See text links
below.
By Kevin Munn
| ABIQUIM
Brazil |
Mr. M. Kos Silveira Campos
Phone: + 55 11373481 Fax: + 55 11377791 |
| ANDI
Colombia |
Mr. G. Munevar
Phone: + 57 2458268 Fax: + 57 2884367 |
| ANTQ
Mexico |
Mr. M. Benedetto
Phone: + 52 55597833 Fax: + 52 55595589 |
| APEQ
Portugal |
Mrs. L. Penedo
Phone: + 351 17979715 Fax: + 351 17936424 |
| ASIQUIM
Chile |
Mr. S. Cembrano
Phone: + 56 22033350 Fax: + 56 22033351 |
| CAIA
South Africa |
Mr. P. Hart
Phone: + 27 114821671 Fax: + 27 117268310 |
| CCPA
Canada |
Mr. B.R. Wastle
Phone: + 1 6132376215 Fax: + 1 6132374061 |
| CEFIC | Mr. B. Tessier
Phone: + 32 26767211 Fax: + 32 26767300 |
| CIA
United Kingdom |
Mr. S. Aaron
Phone: + 44 1718343399 Fax: + 44 171834469 |
| CICM
Malaysia |
Ms. E. Boey
Phone: + 60 32931244 Fax: + 60 32935105 |
| CIQyP
Argentina |
Dr. N. Culler
Phone: + 54 13131059 Fax: + 54 13124773 |
| CMA
United States |
Mr. R.M. Doyle
Phone: + 1 7037415300 Fax: + 1 7037416300 |
| FCIO
Austria |
Dr. F. Latzko
Phone: + 47 1501053367 Fax: + 47 150206280 |
| FDKI
Denmark |
Mr. J. Jessen
Phone: + 45 33151748 Fax: + 45 33151722 |
| FEDERCHIMICA
Italy |
Mr. A. Fieschi
Phone: + 39 226810357 Fax: + 39 226810329 |
| FEIQUE
Spain |
Mr. F. Perez Garcia
Phone: + 34 14317964 Fax: + 34 15763381 |
| FIC/FCN
Belgium |
Mrs. C. Bosch
Phone: + 32 22389711 Fax: + 32 22311301 |
| GENKEM
Zimbabwe |
Mr. D. Chikaka
Phone: + 263 4796317 Fax: + 263 4750334 |
| HACI
Greece |
Mr. C. Masmanidis
Phone: + 30 16800640 Fax: + 30 16138574 |
| ICMA
India |
Mr. N.J. Hate
Phone: + 91 222047649 Fax: + 91 222048057 |
| ICRI
Poland |
Mr. W. Lubiewa-Wielezynski
Phone: + 48 226339511 Fax: + 48 226338295 |
| IPCMF
Ireland |
Dr. R.C. Cathcart
Phone: + 353 16601011 Fax: + 353 16601717 |
| JCIA
Japan |
Mr. M. Kawamata
Phone: + 81 335801381 Fax: + 81 335801383 |
| KEMIKONTORET
Sweden |
Mrs. I. Lundstrom
Phone: + 46 87838159 Fax: + 46 86636323 |
| KPIA
South Korea |
M.H. Bae
Phone: + 82 27440116 Fax: + 82 27431887 |
| KSD
Turkey |
Dr. C. Zanbak
Phone: + 90 2164169439 Fax: + 90 2164169218 |
| KT RY
Finland |
Mr. A. Kastinon
Phone: + 358 9172841 Fax: + 358 9630225 |
| MAVESZ
Hungary |
Dr. L. Csurgai
Phone: + 36 13438920 Fax: + 36 13430980 |
| NZCIC
New Zealand |
Mr. B.S. Dyer
Phone: + 64 44994311 Fax: + 64 44994223 |
| PACIA
Australia |
Mr. J. Smith
Phone: + 61 396996299 Fax: + 61 396996717 |
| PIAT
Taiwan, China |
H.P. Lee
Phone: + 886 23966007 Fax: + 886 23960755 |
| PIL
Norway |
Mr. B. Haug
Phone: + 47 22961000 Fax: + 47 22961099 |
| SCHFP
Slovak Republic |
Mrs. S. Surova
Phone: + 42 862430841 Fax: + 42 862430261 |
| SCHP
Czech Republic |
Mr. M. Krejci
Phone: + 42 267154131 Fax: + 42 267154130 |
| SGCI/SSIC
Switzerland |
Mr. R. Gamma
Phone: + 41 13681711 Fax: + 41 13681770 |
| SCIC
Singapore |
O. Chwee-kim
Phone: + 65 8645850 Fax: + 65 8613513 |
| SPIK
Philippines |
Mr. W.V. Simsch
Phone: + 91 8912140 Fax: not available |
| UIC
France |
Ms. M.-H. Leroy
Phone: + 33 146531100 Fax: + 33 146531104 |
| VCI
Germany |
Dr. P. Druckrey
Phone: + 49 6925561445 Fax: + 49 6925561607 |
| VNCI | Mr. D.J. Van Namen
Netherlands Phone: + 31 703378787 Fax: + 31 703203903 |
-- If not, what should be changed in RC programmes to allow them to achieve their ends?
-- To what extent and through what methods are RC priorities incorporated into corporate decision-making?
-- To what extent are ex-management stakeholders (workers' representatives, community and environmental groups) involved in dialogue centring on RC issues?
-- Are any of your members expanding their RC programmes to incorporate additional issues/concerns?
(3) Credibility, self-policing, and stakeholder perceptions.
-- Do your members feel that they have achieved credible progress under their RC (and other voluntary initiative) programmes?
-- Do they feel that the other stakeholders (governments, workers' representatives, environmental/community groups) share their perception? Why or why not?
-- Have your members employed self- or independent verification of their RC progress?
-- Does the association have any self-policing initiatives under way (or under development) with respect to RC and environmental performance? If so, would you please describe them. Are sanctions imposed upon firms whose RC programmes are deemed inadequate (and are there examples)?
-- What do your members see as the major obstacles to obtaining stakeholder acceptance of their RC programmes as credible initiatives?
-- For your members with operations in other nations, is RC applied equally in the extra- national branches of these firms? To what extent and on whose responsibility are RC efforts coordinated in the different locales (locally, centrally, or a mix)? Have they experienced difficulties in applying RC uniformly?
(4) Management standards (EMAS, BS 7750 and ISO 14000).
-- How many of your members have performed (or are likely to perform) a self- or independent evaluation and modified their operations to be in conformance with one of the above standards?
-- What do your members think of the impact of these standards on their trade? Are you aware of any situations wherein a company which conformed to one of these standards enjoyed a competitive advantage because of it (or vice versa)?
-- How, if at all, are RC programmes linked to the above or related standards? Will these efforts be somehow combined?
-- Are any of your members employing previous efforts (e.g. ISO 9000 or other quality management means, environmental reporting, etc.) as guidelines for their environmental management? Are there "bridging documents" in preparation?
-- How does your association and its members see the relative importance of these standards as compared to RC? In considering that RC addresses environmental and health and safety performance as opposed to the standards, which largely concern the existence of adequate environmental management systems, does the association or its members feel that RC is a more rigorous programme in terms of environmental performance?
(5) Other voluntary initiatives
-- Are there other VIs (e.g. covenants) under way in your country, wherein your members and regulatory agencies have set out environmental performance targets (e.g. a schedule of reductions for chemical emissions)? Are these targets being met? Are there penalties for failure to achieve the targets?
-- Are there VIs for improvements in safety and health performance?
(6) RC and VIs in developing countries
-- Does the association participate in bi- or multilateral exchange programmes aimed at fostering the adoption of RC in nations where it is not yet fully applied?
I greatly appreciate your and your members cooperation in this study. Please feel free to contact me should you desire clarification or further information.
Regards,
Kevin Munn,
Consultant to ILO,
25, rue des Eaux-Vives,
CH-1207 Genève.
ph/fax: +41 22 700-1584
email: km1@iprolink.ch
-- recognition in the community;
-- improvement of programmes that are already good, through the internal and external review that is part of the VPP application process;
-- VPP participant sites generally experience from 60 to 80 per cent fewer lost workday injuries than would be expected of an "average" site of the same size in their industries.
-- all VPP participants are expected to demonstrate continuous improvement during their annual (merit and demonstration) and triennial (star) evaluations.
The VPP take resources that could better be used in enforcement:
-- in FY 1992, using OSHA data, 2.46 full-time equivalent OSHA safety compliance specialists and 2.46 full-time equivalent OSHA industrial hygienists were used to conduct the 65 pre-approval and participant evaluation VPP onsites;
-- using OSHA data, 196 safety inspections and 65 health inspections could have been conducted if these employees had not been on VPP onsite visits;
-- the number of compliance inspections lost to VPP activity is probably overstated because the VPP process is more efficient with compliance officer preparation and report writing responsibilities included in the VPP time.
There are only big companies, primarily petrochemical, in the VPP:
-- as of 10 May 1995, there were 109 participants from 51 different companies in the VPP;
-- eight are single-site companies without ties to major corporations. One small business, defined as 500 or less employees, has two sites in the star programme;
-- twenty-one of the companies with 57 sites in the VPP fall into the petrochemical class;
-- other major industries represented include construction, food processing, health care, general manufacturing, research and development, storage and distribution, textiles, utilities and wood and paper products;
-- in 1992, 19 non-petrochemical worksites and five petrochemical worksites were approved to the VPP.
The VPP are only paper programmes:
-- a written comprehensive safety and health programme that meets rigorous OSHA criteria is a requirement for VPP participation;
-- implementation of this written programme is verified through a comprehensive walk through the worksite;
-- implementation is further verified through private formal interviews with employees.
It is a small programme with no impact:
-- in 1992 VPP participants has average lost workday case rates that were 62 per cent below their industry averages thereby avoiding 2,228 cases that would have occurred if these worksites had been average;
-- VPP participants avoided 4,181 injuries at their worksites in 1992;
-- good safety and health programme management impacts the parent corporation as well as the individual worksite.
Many VPP participants are surprised when, after approval, they are contacted by other companies in their industries to learn how to provide better safety and health protection at their worksites.
The VPP are designed to circumvent labour unions:
-- currently 25 unionized worksites representing 26,687 employees participate in the VPP; their business agents are required to declare in writing they are in favour of the site's participation or the site cannot participate;
-- the unions represented include; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the United Plant Guard Workers of America; the United Food and Commercial Workers of America; the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers; the American Flint Glass Workers Union; the International Union of Operating Engineers; the Freeport Metal Trades Council; the United Paper Workers International; the International Association of Machinists; the Sheet Metal Workers International Association; the Teamsters; the Office and Professional Employees International; and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades;
-- the VPP require meaningful employee involvement in the safety and health programme at all worksites.
VPP onsites (inspections) are not as thorough as compliance inspections:
-- VPP onsites are more thorough than compliance inspections;
-- OSHA safety specialists and industrial hygienists spend one and a half to two days thoroughly examining the entire worksite to identify the types of hazardous conditions that exist;
-- the worksite is required to thoroughly inspect to determine that all types of hazardous conditions that may have been identified have been appropriately corrected;
-- the worksite is further required to determine what part of the safety and health programme needs improvement to ensure that the types of hazards are identified and corrected expeditiously;
-- at the next scheduled evaluation, OSHA ensures that this programme improvement is working effectively;
-- essentially, OSHA expects each VPP worksite to act as its own mini-OSHA when examining safety and health conditions at that worksite;
-- in addition to the compliance type inspection, a thorough examination of the written safety and health programme is conducted to ensure that it is comprehensive in nature and provides protection to employees against all the hazards and potential hazards that may exist in the workplace.
60 Communiqué from B. Tessier to K. Munn.
61 OSHA, OSHA voluntary protection programmes, Internet address: http://www.osha.gov/oshprogs/vpp/overview.html.
