp; Oehlmann, J. (2024). Regrettable substitution? Comparative study of the effect profile of bisphenol A and eleven analogues in an in vitro test battery. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Sciences Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00900-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12302-024-00900-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., Dr\u0026uuml;ke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogu\u0026eacute;s-Bravo, D., \u0026hellip; Rockstr\u0026ouml;m, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. \u003cem\u003eScience Advances\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(37). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/sciadv.adh2458\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRISE. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eShaping the future of EU substitution centres for hazardous chemicals\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 9 February 2026, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ri.se/en/chemicals/chemical-products-and-processes/project/shaping-the-future-of-eu-substitution-centres-for\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ri.se/en/chemicals/chemical-products-and-processes/project/shaping-the-future-of-eu-substitution-centres-for\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSackmann, K., Reemtsma, T., Rahmberg, M., \u0026amp; Bunke, D. (2018). Impact of European chemicals regulation on the industrial use of plasticizers and patterns of substitution in Scandinavia. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e, 346\u0026ndash;352. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.037\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.037\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScheringer, M., Strempel, S., Hukari, S., Ng, C. A., Blepp, M., \u0026amp; Hungerbuhler, K. (2012). How many persistent organic pollutants should we expect? \u003cem\u003eAtmospheric Pollution Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 383\u0026ndash;391. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5094/APR.2012.044\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5094/APR.2012.044\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweetman, A. (2020). A Grand Challenge for Environmental Organic Chemistry: How Can We Avoid Regrettable Substitution? \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Environmental Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e0\u003c/em\u003e, 7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FENVC.2020.00007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FENVC.2020.00007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTickner, J., Jacobs, M. M., \u0026amp; Mack, N. B. (2019). Alternatives assessment and informed substitution: A global landscape assessment of drivers, methods, policies and needs. In \u003cem\u003eSustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 13). Elsevier B.V. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2019.100161\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scp.2019.100161\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrasande, L. (2017). Exploring regrettable substitution: replacements for bisphenol A. In \u003cem\u003eThe Lancet Planetary Health\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1, Number 3, pp. e88\u0026ndash;e89). Elsevier B.V. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30046-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30046-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUjaczki, \u0026Eacute;., Stark-Rogel, V., Olbrich, M., Fuetsch, M., \u0026amp; Backmann, J. (2022). Experiences and consequences of phasing out substances of concern in a multinational healthcare company. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Sciences Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00678-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12302-022-00678-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (n.d.-a). \u003cem\u003eGlobal Monitoring Plan\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 5 March 2026, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.pops.int/implementation/globalmonitoringplan/overview/tabid/83/default.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.pops.int/implementation/globalmonitoringplan/overview/tabid/83/default.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (n.d.-b). \u003cem\u003eThe POPs\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 22 December 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (n.d.-c). \u003cem\u003eWhat are POPs?\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved 9 January 2024, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/tabid/673/Default.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/tabid/673/Default.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (2009). \u003cem\u003eReport of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee on the work of its fifth meeting Addendum General guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes for listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-POPRC.5-10-Add.1.English.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-POPRC.5-10-Add.1.English.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (2020). \u003cem\u003eAn Assessment Report on Issues of Concern: Chemicals and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (2025a). \u003cem\u003eSecond effectiveness evaluation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.pops.int/Implementation/EffectivenessEvaluation/Outcomes/2023Outcomes/Digitalreport/tabid/10210/Default.aspx?p=intro-report\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.pops.int/Implementation/EffectivenessEvaluation/Outcomes/2023Outcomes/Digitalreport/tabid/10210/Default.aspx?p=intro-report\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. (2025b, April 22). \u003cem\u003eImproving the transmission of information for POPs\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unep.org/topics/chemicals-and-pollution-action/chemicals-management/pollution-and-health/persistent-organic\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unep.org/topics/chemicals-and-pollution-action/chemicals-management/pollution-and-health/persistent-organic\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eTHE 17 GOALS\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 22 December 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sdgs.un.org/goals\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sdgs.un.org/goals\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUS EPA. (2025, February 25). \u003cem\u003eExploring ToxCast Data\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/exploring-toxcast-data\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/exploring-toxcast-data\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Dijk, J., Gustavsson, M., Dekker, S. C., \u0026amp; van Wezel, A. P. (2021). Towards \u0026lsquo;one substance \u0026ndash; one assessment\u0026rsquo;: An analysis of EU chemical registration and aquatic risk assessment frameworks. In \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 280). Academic Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111692\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111692\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Dijk, J., Sharma, A., Nowack, B., Wang, Z., \u0026amp; Scheringer, M. (2025). From Ambition to Action: Navigating Obstacles and Opportunities of \u0026ldquo;Safe and Sustainable by Design\u0026rdquo;. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(29), 14832\u0026ndash;14841. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c09863\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acs.est.4c09863\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Z., Adu-Kumi, S., Diamond, M. L., Guardans, R., Harner, T., Harte, A., Kajiwara, N., Kl\u0026aacute;nov\u0026aacute;, J., Liu, J., Moreira, E. G., Muir, D. C. G., Suzuki, N., Pinas, V., Sepp\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;, T., Weber, R., \u0026amp; Yuan, B. (2022). Enhancing Scientific Support for the Stockholm Convention\u0026rsquo;s Implementation: An Analysis of Policy Needs for Scientific Evidence. