The resource question behind the next investment
Varun Sharma | Founder perspective
A manufacturing improvement becomes commercially interesting when someone can decide what to do with it. A lower material input, a shorter cycle or a recovery opportunity may be valuable. The difficult part is establishing which difference matters, under what operating conditions and whether it deserves the next pound of investment.
The number is the start of a question
Consider process mass intensity: the material input required for a given mass of product. The ACS framework includes water in that input boundary, making it a useful way to look beyond the product itself (ACS, 2014). It can help a team identify where materials are being committed. It does not, by itself, tell an investor which project to fund. A similar input ratio can conceal different hazards, energy demands, suppliers and waste destinations. The number becomes useful when it points towards a choice that a responsible team can investigate.
Follow the material into the next ledger
A solvent recovered from one stream still needs somewhere useful to go. Collection is not the same as a fresh purchase avoided. Separation may require heat, analysis, storage and a final residue route. A more concentrated stream may be easier to recover and harder to handle. These are not reasons to abandon recovery. They are the questions that give the commercial case substance. EMA's chemistry guidance places recovered materials within a product-specific process and impurity-risk context, rather than treating recovery as a free-standing benefit (EMA, 2026).
Give the comparison a fair job
The strongest baseline is often the process already available to the customer, operated with its actual constraints. Compare the same accepted output, not one idealised development run against an ordinary production week. Include repeated work, waiting and practical utilisation. If one option releases equipment time, ask what useful activity can occupy it. Capacity is valuable when there is a use for it; a theoretical extra shift is not automatically revenue. The same discipline applies to an option that looks favourable only when its equipment operates continuously.
Keep the measures separate long enough to understand them
Cost, material consumption, energy, water and quality answer different questions. Combining them too early into an unexplained score can hide the reason a proposal is attractive or unacceptable. The European Commission's resource-efficiency work recognises the importance of material flows and lifecycle methods in examining circular options (European Commission JRC, n.d.). My view is that an investment discussion should retain those distinctions. A team should be able to see when an option moves a burden elsewhere, and decide whether that trade is justified by the evidence and the intended use.
Buy the evidence that could change the decision
Before committing to an installation, identify the uncertain assumption most likely to reverse the recommendation. It might be stream composition, recovery quality, the availability of a heat sink or the frequency of a cleaning failure. A focused study can be more valuable than a larger dashboard when it resolves that uncertainty. Agree the comparator, the data owner and the meaning of success before reviewing results. A useful paid scope should finish with a decision, a specific next experiment or a justified reason to defer, rather than a permanent request for more information.
An industrial opportunity with a clear next step
This is the role I want Resource Economics to play within NEUVIOR: connect scientific and engineering possibilities with decisions that businesses can act on. The initial proposition is deliberately specific. One process, a credible baseline, an explicit boundary and a result another person can challenge. Specialist facilities and qualified partners would be selected around the work required. The ambition is substantial because the questions recur across manufacturing, but repetition should follow evidence that a particular approach is useful. A negative feasibility result can be commercially valuable when it prevents a poor investment.
References
ACS (2014) Process Mass Intensity Calculation Tool. Available at: https://www.acs.org/green-chemistry-sustainability/green-chemistry-nexus/articles/process-mass-intensity-calculation-tool.html (Accessed: 13 October 2026).
EMA (2026) Guideline on the chemistry of active substances. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-chemistry-active-substances_en.pdf (Accessed: 13 October 2026).
European Commission JRC (n.d.) Circular economy: indicators, tools and methods. Available at: https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CE (Accessed: 13 October 2026).
A decision worth discussing
NEUVIOR welcomes a specific question from an organisation considering its next programme, process or investment. The useful starting point is the decision, the people responsible and the evidence that could change it.
