Interviews

The chemistry between sustainability and innovation

Europe has very ambitious plans to make its economy more sustainable. The chemical industry is essential to achieving those ambitions, not only because of its own impact on sustainability, but also because its products underpin the operations of a great many other industries.

What role is played by innovation and regulation when it comes to creating a sustainable economy? And what do the European ambitions mean for the international competitiveness of the chemical industry? This pair of articles explores this theme from different perspectives. Pierre Barthélemy, speaking on behalf of Cefic, expresses the views of the European chemical companies in the political debate, while Ernst Siewers of DyeCoo explains how the revolutionary technology of an innovative start-up business can radically improve sustainability.

Ernst Siewers - DyeCoo

Ernst Siewers first developed an interest in the technology for dyeing fabric using supercritical carbon dioxide when he was a student at Delft University of Technology. That was in the early 1990s. The ideas he came up with then have now been incorporated into the DyeOx, a piece of equipment that can compete with conventional fabric dyeing machines on all fronts, but is far superior to them in terms of its environmental performance: it does not use water and produces virtually no waste.

This is potentially revolutionary in an industry that currently uses over 100 litres of water to dye a kilo of fabric and discharges the polluted water. DyeCoo, the company where Ernst Siewers serves as CTO, is ready for the breakthrough. All the other links in the textile chain have to do is follow suit. ‘The establishment isn’t keen on new rules and regulations, but they offer opportunities for innovative challengers such as ourselves.”

How long have you been working on the technology?

“We’ve worked on it for some time for many reasons, the most important being that we’ve gradually come to the conclusion that our efforts are only truly worthwhile if we can build a machine for dyeing fabric on an industrial scale. We’re good at the technical side of things, but it’s extremely complex to sell an entirely new, revolutionary technology to a market that has used a different type of equipment for decades. To do so, we’ve had to look for suppliers that were willing to redesign their products with us, so that they were suitable for use in our equipment as well as being commercially viable. We’re going for a transition in the sector and that takes time.”

The idea of using carbon dioxide to dye fabric is more than 20 years old. How do you protect your technology?

“The original patent a German university had on the principle of dyeing polyester using high-pressure carbon dioxide was very broad and very strong, but it expired. We now have patents on the key parts of our equipment. We also have a number of patents that are related to the end product. Many polyester-based fabrics now contain elastane, a stretch material. The bad thing about elastane is that, although it attracts dye, the dye does not attach itself to the material. So, after the dyeing process, these fabrics bleed, whether they’ve been dyed using water or carbon dioxide. To prevent bleeding, the fabric is cleaned using water, which is highly polluting. We’ve discovered how to dye and clean stretch material using carbon dioxide so it doesn’t bleed and we’ve protected our invention. Finally, our equipment is jam-packed with smart applications we’ve chosen not to put in writing so as not to let others run with our ideas. I’m certain that there are many players out there who make use of our ideas. There’s one company in particular that I can tell has closely studied our drawings. Their machine looks exactly like ours, but it doesn’t work. That is to say, it does produce coloured fabrics, but it’s not commercially viable. And that’s partly because it doesn’t have the smart applications I mentioned earlier.”

Where are you now?

“We’re on the cusp of a breakthrough. Our technology allows us to calculate exactly what the cost per kilogram of dyed fabric is. Many conventional fabric dying companies can’t do that or don’t want to be transparent about their cost structure. But we’re confident that, using our equipment, they can offer their products at the same or even lower cost. The purchase price of our equipment always proves to be a major obstacle for customers. Our machine costs roughly € 2.5 million. This price buys you a machine that’s ready for use and has been assembled and tested by VDL, our partner. It also includes training staff to operate the machine. A conventional machine with the same capacity costs just over € 1 million. Customers will recoup the price difference within the depreciation period because it’s much cheaper to run our equipment. Also, there’s no need for water purification. Still,

the higher purchase price tends to make potential customers hesitant about signing a contract. There’s not enough incentive for textile producers who’ve used water for dyeing for decades to switch to a revolutionary technology that’s been invented by some small outfit from the Netherlands. That said, we’ve managed to sell 12 machines to six customers in Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. I’m being prudent when I say that we expect to double that number over the next two years, especially looking at the scale of the textile market.”