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2936\u0026ndash;2949. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.1C06120\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/ACS.EST.1C06120\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Z., Cousins, I. T., Scheringer, M., \u0026amp; Hungerbuehler, K. (2015). Hazard assessment of fluorinated alternatives to long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their precursors: Status quo, ongoing challenges and possible solutions. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e, 172\u0026ndash;179. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Z., Walker, G. W., Muir, D. C. G., \u0026amp; Nagatani-Yoshida, K. (2020). Toward a Global Understanding of Chemical Pollution: A First Comprehensive Analysis of National and Regional Chemical Inventories. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2575\u0026ndash;2584. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06379\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acs.est.9b06379\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWohlleben, W., Mehling, A., \u0026amp; Landsiedel, R. (2023). Lessons Learned from the Grouping of Chemicals to Assess Risks to Human Health. In \u003cem\u003eAngewandte Chemie - International Edition\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 62, Number 22). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202210651\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/anie.202210651\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, X., \u0026amp; Yu, Y. (2025). A health conundrum of bisphenol A and its alternatives: charting a path beyond the structural analogue substitution pitfall. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Exposure Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20517/jeea.2025.39\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20517/jeea.2025.39\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman, J. B., \u0026amp; Anastas, P. T. (2015). Toward substitution with no regrets: Advances in chemical design are needed to create safe alternatives to harmful chemicals. In \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 347, Number 6227, pp. 1198\u0026ndash;1199). American Association for the Advancement of Science. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0812\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.aaa0812\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-sciences-europe","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"eseu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Sciences Europe](http://enveurope.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"12302","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12302/3","title":"Environmental Sciences Europe","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"REACH, Stockholm Convention, Chemical sustainability, Substances of very high concern (SVHC), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), Regrettable substitution, Hazardous substances, Reflexive thematic analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263677/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263677/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegrettable substitution (RS), which involves the replacement of a hazardous chemical with an alternative that later proves equally harmful or introduces new risks, remains an ongoing significant challenge for chemical regulation. As regulatory frameworks such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) and the Stockholm Convention (SC) increasingly drive transitions away from the use of hazardous substances, the need to prevent RS has become central to effective chemicals management. This study examines how RS can be prevented through deliberate regulatory design and implementation. Using REACH and the SC as case studies, we conducted 31 semi‑structured interviews with regulators, industry, NGOs, academics, consultants, and trade associations, alongside qualitative analysis of 17 regulatory, policy, and guidance documents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflexive thematic analysis generated eight interconnected themes that collectively identify how regulatory frameworks can potentially prevent RS. These include improving the reliability, completeness, and transparency of regulatory data to support informed substitution; using incentives and structured regulatory support to promote innovation in safe(r) alternatives; establishing coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches that reduce fragmentation; strengthening partnerships among regulators, industry, and scientific actors to enhance information flow; adopting proactive and precautionary regulatory strategies, including early screening; and reinforcing compliance through enhanced monitoring and enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate that RS is not merely a scientific or technical failure but a systemic regulatory issue arising from late hazard identification, incomplete exposure and performance information, siloed regulatory structures, and uneven innovation incentives. The study concludes that preventing RS requires regulatory frameworks that are anticipatory, integrated, transparent, and adaptive that can actively steer the substitution process toward genuinely safe(r) and sustainable chemical solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Preventing regrettable substitution through regulatory frameworks: Using REACH regulation and Stockholm Convention as case studies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-13 08:42:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9263677/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T14:46:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"81071847761466610658470781238343770188","date":"2026-05-13T06:17:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11537245511400530405790822571678612474","date":"2026-05-11T20:23:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"53026742393088527622373715052978444389","date":"2026-05-11T07:09:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"234527505743541807914692524948243281420","date":"2026-05-09T19:24:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"138379625316862337013390656685109816697","date":"2026-05-05T22:16:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-04T21:32:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T12:20:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T12:20:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Sciences Europe","date":"2026-03-30T07:30:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-sciences-europe","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"eseu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Sciences Europe](http://enveurope.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"12302","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12302/3","title":"Environmental Sciences Europe","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"33d9f3c7-304f-497a-b34c-66740d322887","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T14:46:07+00:00","index":69,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"81071847761466610658470781238343770188","date":"2026-05-13T06:17:34+00:00","index":67,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11537245511400530405790822571678612474","date":"2026-05-11T20:23:25+00:00","index":66,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"53026742393088527622373715052978444389","date":"2026-05-11T07:09:53+00:00","index":64,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"234527505743541807914692524948243281420","date":"2026-05-09T19:24:00+00:00","index":61,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"138379625316862337013390656685109816697","date":"2026-05-05T22:16:11+00:00","index":41,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"38","date":"2026-05-04T21:32:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-13T08:42:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-13 08:42:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9263677","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9263677","identity":"rs-9263677","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}