TMCI/1999 - Note on the proceedings

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries was held at the International Labour Office in Geneva from 22 to 26 February 1999.

The Office had issued a report⁽¹⁾ to serve as a basis for the Meeting's deliberations. It reviewed the reasons for and nature of some of the principal voluntary initiatives dealing with health, safety and environment; the main voluntary initiatives in the chemical industries; and the training and education aspects of these initiatives.

The Governing Body had designated Mr. P.J. Simanjuntak, representative of the Government of Indonesia in the Governing Body, to represent it and to chair the Meeting. The three Vice-Chairpersons elected by the Meeting were: Mr. E. Brunner (Switzerland) from the Government group, Mr. J.M. Fumagalli from the Employers' group and Mr. R. Wages from the Workers' group.

The Meeting was attended by Government representatives from Argentina, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States; 23 Employer members and 23 Worker members. Representatives of the Government of France and the Government of Nigeria were present at the sittings.

An observer from the Arab Labour Organization attended the Meeting and representatives from the following international non-governmental organizations also attended as observers: Global Crop Protection Federation; International Confederation of Free Trade Unions; International Council of Chemical Associations; International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM); International Federation of University Women; International Organization of Employers (IOE); International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations; World Confederation of Labour.

The three groups elected their Officers as follows:

Government group

Chairperson:

Mr. F. Frodyma (United States)

Vice-Chairperson:

Mr. C. Weeks (United Kingdom)

Secretary:

Mr. J. Tagawa (Japan)

Employers' group

Chairperson:

Mr. G. Trogen

Vice-Chairpersons:

Mr. V. Angüis Terrazas

Mr. H. Lai Chuck Choo

Mr. N. Nishiyama

Secretary:

Mr. J. Dejardin (IOE)

Workers' group

Chairperson:

Mr. F. Higgs

Vice-Chairpersons:

Mr. T.P. Hubert

Mr. N.D.K. Kpoh

Secretary:

Mr. P. Michalzik (ICEM) (22-24 February 1999)

Mr. R. Green (ICEM) (25-26 February 1999)

The Secretary-General of the Meeting was Mr. B. Klerck Nilssen of the Sectoral Activities Department. The Deputy Secretary-General was Mr. J. McLin of the Department's Industrial Activities Branch and the Executive Secretary was Mr. N. Jennings of the same Branch. The Experts were Mr. M. Urminsky and Mr. P. Bailey. The Clerk of the Meeting was Ms. T. Bezat-Powell.

The Chairperson opened the Meeting and noted the important economic role of the chemical industries, which directly employed some 11 million persons worldwide, accounted for 12 per cent of world exports and provided major inputs into most other economic sectors, including agriculture, automobiles, electronics, construction and textiles. He also recalled the hazardous nature of the materials handled by the industry, which at times had resulted in accidents. The voluntary initiatives that the Meeting would discuss had been developed to offer better protection to workers, the general public and the environment. He advised the Meeting to concentrate on sectoral issues rather than general matters that were dealt with by other ILO bodies. He also called on participants to seek consensus on conclusions that were practical, which would improve the chances that they would be followed up.

Mr. K. Tapiola, Deputy Director-General, welcomed participants to the ILO. He explained that there had been some new departures in ILO's work in recent years, aimed at increasing its effectiveness in the context of globalization. In two major international conferences -- the 1995 World Summit for Social Development, and the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1996 -- the world community had recently renewed the ILO's mandate to further these goals. Since 1995 the ILO had intensified its efforts to promote ratification of the seven international labour Conventions covering basic rights, with significant results: over 100 new ratifications had been registered since then. An important milestone had been the adoption by the International Labour Conference in June 1998 of the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, which made an important new contribution in regard to reinforcing the commitment of member States, even those that had not ratified the Conventions, to the principles of internationally recognized core labour standards relating to: freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of forced labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. The Declaration recognized that all Members of the Organization, irrespective of whether they had or had not ratified the Conventions in question, had an obligation to respect "in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions". Although there were no legal obligations on non-ratifying States, there was a moral obligation, as there was for the ILO, to assist in this process. The Declaration also provided for a follow-up mechanism under which States that had not ratified the core Conventions would be asked each year to submit reports on progress made in implementing the principles enshrined in them. As from the year 2000, a global report would be prepared annually, assessing progress worldwide by both ratifying and non-ratifying States on fundamental principles and rights. Mr. Tapiola noted with particular satisfaction the engagement of the Government of Indonesia to ratify all the core Conventions by June 1999. In a parallel exercise, a review had been under way for several years to examine the other international labour standards with a view to identifying those which were out of date or in need of revision.

At the same time, pursued the speaker, the ILO had noted the growing interest in the development and use of voluntary initiatives as another way to promote workers' rights and acceptable working conditions. There was a broad range of codes of conduct, social labels and other such initiatives, and they were the work of a very diverse range of actors including enterprises, employers' organizations, trade union organizations and NGOs. Because many of the issues covered in these initiatives were similar to those addressed in ILO Conventions, and because some of the basic documents produced actually referenced ILO principles or instruments, there had been many calls for the ILO to play an active role in this field. This was being considered, although the approach for private sector entities could not be the same as for international labour standards which embodied commitments by governments. The Governing Body was addressing the subject in its Working Party on the Social Dimensions of the Liberalization of International Trade. The present Meeting was of interest in this context, as it was one of the first ILO sectoral meetings specifically to address the subject of voluntary initiatives.

Part 1

Consideration of the agenda item

Report of the discussion⁽²⁾

Introduction

1. The Meeting met to examine the item on the agenda. In accordance with the provisions of article 7 of the Standing Orders for sectoral meetings, the officers presided in turn over the discussion.

2. The spokesperson for the Employers' group was Mr. Harris and the spokesperson for the Workers' group was Mr. Higgs.

3. The Meeting held five sittings devoted to the discussion of the agenda item.

Composition of the Working Party

4. At its fifth plenary sitting, in accordance with article 13, paragraph 2, of the Standing Orders, the Meeting set up a Working Party to draw up draft conclusions reflecting the views expressed in the course of the Meeting's discussion of the report. The Working Party, presided over by the Government Vice-Chairperson (Mr. Brunner, Switzerland), was composed of the following members.

Government members

Egypt:

Mr. Shahin

Finland:

Mr. Hanhela

Switzerland:

Mr. Brunner

Turkey:

Ms. Sabir (adviser)

United Kingdom:

Mr. Weeks

Employer members

Mr. Bausano

Mr. Busson (adviser)

Mr. Harris

Mr. Mowling

Mr. Smith

Worker members

Mr. Higgs

Mr. Kohler

Mr. Lavenius

Mr. Magane

Mr. Mersmann

Presentation of the report and general discussion

5. The report prepared for the Meeting by the International Labour Office was introduced by the Deputy Secretary-General. After thanking those who had contributed to the preparation of the report, he pointed out that as a prelude to examining training and education measures it also considered the main characteristics of voluntary initiatives (VIs). For several reasons, however, the report was not as detailed as might be desired in respect of the training and education measures. There was almost no data that enabled inferences to be drawn about the impact of VI-related training on health, safety and environment (HSE) performance. The Office was looking forward to the gaps being partially filled by delegates' contributions during the discussion. The report had interpreted the concept of VIs broadly, excluding only measures taken as a direct response to legislative requirements. It addressed measures to protect the general environment; non-legislative agreements between government and industry; HSE reporting; the role of workers and their organizations in VIs; the role played by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); and it went beyond chemical manufacturing. The capacity of chemical distributors, SMEs and developing countries to affect the industry's reputation through poor HSE performance made them an important target for education and training measures associated with VIs. Awareness-raising for the general public -- which was important to the success of VIs -- also fell within the scope of training and education. A recurring theme in the report was the question of credibility of VIs. Some industry members had recently been specific in enumerating measures they felt would contribute to improved credibility, including public reporting of results, third-party audits, making evaluation data public, and using the Internet and other media to reach out to the public. The Deputy Secretary-General pointed out that the purpose of VIs and of training to support them was to improve HSE performance. In the future it was likely that more effort would be put into defining and measuring performance indicators and determining how they related to the levels and types of HSE training being provided. Today, however, such evaluation was difficult if not impossible in the light of the fragmentary data that was available.

Presentation on Responsible Care

6. An observer (President of CEFIC and Chairman of the Board of ICCA) stated that competitiveness and reputation through dialogue were important in determining the success of the chemical sector; the latter being particularly relevant for this Meeting. RC was at the heart of building a good reputation through dialogue with the industry's stakeholders. RC marked a turning point in the industry's attitude to the wider community. He described the role of ICCA in promoting and developing RC in 42 countries. While each programme had its own set of guiding principles, there were eight fundamental principles of RC that each national federation joining the initiative had to accept as the basis of its programme. One of these features was that national programmes had to be transparent and have a set of management codes of practice or documents to ensure their effective implementation. Some national federations reviewed the status of their RC programme at the national level to ensure that it reflected current government, industry and international thinking on HSE practices. Multinational enterprises (MNEs) should apply their corporate HSE principles and/or standards in all their operations, taking into account local regulations and practice. Two major achievements of RC were the reduction in the number of lost time accidents and the reduction in emissions. The main strength of the RC initiative was its voluntary nature. However, chemical companies had been carrying out HSE training and education for many years -- more than was required by regulation -- without calling these efforts voluntary initiatives. VIs, and RC in particular, were a key to success, but only in combination with sound regulation. Verification was a difficult question. The speaker felt that RC should be verifiable and thereby obtain due recognition by stakeholders. But verification processes should take account of other verification processes in a particular country. While there was unlikely to be a single approach to verification, all VI programmes had to be verifiable and be verified. Dialogue with stakeholders was essential to find a suitable model for each situation. Without the involvement of employees, RC programmes could not succeed. Indeed, any failure to communicate with key stakeholders could adversely affect performance. RC should be seen as the essence of the chemical industry, not mere window dressing. RC was about performance and the communication of the performance to all stakeholders. The development of similar programmes by other industries, including coatings and distribution, had led to closer working arrangements between them -- i.e. greater dialogue. VIs and RC in particular demanded a positive approach. CEFIC and ICCA would listen most carefully to the outcomes of the Meeting and see how they could play their part in ensuring their successful implementation.

7. In response, the Worker spokesperson stated that HSE was a high priority for the social partners in the chemical industry. Nonetheless, most HSE initiatives carried a cost. While the chemical industry was as responsible as most other industries as far as HSE was concerned, there was still a long way to go. He pointed to the difference between profitability and competitiveness, saying that all employees wanted to work in a profitable industry. But competitiveness was rather different. The globalization of VIs like RC would take HSE out of the arena of competitiveness thereby avoiding one region and its workforce being disadvantaged because it spent more heavily than another on HSE. A global approach to HSE was important. Trade unions had been sceptical about the concept of RC since they were not involved in its development or application. Thus RC had been an external process designed to communicate with the general public not with the workforce. This was a mistake since much had been spent on HSE outside the umbrella of RC. Employers' and workers' attitudes to RC were changing, the level of dialogue had improved and there was an opportunity to move forward. But trade unions and their members did not just want dialogue on RC; they sought influence in a credible process and would accept the responsibility that went with it. The speaker agreed that VIs were no substitute for regulations and said that unions would not countenance them if they moved in that direction. The industry could not wait for global standards to be adopted and companies could not afford to operate well in one region and badly in another. Even taking different levels of infrastructure into account, there were international HSE standards that could be used and improved on by the industry. As far as verification was concerned, if trade unions and their members had the role and influence they sought, they would also want to play a meaningful role in the verification process, including audits. There should also be a means to resolve at a higher level, with union involvement, matters that could not be resolved nationally. The Meeting provided a unique opportunity to achieve clear statements of policy regarding HSE including starting a dialogue with trade unions on how they could play a meaningful role in VIs.

8. A Worker member from Canada said that using RC to globalize best practices and increase the credibility and standing of the industry meant there was a need for a global identification of goals and indicators and a participatory verification process. Achieving these would require considerable and continuing commitment by the industry. He wondered if it was prepared to make such a commitment.

