Hiring of Danish consultancy Ramboll—an adviser to the European Chemicals Agency while also working for chemical manufacturers—casts a shadow over the bloc’s ‘forever chemicals’ agenda.

Europe’s flagship effort to rein in so‑called “forever chemicals” has been jolted by a conflict-of-interest row after it emerged that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) retained Danish consultancy Ramboll as an adviser on PFAS policy at the same time the firm worked for major chemical manufacturers seeking to shape—if not blunt—the very rules being drafted. The revelation, documented in EU transparency filings and the subject of a formal complaint by watchdog groups, risks undermining public confidence in a once-vaunted environmental agenda just as Brussels moves toward an updated PFAS restriction under the EU’s chemicals law, REACH.

Context

PFAS—per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances—are a vast class of compounds prized for their non‑stick, water‑repellent and heat‑resistant properties. Their persistence in nature has earned them the moniker “forever chemicals,” and growing evidence links certain PFAS to cancers, immune suppression and reproductive harms. The EU has been weighing a sweeping group‑wide restriction since 2023, led by authorities from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. On August 20, 2025, ECHA published an updated proposal after a marathon consultation, keeping the thrust of a phased ban while fine‑tuning exemptions and transition periods for critical uses.

The consultancy at the center

Ramboll, one of northern Europe’s largest engineering and consulting firms, secured ECHA advisory work on PFAS while simultaneously advising industrial clients on how the same rules could affect their operations, according to EU records. Civil‑society groups—including The Good Lobby, Transparency International EU, Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl—lodged a formal complaint in July, arguing the dual role is incompatible with the impartial analysis the public sector requires from external experts. They want ECHA to review its contracts with Ramboll and disclose how it assessed potential conflicts when awarding the work.

What the records show

Public filings and NGO dossiers indicate Ramboll provided strategic and technical advice to major manufacturers and industry groups active in the PFAS debate, while being listed among ECHA’s external advisers on the restriction process. That overlap is not uncommon in Brussels’ consultancy market, but critics say PFAS is too high‑stakes to tolerate even perceived conflicts. They warn the arrangement could skew impact assessments, subtly reframing risk–benefit calculations toward longer phase‑outs or broader carve‑outs for industrial applications.

ECHA’s response

ECHA says it relies on a mix of in‑house expertise and external advisers due to the extraordinary technical workload and a tight policy timetable. The agency stresses that external contributors face strict ethics declarations and are fenced off from decisions where conflicts may arise. Still, the optics are bruising: the controversy lands just as member states and the Commission weigh the updated restriction—politically sensitive choices that will define the contours of Europe’s green‑industrial makeover.

Ramboll’s stance

Ramboll rejects any suggestion of bias, saying it maintains clear ethical walls between teams and clients and performs evidence‑based work compliant with EU procurement rules. In public posts and client notes, the firm has advertised PFAS compliance services and regulatory navigation for companies, positioning itself as both interpreter and guide through the coming rules. Its defenders argue this dual vantage point can improve the realism of policy design; critics call that a euphemism for influence.

Why it matters

The stakes for industry and the public are substantial. PFAS are embedded across supply chains—from semiconductors and batteries to medical devices and firefighting foams. The Commission has already signalled it may back exemptions for uses vital to strategic autonomy and the twin green‑digital transition, while insisting on phase‑outs elsewhere. Any perception that consultants with industry clients are shaping the scope or timing of those carve‑outs could erode trust—and, campaigners say, leave pollution costs to taxpayers.

A playbook, revisited

Environmental groups see an echo of earlier European battles in which well‑resourced sectors sought to narrow the definition of what’s regulated or stretch transition periods. In the PFAS fight, industry federations have argued that broad group‑wide controls are disproportionate, pointing to fluoropolymers and other subgroups as essential and lower‑risk. Opponents counter that PFAS’ extreme persistence demands a class‑based approach, otherwise production and degradation simply shift problems from one molecule to another.

Policy trade‑offs ahead

With the updated restriction now on the table, the final choices will hinge on three axes: scope (how many sub‑groups are captured and how tightly), timing (the length of grace periods and phase‑outs), and exemptions (which critical uses merit temporary or conditional relief). Even minor changes can carry multi‑billion‑euro implications. The consultancy row raises questions about whether EU institutions can preserve legitimacy while leaning on private expertise to do complex science‑policy work at speed.

Country politics and capacity

Member‑state positioning is uneven. Some, led by the five submitter countries, want rapid, group‑wide controls and a clear sunset on firefighting foams. Others emphasize industrial competitiveness and supply‑chain security. Budgets are a hidden constraint: regulators across Europe have struggled to keep pace with chemical risk assessments, increasing dependence on external contractors. The result is a paradox—outsourcing that expedites delivery, but risks entanglement with corporate interests.

What to watch next

In the coming weeks, attention will center on the Commission’s internal deliberations, the scope of any exemptions, and whether ECHA adjusts its rules for vetting and managing conflicts in expert contracts. Separately, litigation risk is rising: companies are expected to challenge sweeping restrictions, while communities affected by PFAS pollution pursue compensation. Brussels’ credibility test will be whether the final rule reads as the product of independent science—or the gloss of a well‑oiled lobbying ecosystem.

Data and documentation

Watchdog groups say their complaint draws on contract listings, transparency registers and consultancy marketing materials. A Financial Times investigation reported that Ramboll simultaneously advised ECHA on PFAS and worked for chemical makers, including industry groups lobbying on the file. ECHA has acknowledged the updated restriction proposal; legal and trade advisories have circulated technical briefings to clients since late August.

Correction mechanism

If ECHA ultimately validates the absence of a conflict in its procurement, the controversy may still influence how future contracts are structured—potentially mandating broader cooling‑off periods, more granular disclosure of client rosters, and independent peer‑review for consultant‑produced analyses.

Bottom line

Europe’s PFAS push is a stress test for how the green transition is governed. The science is complex, the stakes are high, and the machinery of policymaking increasingly depends on outside experts. That makes the choice of who advises—and who pays them—more than a procedural detail. It goes to the heart of public trust.

Sources

• Financial Times, “EU hired advisers on ‘forever chemicals’ who worked for manufacturers” (September 2025).

• The Good Lobby — “The Good Lobby Joins Complaint Over ECHA’s Conflict of Interest with Ramboll” (18 July 2025).

• Transparency International EU — “Complaint: the ECHA’s contracts with Ramboll” (17 July 2025).

• ECHA Weekly — Notice of updated PFAS restriction proposal publication (27 August 2025).

• Law firm briefings summarising ECHA’s 20 August 2025 update to the PFAS restriction proposal.