Speaking of incentives: how does the eco-friendliness of your technology resonate in a sector that is not known to be sustainable and is regularly in the news for its poor working conditions?

“Everyone loves our story and we’re invited to tell it all over the world. This year, for instance, we were nominated for the Circular Economy People’s Choice Award at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The video the Forum did on us has already attracted five million views and we’ve had a lot of positive feedback on it. But things don’t change overnight: people still don’t want to pay extra for sustainability. It’s the same the world over.”

So how do you plan to force the breakthrough of your technology?

“For starters, we need to take a good look at ourselves.We could do better telling our story and learning about what our customers really need. Technologically speaking, the equipment is ready to go. We’re now mainly working on broadening the scope of application. But that won’t lead to a drastic cost reduction in the next few years. For a breakthrough, all signs have to point to go; it won’t happen if there continue to be obstacles. Take our shareholder Nike, for instance. They use carbon-based dyeing for some of its products. Although they do encourage their suppliers to use our technology, they haven’t mustered up the courage to force their fabric suppliers to switch to our equipment. More capital would help us to accelerate our growth, but private equity funds will not invest until we’ve gained a reasonable market share. And so nothing happens while everyone’s looking at each other. On a positive note: we have a customer in Taiwan that firmly believes in our technology. They want to buy more machines and become a shareholder. This is almost a done deal. That’s why I feel it’s realistic to say that we should be able to double our revenue within two years.”

Dyeing fabric using supercritical carbon dioxide

Above 31 degrees Celsius and at a pressure in excess of 73 bar, carbon dioxide will become ‘supercritical’, meaning that it will start to behave as a gas as well as a liquid. Supercritical carbon dioxide is an excellent solvent, which is used in such applications as dry cleaning and the production of coffee, for the extraction of caffeine from coffee beans.

The DyeOx, DyeCoo’s self-developed carbon-based dyeing machine, is a 130-ton piece of equipment. The core of the machine is formed by a pressure vessel, a collection of pumps and pipes, and three horizontal cylinders where the actual dyeing process takes place. Polyester-wrapped rolls are placed in the cylinders. Supercritical carbon dioxide is pumped through the cylinders, causing the dye that is also in the cylinders to dissolve. The carbon dioxide penetrates the polyester rolls that absorb the dye. The DyeOx has the capacity to dye 4,000 kilograms of fabric in the span of 24 hours.

The conventional dyeing process requires 100 to 150 litres of water to dye one kilogram of fabric. Some of the colouring agents and all process chemicals stay behind in the processed water, which is discharged, after having been properly purified or not. The DyeCoo process does not require any water whatsoever. More than 98% of the colouring agents are absorbed by the polyester; the remainder can easily be collected after purification of the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide originates from industrial processes and is continuously cleaned and recycled in the virtually closed system.

For now, the industrial-scale DyeCoo technology is only suitable for dyeing polyester. Dyeing polyester using carbon-based technology is a pure physics process that causes the dye to be absorbed in polymer chains. Dyeing nylon, cotton, wool and silk requires a chemical reaction to get the dye to attach itself to the fibres. In partnership with Colourtex, an Indian company, DyeCoo is in the advanced stages of developing carbon-based technology for dyeing nylon and the reactive dyes required for this process.

Another factor that could cause a breakthrough is government regulation forcing companies to adopt cleaner production methods.

“Absolutely; that would give us an incredible boost. In my cost calculations, I compare our technology to a method that produces a lot of waste water, which fabric manufacturers can discharge at virtually no cost. Because of surface waterpollution by sectors such as the textile industry, we now have to pump up groundwater for our drinking water. As soon as robust pollution pricing is introduced, it’s a no-brainer that switching to our technology will pay off. Another factor that can lead to a breakthrough is public opinion. A few years ago, Greenpeace condemned the textile industry for causing serious environmental pollution. As soon as the media pick up on this, the pressure on all sorts of parties becomes palpable. That makes us come into contact with such companies as Nike and IKEA, lets us make deals with them and gets them to want to take an equity stake in us. I understand that the establishment isn’t keen on new rules and regulations, but they offer opportunities for innovative challengers such as ourselves.”