9. The President of CEFIC said there was a core set of principles and the fact that 42 national associations were part of RC attested to it. Progress was being made, at a speed dictated by each national programme. In response to a question from an Employer member from the United Kingdom on what three positive steps should be taken in the near future, the Worker spokesperson listed the involvement of shop-floor level workers in the implementation of RC; having a greater involvement of workers in the structures that had been established to implement RC programmes; and recognition by the industry that workers had a meaningful role to play in the implementation of VIs, were prepared to play it, provided the VIs were credible.

General discussion

10. The Chairperson of the Employers' group welcomed the opportunity to discuss the important and topical issues affecting the chemical industry in a tripartite forum under the umbrella of the ILO. The report prepared by the Office was informative and balanced and illustrated the issues well. In addition to the 12 million or so directly employed, the chemical industry provided the basis for many other important industries, such as plastics, pulp and paper and textiles. It also affected the lives of most people, playing a major role in meeting many basic and other needs. It was important to realize that the industry was more than a few huge firms; SMEs accounted for over 90 per cent of the companies in the industry, despite their relatively low level of production and employment. The industry fully realized that certain processes and products had the potential to harm health and the environment if they were not managed properly. There had been major improvements in environmental performance in recent years and the industry was determined to make further efforts to improve HSE. The speaker noted that the issues being addressed went beyond the traditional "social issues" discussed at such meetings, touching all aspects of chemical production and beyond. It was important, however, that the discussions took into account the different legislative framework and production conditions that existed. The speaker looked forward to a constructive meeting that would benefit the companies of the chemical industry and their workers.

11. The Employer spokesperson praised the report prepared by the Office and reiterated some of the earlier remarks on RC as a powerful vehicle for bringing about substantial and continuous improvement in HSE performance. Notwithstanding the need fully to involve all workers and their representatives, the first task was to raise awareness of HSE issues among senior management. The wisdom of this approach had been well demonstrated since the inception of RC in 1985. It was now appropriate to move forward and further improve performance globally by involving other stakeholders, including workers and their representatives. A major vehicle for the dissemination of best practice in HSE management were MNEs who were in a powerful position to change attitudes to pollution and accidents wherever they operated. They could also demonstrate that good HSE performance made good business sense. He referred again to a key issue of RC being to support legislation not replace it. There were things that legislation did best, just as VIs were better in some cases. Command and control legislation generated a culture of compliance, whereas RC went beyond this to aim for a culture to eliminate harmful occurrences.

12. The representative of the Government of Egypt highlighted the problems in the chemical industry in his country that had been revealed following analysis of complaints and accident reports. There was no central source of information on chemicals; processes were controlled by expatriate managers and workers were unaware of what they were making and its end use; few labels were in English; disclosure of the components of chemical products was not mandatory; there was insufficient data on chemical use; there was no protection or process in case of leaks; workers were ignorant of HSE issues; emissions posed a serious risk to nearby habitation; fire-fighters had no information; the public was unaware of chemical hazards; there was a lack of coordination regarding the handling of disasters; and machinery and equipment was either outdated or too modern for local workers to use.

13. An observer (Deputy General Secretary of the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM)) said the fact that the Meeting was taking place in the aftermath of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up was a step in the right direction and at the right time. The ICEM, an important part of the international labour movement, wished to see a strengthening of the ILO's sectoral activities by demonstrating to the ILO's constituents that their industries formed the core of the ILO's concerns. The excellent report highlighted a range of perceptions, experiences, hopes and aspirations about VIs and training. Consensus on them would lead to a more credible and durable basis for action. Unless the core principles on which the ILO was founded were understood, accepted and implemented beyond the ILO building, the ILO and its work risked becoming marginalized. VIs went beyond education and training. RC for example aimed to be all-embracing. He hoped that any preconceived views delegates had brought with them would not form the basis of the conclusions, rather that they would emerge from an enlightened discussion of the important issues concerning the manner in which VIs were conceived, developed, adopted, implemented, promoted and monitored. If these questions remained in the hands of one group, they were likely to fail to use the experience of other stakeholders and to recognize their needs; they would lack credibility; and be less efficient. The speaker said that the Meeting needed to concern itself as much about who VIs really involved as what they were trying to achieve. That VIs had a bright future had to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, not merely asserted by one group or another. The ILO was the right place to start this process.

14. An observer from the International Federation of University Women welcomed the fact that VIs were being made transparent. She stressed the need to take into account women's issues, since women were the largest consumers of chemical products, in the home, in SMEs, in agriculture and in the informal sector generally. There was a need to involve women's organizations in any consultation process, particularly when women were not covered by international or national instruments. VIs were often confined within enterprises and training and education programmes did not target those workers who were not included in national statistics. Training programmes should be organized; a wide range of people should be involved in VIs and should be given the resources to enable their involvement; companies should go to primary schools to sensitize children, particularly girls, to the safe use of chemical products; and the contents and targets of VIs should be gender-sensitive by giving women a voice in decision-making. She added that the gender dimension was very important in all topics that were being discussed -- education, training, RC and product stewardship (PS), labelling and verification. She hoped that it would be taken up in the conclusions and resolutions.

15. An observer from the International Union of Food and Agricultural Workers (IUF) was encouraged about the comments on RC and the need to adopt a new stakeholder approach involving trade unions and other parties. There were other VIs than RC, one of which was the pesticide industry's Safe Use Projects (SUPs) which were a training-based initiative, though not yet covering workers. A common element to all VIs was "Product Stewardship" (PS), which meant industry taking greater responsibility for its product throughout the whole life cycle and covering workers both producing and using chemicals/pesticides. Other issues that were referred to in the report included responsible distribution, coatings care and safe use of fertilizers. There were as many as 3 million accidental poisonings a year associated with the use of pesticides. Union involvement, common standards for pesticides and verification all had to be considered.

16. An observer from the Global Crop Protection Federation said his organization was working with WHO to get accurate data on pesticide poisoning. The member countries were committed to integrated pest management -- a system recognized by OECD to contribute to risk reduction. Individual companies ran product stewardship programmes and audits. The range of insecticides was being reduced across the industry and local programmes at the farm level were seeking to improve farmers' and workers' knowledge of pesticides and their use.

Point-by-point discussion

17. The Workers' group proposed the addition of two additional points for discussion: one on how VIs could be enhanced by the involvement of trade unions at the plant, national and international levels; and one on how the industry could ensure the credible verification of its VIs. The Employers' spokesman expressed surprise at the proposals but recognized the importance of the issues raised. He felt that the first could be covered in point 6 or 8 (particularly by adding "and their representatives" after "workers" in point 8) and that the second could be attached to the end of point 7. The Chairperson of the Government group agreed, but said his group would not object to discussing the points separately if that was the feeling of the Meeting. After informal discussions, it was agreed that points 7 and 8 would be modified to reflect the Workers' group's proposal.

18. The Employer spokesperson said the relationship between VIs and international and national regulation was mutually supportive. Enforced regulations, based on sound principles, were indispensable in a democratic society. They set minima for standards and performance to be met by all. But regulations showed their limits when they were too prescriptive and too detailed. VIs reflected proactive management by industry; added value to command and control systems; and allowed achievements unreachable just by regulation. They generated motivation and enthusiasm and promoted continuous improvement. VIs reduced the need for prescriptive legislation and could also act as a test-bed for ideas and help to create better regulations. The success of VIs and RC depended on their understanding and active support by all stakeholders, especially those working in the industry. The best HSE performance was attained through a combination of VIs and legislation.

19. The Worker spokesperson reiterated his earlier statement that workers would not support any VI that was a substitute for regulatory control -- a view he was pleased to see that the Employers' group had also taken. He noted that regulations normally provided for independent verification and sanctions for non-compliance. The industry needed to find ways of ensuring verification, monitoring, auditing and sanctions for non-compliance with VIs. There was little evidence of the latter.

20. The representative of the Government of the United States said that regulations could only provide for minimum acceptable standards which had to be backed by a credible enforcement programme that required adequate resources if it were to work properly. VIs were necessary if minimum standards were to be surpassed, using the participation of all stakeholders to supply the necessary leverage to raise standards. The relationship between regulation and VIs hinged on the availability of resources and the level of commitment respectively.

21. A Worker member from the United States stressed that stakeholders needed to be involved in the development of VIs to the same extent that they could influence regulations. Many VIs in the chemical industry had been established without stakeholder consultation on standards and goals. This was a major problem when enterprises gained exemption from certain regulations by virtue of having VIs in place.

22. An Employer member from the United States said that there had been criticisms of non-complying companies and that these had led to improvements in performance. Companies helped each other to comply with RC initiatives and retain credibility. There were procedures for expulsion, but it had not proved necessary. His company had had good experience with RC, which had proved an excellent tool in education and training. He was not aware that any of its legal obligations had been waived as a result of RC. The importance of companies assisting each other was supported by Employer members from Canada and the United Kingdom.

23. An Employer member from Australia added that VIs were important in building the culture and systems necessary to manage chemical hazards. Given the number of enterprises and chemicals, it was not possible to regulate every eventuality, nor could government furnish sufficient inspectors. VIs were valuable because they defined the culture and systems by which industries and enterprises could operate, reinforced by peer and stakeholder pressure.

24. An Employer member from Argentina pointed to the difficulties faced by SMEs which were making significant efforts in regard to HSE. The application of sanctions for voluntary programmes that went beyond regulations would be a mortal blow for SMEs and would discourage their participation in VIs.

25. A Worker member from Argentina disagreed. Having VIs did not mean that the obligations they entailed did not have to be met and paid for.

26. The Worker spokesperson thought that one purpose of the RC programme was to introduce management systems to avoid major incidents and consequent adverse reaction against the industry. Although the aim of VIs was to move beyond legal compliance, the resulting management systems should be used to ensure laws and regulations were complied with. This was an important function of RC. He recognized the difficulties of sanctions in a voluntary programme, but said exposure was an important weapon. It would be helpful if the industry committed itself to exposing companies that flagrantly broke agreements within RC or any other VI.

27. The representative of the Government of the United States explained his country's voluntary protection programme (VPP), to which participation was limited to exemplary companies. VPP was assessed by examining management commitment and employee involvement. Only then was an exception granted to generally scheduled inspections. However, complaints could still be registered, including by workers, and would be investigated.

28. An Employer member from the United Kingdom agreed that RC should include management systems for ensuring compliance with regulations. RC management systems guidance in the United Kingdom included requirements for complying with regulations as well as the additional requirements of the RC programme.

Voluntary initiatives and best HSE practice

29. The Employer spokesperson said RC was about improved HSE performance. It promoted experience-sharing with improvements in one company spreading quickly to others, with benefits to all. RC formalized a change from the traditional single company approach to a group approach to improving HSE. Exchanges on best practice occurred at different levels: through the 42-member RC network; through MNEs who supported the implementation of RC in developing countries; through national associations who could assist SMEs; and through inter-company contact. RC agreements with transporters and distributors enabled best practice to be shared along the supply chain. He pointed out that most prevention and/or emergency response systems for transportation incidents relied on or were developed from such partnerships. Best practices were shared internationally through a number of forums in different regions. Indicators of performance had been developed, applied and published, leading to lower accident levels and fewer environmental incidents as a result of peer and competitive pressures. He pointed out that RC was only 14 years old and that its development was not the same in each country.

30. The Worker spokesperson agreed that VIs could assist the spread of best practices and that they had done so. But the process could be much more effective, particularly if VIs were better structured and incorporated global standards and global measurements agreed among those concerned. Trade unions, through their international associations, could make a major contribution to the enhancement of best practice, thereby improving the effectiveness of VIs.

31. The need to involve unions in all aspects of VIs was echoed by a Worker member from France, who added that the lack of means for control at the international level, particularly for SMEs, was detrimental to the success of VIs.

32. Several Employer members (from Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, Argentina) gave examples of the impact of RC on companies, their workers and HSE training and performance, citing greater openness, coordination and information sharing, the harmonization of statistics and indicators, pressure on end-users to conform to RC principles, and the provision of assistance to SMEs by large companies, all leading to continuous improvement in HSE practice and performance.

