The global chemical industry is facing a profound economic and environmental reckoning. Once a model of innovation and economic achievement, it has increasingly become rigid and outdated. Commoditization, financialization, and deep dependence on fossil fuels have resulted in a situation where basic processes and molecules have changed little in decades, locking in climate, toxicity, and waste impacts. This rigidity poses a fundamental barrier to the industry’s long-term economic viability and environmental sustainability.
The current global petrochemical crisis—compounded by the Iran and Ukraine wars—has revealed how vulnerable a system built on a narrow set of geopolitically sensitive feedstocks, basic building blocks, and inflexible, regionally concentrated assets can be. As much as one-third of global production capacity for several key fertilizer and commodity chemical building blocks is at risk. Analysts increasingly view this not as a cyclical downturn, but as an opportunity for a structural reset.
Yet government and industry responses are mostly tactical: consolidation, divestitures, plant closures and capacity cuts, subsidized energy or feedstock costs, regulatory rollbacks, and efforts to secure existing supply chains. These measures may relieve near-term pressure, but they do little to resolve deeper structural challenges.
The question we should be asking is more fundamental: Is the chemical industry collapsing under its own weight? Does it need to be redesigned from the ground up, including its energy sources, feedstocks, molecules, processes, and products? While such a proposition may seem heretical to some, similar transformations have already successfully unfolded in other capital-intensive sectors, notably steel and energy, with economic and environmental benefits.
Decentralized “minimills,” long dismissed as infeasible, now account for nearly 70% of US steel output. In energy, solar and wind generation have scaled from the margins to mainstream. In both cases, the most important structural change was from concentrated production with singular inputs to more distributed and flexible systems, enabled by innovation.
There are compelling reasons and tangible benefits for a similar distributed, regionalized chemical enterprise. The transition away from virgin fossil carbon toward renewable feedstocks—biomass, captured CO₂, and reclaimed plastics—naturally favors distributed systems, since these inputs are geographically dispersed and costly to transport.
Distributed, adaptable value chains are less vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, natural disasters, or supply disruption, thus enhancing national security, a fact recognized by the US Department of Defense and others.
A more distributed industry can also advance rural development and job creation—a bipartisan goal—by aligning chemical production with locally available raw materials.
A shift toward distributed production aligns with the existing structure of the US chemical sector. More than two-thirds of US chemical facilities are owned by small and medium-sized firms. These companies already manufacture for larger chemical suppliers and formulators and are more agile and innovation and value driven than global incumbents.
Finally, markets are shifting from cost-based competition toward value creation. While bulk commodity segments have stagnated, specialty and performance chemicals continue to innovate and grow. Analysts note that firms investing in innovation and tailored, flexible solutions, where sustainability drives performance and differentiation, will outperform those focused solely on scale and cost reduction.
Experience from steel and energy suggests what such a transformation could deliver: feedstock, process, and chemistry innovations that improve efficiency and lower impacts; lower capital intensity and investment risk; reduced cumulative environmental burdens on fenceline communities; greater resilience to supply shocks; economic opportunity creation; and improved flexibility to navigate market shifts and downturns.
This transition will not be easy, as the industry underpins most sectors and maintains an entrenched structure. Meeting the moment will require significant innovation in multiple areas, including: modular manufacturing, biotechnology, and biocatalysis; tunable chemistries, such as click chemistry and noncovalent derivatization; and new logistics and cooperative business models. Shared infrastructure, chemical “campuses,” and aggregation through distributors could enable flexibility and scale without replicating today’s brittle megastructures.
If this sounds too ambitious during a crisis, history suggests the opposite: firms that invest in R&D during downturns gain share and emerge stronger. Our current petrochemical industry grew from small scale to global leadership propelled by crisis—wartime urgency. Today, early movers are already demonstrating what’s possible. Hexion has restructured its 170-year-old business around customer-driven innovation, instructing teams to invent as if current assets did not exist. Solugen’s “bioforge” marries renewable feedstocks with biology to produce specialized chemicals in compact, efficient plants.
What’s missing is a clear roadmap and the political will to implement it. The next generation of chemistry will require a coordinated 20-to-30-year industrial transformation strategy that rewards resilience, innovation, safety, and sustainability as core to social and economic value. Current plans focus too narrowly on decarbonizing the existing structure, leaving toxicity, waste, and systemic vulnerability largely untouched.
Like the energy transition, the chemicals transition will require broad public-private collaboration—from early-stage innovators demonstrating what’s possible to a coordinated ecosystem of specialty chemical manufacturers, distributors, and financiers to scale new distributed production models. It will also require downstream chemical users creating strong, aligned demand and adopting new solutions, and critically, governments providing clear policy signals and the right mix of incentives to build markets, mobilize private investment, and drive transformation.
Joel Tickner Credit:
Courtesy of Joel Tickner
We built one version of this industry nearly a century ago through innovation, patient capital, and sustained government support. Experience with other sectors shows we can do it again.
Joel Tickner is a professor of public health at UMass Lowell and founder of Change Chemistry.
Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of C&EN or ACS.
Do you have a story you want to share with the chemistry community? Send your idea or an 800-word submission to [email protected].
2026 American Chemical Society