Pierre Barthélemy of Cefic advocates an increase in European investments to maintain strengths in research and innovation, and to safeguard the viability of the chemical industry in Europe. What do you say to that?

“I totally agree. We’re occasionally being pressured to offshore activities to Asia or to source our parts from there. Apart from the fact that I don’t think it would be much cheaper, in our search for organisations that could help us develop our technology, we’ve ended up with European partners nearly every time. It’s just that there’s a wealth oaf unique expertise in Europe. The textile industry has moved to Asia, but our carbon-based dyeing process is an opportunity to bring this industry back to Europe, closer to the consumer market. I remember a visit to a customer, an Asian multi-billion dollar conglomerate with an in-house textile R&D department. A manager asked me: “How is it that you and your little outfit have managed to elevate this technology to this level? And why can’t we do that?” I’ve thought long and hard about the answer to that question. Clearly, it’s not just about money. I feel that the heart of the answer lies in our culture and in how we raise our children. In our part of the world, children have a lot of freedom; they’re allowed to be themselves and are taken seriously. In other parts of the world, children are expected to be quiet, listen and do as they’re told. People need freedom to think, express themselves and pursue their interests as children to become creative and innovative adults. As long as you have enough strong-minded people on your team, you’ll never be short of useful ideas.”

Pierre Barthélemy - Cefic

The chemical industry plays a central role in Europe's economy. Not just in terms of sheer numbers, but also because its products are essential for a wide range of other sectors. Research and innovation are recognised as key elements in securing the future of the European chemical industry. The voice of that industry is Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, which has its headquarters in Brussels, the heart of European policymaking. NLO spoke with Pierre Barthélemy, Cefic's Executive Director of Innovation, about innovation in the chemical industry in times of ambitious sustainability requirements, increasing regulatory pressure and shifting geopolitical forces. "In Europe, we simply need to become more ambitious about R&I and that’s not only a matter of more money.”

What are the top 3 items on your agenda?

“Our raison d'être at Cefic is to represent the European chemical industry to the European institutions. First, my role is to make sure the priorities of the industry when it comes to innovation are known and taken into account by policymakers. For example, over the past two years we've been working hard to follow the development of Horizon Europe, the ninth research and innovation (R&I) framework program with an expected budget of around 100 billion euros. Our aim includes ensuring that the program includes support and funding for our priorities. Second, the creation of a circular economy, specifically the circularity of plastics, is extremely important right now. The same is true for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The chemical industry is right at centre of the very ambitious policy initiatives in these areas. That is because our sector serves so many downstream value chains: construction, automotive, aeronautics, electronics, textiles, agriculture, pharmaceutics, etc. Innovation in the chemical industry enables downstream innovation, so you really need the industry to achieve the objectives in these areas.”

These are areas where European policy ambitions and regulations are more stringent than in the US or China. If you look ahead 20 years from now, do you think European companies will have an advantage because they were pushed to develop new technologies for a sustainable economy, or are these areas where regulations put too much pressure and risk on European industry?

“There is a continuous discussion about whether regulation promotes or stifles innovation. The answer is not black or white. There are certainly cases where regulation supports innovation. The need to reduce car emissions has led to better fuels and catalysts, thanks to innovations in chemistry. And I remember from my early days at Solvay how the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances motivated us to develop alternatives for CFCs. When it comes to developing a sustainable economy, I think it's good that Europe is trying to be the champion. But in doing so, you always have to make sure you maintain a competitive edge on the global scene. Otherwise you will become an insignificant player without the power to convince other global regions to join your effort. You should never think of sustainability in terms of just people and the environment. People tend to forget about the third pillar of sustainability: you need a solid business case or it just won't fly. Therefore, the dialogue between industry and the public stakeholders and policymakers – in which Cefic plays a big role - is extremely important.”

When you browse Cefic's facts & figures publication, you see that the European chemical industry is losing ground because other regions, notably China, are growing much faster. Innovation is often mentioned as the key to keeping a viable chemical industry in Europe. Can you talk about the importance of R&I for the chemical industry, and current strengths and weaknesses in European R&I?

“Europe still has an edge in R&I. And I’m not only referring to the R&I activities from the chemical industry, I'm talking about an entire ecosystem. We have top-notch universities, strong chemical companies that are among the world leaders, a network of small and medium enterprises, and excellent research and technology institutes. Europe could have more start-ups, and there are some initiatives to beef up the start-up landscape. This ecosystem is working well. Taking account of the global trends and Europe's weakness in resources, the best thing we can do is to bet on what is still a strength. In fact, it is the only way we can defend Europe’s position on the global stage. But we cannot be complacent here. China is now investing significantly more in R&I in the chemical industry than Europe, which was not the case 10 years ago.”

You mentioned the collaboration within the European R&I ecosystem as a strength. Do you think the existing IP framework is suited to this collaborative research?

“It works, certainly in Europe. All the companies I know have a lot of collaborations with universities, other private companies, start-ups etc., and there are examples of new technologies that have emerged as a result of such collaborations. I don't think IP issues are blocking these collaborations. It is essentially about negotiating agreements on who owns the IP and building the trust that these agreements will be honoured. We do have some questions concerning the discussion on open science, where the theory is that everything that has been generated by public funding should, by default, be open access. In that area, the industry has been vocal in promoting the formula 'as open as possible, as closed as necessary’. You have to give private partners in an R&I consortium the chance to protect the necessary IP from these joint R&I programs, before findings are published in a scientific journal. Because if you don't, companies will run from the framework programs that promote the collaborative approach to R&I."

According to the Cefic website, it is estimated that 30% of sales in the chemical industry depend on trade secrets. That seems to be a very high number. Do you think it somehow reflects a weakness in the patent system?

“If anything, it may reflect on the fact that the patent protection period is shorter than the life cycle of many chemical plants and processes. I think it may be more indicative of how much R&I has changed in the past decades. There is hardly any innovation that comes from a single individual. Also, the lines between chemistry, physics, biology and other disciplines are completely blurring now, as has the distinction between pure scientists and engineers. So 99.9% of all innovations are currently very much about teamwork. In the end, an individual may own a little part of the result but it is the team that owns all the know-how.”

In order for Europe to bet on its strengths, what would it need to improve?

“We need more investment! In the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, the EU member states agreed on the objective to invest 3% of GDP in R&I, private and public combined. Some countries do relatively well – I believe Germany is at 2.95% - but there are also countries that fall way below 2%. The European average is certainly far off the 3% objective. To put this in perspective: South Korea spends 4.5% of its GDP on R&I. So in Europe we simply need to become more ambitious about R&I. But this is not only a matter of more money. The problem we have in Europe, and in European society in general, is that we are too risk-averse. The tendency is to be very cautious with new technologies, which slows down the acceptance of innovation. By contrast, in the US and certainly in China, people tend to like new technologies, think of them as fun and exciting and are eager to use them quickly. This European mindset doesn't help to achieve the high level of innovation we need.”

In order for Europe to bet on its strengths, what would it need to improve?

Is Cefic actively trying to change that mindset?

“This is not our mission as such, but our activities – together with our member companies – contribute to highlighting the need for a change of mindset. Cefic is a member of the European Risk Forum, a Brussels think tank. They have been developing the concept of the innovation principle, which states that when you take a decision or consider new legislation, you should conduct an impact assessment of what this means for your innovation capabilities. We are convinced that the innovation principle is very complementary to the precautionary principle, which is part of the Treaty and some national legislation. Innovation is by definition about taking risk: if you do something new, there is always a certain level of risk involved and the key question is how you minimise and manage the residual risk. The chemical industry is not asking for a blank cheque. We know and we accept that we are a highly regulated sector. But if we only focus on the potential harm of innovative products, we cut ourselves off from a lot of opportunities to improve our standard of living.”