33. A Worker member from Canada expressed his frustration with the process so far. Global standards, transparency, verification, best practices and trade union involvement all influenced credibility. At the moment VIs were mostly a patchwork of national programmes with any trade union involvement limited to the local or enterprise level, not in decision-making. Moreover, stakeholders were asked to rely on performance indicators and verification procedures that had been selected without trade union participation and had not been endorsed.

34. The Worker spokesperson said that the biggest benefits from best practice would be realized in developing countries. Unlike in Europe, where common legislation was being increasingly developed and introduced, many developing countries had none. VIs could be important in improving HSE practice in these countries, particularly if they were developed and implemented with trade union involvement. The fact that some MNEs were using one set of standards in one region and another, lower set, elsewhere to comply with less stringent regulations was not good enough. Performance in these regions must be monitored.

35. A Worker member from Ghana said that few if any workers in his country were aware of RC. He wondered, therefore, who had benefited from the workshops and seminars that had been held to promote it. Improvements in HSE practice and performance could only be achieved when all stakeholders were involved in the design, implementation and verification of VIs.

36. This view was shared by a Worker member from Switzerland who said that determining best practices for workers without their involvement would not achieve the desired results. Even in Switzerland, trade unions had little knowledge of RC. It was a good initiative, but it had been imposed from above and was not taken into account at the shop-floor level.

37. The representative of the Government of Norway highlighted changes in HSE performance in her country between 1993 and 1999 following the introduction on legislation on internal control which enabled enterprises to regulate and monitor environmental performance. Workers had rights and obligations for HSE under the law. In 1993, 8 per cent of enterprises had implemented internal control. By 1999 the proportion was 47 per cent, and 39 per cent had started to implement the scheme. However, the difference between large enterprises and SMEs was striking, with 74 per cent of the former having internal control but only 34 per cent of enterprises with ten or less employees. Also, a survey of worker awareness of HSE, while encouraging, showed that there was still a long way to go. Nonetheless, internal control had proved to be a means to improve HSE performance.

38. The Employer spokesperson added that the lack of common standards was due to different national laws, citing the collection of accident statistics as an example. The industry was working to improve matters to get comparable data. As far as worker involvement in VIs was concerned, he said that without commitment from top management existing improvements would not have been possible and it was important that workers recognized this.

39. The Worker spokesperson responded by pointing out that in addition to VIs, the increasing amount of European-wide legislation was also driving improvements in HSE performance. The test was to see where and how VIs such as RC could contribute to the spreading of best practice. While RC was not very effective in this regard at the moment, it had the potential to be so.

The impact of VIs on HSE training and education

40. The Worker spokesperson referred to the dilemma raised in the ILO report of trying to attribute training to VIs. The chemical industry had traditionally undertaken high levels of HSE training. Because RC was largely not referred to internally, it was impossible to link it with training. Workers saw no major impact on training when companies adopted VIs and he did not believe that they saw VIs as a means to moderate behaviour such as training. VIs were an external tool. He felt that the industry was missing out in not linking VIs and training.

41. The Employer spokesperson agreed that the tradition of HSE training and the fact that VIs, like RC, were aimed at changing corporate culture from the top down, meant that there was no link between training and VIs. The target audience for RC was senior and middle management. He mentioned a range of mechanisms used by companies that committed to RC and other VIs to achieve changes in corporate culture that would, inter alia, lead to improved HSE performance. These included: reviews of failings; communication of successes; best practice meetings; performance-related rewards; benchmarking; central reporting of major incidents; and interaction with outside bodies. National associations could provide practical guidance to SMEs. Recognizing the need to involve workers and their representatives, awareness-raising, detailed HSE training -- both job-related and encompassing broader issues such as hazard identification and risk elimination, communication skills and in-company policies and practices. RC's commitment to open communication also called for more active participation of workers and their representatives in planning training. RC also resulted in an extension of the areas covered by traditional HSE training and education. The resulting performances identified which were best practices.

42. A Worker member from Poland said that only 40 per cent of enterprises there were aware of RC, 20 per cent of which participated in it. Only 2 per cent of workers knew about RC. Difficulties in Western countries paled in comparison with those being faced in Central and Eastern Europe. Clearly the involvement of trade unions was vital if RC and other VIs were to be introduced successfully and HSE training and performance improved.

43. An Employer adviser from Belgium agreed that many workers were uninformed about RC. Box 2.2 in the ILO report, which described how RC was implemented, was a partial explanation of the reason for this. RC was often absorbed into an integrated management system, losing its identity. Much of the benefit of having an RC logo was thus lost. HSE activities were also integrated into a broad training programme. The solution was for companies to explain, at the shop-floor level, RC and its connection with HSE training and education.

44. An Employer member from the Czech Republic confirmed that this was the problem, particularly in SMEs, which needed assistance from larger enterprises.

45. An Employer member from Japan provided information on the extent of HSE training in his country and on the degree of worker involvement in it.

46. The Worker spokesperson was pleased to note the clear statements from the Employers' group that trade union representatives should be involved in the development and delivery of training. The fact that much HSE training was not under the umbrella of RC was due to it being part of a broad training programme. Nonetheless, he found it incredible that chief executive officers (CEOs) signed up to RC but did not inform their workers they had done so. He was pleased to see that efforts would be made to increase understanding at the plant level about the concept of RC. He reminded the Employers' group that for trade unions just to be consulted about this important issue was not enough.

Best practice on training and education
on VIs to improve HSE performance

47. The Employer spokesperson highlighted the importance of a structured approach to training if it were to be called best practice. Corporate RC and HSE policy needed to be clearly specified and translated into practice at the local level. Without a precise understanding of what was expected, there would be no commitment. The different circumstances in different countries also had to be recognized and taken into account. Training needs had to be clearly identified, including the roles to be undertaken and individuals' state of awareness. A variety of means existed to provide information and training to meet the needs of different categories of worker, including the special needs of young people. Emergency procedure was a vital component of training programmes. Performance had to be continually monitored through job counselling and guidance, sometimes leading to further training. Policy had to be reviewed too, at various levels, to ensure the required results were being delivered -- with the involvement of workers and their representatives. RC performance indicators were a rich source of review material. He referred to the adoption of RC as a global management approach in a number of MNEs, resulting in large numbers of people receiving HSE training. There were also many examples of companies assisting each other to develop best practice in training.

48. An Employer member from Germany added that since the introduction of RC there, all occupations had been reviewed and revised. New recruits were acquainted with RC from the start and of the need to apply it.

49. A Worker member from the United States was unable to respond to the Employers' group's comments on the communication of RC because unions had been so little involved. But there were plenty of examples of successful jointly developed and administered VIs, some of which might have ended up under the umbrella of RC without it being realized. In the United States context he mentioned programmes on emergency response, joint HSE committees, and joint incident investigations and analysis. At the community level unions were interacting with local environmental groups to discuss common interests in safe and environmentally responsible plant operations. Employers had been invited to take part. All these VIs had been designed to foster ownership of them by the workers and an acceptance of their responsibility for safe, clean operations. Success had arisen where workers had helped build the curriculum, recognized the link between training and their jobs, and helped teach other workers. He agreed on the need for measurable objectives and the need for review. The key was worker participation, not them being presented with a fait accompli.

50. An Employer member from the United States said that all successful programmes were jointly operated with workers and were most successful when put in place at the shop-floor level. Different plants had different requirements for training and a shop-floor level approach provided the flexibility to implement an appropriate training programme. RC operated best at the site level too, where it was more flexible, although it became a problem in the context of global standardized processes.

51. A Worker member from Switzerland said the problem was that RC was often seen as a management tool leading to workers having to apply policies and undertake activities without having been consulted. Did that mean they had to be trained in order to respect rules decided on by management? If so, how were workers to become more involved?

52. Several Employer members (from Australia, France, Sweden) gave examples of training activities in the industry in their countries, including a national college of experts in environment of the chemical industry, and the sharing of information on auditing and training, including among SMEs.

53. The Worker spokesperson recognized the importance of RC working well at the plant level, since performance improvements were made there. But a process that went beyond the plant level to include the national and international levels was still needed, with trade union involvement. Moreover, the common standards sought by the Workers' group could not be developed at plant level, nor could compliance be assured.

54. The Employer spokesperson said there was no difference between the groups on this point.

55. The representative of the Government of China emphasized that VIs should be compatible with local conditions and described a programme which sought to improve HSE practice in the Chinese petrol and chemical industry. The programme that resembled RC aimed at the establishment of a self-regulating mechanism on HSE performance and focused on training and education. Training was initiated at the enterprise-, shop-floor and job-post levels. Training at the enterprise level focused on policy, measurements and general knowledge; floor-level training focused on protective equipment, safety rules, and technology; and job-post level training focused on the task to be carried out. Secondly, the programme promoted the idea of daily safety measures, such as "safety days". Thirdly, it focused on the special safety instruction and examination of persons responsible for special operations.

56. The representative of the Government of Japan said that workers needed knowledge and accurate information communicated to them and that there should be efforts from both management and workers for effective HSE practices. He described the at first voluntary material safety data sheets as an example of RC in Japan. They would be legally required by next year.

Education and training needs and priorities
for SMEs and developing countries

57. The Worker spokesperson recalled that the test for success of RC was whether it delivered for those who needed it most, particularly in SMEs, but more so in developing countries. Workers were the users of chemicals too and they also needed special attention. He proposed that the industry finance a training institute which would deliver quality HSE training. For greater credibility, it should be jointly managed by unions and employers. Moreover, training should be free and take place on company time. It was also necessary to find ways for workers to raise problems about RC without fear of retribution.

58. The Employer spokesperson believed the first priority was to establish that good practice in HSE was good business practice -- a concept relevant in large and small enterprises wherever they were located. Any short-term gains from undercutting HSE standards carried significant long-term costs. Training needs depended on local conditions, and employees in developing countries and in SMEs had to understand the importance of sound management systems and the role of management in reducing accidents. Mutual aid for training and best practice was prevalent in many RC programmes in different regions. MNEs were instrumental in spreading HSE best practice, although a simpler approach may be necessary where infrastructure was lacking. Partnerships with local companies speeded up the exchange of ideas and skills.

59. Several Employer members (from Belgium, France, Germany, United Kingdom) gave examples of assistance to SMEs, including: by producing technical guides; making experts of large companies available free of charge to SMEs to help them with RC programmes; reviewing regulations; helping developing countries meet the requirements for participation in RC; setting up partnerships between MNEs and local companies in developing countries; promoting RC locally; and assisting in the development of management systems.

60. An Employer member from France added that RC was being promoted in secondary schools there as part of a broad programme for children to "discover" chemistry. Since 1994, 60,000 classes had been held, reaching nearly 2 million children.

61. A Worker member from Germany referred to the increasing trend of outsourcing which gave rise to a number of issues as far as RC was concerned.

62. The representative of the Government of the United States said it had been found that regulations, including those requiring education and training, were not as effective as they could be in achieving improvements in HSE in SMEs, even with the threat of sanctions. The United States Government had implemented a system of free consultative visits to SMEs, with the smallest firms being given priority. In 1998, 20,000 such visits were made. In addition, grants had been made to enable unions and other organizations to provide HSE training to workers in SMEs.

Information in HSE in relation to VIs needed
by workers and their representatives

63. The Employer spokesperson said that HSE training had to be relevant to workers' and company needs. Workers and their representatives should have an input to the planning of such training. The general areas to be covered in developing HSE training included: information about the national legal framework of HSE and about the company's strategy and goals; workshops to initiate goal-setting and evaluation at the working level; information and training on HSE skills for new technologies and the understanding of an HSE management system; and introductory training for new employees. A company-wide action plan should start at the top and lead to interaction at all levels. Everyone should be an active partner provided responsibility was clearly defined. Over-regulation could hinder decision-making and affect the commitment of management and employees. Because successful training programmes started by defining needs, it was good practice to involve workers and their representatives in promoting information and providing ideas. This cooperation could be facilitated by providing workers' representatives with full information on RC policy. In general, the support given by workers' representatives to improving the efficiency of RC was well appreciated.

