Georgiana Surdu is the Executive Director of Romchimica, the Association of Chemical Companies in Romania. She has spent two decades at the intersection of academia and industry, and for the last seven years, has been the primary advocate for the technical, environmental, and legal interests of the Romanian chemical sector. In this interview, she outlines the critical role of chemical advocacy in a complex legislative landscape, the urgent findings of their recent "Transition Pathway" study, and the formidable challenges—from workforce shortages to unrealistic EU deadlines—that define the industry's struggle to survive and transform.
Chemical Bonds: Georgiana, thank you for your time. To start, could you tell us about the role of Romchimica and what a typical advocacy effort looks like for you?
Georgiana Surdu: A large part of our work is dedicated to advocacy, primarily dealing with legislative packages from Brussels. The challenge appears when Romanian authorities transpose European legislation into national law. The transposition can be too stringent, or there can be a series of unknowns, as not all people in the ministries are industry specialists. Our role is to guide them, to influence the process for a purpose beneficial to all actors—both inside and outside the chemical industry—so these legislative pieces fit together. A prosperous industry means a prosperous state, with more taxes collected and a stronger, more industrialised economy.
CB: Beyond advocacy, you also focus on sustainability through the Responsible Care program. What does that entail?
GS: This is a voluntary initiative of the global chemical industry—no other industry has something like it. It’s a framework for companies to be transparent about their environmental, safety, and security policies and to test their internal limits. We became members in 2020, in the middle of the pandemic, and we are very happy that half of our members have joined. Despite complex problems and heavy workloads, people are interested to see how they can better protect their employees and the environment. This makes us happy as an association.
CB: What would you consider Romchimica's most significant achievement?
GS: I believe the best part is the reopening of discussions about the chemical industry in Romania. In the last 5-6 years, perhaps spurred by the pandemic's need for disinfectants and medical supplies, awareness has grown. This makes us very happy. We’d be even happier if, on this basis, other companies would join us and understand that together we are a stronger voice. As the president of CEFIC says, chemistry is the mother of all industries. The green transition and decarbonisation cannot be realised without taking the chemical industry into account; we are the binder between all other industries.
CB: Your association recently conducted a major study, the "Transition Pathway" for the Romanian chemical industry. What was the impetus for this?
GS: The European Commission called for a mapping of the chemical industry across the EU. While other national associations had existing studies and state support, we could not rely on the same. Studies on the Romanian chemical industry were very old—30 years, or 15-20 at best—and no longer corresponded to current realities like the energy transition or global competition. So, we created a working group, contracted a consultant, and carried out this study over half a year. We presented it to the Romanian authorities at the Prime Minister's Chancellery last May.
CB: What were the study's most critical findings?
GS: We identified a series of critical points, many caused by inconsistent policies over the last 30 years. The first is an increasing dependence on imports. Our exports have decreased every year, creating a dramatic gap in the trade balance. This is regrettable because Romania has raw materials—minerals, unexploited mines of graphite—that could be used by the chemical industry. First, these resources must be mapped. Another way toward sustainability is the reintegration of waste through chemical recycling—of tires for pyrolysis oil, or mattresses to recover polyols. Unfortunately, there are no clear programs for this, and at the European level, there is no clear legislation or funding to motivate such massive investments.
CB: The study also highlights a workforce problem. Can you elaborate?
GS: We are facing a lack of workforce, especially blue-collar workers. There was a legislative and market void for vocational schools from the 1990s until recently. Now, dual education has returned, but the proportion of students is very low—maybe 2,500 maximum complete this track each year. Furthermore, these programs are only in certain centers. I have members in small towns like Zlatna or Râșnov; it doesn’t help them if the students are trained in a larger city like Alba Iulia or Brașov, because the young people don't want to move to a small town for work. We need to expand these programs and cooperate with companies and professional associations. You cannot have education without an industrial cluster nearby.
CB: How realistic are the EU's Green Deal targets, such as the 2030 goal for carbon capture and storage (CCS)?
GS: Through a historical allocation, Romania has to capture almost 20% of the EU's total targeted emissions. This is a very high target for a country that is no longer heavily industrialised. And yet, 2030 is totally unrealistic. Companies that should implement CCS infrastructure are still in the feasibility study stage—very far from implementation. We cannot use the existing gas infrastructure to transport CO2, and for safety reasons, we cannot site these projects near localities. The 2030 deadline makes the subsequent 2040 and 2050 climate neutrality goals equally unrealistic. I cannot claim there are completed projects; there are initiatives for less polluting technologies, but the transition is in its very early stages.
CB: There's also the challenge of market acceptance for greener, often more expensive, chemical products.
GS: Exactly. We all might want a 100% vegan, natural cosmetic cream, but we must consider its very short shelf life and its high price. Not many people have the budget for these green products. This brings me back to the policies, which were designed without sufficiently consulting professional associations or considering different population samples. States in Northern and Western Europe are more prepared, both financially and in terms of public information. This is not the case in Eastern Europe, in Romania.
CB: Finally, the chemical industry in Romania seems fragmented across different sub-sector associations. Is this a weakness?
GS: It is. We have associations for cosmetics, detergents, plastics, paints... The basic topics and the most important legislation are 90% the same for all of them. It would be more beneficial to merge into a federation or a chamber of commerce. This would allow for specialised personnel and a larger staff, like our colleagues in Poland have. A third thing I observe is a more nationalist spirit; consumers are more inclined toward local products. In Romania, the price is always what makes the difference. It doesn't matter if it's a local brand; if an imported product is cheaper, it will be bought.
