A major task we face in achieving circularity is ensuring that policies remain nimble in addressing environmental and public health challenges. Our suite of laws and their regulatory implementation sometimes reflect an unhelpful resistance to circularity, expressed in policies that are indifferent or antithetical to an efficient transition to true resource economy.

The environmental impacts of the digital economy are increasingly the focus of attention and concern. There is no question the demand for electricity, water and land have increased sharply in response to the growth in digital activity. Identifying, quantifying and mitigating environmental and ecological impacts are core to value creation, and investors must be mindful of how a company is positioned to create value while avoiding public rebuke for neglecting to account for the environmental impacts of greatly increased digital activity.

This article explores the digital economy, the growing set of metrics used to assess environmental sustainability in a digital economy, the tools companies are using to improve efficiency, lessen environmental impacts and increase supply chain transparency and traceability, and tips for investors in assessing a company’s environmental awareness of the impacts of greatly increased digital activity.

On 13 July 2021, Maine became the first state in the US to enact extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging. Quickly thereafter, on 6 August, Oregon became the second state to enact a similar EPR law applicable to packaging. Other states are poised to enact similar legislation, following trends more mature in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere around the world.

The Biden Administration has embraced environmental justice with unprecedented gusto.  In its July 2020 Plan to Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity (Plan), the Biden Administration sets out in broad terms how it intends to use an “All-of-Government” approach to “rooting out systemic racism in our laws, policies, institutions, and hearts.”

New chemical innovation is not as celebrated as innovation in electronics, materials, software, or other sectors, but it is every bit as important. Many believe, as do we, that new chemical innovation is essential to achieving sustainable development. For this reason, a close look at the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of them offers valuable insights into whether the new U.S. industrial chemical management law and EPA policy initiatives implementing it are aligned with this goal. This article discusses EPA’s implementation of the TSCA amendments as they relate to new chemical innovation and highlights EPA policy positions and institutional practices that EPA should reconsider to alignmore closely with the goal of more sustainable new chemical technologies.

Big retailers strive to source products responsibly. This typically includes recognition of chemicals in the products they market. As part of its commitment to responsible sourcing, Amazon recently posted its Chemicals Policy, which includes its first Restricted Substance List (RSL). This column discusses this milestone.

Climate change watchers know that October, 15, 2016, was a historic day for international climate action. On that day, nearly 200 countries reached an agreement to phase down use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) at the 28th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Kigali, Rwanda. The meeting to discuss the Amendment took place from July 15-23, 2016. This seemingly impossible alignment of international interests reflects years of effort. This column summarizes this historic event and its implications.

With little fanfare, on July 2, 2015, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality issued a memorandum directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Last updated in 1992 and first rolled out in 1986, the Coordinated Framework outlines a comprehensive federal regulatory policy for products of biotechnology. The memorandum could have significant implications for innovators in the biotechnology and synthetic biology commercial space.

Imagine receiving a certified letter from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcing that it plans to conduct an audit of your company’s facility in two weeks. The audit will focus on your company’s compliance obligations as a chemical manufacturer under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Would you be prepared or are you unsure of what TSCA is and whether it applies to you? This article explains how TSCA applies to biobased chemicals and how nomenclature and chemical identity can impact commercialization.

In the second installment of this series, I wrote about how the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates products across a manufacturing process, from feedstock to product. In this last installment, I present options for updating TSCA and the related implementing regulations to put novel, biobased chemistry on an even footing with incumbent products and processes that were grandfathered in as part of the original TSCA Inventory. The key is to find a way to level the field without compromising the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) mission and authority to protect human health and the environment.