Feature article - Green chemistry: From compliance to competitive ground

Vishal Sharma, ED & CEO of Godrej Industries (Chemicals) looks at how green chemistry has evolved

For a long time, green chemistry sat on the edges of business decisions. It was tied to compliance, audits and reporting cycles. Most changes were incremental: replace a solvent here, reduce emissions there, stay within limits and move on. This model worked when regulation was the primary trigger. That is no longer the case. 

In speciality chemicals, process choices are now being looked at differently. Feedstock, energy use, yield and waste are being assessed together, not in isolation. The conversation has shifted from ‘what must be done’ to ‘what makes sense over time’. In that shift, green chemistry has started to move closer to core business strategy.

This shift is also happening against a broader policy backdrop. Carbon pricing mechanisms now cover economies responsible for roughly 82% of global greenhouse gas emissions, indicating how widely emissions costs are being integrated into economic systems.

Not just substitution anymore

Earlier efforts were largely about replacement. Hazardous inputs were swapped out. Effluent loads were reduced. These changes were necessary but they did not always alter the structure of the process itself.

What is changing now is where intervention happens. Green chemistry is being considered earlier, often at the stage where routes are designed or reworked. Fewer steps, simpler pathways and better use of raw materials are becoming part of the discussion. 

In speciality chemicals, where performance specifications are tight, even small process changes can have downstream effects. That has made process design more deliberate.

This also means the responsibility is no longer confined to compliance teams. R&D, process engineers and production teams are all involved, sometimes with different priorities. Aligning those priorities is part of the shift.

How costs behave over time

Cost has always been the first objection. Alternative feedstocks can be expensive. New processes need time to stabilise. Early yields are rarely optimal. On paper, conventional routes still look cheaper at the start.

The difference shows up later. Once processes settle, energy use often drops. Waste handling becomes simpler. Fewer by-products mean fewer corrections and less reprocessing. Compliance costs are easier to manage because fewer variables are involved.

Traditional routes, on the other hand, are not static either. Feedstock prices move with global markets. Regulatory requirements tighten over time. What appears efficient at one stage can become cost-heavy later.

There is also a structural cost element linked to emissions. Analysis by the World Bank shows that carbon pricing creates measurable economic effects across sectors, influencing areas such as energy use, air quality and industrial cost structures, reinforcing the link between emissions and operating cost over time.

For speciality chemicals, where volumes are smaller and margins depend on consistency, these shifts matter. The question is less about upfront cost and more about how stable that cost remains over the life of the product.

Doing more with less

Much of the advantage comes from process efficiency. The term ‘process intensification’ is used often, but in practice it comes down to simplification. Fewer steps, better catalysts, tighter control.

In some cases, reactions are combined. In others, conditions are adjusted so that the same output is achieved with lower energy input. Yield optimisation plays a similar role. When more of the input ends up in the final product, less is lost as waste.

This is also where green chemistry connects directly with industrial efficiency. Sustainable chemistry approaches can improve resource efficiency and reduce waste generation across industrial processes, linking environmental performance directly with material and energy efficiency gains.

These are not only environmental gains. They show up in material usage, energy bills, and throughput. The challenge is consistency. Speciality chemicals do not allow much room for variation. Once the process is stable, however, the benefits tend to hold.

Carbon a cost factor

Carbon pricing is no longer theoretical. Different regions are already putting a cost on emissions, and more are expected to follow. For chemical manufacturers, this introduces a new layer to cost calculations.

Processes that depend heavily on fossil inputs or high energy consumption will feel this first. Others, designed with lower emissions in mind, are better placed to absorb the change. The gap may not be obvious today, but it will widen as pricing mechanisms become more widespread.

Early adopters of green chemistry are not necessarily ahead simply because they are greener’. They are ahead because they have already adjusted their processes. That reduces the need for sudden changes later.

How advantage is defined

The shift is gradual, but visible. Efficiency, predictability and regulatory readiness are starting to matter as much as raw material cost. In some cases, they matter more.

For speciality chemicals, this creates a different kind of advantage. Companies that understand their processes in detail and are willing to rework them are better placed to respond to changes in regulation, cost and demand.

Not every process can be redesigned. Not every alternative works at scale. But the direction is difficult to ignore. Green chemistry is no longer focused only on reducing impact. It is becoming part of how chemical businesses compete and how they plan for what comes next.