64. A Worker member from Canada said that training and education each had many sub-categories. One was process issues, which included rights, roles, responsibilities, the relationship between legislation and RC, decision-making, auditing, standards, and accidents. Another was specific issues of hazard identification and control, which encompassed the ability to deal with specific HSE hazards, safety systems and controls, and ergonomics. The Workers' group agreed that education programmes had to be based on needs and be targeted at meeting them. The fact that there were both formal and informal aspects of education made it important that there be joint control of decision-making, design and delivery of training, including the joint determination of education and training objectives. Also, training should include a component of evaluation and review to ensure it continued to meet workers' needs.

65. The representative of the Government of Brazil emphasized the different education needs of workers and their representatives, with the latter receiving a background of management systems like RC and ISO 14000 in order to participate more effectively in negotiations and discussions.

Measuring the effectiveness of VIs and
associated HSE training

66. The Employer spokesperson drew attention to two RC features that dealt with assessing effectiveness of it -- indicators of performance and verification. Two types of performance were measured -- output performance, which had a direct impact on man or the environment, such as accidents or emissions, and implementation of the RC initiative by checking that RC's features and requirements had been developed and were in place. It was for companies to give practical effect to RC, guided by national associations and coordinating bodies such as CEFIC and ICCA. Methods of performance assessment included self-assessment, peer review (sometimes including people outside the industry) and third party verification. Many in the industry wanted to avoid an overly bureaucratic process, since the spirit of RC was that the verification process was to help improve weak points, not level accusations.

67. The Worker spokesperson reiterated the importance of having trade union involvement in measuring and tracking the success of VIs. Regarding performance indicators for training, there did not seem to be any under RC. Trade union involvement in monitoring training would be useful for all concerned, particularly in view of the HSE training resources they had and the training they were undertaking independently of the concept of RC. While the unions wanted to continue to provide independent training, especially for workers' representatives, it would be good to do so in accordance with an agreed formula under RC. Not doing so was a conspicuous failing in terms of the monitoring of RC. The question of contractors needed particular attention. Self-verification lacked credibility and trade unions, who were not outside agencies, should be involved in developing performance indicators, monitoring and verifying performance. Those involved at the local level would need special training to undertake auditing but would enhance credibility by doing so.

68. An Employer adviser from Belgium said that it was not a good idea for workers' representatives to be involved in auditing as auditors. He considered they lacked the necessary independence. However, they could be involved in other aspects of HSE and RC programmes.

69. A Worker member from France insisted that trade unions were independent from government and employers. They worked at defending their members' interests and it was from that perspective that employers should recognize their usefulness and involve them, including in taking stock of what had occurred.

70. A Worker member from Argentina agreed, expressing concern that companies were unable to countenance trade union involvement at certain levels, including auditing. Unions were able to deal completely independently with such issues that affected HSE, and were often required to do so at plant level. The potential of worker participation in auditing should not be ruled out, particularly since RC was largely unknown in many developing countries.

71. A Worker member from Sri Lanka failed to see how employers could regard workers as their social partners yet deny them partnership in RC.

72. An Employer member from France gave details of information exchange and dialogue that was taking place in his country. The information from this Meeting would be used to strengthen dialogue among the social partners.

73. An Employer member from Canada gave examples of risk communication -- training all concerned to talk more effectively about risk -- and verification. Following three years of RC implementation a team, comprising two industry experts, a workers' representative and a citizen, visited sites and produced a report on the extent of the implementation of RC. Its findings were disseminated throughout the plant and the community. About half the 1,500 findings of the first verification process were commendations, the rest were suggestions for improvement or follow-up, usually involving employee awareness or community dialogue. A second stage was about to commence. The process was designed to ensure that there was no deterioration in the management systems implemented as part of RC and to identify and share best practices. It was not a pass or fail exercise.

Closer association of workers and their
representatives with VIs

74. The Worker spokesperson did not understand how VIs like RC, that were supposed to enhance worker security, could be implemented without fully involving them. If workers were involved, how could their representatives not be fully involved in development and application of VIs too, not just consulted? Trade unions would continue to train their officers and members. If unions were not involved, the industry was missing the opportunity to convey the efforts to the workforce in a constructive way. Moreover, unions had political connections and influence at the national level; representations to government would be stronger if undertaken jointly with them. Internationally, unions helped ensure uniform standards and were involved in their development. He reiterated the additional credibility that the union involvement could bring to performance indicators and the whole concept of RC. Trade unions at all levels had access to considerable expertise in HSE which they were prepared to use to maximize their contribution to the development of safer workplaces. The speaker recognized a changing attitude among employers to union involvement. Unions had sought to become involved in VIs, in a structured way starting at the international level. They had a real contribution to make and the industry and its workers would benefit. If the door were closed on them, it would seriously affect organized labour's attitude to VIs. The Meeting provided a golden opportunity to move forward and enable structured union involvement. It should not be let go.

75. The Employer spokesperson said that HSE issues were matters for cooperation between the social partners. Trade unions should recognize the successes of VIs like RC and support them. RC was undergoing constant development and unions should be part of the process. But RC should not be a standards-based system. This would detract from its objectives of meeting differing and changing needs in different countries. Workers and their representatives were already involved in implementing RC in all the companies committed to it. HSE was high on the agenda of meetings between the social partners, including in statutory works councils in some countries, and in other activities. National industry associations should brief workers' representatives on RC progress. As the ILO report said, the industry could do more to ensure that workers understood the implications of VIs like RC. Means of communication should be reviewed with this end in sight. Workers and their representatives had a major role to play in enabling RC to continue to improve, for example by participating in joint investigations leading to attitudinal changes rather than to assigning blame. There was also a need for workers to be kept up to date on various initiatives, through plant-level briefings for example, at which time workers could be reminded of the wider commitment continuously to improve standards. Employers recognized union efforts in providing HSE training for their plant-level representatives.

76. The representative of the Government of Japan said that since HSE was closely linked to workers' livelihood they should be closely involved. Employers should attach importance to their workers and, if it was recognized by them, morale would improve and the company's reputation would be enhanced. Good labour-management relations were a feature of the Japanese chemical industry, leading to high productivity and better working conditions. He hoped that the regular meetings of RC associations there would lead to further improvements in HSE and labour-management relations.

77. A Worker member from Japan said that constant efforts were needed to build and maintain a high degree of trust between the social partners. Japanese workers were sceptical when first introduced to RC. At a workshop on RC, management insisted that a top-down approach was necessary. The unions too felt that it was necessary to disseminate information from the top to the rank and file so that all shared a common recognition of RC. This worked well in large, highly organized companies, but was difficult in SMEs. Labour-management cooperation, including at a regional level, was necessary if success were to be ensured in the light of increasing globalization. As companies continued to transfer their operations abroad, the union responses to the multinational companies in regard to Responsible Care were crucial. The Japanese union would seek, in particular, better links and coordination with colleagues in the Asia-Pacific region in this regard.

Training and education to promote product stewardship

78. The Employer spokesperson recognized that education and training should aim at a better understanding of product stewardship (PS), which was the responsible management of the HSE aspects of a product throughout its life cycle, i.e. RC applied to products. Some of the issues that had been raised about pesticides fell within PS. While many companies had practised PS for years, it was now being given even more emphasis within RC. Education and training efforts developed by the industry included awareness, strategic education and a range of specific activities, many of which, including partnership agreements with outside entities, were covered in the ILO report. He commended the ILO's work on chemical labelling that was being carried out with assistance from the industry.

79. The Worker spokesperson said that improper use of chemicals had an adverse impact on workers and on the industry. Trade unions had taken several initiatives in PS but it was of great concern to them when information and training on products that were provided to enterprises were not passed to the workers who handled them. Data sheets were not distributed, products were labelled in an inappropriate language, or labels were removed. Efforts should be made to audit the proper use of chemical products, such as pesticides, and independent life-cycle analyses should be carried out. That there were many requests for assistance in this area showed that workers were not confident about the assistance employers could give, or they did not know where to look, or where to register a complaint. Shortcomings in PS should be addressed in order to remedy this state of affairs.

80. The representative of the Government of Germany noted that many workers did not belong to trade unions, many employers, especially SMEs, were not in trade associations and many products entered areas outside the chemicals sector. It was therefore important for there to be training outside the normal areas. He was pleased that the important topic of product labelling had been raised, since it was only through correct labelling and data sheets that workers could handle chemical substances properly.

81. An observer from the IUF was encouraged to see PS encompass both the use and manufacture of chemicals, and he supported the notion that the industry could not improve its credibility if its products were overused or misused. One of the limitations of PS from his union's perspective was uncertainty about where RC and the pesticide Safe Use Initiative -- the delivery mechanism for product stewardship -- met, and whether the two industry associations concerned were coordinating their efforts. It was critical that this issue be addressed if PS were to become a reality.

Role of the ILO

82. The Worker spokesperson said the ILO should take its work on the report for this Meeting further, with particular attention being given to developing countries and countries in Central and Eastern Europe. There was a need for further research to determine where RC was working and where it had shortcomings. Regional meetings should be convened to discuss these issues between the social partners. If trade unions achieved the level of involvement they were seeking, they would be in a position to assist the ILO in this work.

83. This proposal was supported by an observer from the IUF who felt that it could be expanded to include safe use and the relationship at the national level between safe use and other VIs.

84. The Employer spokesperson said the ILO could spread best practice through its network of field offices. The Office should continue its role as an important educator and trainer of young people. The ILO's skill in providing a forum for discussion should be further used. He saw no role for the ILO in VIs, however, particularly in the drafting of HSE management systems as had been mentioned in the report. But there could be a role for the ILO in the provision of information on VIs.

85. The representative of the Government of Germany felt that the ILO should take up not only the subject of the safe handling of dangerous substances but also "green" chemistry, and should promote research in this area.

86. A Worker member from Canada rebutted the Employers' group's assertion that the ILO had no role in the development of safety management systems. It was entirely appropriate for the ILO to be involved. It was more a part of its mandate than that of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) with whom employers had decided to work in some related areas.

Consideration and adoption of the draft report
and the draft conclusions by the Meeting

87. The Working Party on Conclusions submitted its draft conclusions to the Meeting at the latter's sixth sitting.

88. At the same sitting, the Meeting unanimously adopted the present report and the draft conclusions, after having agreed to a number of drafting changes.

Geneva, 26 February 1999.

(Signed) Mr. P.J. SIMANJUNTAK,
Chairperson.

Conclusions on voluntary initiatives affecting
training and education on safety, health and
environment in the chemical industries⁽³⁾

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries,

Having met in Geneva from 22 to 26 February 1999,

Adopts this twenty-sixth day of February 1999 the following conclusions:

General considerations

1. The chemical industries make an important contribution to economic output, employment, international trade and the general standard of living. At the same time, their processes and products, if not managed properly, have the potential to cause harm to the health and safety of workers and the general public, and to the environment. In responding to the accidents and problems that have resulted, in the past the industry has sometimes adopted a defensive posture, which has adversely affected its reputation and credibility.

2. The development of VI, including the Responsible Care programme, was an important new departure aimed at continuous improvement of health, safety and environment (HSE) performance in the industry and the communication of those results to stakeholders and the general public. These initiatives have had positive results, have enhanced the HSE culture in the industry, and there is the potential, with greater involvement of stakeholders, to go further. Their goals should be embraced by all chemical firms and by all those working in the industry.

Regulation and voluntary initiatives

3. In promoting improved HSE performance, the regulatory framework and voluntary initiatives (VIs) should be mutually supportive. The regulatory framework should aim at ensuring that minimum standards are set and met. Legislative requirements should be enforced through a system of legally authorized inspections, and compliance should be encouraged through support programmes and through sanctions. Where goal-setting regulations, combined with flexibility regarding the means used for compliance, are preferred to a "command-and-control" or prescriptive approach, they also require suitable government oversight.

