See text links
below.
By Kevin Munn
Country/association: Canada/CCPA -- Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
Year Responsible Care adopted: 1986
Condition of membership?: Yes
-- "ensure that its operations do not present an unacceptable level of risk ...";
-- "provide relevant information on the hazards of chemicals to its customers ... and make such information available to the public on request"; and
-- "increase the emphasis on the understanding of existing products and their uses and ensure that a high level of understanding of new products and their potential hazards is achieved prior to and throughout commercial development".1
-- "develops information for both responsive and proactive communication with the community" and "requires active participation, cooperation and coordination by company personnel with local officials and the media during development and communication of the [emergency action] plan to the community" -- community awareness and emergency response COP;
-- prior to new product/process R&D, "require that protocols and methodology are in place to ensure that health, safety and environmental hazards are identified and evaluated as early as possible, and standards for operations are defined" and with the product/process introduction "provide potential customers with information about hazards ..." and "subsequently check back to confirm that customers are following responsible handling, use and waste management practices" -- research and development COP; and
-- "if a company cannot bring about changes to its hazardous waste management practices to meet the requirements of this code, it shall discontinue operations which produce this waste" -- hazardous waste management COP.2
Statements of a similar nature are found in the transportation COP, the distribution COP, and the manufacturing (process safety) COP.
The GPs obviously leave much room for interpretation as to what constitutes an "unacceptable level of risk" and do not go significantly beyond the legal requirements and good business practice standards which exist outside of Responsible Care. The main exception here is the stated principle of being proactive and more open with the general public.
In spite of these reservations, however, CCPA has one of the strongest, most advanced and most credible Responsible Care programmes. The COPs are one of the elements which explain this strength. As outlined above, these are comprehensive, detailed and stipulate actions which go far beyond legal requirements.
Another point which also provides a large measure of credibility to CCPA's programme is the use of local verification teams.3, 4 These are four-person teams which are wholly independent from the company, composed of ordinary citizens, industry members, environmentalists and academics. Over several days, each team goes on plant tours, conducts extensive interviews, examines company documents and makes calls to neighbours, customers and suppliers. Team members then write a detailed report, and the company shares the results of that report with employees, neighbours and peers. The reports may bestow praise for accomplishments made under the Responsible Care programme, but some are also blunt to point out areas for improvement. Companies have the occasion to respond to the teams findings and take corrective measures. Only after this does the team "sign off" on the process. This is not to say that there may not be unresolved points of disagreement between the team members and the company, but that the company has reviewed the teams' findings and responded as it judged appropriate. The company is then required to make the report and its feedback available to the local community through its community outreach channels. This type of open external scrutiny and verification is the most advanced and credible instrument of its kind to be reported by any national association.
Yet another element in the CCPA programme which lends a substantial boost to the programme's credibility is the National Advisory Panel (NAP).5 Established in 1986, the NAP is made up of 15 individuals from across Canada who have demonstrated leadership and interest in issues related to the chemical industry. These members include environmental activists, consumer advocates, educators, and experts in ecological science, environmental economics, risk assessment, epidemiology, human health and safety, labour issues, transportation issues, engineering, agriculture and chemical products retailing. The panel meets three to four times a year, and comments on all current and proposed activities under Responsible Care. While the documentation provided by CCPA did not specify the extent of NAP's influence on the decisions and ultimate makeup of Responsible Care programme elements and focal areas, the diversity of the panel and its prominence in the CCPA programme literature leave no doubt that NAP has considerable influence on the direction of the CCPA programme.
Performance indicators are not very well developed for the CCPA programme, and considerable room exists for more meaningful reporting. Currently, CCPA collects data from members in three areas: transportation incidents, waste emissions, and recordable workplace injuries.6, 7 Given the wide-ranging and in-depth scope of the COPs, it is arguable that by limiting its reporting of indicators to this aggregate data (which is probably required to be submitted via legislation in any case), CCPA is missing an occasion to reap the benefits of its extensive efforts in programme development.
The Responsible Care programme does in fact call for reporting to gauge progress, and the detailed level of the COP would infer that a detailed level of reporting would be both possible and in order. The introduction to the COP8 makes reference to "the frequency and means by which progress reports can be made to the association" so as to judge the level of implementation of the individual COP. However the COP themselves give guidance neither regarding submission, nor content, nor frequency for these reports. Until corporate performance under the COP can be defensibly demonstrated, it seems reasonable to say that the accomplishments of the programme will remain difficult to ascertain, present, defend and verify, and that the credibility of the programme will remain in some doubt.
One last element of the CCPA programme which is notable is the requirement that CCPA members apply Responsible Care principles and codes to member company operations both inside and outside of Canada. CCPA's programme is unique in requiring global adherence. But as reported by Krut,9 CCPA collects member data only on Canadian operations, and expects its members' foreign operations to adhere to Responsible Care in those locations and to report to the foreign chemical association. He points out the possibility for confusion with CCPA making global statements but reporting on a domestic level. CCPA did not provide any data that would indicate it was cognizant of its Canadian members' overseas operations.
Country/association: United States/CMA -- Chemical Manufacturers' Association
Year Responsible Care adopted: 1988
Condition of membership?: Yes
The COP centre primarily on elements of product/process safety and community relations. They provide in-depth guidance on the operational, relational and managerial practices required to assess and control ESH elements in the spirit of the GPs. Examples of text from the COPs are:11
-- [member facilities are required to have] "An ongoing dialogue with employees to respond to their questions and concerns and involve them in community outreach efforts", "A regular evaluation of the effectiveness of the ongoing employee communications efforts", and "A policy of openness that provides convenient ways for interested persons to become familiar with the facility, its operations, and products, and its efforts to protect safety, health, and the environment" -- community awareness and emergency response COP;
-- "Opportunities for employees to participate in developing, implementing, and reviewing health and safety programs", "Means to verify that health and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures" -- employee health and safety COP; and
-- "Provides health, safety and environmental information to direct product receivers. Commensurate with product risk, works with them to foster proper use, handling, recycling, disposal and transmittal of appropriate information to downstream users. When a company identifies improper practices involving a product, it will work with the product receiver to improve those practices. If, in the company's independent judgement, improvement is not evident, then the company should take further measures -- up to and including termination of product sale" -- product stewardship COP.
CMA has in place two mechanisms for direct public involvement in company programmes: the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and a National Advisory Panel (NAP).12 Both provide for direct input of all stakeholders into the Responsible Care programmes; the CAPs work at the facility level and the NAP works on the national level. Both have been integral elements of the CMA programme since its inception.
The CAPs typically include a cross section of community representatives who meet regularly to discuss issues ranging from plant expansion, to local educational needs, to helping the plant site develop environmental improvement plans. The number of locations working within the framework of a CAP has grown steadily -- there were 56 CAPs in 1991 and 316 in 1996. To further develop the benefits available through the CAP structure, CMA hosted two workshops in 1995 where it invited CAP members from different locations to share experiences.
The development of CAPs is a basic element required for Responsible Care to function. They are not, in and of themselves, however, sufficient to demonstrate that an effective, complete and responsive community dialogue has been established. CMA provided no information that could be identified as having been collected from the CAPs. Data collected and presented statistically from the CAPs to define their opinions of the effectiveness of their relations or to qualify the impact that they have on corporate decisions would be excellent vehicles for showing Responsible Care's achievements and for stimulating the establishment of CAPs in other member locations. Perhaps the collection of this type of data is difficult due to the diverse structures that the CAPs would assume in the different locations, but the lack of any published feedback from the groups remains a questionable omission.
The NAP is made up of 16 citizens actively involved in a wide range of public issues. It meets four to five times per year, and provides independent advice to CMA on the implementation of Responsible Care. The NAP frequently makes comments critical of CMA and of its members' progress under the programme. It is not clear to what extent the NAP concerns are taken into account in the ongoing development of Responsible Care at CMA or with its members.
In 1996, the NAP noted what it considered slow-to-significant progress in the areas of public involvement and community responsiveness, cultural change and external evaluation. It also mentioned in its comments on these areas that involvement of line employees and outside companies in Responsible Care has historically been slow, and that the key elements still missing to achieve full public credibility of CMA's management systems verification process (see below) were public involvement, making verification mandatory, sharing of the results with the public, and linking company performance with the verification process in a way that is meaningful to the public. In reporting on responsible advocacy, the NAP considered certain industry positions on risk assessment and chlorine issues (among others) to be against the spirit of Responsible Care and to "threaten ... the credibility of the Responsible Care effort".
Beyond the CAPs and NAP, CMA is also developing a further tool with the potential to greatly bolster the credibility of its programme. The management systems verification (MSV) scheme13 is a developing process of third-party reviews of the Responsible Care programmes at individual firms. Participating companies discuss their experiences and code management systems for applying the codes with a verification team which includes public participants and industry peers. This provides for a constructive, critical review using a structured dialogue process. Team members are picked from a pool of "trained" individuals; company sites to be visited and persons to be interviewed are chosen by the team; the company chooses public representatives to accompany the team for the individual visits; the visits are made; the team writes a report and the company (alone) receives a copy of this. Mechanisms are included to protect company confidential information. So far, the MSV would have to be considered a pilot project (eight firms were reviewed in 1995 and another 12 were scheduled to be reviewed in 1996).
From the above opinions and descriptions, it is evident that the CMA programme of Responsible Care is still seeking to establish itself as a durable and widespread practice. The information available shows that many CMA members have made significant strides in meeting the lofty goals of the GPs and in implementing the rigorous requirements of the COPs. However, it is also evident that much needs to be done to bring the US chemical industry as a whole to the point where it can convincingly demonstrate that it is behaving responsibly.
As for performance indicators, CMA cites statistics on transportation incidents, workplace injuries, amounts of pollutants emitted, amounts of carcinogenic substances emitted, results from company self-evaluations and opinions of employees, emergency response workers and the general public.14 Collectively, these indicators are the most comprehensive of any of the Responsible Care programmes reviewed. Unfortunately, the majority of the data is not collected under the auspices of the programme, but is required reporting under existing legislation (the exceptions being the self-evaluations and opinion surveys), and as noted by the NAP, this shortcoming in meaningful and programme-specific reporting may prove detrimental to the credibility of CMA's Responsible Care programme.
This is not to say that ESH progress has not been shown. The trends in the data presented do show steady and substantial reductions in pollutants and carcinogens released to the environment and a steady decline in the rate of workplace injuries. Trends in transportation incident rates were not available (CMA only recently adopted the US Department of Transportation's system of measuring this factor).
Perhaps a glimpse of just how much remains to be accomplished can be seen in looking at the company self-evaluations and the opinion surveys. The former are provided annually to CMA by members taking internal polls of their strengths and weaknesses in implementing the individual COPs. For almost every code, the most significant weaknesses are those associated with communications with non-management stakeholders.15 These surveys identified needs such as:
-- conduct regular evaluations of the effectiveness of employee/community communications efforts;
-- maintaining a continuing dialogue with community to respond to questions and concerns and address issues of interest;
-- dialogue with employees and the community about the inventory and risks posed;
-- use of community awareness and emergency response process to ensure consideration of public comments and concerns of facility processes and safety systems;
-- feedback to distributors and others with suggestions for improvement;
-- provisions to confirm that contractor programs are consistent with the (employee health and safety) code.
Many of these observations are echoed in the comments made by the NAP.
Further evidence of the unfinished business can be seen in the dismal approval ratings of the industry by the general public. Only 16 per cent of those surveyed in 1995 were of the opinion that the chemical industry is accessible and willing to talk to the public; only 24 per cent of the persons living near chemical facilities feel that the industry protects the health and safety of people living in these communities. On the positive side, the survey shows that, among employees, the percentage of those who were "favourable to industry" increased from 59 per cent to 65 per cent between 1993 and 1995. So while it seems that the Responsible Care message is getting around in the US corporate structure, carrying that message convincingly to the public is still eluding the industry.
Country/Association: Australia/PACIA -- Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association
Year Responsible Care adopted: 1989
Condition of membership?: Yes
1 CCPA, Responsible Care -- A total commitment, 1992.
2 op. cit.
3 CCPA, Responsible Care 1995 -- A total commitment, 1995.
4 CCPA, Responsible Care -- Compliance verification, 1995.
5 CCPA, Responsible Care 1995 -- A total commitment, 1995.
6 op. cit.
7 CCPA, The Responsible Care way of life ... expectations of member and partner companies, 1996.
8 CCPA, Responsible Care -- A total commitment, 1992.
9 R. Krut, Self-regulation of environmental management -- An analysis of guidelines set by world industry associations for their member firms, UNCTAD Report No. UNCTAD/DTCI/29, United Nations, Geneva, 1996.
10 CMA, Responsible Care progress report, 1995-1996, 1996.
11 CMA Responsible Care -- A public commitment, 1994.
12 CMA, Responsible Care progress report, 1995-1996, 1996.
13 CMA, CMA Responsible Care management systems verification information kit, 1996.
14 CMA, Environmental health and safety performance report, 1995-1996, 1996.
15 CMA, Responsible Care progress report, 1995-1996, 1996.
