See text links
below.
By Kevin Munn
Labour The workers' organizations which contributed to this study were the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) and the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers' Union of Canada (CEP). The former referred to the text on Responsible Care which was prepared for the Eleventh Session of the Chemical Industries Committee, in May 1995, on the subject, and which is reproduced below.31 ICEM indicated that their position on Responsible Care was essentially unchanged, and that they felt that workers' representatives, with few exceptions, were not parties to the formation of the paradigms and goals of the programme and are still not consulted when companies develop their Responsible Care activities.32
A view from ICEM:
A great deal of interest and publicity has surrounded the chemical industry's Responsible Care programme. This has ranged from the unabashed self-praise of some of the companies involved, to suspicion and even outright rejection of the programme from other individuals and groups. The polarization is hardly surprising.
The Responsible Care programme is, in large part, the chemical industry's attempt to demonstrate that stricter legislation and control of the industry is not necessary, and that it is perfectly capable of putting its own house in order. Those endorsing the programme obviously have a vested interest in defending it.
ICEF (now ICEM) believes that the long term environmentally sustainable performance of industry is principally an industry responsibility. Any company that behaves responsibly and looks to the long term deserves the full support of workers, their unions and the general public. But it is not reasonable to ask that a programme of responsible care be accepted at face value. There has to be some way of assessing it on its merits. After all, industry does not ask -- and is not permitted to ask -- that its financial performance be accepted on trust. Figures have to be produced and verified independently. It is recognized that some participating companies -- especially in the United States and Europe -- do collect data on emissions, site safety and energy and make it available to the public. But this aspect of the programme appears to be unevenly adhered to, and suffers from a lack of cross-comparability of the data owing to the different collection and dissemination procedures adopted by the various participating companies.
The Responsible Care programme is inherently but not fatally flawed. Claims that companies are starting to clean up their act -- even if true -- cannot be unequivocally attributed to the Responsible Care programme. The reason is that in parallel with the programme, we still have legislation and standard setting. It can be argued that it is at least as likely that the improvements are a direct result of this legislation -- actual or in prospect. ICEF believes that it is not a question of Responsible Care or legislation but a mixture of both; the relationship must be symbiotic.
The lack of worker and public acceptance of the Responsible Care programme is unfortunate, not least from the point of view of the truly committed companies which have signed up to it; because whatever advances and improvements they are making may well be unappreciated or ignored by a sceptical workforce and general public.
The protection of human health and safety and the environment are such important imperatives that anything designed to further these goals should be actively supported. These objectives should be pursued in an open manner with the full involvement of workers, their unions and citizens groups. The protection of human health and safety and the environment should be a guiding principle of chemical companies -- indeed, of all sectors of industry. Most people want to believe that the chemical industry's Responsible Care programme is everything that industry claims of it. They are unlikely to do so until they have more independent and objective ways of establishing the reality of the situation.
The Responsible Care programme has been around for some time, but there remains a considerable lingering scepticism about it. This is not an insurmountable problem, and ICEF would be happy to join with employers and their industry associations to identify additional changes needed to achieve full worker and public trust in the programme, a trust that must be based on fact rather than faith, experienced rather than simply expressed.
CEP of Canada provides an additional, more recent statement of a trade union view of Responsible Care:33
Q: Is RC working? Have there been concrete steps taken, and measurable progress seen, in the areas of environment, health and safety?
CEP: Responsible Care has been successful as a voluntary, consensus-building initiative in the chemical industry. Concrete steps have been taken by some industries to improve their performance, image, and communication with the community. For this, we commend the chemical industry. The chemical industry states in its Responsible Care documents that a combination of voluntary initiatives and a "degree" of government regulation are necessary. Our chief criticism of industry's position on these issues has been their attempt to argue, in some cases, that voluntary initiatives can replace regulation. Our view is that: (i) there will always be a need for both, and; (ii) strong laws are needed even where a strong consensus exists.
"Industry" is a broad group whose members should be working towards a consensus on environmental responsibility and occupational health and safety. It is not a criticism of Responsible Care or other voluntary efforts that labour continues to insist on strong, enforceable regulations.
Q: To what extent are ex-management stakeholders (workers' representatives, community and environmental groups) involved in dialogue centring on RC issues?
CEP: There is no effective structured input to the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association in a policy, priority, or direction-setting sense to the Responsible Care programmes from any outsiders. It is entirely an industrial management-driven programme. I think that there was some labour involvement in the very early days of Responsible Care, when the idea was first being developed; however, that involvement has long since ended.
In the implementation of specific initiatives, there have been, and are, opportunities for labour, community and environmental groups to meet with management at the local factory level, in some locations and some of the time. These consultations are of course "at the pleasure of local management" and any opinions expressed, or even consensus decisions reached, are non-binding on the industry.
In occupational health and safety, the regulatory environment in Canada usually provides for mandatory joint union-management health and safety committees (JHSCs) at the local plant level. These pre-date Responsible Care. There is no comparable legislation requiring joint union-management environment committees (JECs) but we have been successful in negotiating these in some cases, or in adding environmental concerns to the mandate of existing JHSCs in others.
For input at a level higher than the local plant, Responsible Care states that industry "... has participated in a variety of consultative efforts in conjunction with governments, labour, private interest groups and other business sectors. It strongly supports the continuation of this process. ...". It stops short of saying the industry will initiate these consultations or abide by the advice they receive.
Q: To what extent and through what methods are RC priorities identified with and incorporated into corporate decision-making and collective bargaining?
CEP: Health, safety and environmental matters may be given higher or lower priority depending on the ethics and structure of the particular corporation. Some corporations are to be commended for their high standards in these areas. Others are not.
Responsible Care issues have not specifically been the subject of collective bargaining, although occupational health and safety and environmental issues (often related to the structure and function of joint committees, and the rights of workers) have been bargained collectively.
Q: For multinational firms, is there any experience amongst workers wherein they work through and with a multinational to improve working conditions in other countries? Are such efforts carried out voluntarily by all parties and with the support of the firm? Are they run under the auspices of an RC/VI programme?
CEP: Environmental and occupational health and safety standards vary from region to region and country to country within the same firm. Depending on the ethics and structure of the corporation, these variations can be moderate or they can be shockingly wide. It is interesting to note that standard risk-assessment schemes actually favour an unequal treatment of different regions within the same firm (i.e. if those who face a hazard already earn little, have a low quality of life and a low life expectancy, then by economic and civil law definition their lives are worth "less" than the lives of comparable workers in more developed countries and the "risk" to the corporation from any impact on their lives is also "less"). (Risk assessment is specified as part of Responsible Care.)
Workers have had their best success in monitoring and applying pressure to reduce these differences through the trade union internationals such as (for example) the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) or the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The International Labour Organization (ILO) has played an important role.
It is difficult to assess whether Responsible Care or other voluntary initiatives have had an impact on regional or international variations in performance.
Q: RC pledges strong support to both environmental concerns and to those of H&S. Do you feel these are given equal priority in the practice of RC?
CEP: Responsible Care seems to have had more of a profile in environmental concerns, than in occupational health and safety. In Canada, the message from employers has been clear that their wish is for less regulation, and less enforcement of regulations, in occupational health and safety. Perhaps for reasons of public image, industry has been more subtle in their demands regarding environmental regulations.
Notwithstanding the above reservations, Responsible Care was a significant achievement for the chemical industry. Anything that attempts to build an ethical framework around production is worthy of some praise.
Labour does not feel it is a participating partner in Responsible Care. This view was echoed by virtually all the national chemical industry associations, either in their literature or in conversations. Almost all examples supplied by associations to draw attention to the way that Responsible Care works and what it has accomplished show no involvement of workers' representatives. There are examples of labour-management cooperation on environmental issues in general, and the health and safety committees which are mandatory in some countries are frequently the fora for these expanded relations. The distinction made here is that none of these relations were identified as taking place under the auspices of Responsible Care.
Reasons for the lack of participation in the programme by workers' representatives were not clear. It was repeatedly stated by all the social partners that ESH concerns are a high priority for their organizations. Yet inroads to a lasting and productive dialogue remain elusive. Communication is at the heart of Responsible Care; open dialogue is a fundamental tenet of the programme. If Responsible Care fails to bring about an improvement in public attitudes, there will likely be grave consequences for the chemical industry, including for the workers whose livelihoods depend on it. As Jon Holtzman of CMA noted, the perceptions of those who work in the industry matter for its long-term future: "Our challenge is nothing less than the preservation of the industry. All of the studies show that by the year 2000 we will be 400,000 short of scientifically and technically trained people in the United States. Where will the precious few who do have that training want to work? In the industry with a reputation for screwing everything up and causing all the problems? Or in an industry that is seen as responsive and responsible? The long-term health of this industry depends on who we can attract to its ranks. We just won't have a chance if we fail to make this initiative work."34
Government
Many governments are deeply involved in developing voluntary initiatives in the form of bilateral agreements, both specifically with the chemicals (and other) industries, and generally as a potential vehicle for more efficient ESH performance improvement. Responsible Care contacts, however, were not easily identifiable, and only one representative (in Canada, at the federal level) could be contacted for discussions on Responsible Care.
Environment Canada's view on Responsible Care is positive. While the programme is viewed in the general category of environmental management systems and is clearly not seen as a substitute for enforceable legislation, a radical change in the mind-set of the industry as a whole has been noted. As John Prizen noted, "Prior to Responsible Care the Government would frequently come up against the attitude amongst chemical executives of `It's not my concern what customers do with a chemical [after I sell it to them]'", whereas now, "We are quite pleased. The chemical producers are viewed as more cooperative than the other industries".35 He also noted how the programme had created an atmosphere where it was easier to communicate on other issues as well, for example when formulating the current voluntary agreements. These changes have been recognized in public awards for CCPA's former president and CCPA itself.
Environmental NGOs
Given the nature of their structures and their priorities, NGOs would be expected to be heavily involved in Responsible Care activities. Indications are that this is not the case. No real survey of environmental NGOs was carried out as this was beyond the scope of this report, but it can be noted that the Responsible Care literature collected for this study contained no references to environmental NGOs on a national or local level, with the exceptions of the national advisory panels in Canada, United States and Australia. Only one incidental reference was found, to comments by Friends of the Earth in the UK, which was very critical of the programme.36
-- ensure the integrity of the worldwide development of the programme;
-- protect the collective identity of Responsible Care;
-- provide a focal point for the promotion, approval and endorsement of non-ICCA member associations' adoption of the programme;
-- ensure that programme implementation is consistent with the objectives of continuous improvement of ESH performance; and
-- develop mechanisms for the sharing of experience, progress and management processes at both the national and company levels.
RCLG is composed of 12-15 members nominated by ICCA member associations (CCPA, CMA, CEFIC, JCIA, and the Australian Chemical Industry Council -- ACIC). RCLG has assembled a document, referred to earlier in this chapter, which describes the programme through detailing the seven "fundamental features" of Responsible Care.
The document goes on to give examples of guiding principles, letters of commitment, extracts of codes, guidance notes and checklists, performance indicators, rules for use of the logo and more.
Details on specific activities carried out through the RCLG were not supplied.
The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), beyond its participation in RCLG, also coordinates a number of international Responsible Care activities within Europe. Being in an advantageous position (having 18 national chemical industry associations as members), CEFIC has taken steps to promote the spread of Responsible Care with a view to also demonstrating and augmenting the potential international benefits of the programme. Activities include:
-- an initiative that seeks to prevent chemical transport accidents and minimize the impact of those which do occur. A collective system for assessment of transport companies and efforts to improve specialized assistance at the scene of transport accidents are the aspects developed under the initiative;
-- endorsement of, and preparation of guidelines for, annual environmental reports. A consistent approach will allow more effective diffusion of data to concerned stakeholders. CEFIC reports that over 50 per cent of its member companies are expected to publish such reports. CEFIC also sponsors the Environmental Advisory Service for Transfer of Technology (EASTT), a not-for-profit programme aimed at achieving maximum benefits from environmental and energy-saving investments in chemical companies in Central and Eastern European countries.
For these three programmes, the respective national chemical industries have made strong progress in achieving their goals. For the majority of the targeted pollutants, the stated reductions are expected to be attained within the programmed time-frames. Many of the reductions have been achieved ahead of schedule.
The scope and breadth of the programmes and the pollutants targeted are, in brief, as follows:
-- the US 33/50 programme targets 17 "high-priority" chemicals. These were identified through the toxics release inventory (TRI) reporting requirements, the principle EPA information-gathering vehicle for monitoring facility compliance with environmental regulations. For applicable facilities, TRI reporting is mandatory;
-- the Canadian accelerated reduction/elimination of toxics (ARET) programme encompasses a large number of pollutants: 117 chemical substances are monitored by the participants and annual reports are submitted detailing emissions;
-- the Netherlands' "Declaration of Intent on the Implementation of Environmental Policy for the Chemical Industry" not only addresses chemical emissions (for approximately 35 substances) but also sets out performance targets in such areas as waste disposal and recycling, noise levels, odours and soil decontamination.
Details for these programmes are presented below.
Some nations which are moving towards broader use of VIs are tackling their problems through a staged approach. For example, the Australian Greenhouse Challenge Programme is directed at reducing greenhouse gases, but ostensibly serves as a blueprint for more ambitious future VIs:
The Greenhouse Challenge is a cooperative effort by industry and government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary industry action. Participation in the challenge will be through "cooperative agreements" between the Government and industry participants. The objective of these agreements is to capture the capacity of industry to abate its greenhouse emissions, mainly by improving its efficiency in energy use and processing.
The Greenhouse Challenge is a prototype for future market-driven, non-regulatory environmental programmes. It holds the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions by the year 2000 and beyond. 38,39
31 ILO, Recent developments in the chemical industry
32 Telephone interview with R. Green, ICEM, 22 Oct. 1996.
33 Communiqué from B. Kohler to K. Munn, 7 Jan. 1997.
34 G.C. Lodge and J.F. Rayport, Responsible Care
35 Telephone interview with J. Prizen, Environment Canada, Ottowa, 14 Jan. 1997.
36 FOE-UK, Voluntary approach of industry proves inadequate yet again,
37 ICCA-RCLG, Responsible Care implementation guide for associations
38 DPIE, DPIENet-GH Challenge Pamphlet
environment/greenhouse/challenge/pamphlet.html.
39 DPIE, DPIENet-GH Challenge Pamphlet
