The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which is preparing to ban PFAS, the so-called ‘forever chemicals’, hired a Danish consultancy firm that was also lobbying on behalf of chemical manufacturers, as revealed by the investigative media Follow the Money in June and by the Financial Times on Wednesday 24 September.
Having become, according to its own statements, “ECHA’s primary point of contact” on “various chemical-related issues”, at the end of 2020, the consultancy firm Ramboll Deutschland GmbH was hired to contribute to the preparation of a REACH restriction (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) dealing with PFAS in fire-fighting foams (see EUROPE 13640/12).
Meanwhile, in 2022-2023, Ramboll lobbied on the PFAS issue for chemical manufacturers such as Gujarat Fluorochemicals, Honeywell and 3M, as well as for the Plastics Europe lobby. In particular, these members of the industry are pushing to delay the implementation of restrictive measures and obtain exemptions.
MEPs are waiting for a reaction from ECHA. Following the publication of the Financial Times article on 24 September, Marie Toussaint MEP (Greens/EFA, French) issued a statement condemning a “democratic and health scandal”. In her view, “tolerating this mix of genres is tantamount to letting polluters write the rules”. She is calling for “the strict exclusion of firms linked to industry”.
Contacted by Agence Europe, MEP Tiemo Wölken (S&D, German), a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, called on ECHA to examine and, “if necessary (...) end the involvement of Ramboll and similar companies that may have been hired by industry to work on the same substances”. If ECHA fails to take action, “we will call for a fuller parliamentary enquiry into the matter”.
German MEP Damian Boeselager, coordinator of the Greens/EFA on the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, told Agence Europe that he would be examining “the allegations concerning the European Chemicals Agency, as we take accusations of conflict of interest extremely seriously”. The MEP pointed out that the Committee on Budgetary Control “is responsible for monitoring any misuse of European funds or any conflict of interest within the institutions”.
Concerned NGOs. ECHA is funded by the EU budget and by fees paid by companies submitting dossiers for the registration, authorisation or evaluation of chemical substances to cover the evaluation work carried out by the Agency.
ECHA is mandated by the European Commission, as an independent EU agency, to submit scientific reports on the health and environmental risks posed by PFAS and on the socio-economic consequences for industry of restricting these products. The European Commission then bases its legislative proposals on these reports.
The agency uses consultants to support its preparatory work on chemical safety initiatives. In this context, ECHA procured Ramboll to support with certain aspects related to the use of PFAS and alternative substances in fire-fighting foams.
Contacted by Agence Europe, Ramboll confirmed that it is currently one of the service providers selected for the 2024-2028 framework contract for scientific and technical support for ECHA’s regulatory processes, as well as for the 2024-2030 contract for ecotoxicology and environmental exposure assessment.
According to the environmental NGO Aria, in 2022 Ramboll prepared advocacy documents for Gujarat Fluorochemicals and US fluorogas manufacturer Honeywell - two companies that are members of the Plastics Europe lobby group of fluoropolymer producers - which were then sent to ECHA as part of the industry consultation on PFAS restrictions held in 2023. In these reports, Ramboll argues that fluoropolymers should be excluded from the EU’s universal ban on PFAS, arguing that these substances can be produced with “negligible” emissions.
This summer, four NGOs (Transparency EU, Lobby Control, Corporate EU Observatory and The Good Lobby) sent this information to ECHA in a letter, alerting it to a conflict of interest. “We are concerned that the company may have exerted a negative influence on the draft regulations relating to PFAS”, their letter reads. According to the NGOs, Ramboll advised clients “in particular to delay the regulation on PFAS”.
No conflict of interest, according to Ramboll and ECHA. Ramboll states that it makes sure that it does not work “on the same case for different clients when a conflict of interest could arise”. The firm told Agence Europe that “ethical barriers” had been put in place, explaining, for example, that it ensured that no consultant could work on several projects presenting a risk of conflict of interest or have access to documents. Ramboll was keen to point out that, “fundamentally”, their conclusions are based “on an objective and transparent assessment of the scientific evidence from reliable sources”.
Despite these safeguards, the Ramboll consultancy firm was paid both by the industry, which defends financial interests, and by ECHA, which is responsible for providing scientific advice on the issue of restricting PFAS. Owing to lack of time, Ramboll did not give specifics to Agence Europe on the order of magnitude of the respective shares of funding from industry and ECHA.
The European Chemicals Agency considered that “an effective conflict of interest depends on whether the same people or teams from Ramboll worked on both sides of the issue”. In its view, until there is proof to the contrary, Ramboll’s case does not constitute a conflict of interest.
ECHA pointed out that consultants are required to “formally declare any potentially conflicting professional interests and undertake to work independently of industry or other interests”.
Agence Europe asked whether the consultants’ allegations had been verified, but received no answer. Furthermore, according to ECHA, it would not be “possible to prohibit consulting firms from working permanently for the private sector”. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)