4. Voluntary initiatives should in particular aim at achieving higher levels of performance than those possible through legislation alone. Their goals should not be static but should be based on the principle of continuous improvement. Appropriate HSE management systems which assure conformance with requirements, both of legislation and of voluntary initiatives, should be in place. Voluntary initiatives should provide encouragement and mechanisms for bringing all plants and firms up to acceptable performance levels. Governments should promote and encourage the use of voluntary initiatives such as Responsible Care as a complement to legislation, where appropriate, to achieve improved performance.

Best HSE practices

5. Best HSE practices may be developed and spread through VIs such as Responsible Care through various means, including: exchanges of experience among companies and industry associations; development and promotion of codes or guidance documents that allow companies to benchmark their policies and performance in regard to various HSE issues; the worldwide application within multinational enterprises of their corporate HSE principles and standards in all operations, taking due account of local regulations and/or practice; the exercise of peer pressure and assistance within the industry so as to make HSE performance subject to emulation and so as to transfer best practices from leading firms to others in the sector; agreements with and among transporters, distributors and other downstream manufacturers and users so as to spread best practices down the supply chain; and the provision of expertise to chemical industries in developing and transitional countries, through United Nations family organizations and otherwise. The development and diffusion of best practices will be rendered more effective to the extent that workers and their representatives⁽⁴⁾ play an effective role in the VIs.

6. In order to improve the responsiveness of chemical firms, governments may consider a process whereby openness about health, safety and environment is encouraged.

7. Internationally comparable systems of performance indicators should be developed and maintained to track chemical enterprises' HSE performance. Workers and their representatives should be involved in the development and use of such systems.

HSE training and education

8. Enterprises that sign on to Responsible Care or comparable initiatives should endeavour through appropriate training, education and awareness-raising programmes aimed at all levels of personnel -- from senior management to operatives -- to promote a culture conducive to continuous improvement in HSE performance.

9. Commitment to Responsible Care and similar voluntary initiatives should be accompanied by an intensification and extension of HSE training, education and information dissemination, as appropriate, to cover new subjects -- for example, how to manage product stewardship or how to put in place and operate HSE management systems -- and target groups, for example, communities located near plants, and suppliers and customers along the supply chain.

10. Workers and their representatives should be actively involved in identifying training and education needs and in designing and implementing training programmes. Although the effectiveness of such programmes -- in terms of HSE performance -- should be the primary objective, they should where appropriate be associated with the VI label so as to make the VI a more powerful tool.

11. Best HSE training practices sometimes take the form of initiatives that are developed and run jointly with the advice and assistance of HSE specialists. Successful HSE training exercises also tend to take place at shopfloor level, and/or to be specific to particular situations or processes. HSE training and education should generally follow a structured approach which is based on explicit policies, adapts and communicates these as suited to local conditions, identifies training needs, monitors performance, and generates feedback that leads to review and revision of the initial policies.

SMEs and developing and transitional countries

12. Smaller chemical enterprises -- which account for a large proportion of all firms in the sector -- and chemical firms located in developing and transitional economies can have difficulty meeting their HSE obligations because of limited human resources. Since their shortfalls in performance adversely affect the entire sector, larger firms and trade associations which are better endowed should help them in various ways to put in place policies of continuous HSE improvement. In the spirit of partnership these methods should include the use of "mutual assistance" and networks linking the more advanced and less advanced firms or associations.

13. Assistance should also be given through means such as: raising awareness of the economic benefits of good HSE practices, training in the design and use of HSE management systems, publication of performance indicators that can serve as benchmarks, the loan of experts, and the provision of guidance documents on relevant HSE issues. Consideration should be given to the need for the establishment of new funding mechanisms or institutions to promote such training.

Participation of workers and their representatives

14. Workers and their representatives should have a voice and influence in determining the nature and scope of the HSE-related information and training provided to them in the context of VIs. This information and training should be relevant to their needs and should cover process issues that concern, for example, the legal framework for HSE, the roles and responsibilities of the various parties in regard to HSE, procedures for investigating incidents and accidents. They should also relate to the substance of HSE issues -- how to deal with safety management systems, ergonomics and specific hazards and risks such as fire and explosions, etc. Information and training programmes should be regularly and jointly evaluated and revised accordingly. An atmosphere that is conducive to interaction and communication between management, workers and their representatives should be the norm.

15. There is a dialogue in process which will be formalized and continued on the meaningful involvement of workers and their representatives on the subject of Responsible Care between ICCA and ICEM.

16. Employers should involve fully the workers and their representatives in local Responsible Care activities and brief them and their representatives at the national level in matters such as the status of implementation.

17. Opportunities should be sought to take advantage of the contribution workers, their representatives and their organizations⁽⁵⁾ can make to the effectiveness and credibility of Responsible Care, for example in relations with communities near chemical plants, in the training they carry out for shop stewards and safety representatives, in influencing national policies and promoting best practices.

18. Without prejudice to the dialogue referred to in paragraph 15, workers and their representatives should be prepared to acknowledge and associate themselves with the positive contributions that such initiatives have made, are making and can make to improving HSE performance.

Credibility and verification

19. As provided in two of the fundamental features of Responsible Care, performance indicators and verification procedures are critical for the credibility of the initiative and for projects carried out under its logo. These pertain both to output performance, e.g. accident rates and emissions, and to the way in which commitments made under the initiative -- its fundamental features, guiding principles and associated codes of practice and guidelines -- are implemented.

20. Whether verification is carried out through self-assessment, peer review, or third-party verification, steps should be taken to render the results credible. These steps may include publication of the performance indicators and of the results of evaluations (irrespective of who conducts them), use of independent evaluations, and involvement of workers and their representatives in the evaluation exercises.

Product stewardship

21. Awareness-raising, peer pressure and other efforts should continue that are aimed at increasing the number of chemical firms and associations that embrace the concepts of product stewardship and life-cycle analysis for chemical products. Chemical manufacturing enterprises and associations that have committed to the concepts should promote and make full use of available training and information mechanisms -- including the use of Safety Data Sheets -- to inform and sensitize downstream customers and users regarding how to label, handle, use, recycle and dispose of their products safely. Steps should be taken, including the use of a complaints procedure, to assess the effectiveness of the means used and to adapt them as necessary.

22. The different initiatives concerned with the safe use of downstream products, for example pesticides, and the organizations that sponsor them, should harmonize their efforts in order to increase their effectiveness and send a clear message to distributors and users of the products.

Role of the ILO

23. ILO activities in this field should give priority to the most needful areas, in particular developing and newly industrializing countries and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The activities should take the forms of: further research on how Responsible Care and the Global Safe Use Initiative have been applied in those regions, their achievements and shortcomings; promotion and conduct of training related to chemical safety, especially through ILO field offices; and the use of ILO good offices to promote dialogue at various levels between employers and workers with respect to voluntary initiatives.

Part 2

Resolutions

Consideration and adoption by the
Meeting of the draft resolutions

At its fourth plenary sitting, the Meeting set up a Working Party on Resolutions, in accordance with article 13, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders.

The Working Party, presided over by the Chairperson of the Meeting, consisted of the Officers of the Meeting and three representatives from each of the groups. The members of the Working Party were:

Officers of the Meeting

Mr. P. Simanjuntak (Chairperson)

Mr. E. Brunner (Government Vice-Chairperson)

Mr. J.M. Fumagalli (Employer Vice-Chairperson)

Mr. R. Wages (Worker Vice-Chairperson)

Government members

Italy:

Ms. G. Rocca

South Africa:

Ms. J. Bradley

United States:

Mr. F. Frodyma

Employer members

Mr. S. Chimkovitch

Mr. J. Hanks

Mr. G. Trogen

Worker members

Mr. N. Freitas

Mr. H. Iwasaki

Mr. V. Stanin

At the Meeting's sixth plenary sitting, the Chairperson, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Working Party on Resolutions and in accordance with article 14, paragraph 8, of the Standing Orders, submitted the recommendations of the Working Party on Resolutions regarding the draft resolutions before the Meeting. As required by the same provisions of the Standing Orders, the three Vice-Chairpersons of the Meeting had been consulted on the contents of his oral report.

The Working Party had before it three draft resolutions, one of which had been submitted by the Employers' group and two by the Workers' group; they were all declared receivable. The Working Party amended the text of the resolutions within the time limit set by the Officers of the Meeting.

I. Resolution concerning employment creation in the chemical industries

This resolution was based on a text submitted by the Employers' group. The Meeting unanimously adopted the resolution.

II. Resolution concerning industrial relations within the global chemical sector

This resolution was originally submitted by the Workers' group. The Meeting unanimously adopted the resolution.

III. Resolution concerning small and medium-sized enterprises in the chemical sector

This resolution originated from a text submitted by the Workers' group. The Meeting unanimously adopted the resolution.

Texts of the resolutions adopted
by the Meeting

Resolution concerning employment
creation in the chemical industries⁽⁶⁾

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries,

Having met in Geneva from 22 to 26 February 1999,

Recalling the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), which calls on member States to stimulate economic growth and development, on the basis of full, productive and freely chosen employment,

Considering that economic difficulties are causing widespread unemployment and poverty in many countries and have an adverse impact on the workforce of the chemical industries,

Considering that chemical industries are an important factor for the development of national economies and the improvement of living standards and quality of life,

Considering that successful enterprises are necessary for employment creation,

Considering that product and process innovation are fundamental to successful chemical enterprises,

Pointing out that a severe deterioration of general economic conditions in any country may have negative consequences for economic activity and employment in other countries as well,

Considering that increased economic activity and employment creation are of common interest to employers, workers, their representatives⁽⁷⁾ and governments,

Recognizing the contribution that industry makes to training, education and research,

Considering that appropriate labour market arrangements are a factor for the success of the economies in general and of structural changes caused by globalization;

Adopts this twenty-sixth day of February 1999 the following resolution:

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries invites the Governing Body of the International Labour Office:

(1) to appeal to governments to continue efforts to:

(a) use appropriate measures to facilitate an environment that encourages investments and promotes entrepreneurship leading to successful enterprises and employment creation, sustainable development and growth;

(b) take appropriate actions to facilitate innovation and creation of an environment that promotes competitiveness and investment leading to job creation by successful enterprises;

(c) improve science education and infrastructure for academic research and encourage development of partnership between the companies in the industry and education at all levels;

(d) implement financial measures through appropriate financial institutions designed to help countries most seriously affected by economic crises to begin recovery;

(2) to request the Director-General of the ILO to:

(a) undertake a survey of successful general economic and enterprise-level measures taken by governments of member States in the field of employment creation and their impact in order to enable governments, employers, workers and their respective organizations to benefit from experiences around the world and adapt them to their local needs;

(b) provide the necessary expertise and technical assistance within its mandate to promote and assist projects undertaken or planned in member States in order to aid economic recovery and employment creation.

Resolution concerning industrial relations
within the global chemical sector⁽⁸⁾

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries,

Having met in Geneva from 22 to 26 February 1999,

Noting the many challenges facing the global chemical industry, including financial, structural and organizational changes such as company investments, mergers and acquisitions, employment losses and creation,

Noting that the dependency on the global chemical sector and many of its products is increasing,

Noting the rapidly increasing educational and technical demands on companies and workers,

Noting also the increased pressure from continuing public scepticism and mistrust of a number of aspects of the chemical sector and its products,

Recognizing that such scepticism and mistrust are sometimes based on insufficient understanding and misinformation,

Considering the importance of the need for mutual trust and cooperation between employers, workers and their representatives⁽⁹⁾ to face such challenges,

Considering the benefits provided by genuine mutual respect and cooperation between employers, workers and their representatives in their industrial relations;

Adopts this twenty-sixth day of February 1999 the following resolution:

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries:

(1) calls upon the Governing Body of the International Labour Office to request the Director-General to:

(a) conduct a comparative survey of industrial relations systems in the chemical sector with the cooperation of all ILO constituents;

(b) produce a report on the industrial relations practices in the chemical sector with a view to promoting mutual trust and openness;

(2) requests the ILO to assist in the above by providing assistance to develop and promote programmes aimed at improving industrial relations within the chemical sector.

Resolution concerning small and medium-sized
enterprises in the chemical sector⁽¹⁰⁾

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries,

Having met in Geneva from 22 to 26 February 1999,

Recognizing the important position of the chemical industry and its products in both the industrialized and developing economies of the world,

Noting the extremely important role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the chemical sector as a factor that is critical in economic growth and development and that is increasingly responsible for job creation throughout the world,

Recognizing that the challenges facing SMEs and their workers can be of a different nature and scale to those being faced by the larger enterprises in the sector;

Adopts this twenty-sixth day of February 1999 the following resolution:

The Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries calls on the Governing Body of the International Labour Office:

(1) to promote and strengthen activities to identify the needs of workers and their representatives⁽¹¹⁾ in SMEs in the chemical sector, in order to promote the improvement of industrial relations practices;

(2) to encourage all member States to ratify the ILO Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170), and the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993 (No. 174), and to apply their accompanying Recommendations;

(3) to encourage all member States to ratify and apply the fundamental Conventions relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining, forced labour, discrimination and child labour;

(4) to encourage all member States to respect, promote and realize in good faith the objectives of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 1998.

Part 3

Other proceedings

Panel discussions

ILO activities relevant to the Meeting

Chairperson:

Mr. C. Weeks, Vice-Chairperson, Government group

Panellists:

Mr. I. Obadia, Occupational Safety and Health Branch, ILO, Geneva
Ms. J. Diller, Office of the Legal Adviser, ILO, Geneva
Mr. A. Abate, Bureau of Multinational Enterprise Activities, ILO, Geneva

ILO work on chemical safety and its relation
to other work in this field

Mr. Obadia traced ILO's historical involvement in international cooperation on chemical safety from the adoption of the White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 (No. 13), up to more recent activities such as the adoption of the Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170). Milestones associated with the ILO's work on chemical safety included the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, which directly led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); the establishment of the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) in 1980; the adoption of ILO's Convention No. 170 in 1990; the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992; the adoption of the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993 (No. 174); the establishment of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) in 1994; and the creation of the Inter-organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) in 1995. ILO's active participation in the establishment of the IPCS and the IFCS had led to the inclusion of employer and worker representation in their management committees. IPCS was a joint venture between UNEP, ILO and WHO which produced international peer-reviewed risk assessment documents and methodologies, and promoted information exchange and capacity building in risk assessment. ILO managed the international chemical safety cards project under this programme. The IOMC was a cooperative agreement between six United Nations agencies and the OECD for inter-agency coordination in the implementation of Chapter 19 of UNCED's Agenda 21. The IFCS played an advisory role in the coordination of chemical safety activities among countries and made recommendations to international organizations on priorities for action.

Agenda 21, which ILO staff had helped draft, was a blueprint for sustainable development, and many of its principles were related to chemicals. Of the six objectives of Chapter 19, the first was the assessment of chemical risks. OECD and IPCS were involved in this, for the purpose of producing, validating and publishing chemical risk assessments, such as the International Chemical Safety Cards (ICSCs), which were designed for use directly by workers. The second objective was the harmonization of systems of classification and labelling of chemicals. Under this programme, ILO had responsibility for overall coordination of the project and also for harmonization of hazard communication (labelling, data sheets). In this respect, the Governing Body had approved the establishment of an ILO Working Group on harmonization in 1998 as a forum to proceed with this work. In fact, it was the ILO's former Chemical Industries Committee (predecessor of the current sectoral meeting) which, already in 1954, first proposed the use of a globally harmonized classification system: the GHSCL (Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) was to be a non-binding international instrument for international and national implementation, at least at the outset. The third objective of Chapter 19 was information exchange, which included the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. Some of the outputs under information exchange included the global information network on chemicals and databases such as the ILO's CISDOC and its website. The fourth objective was risk reduction, which focused on the elimination of unacceptable and unreasonable risks. The outputs related to this objective included pesticide risk reduction, increased use of cleaner technologies and promotion of the Responsible Care programme. The final objective was capacity building and the preparation of national chemical profiles. All relevant organizations were involved, but mention should be made of the IFCS's regional and national focal points and of "SafeWork" -- the ILO's Global Programme on Occupational Safety and Health -- which was in the course of being established and which would include a strong chemical safety component.

Codes of conduct, social labelling and other
private sector initiatives addressing labour issues

Ms. Diller explained that the ILO's approaches to the proliferation of various private sector initiatives related to social labelling and to codes of conduct in the context of economic globalization had been the subject of recent discussion and careful study within the Organization. In doing so, the ILO had a unique perspective to offer based on its experience in operating through consensus between governments, employers and workers. An Office overview of global developments⁽¹²⁾ prepared for the November 1998 session of the Governing Body stressed that voluntary initiatives based on such collaboration tended to be more effective. That document had discussed the general issue of private initiatives and the role of self-regulation and gave an overview of: codes of conduct, particularly those applied in global outsourcing contexts; social labelling programmes; and investor initiatives such as fund screening and shareholder resolutions. The study reviewed voluntary initiatives dealing with labour practices (including safety and health and labour relations) and reflecting the principles that underlie fundamental labour standards. More specifically, the Office reviewed some 215 codes of conduct and a dozen social labelling programmes. It found a high degree of selectivity in the labour content of codes reviewed. While 75 per cent of the codes, for example, addressed safety and health issues, only 15 per cent referred to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Between the two extremes fell such issues as child labour (less than half), wage levels (40 per cent), employment discrimination (two- thirds) and forced labour (25 per cent). But even codes that addressed particular issues often chose to self-define the company's desired goal. No more than one-third of the codes, for example, made any reference to international labour standards. However, most of the definitions used differed from, and at times even contradicted, the principles underlying the ILO's objectives. These schemes had very diverse sponsorship. Some were single enterprise codes, others were developed by sectoral associations, while still others were hybrid initiatives developed by enterprises in cooperation with NGOs and/or trade unions. Examples of hybrid initiatives were the Ethical Trading Initiative in the United Kingdom and the Social Accountability 8000 (SA 8000) scheme of the Council for Economic Priorities. Codes developed by trade unions and companies resulted in "negotiated" code situations. An example of a code developed jointly by trade unions and enterprises was the Textile/Apparel Magna Carta negotiated between groups representing trade unions and employers in Europe; it was developed and was being monitored and evaluated jointly.

Options for action to be taken by the Office, subject to the policy guidance of the Organization, were listed in the paper. These options covered:

research on the operation and impact of codes through consultative methods as well as survey and field-based research;
various methods of assistance to enterprises in integrating private initiatives with broader ILO objectives; and
as a subject for future consideration, a text of guidelines for enterprises on how to proceed with private initiatives in a manner complementary to ILO objectives.

Several key principles emerged from the Governing Body's discussion in November 1998. First, Governments, Workers and Employers were virtually unanimous in supporting the voluntary aspect of these initiatives and their grounding in market, rather than regulatory, mechanisms. The speaker underscored, however, that at this stage the policy guidance for defining the precise activities to be undertaken was still pending. Second, future ILO activities should be based on a consensus in the Governing Body. Most existing codes or guiding principles had been developed by large retailing and manufacturing enterprises engaged in international trade, or by sectoral associations of varying global or regional scope, such as those in the chemical industry. However, many of the companies seeking to implement these codes or guidelines were subcontractors or small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. These companies, particularly in developing countries, often needed further experience or advice on how to institute managerial and technical adaptations. A third key principle was that there was a need for those affected to be informed and allowed to participate in a meaningful way. This point was relevant not only in developing codes, but also in implementing and verifying them. It emerged from the Office overview discussed at the Governing Body that codes and principles developed with worker participation tended to take a systematic rather than selective approach to labour issues, and to use ILO principles and methods as a reference point for defining good labour practices. Worker participation also tended to be associated with more effective implementation and monitoring mechanisms. This was relevant since current implementation methods sometimes lacked coherence. Not infrequently, codes launched with much publicity in an importing country remained unknown, unavailable, or untranslated at production facilities abroad. This fuelled suspicion about internal monitoring processes and created doubts about the reliability of claims relating to codes of conduct.

The Governing Body endorsed the Office's efforts to conduct research on this subject and a research agenda reflecting its suggestions was being prepared. The suggestions focused on the impact of codes on the realization of ILO objectives, including improved labour conditions, fuller employment, and the growth of developing country enterprises. The findings in the ILO overview had been addressed in various forums, including a recent European Union-United States Symposium, where governments hosted enterprises, social partners and NGOs to discuss how to strengthen cooperation on codes. Many called for the use of ILO standards as the defining reference point for codes and, in particular, use of the four fundamental principles of the newly adopted Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, as a minimum content for any code. The Governing Body would review the question of what, if any, contributions beyond research the ILO could make in the field of voluntary initiatives. The options included providing assistance to constituents in developing private initiatives compatible with the goals and objectives of the Organization. Such assistance could take the form of training and advisory services. Beyond that, future directions could include the formulation of recommendations (for example on global outsourcing) to which enterprises, social partners and others involved in codes of conduct could voluntarily subscribe, or the possible development of a system to verify the compliance of those who subscribed to the text, perhaps facilitated rather than directed by the ILO.

Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy

Mr. Abate explained how the perception of the role of multinational enterprises (MNEs) had been changing over the years. He recalled that many States which had become independent in the 1960s had wanted to assert this independence in the 1970s with the establishment of a Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations (TNCs). They hoped to adopt this through the vehicle of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in which the Group of 77 had a controlling majority. This desire to regulate the behaviour of MNEs also stemmed from some well-documented cases in the late 1960s and early 1970s where MNEs had been involved in the downfall of democratically elected governments. To this end the UN had established a Commission on Transnational Corporations, backed up by a large research and administrative arm in the form of the Centre on Transnational Corporations (CTC).⁽¹³⁾ Nevertheless, it had always been understood that ILO would be responsible for social and labour issues in any future UN code, whether voluntary or not.

Parallel to these UN efforts, work in the ILO was also under way from 1972 on the question of multinationals, culminating in the adoption in 1977 of a voluntary Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. Interestingly, the OECD had also adopted a set of Guidelines already in 1976, but with a narrower focus both in terms of geographic coverage (limited to its member States plus three who agreed to apply it) and scope. Only nine of its paragraphs were devoted to industrial relations issues, while the ILO's 58-paragraph Declaration covered: general policies, all aspects of employment, training, wages and conditions of work, occupational safety and health questions (paragraphs 36-39), and industrial relations. The shelving in 1992 of the UN draft code reinforced the status of the ILO's Tripartite Declaration as the only agreed universal code of conduct (even if only on a voluntary basis). ILO Conventions and Recommendations were widely footnoted throughout the Declaration and these references, together with newer ones adopted after 1977, were regularly updated in an annex to the Tripartite Declaration. It was also quite significant that six of the seven core Conventions covered by the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998) were already cited in the Tripartite Declaration. Despite the voluntary nature of the Declaration, the ILO's Governing Body demonstrated its commitment to follow up on the principles contained in it by instituting a survey procedure involving a detailed questionnaire and an interpretation procedure which was to look into disputes over the meaning of the Declaration.

Discussion

In response to a question from a Worker member about information on the IOMC's work in the promotion of Responsible Care, Mr. Obadia explained that this was mainly the work of the OECD's Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC). Some of these outputs were used in ILO training programmes in developing countries.

In response to a question from a Worker member, Ms. Diller explained that social labelling was distinct from environmental concerns and was also different from, although closely related to, codes of conduct. The term was defined in paragraph 68 of the Governing Body paper:⁽¹⁴⁾

The term "social labelling" has come to connote a means of communicating information through a physical label about the social conditions surrounding the production of a product or rendering of a service. Social labels may be affixed to products or their packaging or displayed on shelving or shop windows at the retail site. Some labels are assigned to enterprises, usually producers or manufacturers. They are aimed at consumers and/or potential business partners. Social labelling programmes are considered to be voluntary responses to market incentives (including the demands of business partners) rather than to public law or regulation.

The document also contained a table summarizing the various schemes according to the actors concerned (governments, employers, workers, IGOs, NGOs) and the intended beneficiaries. Whether or not the initiatives had an actual impact on the intended beneficiaries was a question which required urgent attention.

In response to a question, Mr. Abate recalled the ILO's definition of an MNE as found in paragraph 6 of the Tripartite Declaration⁽¹⁵⁾ and suggested that it remained more appropriate than the term "transnational" corporations (TNCs) which was used in the draft UN code. Although emphasis was placed on economic data when describing MNEs, economic, social and political questions could not be separated and hence the need to strengthen labour ministries. As regards the survey, six had been undertaken to date and the seventh (covering the period 1996-99) was about to be launched. The questionnaire was sent to governments, employers and workers; 75 countries, representing the vast majority of countries where MNEs operated, had replied to the most recent survey.

Recent trends in work organization
in the chemical industries

Moderator:

Mr. R. Wages, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Meeting

Panellists:

Mr. Oliver Strohm, Institut für Arbeitsforschung und Organisationsberatung, Switzerland
Mr. H. Richter, Bundesarbeitgeberverband Chemie, Germany
Mr. H. Iwasaki, KAGAKUSOREN, Japanese Federation of Chemical Workers' Unions

In this panel the question of work organization was viewed from three different perspectives: the first speaker took an academic perspective, on the basis of an empirical analysis of a cross-section of industries; the second speaker from an employer's viewpoint in a specific company in the chemical industry; and the third speaker dealt more with workers' reactions to change at the national level in light of globalization.

Mr. Strohm described the reasons for and the nature of new forms of work organization, especially as regards flexibility. The fundamental element was how work should be designed so as to integrate people with technology and work organization and to give the workers more control over their jobs. This together with rapidly changing markets presented a management challenge requiring flexibility. Two solutions were possible, either a technical one based on automation, or a more sociological systems approach which was work-oriented and based on designing jobs around workers, so as to use people, technology and organizational techniques in an optimal way. Although companies of all sizes used computer-aided systems (CAS) to meet economic objectives (through improving calculations, reducing production time and enhancing the quality of the product) and to give them the needed flexibility, they did not have a 100 per cent success rate. Problems encountered with the introduction of CAS stemmed mainly from attempts to introduce a technology which was too complex, inappropriate work organization and insufficient or inappropriate qualifications or training. Regrettably, some employers still viewed training as a cost rather than an investment.

The choices available to employers ranged from traditional hierarchical models with a strong division of labour, to partly or fully integrated models with flexible production techniques. The goal would be to design work around the job, shifting more responsibility to employees. Ultimately, self-regulated work groups would agree on their own tasks covering the production set-up, working hours, salary scales, budgets, recruitment of new employees and training. It was found that in such self-regulated work groups the commitment to achieve commonly agreed goals was high but that the group cohesion broke down under time pressure. The benefits of such a system included the elimination of defects, reduction in production time, higher productivity and continuous improvements. New wage systems needed to be introduced that would have a basic component, with several variable elements related to competence and the success of the company, in addition to group and individual bonuses. Flexible working hours would allow workers to match their individual schedules and desire for autonomy with the employer's desire to reduce overtime, increase capacity utilization, improve productivity and contribute to job satisfaction. On the whole, Mr. Strohm felt that a company redesigned according to the organizational principles he presented would in the long term provide increased employment security and higher compensation based on performance. Extensive training and supportive leadership were necessary. Information (both financial and performance-related) needed to be shared with all, and status distinctions -- e.g. dress, language, office design or wage differentials -- which created barriers had to be reduced. In summary, the principles of innovation revolved around communicating all aspects of change to the employees with the involvement of their representatives. To be effective, employees needed to feel ownership of the change process, to believe in its benefits and to be able to note visible improvements during the process, which had to be introduced at an appropriate pace by management.

Mr. Richter (Professor at Aachen University; former Chief of Personnel of Bayer AG) complemented Mr. Strohm's general presentation, which he suggested related basically to the need for change, with specific elements from the chemical industry. He commended and quoted extensively from the ILO's World Labour Report, and emphasized flexibility and the need for total quality management (TQM), i.e. ensuring quality throughout rather than quality control (QC) only at the end. Today, efficiency required flexibility and a highly qualified, multiskilled workforce. Globalization and the introduction of new technologies were the two greatest challenges facing industry today. Industry trends were being influenced by shorter product life cycles, more emphasis on project-oriented research and development and marketing, and mergers and acquisitions (which could lead to task expansion, but also to redundancies). This process of re-engineering required new technologies, lean management, a delegation of tasks, continuous improvement (by every worker and not only management) and teamwork, which was actually pioneered in the chemical industry. The speed with which chemical processes took place put limits, however, on the actual amount of team or group work possible. Workers needed to have rules clearly defined in advance and in the event of potential accidents had to act quickly on their own without having time for consultation or group decision-making. In today's changing environment, workers needed new qualifications in addition to a good general education. These included organizational and communications skills, which also enhanced each individual's employability. While the employer had to provide retraining, workers could also be expected to invest in their own continuous education, both on and off the job. The company Bayer AG had reduced staff by 30 per cent over the past six years but increased training expenditures by 20 per cent. Half of the retraining budget was spent on information technologies, the remaining going to developing communication skills and providing occupational safety and health training for matters such as Responsible Care.

Mr. Iwasaki explained the reasons for workers' resistance to change. He felt that the concepts presented were applicable only in the United States and Europe and could not be introduced in every company or country. Without adequate consultations and advance information, employers who tried to impose change from the top might encounter resistance, much of it cultural. Japanese workers, for example, preferred to stay in the same company and work among friends. Nevertheless, in today's world of global competition, trade liberalization and mergers and acquisitions, workforce reductions were inevitable, and it was therefore preferable to be transferred to a similar job in a different company or to be retrained for a new job in the same enterprise, rather than be confronted with total redundancy. With shorter product life cycles, companies had a responsibility to develop new products continuously, cultivate expanded markets and perhaps enter a completely new line of business in order to survive. In his view, major process innovation was the type of organizational change required. Environmental concerns were also confronting the industry; these were worldwide problems and required initiatives such as Responsible Care. Finally, owing to demographic changes, there were fewer and fewer university graduates and companies were compelled to retain and retrain older workers. Thus, global competition, environmental concerns and demographic changes were the three factors dictating how companies, an industry and a country should change and concomitantly what types of organizational changes would have to accompany them at the firm level. Throughout this process it was the job of unions to insist on the provision of adequate retraining.

Discussion

A Worker member from France questioned whether the panellists referred in their presentations to genuinely new forms of work organization, or whether it was not just a question of companies trying to meet economic objectives as in the past. Mr. Richter responded that he had evoked real changes that had been introduced over the past 30 to 40 years and not futuristic models. The current period of change was a reality and would continue for a few more years. While some companies had resorted to these methods in the past, more and more were doing so now. High-tech industries by definition required a highly qualified workforce, which in the end ensured greater effectiveness. Mr. Strohm added that companies were setting explicit goals more and more often, and developing into high performance work organizations (HPWOs), which he felt would be more humane in the long run. Ultimately, companies would be measured by their success. In reply to another question, Mr. Richter confirmed that a feminization of technical jobs was taking place. Whereas women represented only 2 per cent of persons working in scientific professions 30 years ago, the figure was now approaching 18 per cent in his company. A Worker member from Turkey wondered whether the mere survival of a company in the face of global competition did not provide the employee with exactly the kind of security he needed. In reply, Mr. Iwasaki said that Japanese workers had worked together with employers in the past when they were convinced that change was necessary and the same was true today: Japanese workers were prepared to meet the Asian crisis together with the employers.

Future of the chemical industries:
Shared responsibility for sustainability

Moderator:

Mr. J.M. Fumagalli, Employer Vice-Chairperson of the Meeting

Panellists:

Mr. J. Whiston, Chemical Industries Association, United Kingdom
Ms. J. Aloïsi de Larderel, Director, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Mr. M. Decayeux, Secretary-General, Fédéchimie CGT-FO, Paris

Mr. Whiston suggested, as concerns the chemical industry and its Responsible Care programme, that the three pillars of sustainable development were the ecological, the economic and the social pillars. He stressed, first, that the industry's stakeholders had to pay equal attention to each pillar. The tendency for different actors to focus on the pillar of greatest interest to them was insufficient since the three pillars were interdependent. Second, all parties needed to be involved, including industry, government, workers, community, and consumer groups. The parties which were not involved would not recognize the legitimacy of the process, and the chemical industry and its initiatives would lose credibility. Third, the importance of innovation should also be recognized. Innovation was the key to the realization of sustainable development, and it was in this area that the chemical industry could make a marked contribution. The chemical industry contributed by developing products and services which had helped meet the needs of humankind, helping to solve problems in other sectors, generating employment, playing a leading role in research and development and, after a delay of some years, engaging in environmental clean-up. To play its part in sustainable development, the industry needed government support in various forms including sound regulatory legislation to complement voluntary initiatives, liberal trade policies, and support for research and development and for restructuring. The speaker also argued that public opinion needed to be marshalled and that government could play an important role in this regard. He stressed that governments and other stakeholders would need to participate in the development of performance indicators. One of the problems was how to convince people with disparate aims that sustainable development was advantageous to them. The most effective way of ensuring this was through an efficient education and training system, which could change the way in which society consumed and operated. Citing the case of Germany, he outlined how a joint programme had been working with the German Chemical Industries Association, trade unions and other stakeholders. A dialogue was established, conclusions drawn and ideas disseminated.

Voluntary initiatives represented a first step in the process of change needed to realize sustainable development. The dialogue which was taking place with the framework of these initiatives demonstrated the acceptance of a necessary balance among the three pillars. The present Meeting was part of that same process of interaction between the pillars of sustainable development. In summary, Mr. Whiston stated that it was important to recognize four points: that there was a problem, that different groups had to work together to solve the problem, that education and training were paramount, and finally and most importantly that innovation was the key to success.

Ms. Aloïsi de Larderel referred to UNEP as the UN's ministry of environment. Its three major roles were: to coordinate assessments of the world environment; to build a consensus on responses to the problems identified in that assessment process; and to assist in implementing these responses. She described UNEP as a catalyst for change; its goal was to make sure that decision-makers had access to the knowledge and information needed to make informed choices. She stressed that new ways of working were emerging. Resources were beginning to be used more productively, but room still remained for the development of preventive programmes. More effective management practices which were needed to bring about improvements were being developed, but she considered them to be in a very early stage. She stressed that voluntary initiatives were useful in moving companies beyond compliance, and in promoting awareness and honesty. It was for these reasons that UNEP had decided to develop and promote the use of such initiatives. UNEP's activities in this field focused on three areas: promoting the use of initiatives in a number of new sectors such as finance and tourism; applying voluntary initiatives to specific issues such as emissions of carbon dioxide; and environmental reporting since "what isn't measured isn't managed". UNEP had also published a number of documents on environmental codes of conduct, in which success stories were highlighted. The speaker then stressed the "5 C's" that were critical for codes to be effective: commitment, content, collaboration/cooperation, checking the results, and communicating the results. Commitment referred to the need to understand why a company undertook a voluntary initiative. Content referred to the need for the code to cover issues such as life-cycle assessment, management approaches and application of the code throughout the supply chain. Collaboration and cooperation with key stakeholders were important to ensure effectiveness and credibility. Checking the results involved the monitoring of information and preparation of environmental reports and assessments. Finally, these reports, which should relate to local and global issues, needed to be communicated to the public and other stakeholders to get feedback.

One important UNEP initiative was seeking to involve banks and other financial institutions in promoting sustainable development, with the aim of inducing them to take account in their loans and financing of environmental management and project sustainability. A similar approach was now being applied for the tourism and advertising industries, the emphasis being on how to promote sustainable consumption. Work was also being undertaken on tools for monitoring the implementation of codes, especially corporate environmental reports. Guidelines were being developed to promote consistency in reporting related to sustainability. In short, she considered that the need for shared responsibility in relation to sustainable development was evident. Further work was needed in three areas. First, pricing policies needed to reflect the cost to the environment of certain processes and operations. Second, governments should shift from taxing employment to taxing the use of resources, as a way of promoting their more efficient use. Third, she stressed the need for the use of the precautionary principle in trade and environment issues.

Mr. Decayeux emphasized that trade unions had always recognized sustainable development as an important issue, since it involved the actual survival of its members. For the industry, this meant the survival of its customers and livelihood. Choices made in companies' R&D programmes sometimes conflicted with sustainable development. It could be problematic to make a choice between the goal of sustainable development and the risk of bankruptcy. The speaker stressed that if minimum international rules were applied by governments and companies, this would already constitute a major step forward. Trade unions had different activities in the field of sustainable development, such as studies on hazards and appropriate work processes, but they could not be expected to do everything. Preventive measures were needed and the costs entailed should be viewed as investments which, in time, would pay dividends. He also stressed the need for compensation when problems occurred as a result of irresponsible behaviour. It was important for the enterprises in the industry to realize that trade unions wished to contribute to the development of voluntary initiatives but that they could not be forced to do so. It could only be done through awareness-raising.

Discussion

Mr. Wages (Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Meeting) observed that human beings could not continue to show disrespect for their environment as they had done so far. He argued that certain processes and products of the chemical industry -- such as poisons and persistent organic pollutants (POPS) -- were not sustainable, and that the industry had to come to grips with these facts. He wondered what social policy measures would be adopted as decisions which affected workers, communities, and corporations, were taken to eliminate certain processes. This was an important point which was not being addressed.

Ms. Aloïsi de Larderel stated that present models of production and consumption could clearly not be pursued. However, the world had always been changing and the problem was how best to manage the present transition. Planning was needed to make sure that workers were involved and retrained. New business opportunities arose, for example, for companies which could profitably provide recycling. Mr. Whiston argued that these issues had to be dealt with publicly. Governments tended to focus on short-term rather than long-term interests for electoral reasons. He insisted on the importance of education, which could facilitate the process of dialogue and transition. In the meantime the industry should strive to conserve energy and develop new and different products. It should also look at ways of producing chemicals that had minimum by-products in order to minimize the risks to users and workers. Mr. Decayeux pointed out that preventive measures were more likely to be taken when trade unions were present. Although green chemistry was important, it was not a panacea; even naturally occurring elements could be toxic.

There was some discussion about solutions to certain problems, which contained unexpected or unknown problems of their own. CFCs were thought to have less impact on workers but had the disadvantage of aggravating the ozone problem. Substitutes for CFCs were favourable for the ozone layer but not for climate change. Trials should be carried out over extended periods and under controlled conditions. All activities involved risks, hence the necessity of risk assessment which should lead to better societal choices. The Moderator urged all participants to pursue sustainability through Responsible Care, responsible participation and responsible legislation.

Closing speeches

The Secretary-General provided information on participation in the Meeting and reviewed its outputs. He highlighted the importance for the ILO's constituents -- as well as for the ILO itself -- to translate the adopted conclusions and resolutions into concrete action at both national and international level; for its part, the Sectoral Activities Department would spare no effort to that end.

Mr. Weeks (representative of the Government of the United Kingdom; Vice-Chairperson of the Government group) expressed satisfaction, on behalf of the Government group, with the outcome of the Meeting; he also noted its predominantly constructive atmosphere. Voluntary initiatives would continue to be an important means of promoting HSE protection, but future discussions on this issue would need to be supported by factual information about HSE.

Mr. Trogen (Chairperson of the Employers' group) said that while there had been differences -- some of them serious and up to the final moments of the Meeting -- agreement had been reached on resolutions and conclusions, in a spirit of mutual interest for the chemical industry and its importance. The week had proven valuable for all who worked in the chemical industry. The dialogue concerning voluntary initiatives, and especially Responsible Care, had been strengthened and this would benefit companies, workers, communities, customers and the general public alike.

Mr. Wages (Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Meeting) said that workers and their representatives took health, safety and the environment just as seriously if not more so than employers and governments. They had come to the Meeting in the hope of obtaining the acknowledgement that workers and the trade unions that represented them were a critical element to the voluntary initiatives undertaken by the chemical industry. The conclusions noted the important role of workers and their unions in the full range of voluntary initiatives, not only Responsible Care. This was a significant outcome which denoted general acceptance that such initiatives could not succeed without the commitment of workers and their unions. However much had been achieved to date in the voluntary initiatives and specifically in Responsible Care, there still remained more to do. He hoped that future efforts would be based on collaboration.

The Chairperson commended the participants on the seriousness with which they had prepared the Meeting; this had borne fruit. The discussions had been professional and business-like, and despite differences participants had shown respect for each other's ideas and positions. The adopted conclusions broke new ground and significantly advanced the dialogue already initiated regarding the role that the industry's workforce would play in regard to voluntary initiatives. The success of the Meeting would be measured by the extent to which the conclusions and resolutions were applied. If implemented in all the countries represented in the Meeting, they would lead to improved health, safety and environment for millions of chemical industry workers. The Chairperson declared the Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries closed.

1. ILO, Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries, Geneva, 1999: Voluntary initiatives affecting training and education on safety, health and environment in the chemical industries, 75 pp.

2. Adopted unanimously.

3. Adopted unanimously.

4. Throughout this text, when the term "workers' representatives" is used, it refers to Article 3 of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which reads as follows:

"For the purpose of this Convention the term 'workers' representatives' means persons who are recognised as such under national law or practice, whether they are --

(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives designated or elected by trade unions or by the members of such unions; or

(b) elected representatives, namely, representatives who are freely elected by the workers of the undertaking in accordance with provisions of national laws or regulations or of collective agreements and whose functions do not include activities which are recognised as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in the country concerned."

5. When the term "workers' organizations" is used, it refers primarily to trade unions as well as other workers' organizations.

6. Adopted unanimously.

7. The term "workers' representatives" refers to Article 3 of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which reads as follows:

"For the purpose of this Convention the term 'workers' representatives' means persons who are recognised as such under national law or practice, whether they are --

(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives designated or elected by trade unions or by the members of such unions; or

8. Adopted unanimously.

9. The term "workers' representatives" refers to Article 3 of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which reads as follows:

"For the purpose of this Convention the term 'workers' representatives' means persons who are recognised as such under national law or practice, whether they are --

(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives designated or elected by trade unions or by the members of such unions; or

10. Adopted unanimously.

11. The term "workers' representatives" refers to Article 3 of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which reads as follows:

"For the purpose of this Convention the term 'workers' representatives' means persons who are recognised as such under national law or practice, whether they are --

(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives designated or elected by trade unions or by the members of such unions; or

12. GB.273/WP/SDL/1.

13. Now part of UNCTAD, which publishes the World Investment Report.

14. ibid., p. 31.

15. "To serve its purpose this Declaration does not require a precise legal definition of multinational enterprises; this paragraph is designed to facilitate the understanding of the Declaration and not to provide such a definition. Multinational enterprises include enterprises, whether they are of public, mixed or private ownership, which own or control production, distribution, services or other facilities outside the country in which they are based. The degree of autonomy of entities within multinational enterprises in relation to each other varies widely from one such enterprise to another, depending on the nature of the links between such entities and their fields of activity and having regard to the great diversity in the form of ownership, in the size, in the nature and location of the operations of the enterprises concerned. Unless otherwise specified, the term 'multinational enterprise' is used in this Declaration to designate the various entities (parent companies or local entities or both or the organization as a whole) according to the distribution of responsibilities among them, in the expectation that they will cooperate and provide assistance to one another as necessary to facilitate observance of the principles laid down in the Declaration."

Evaluation questionnaire

A questionnaire seeking participants' opinions on various aspects of the Meeting was distributed before the end of the Meeting; the response rate was 29.3 per cent. Items were rated on a five-point scale. The following table gives the absolute number of respondents who assigned each rating and the weighted average score on each item evaluated.

1. How do you rate the Meeting as regards the following?

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Excellent

Good

Satisfac-
tory

Poor

Unsatis-
factory

Average
score

The choice of the agenda item (subject of the Meeting)

7

25

3

4.11

The points for discussion

4

21

11

3.81

The quality of the discussion

2

24

8

2

3.72

The Meeting's benefits to the sector

8

19

8

1

3.94

The conclusions

4

21

10

1

3.78

The resolutions

6

17

11

3.85

Panel discussion on ILO activities relevant to the Meeting

4

15

5

2

3.81

Panel discussion on recent trends in work organization in the chemical industries

3

16

11

3.73

Panel discussion on the future of the chemical industries: Shared responsibilities for sustainability

4

16

5

1

3.88

Opportunity for networking

2

18

7

3.81

2. How do you rate the quality of the report in terms of the following?

Excellent

Good

Satisfac-
tory

Poor

Unsatis-
factory

Average
score

Quality of analysis

4

24

4

1

3.94

Objectivity

4

21

8

3.88

Comprehensiveness of coverage

4

19

8

2

3.76

Presentation and readability

7

21

6

4.03

Amount and relevance of information

5

17

9

1

1

3.73

3. How do you consider the time allotted for discussion?

Too much

Enough

Too little

Discussion of the report

1

30

5

Panel discussions

1

28

4

Groups

2

30

2

Working Party on Resolutions

3

22

4

Working Party on Conclusions

3

20

7

4. How do you rate the practical and administrative arrangements
(secretariat, document services, translation, interpretation)

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Poor

Unsatisfactory

Average score

18

15

2

4.46

5. Respondents to the questionnaire

Government

Employer

Worker

Observer

Unidentified

Total

10

10

15

0

1

36

(29.3% of participants)

6. Participants at the Meeting

Government

Employer

Worker

Observer

Total

31

35

36

21

123

List of participants
Liste des participants
Lista de participantes

Representative of the Governing Body
of the International Labour Office
Représentant du Conseil d'administration
du Bureau international du Travail
Representante del Consejo de Administración
de la Oficina Internacional del Trabajo

Mr. Payaman J. Simanjuntak, Senior Adviser to the Minister of Manpower, Ministry of Manpower, Jakarta, Indonesia

Members representing governments
Membres représentant les gouvernements
Miembros representantes de los gobiernos

Argentina -- Argentine

Sr. Eduardo Varela, Consejero de Embajada, Misión Permanente de Argentina en Ginebra

Brazil -- Brésil -- Brasil

Mr. Gilmar C. Trivelato, Senior Researcher, Ministry of Labour, FUNDACENTRO, Belo Horizonte

China -- Chine

M. Zhang Wei, Conseiller, Mission permanente de Chine à Genève

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Li Mingfu, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of China in Geneva

Mr. Jiang Mohui, Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Beijing

Czech Republic -- République tchèque -- República Checa

Mr. Milos Palecek, Director, Occupational Safety Research Institute, Praha

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Jaroslav Volf, Director of Regional Institute of Hygiene, Ostrava

Mr. Stanislav Benes, Administrator, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Praha

Egypt -- Egypte -- Egipto

Mr. Mohamed Shahin, Under Secretary, OSH Dep., Ministry of Manpower, Shiben Elkom

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejera técnica

Ms. Islah Amin, Counsellor for Labour Affairs, Permanent Mission of Egypt in Geneva

Finland -- Finlande -- Finlandia

Mr. Rauno Hanhela, Senior Adviser, Department for Occupational Safety and Health, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Tampere

Germany -- Allemagne -- Alemania

Mr. Martin Henn, Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Dortmund

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Mr. Werner Ringkamp, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Germany in Geneva

India -- Inde

Mr. Manauwer M. Alam Khan, Director, Industrial Hygiene, Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour, Central Labour Institute, Ministry of Labour, Mumbai

Italy -- Italie -- Italia

M^me Giovanna Rocca, Dirigente, ministère du Travail, Rome

Adviser and substitute/Conseiller technique et suppléant/Consejero técnico y suplente

M. Rosario Cappelleri, ministère du Travail, