Despite the best efforts of a variety of well-meaning industry projects and initiatives over the years, the reputation of the chemical industry remains poor. Admit it – how many of these initiatives can you actually remember? And if we can’t remember them, how much impact are they likely to have had in those they’re aimed at, the general public? It doesn’t help that the industry’s critics get all the headlines – bad news and scare stories sell newspapers. When industry responds, it’s met with cynicism and calls of ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they?’

‘Trust us’. That’s the message Peter Elverding – CEFIC’s current president and chairman of the managing board at Dutch chemicals giant DSM – reiterated at this year’s CEFIC annual meeting, held along the SCI meeting at the beginning of October by the seaside in Nice.

Elverding provided an update on the theme of ‘Trust’ that he introduced at last year’s meeting in Noordwijk, Netherlands. It focuses on several aspects of the word: trust in ourselves with regard to the future, trust among other stakeholders such as companies, governments, Brussels and NGOs, and – perhaps most importantly – trust in the form of gaining the confidence of governments and the public.

‘“Trust” remains high on the priority list,’ Elverding told the conference. He cited a citizen survey carried out recently by the European Commission across all 25 EU member states, assessing people’s opinions and feelings towards the environment. The health impact of chemicals in everyday products was highlighted as one of the main concerns.

‘People indicated they didn’t have sufficient information on this issue,’ he said. ‘When it came to trust with regard to environmental issues, the respondents mentioned NGOs, scientists, consumer organisations and TV as trustworthy sources of information. Industry was seen as a reliable source of information by a mere 2%. Which is, indeed, quite close to zero.’ He added that, when asked how environmental issues should be resolved, most people feel that stricter regulations – or better enforcement of current legislation – will be necessary. Only 9% thought industry initiatives could provide a solution.

So despite the efforts companies have been making with communication, they are still not trusted as a reliable source of information. ‘You could argue, what’s the use of dialogue, anyway?’ Elverding said. ‘We know that it is wrong to assume that more rules will bring more safety. But the general public takes a completely different stance. In their perception, tougher regulation and control implies more safety and better corporate citizenship.’ And, he added, why not forget about voluntary industry initiatives altogether? ‘They are perceived as either non-effective, or just part of the industry PR machine.’

CEFIC has established a ‘Build Trust’ programme in response, and in December is to hold a workshop for industry CEOs. The aim, he said, is to explore how the industry can better respond to the concerns it is facing from the public, discuss how it should interact with stakeholders in future, and hopefully come up with concrete plans.

‘It’s easy to be sceptical about such initiatives,’ Elverding claimed. ‘And it’s also easy to be critical about the outcome of the EU survey. Industry reputation has always been an issue since the very beginning of the industry itself. We must be proactive, be involved with societal concerns, talk about them based on an open, single agenda and take action as early as possible. As we manage our corporations, we never wait for a problem to pop up. Wherever possible, we act before an issue rears its head. We will have to demonstrate this same kind of proactivity in relation to societal concerns.’

Trusting the chemical industry was also the theme of the subsequent Society of Chemical Industry conference. And chemistry’s bad reputation is nothing new. ‘This bad image of chemistry is not a temporary fashion or a moment of crisis that could be overcome by a good marketing campaign,’ claimed Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Paris X. ‘In my view, it’s just one episode of a long tradition of conflicts deeply rooted in the history and prehistory of chemistry.’

Stefan Scheuer, EU Policy director of the European Environmental Bureau, pointed out that chemicals like asbestos, PCBs and DDT were thought to be safe. ‘Today we are worried about PFCs, BFRs and DEHP,’ he said. ‘And tomorrow? Consumers don’t want chemicals contaminating their bodies, disrupting their hormones or causing an allergic reaction. They think things have been tested for safety – and are not impressed if they have not been!’ He pointed out the very real risk to a company’s reputation: it’s frighteningly easy for a company’s reputation to be seriously damaged by bad publicity about their products.

REACH has moved chemical safety right up the public consciousness, and Scheuer believes it can be part of the answer. ‘We believe it’s a unique opportunity to stop the unsafe use of chemicals and find substitutes,’ he said. He believes that, if it’s done properly, REACH should increase public confidence in the industry.

The SCI conference concluded with a panel presentation and discussion from five young executives from various chemical companies, all in their late 20s and early 30s. The group had put an enormous amount of thought, effort and discussion into how the industry can tackle the essential problem of rebuilding its reputation. They were clearly extremely keen to make a difference – and believe that it is possible to persuade the public that the chemical industry can be trusted.

Not least was an exhortation to those who actually work within the industry – and thus know it best – to be its ambassadors, on a local scale to their family, friends and neighbours. Indeed, the winner of the inaugural CEFIC Responsible Care award, announced in Nice, was a consortium of companies from Esterreja in Portugal for their efforts to engage and include the public in what they do and its benefits for society.

But will the optimism of youth be overtaken by the cynicism of middle age? It will take an enormous amount of effort if we’re to ensure that, in 30 years’ time, the panel members are not sitting in the audience listening to the same statements being made by the next generation of future leaders of the industry.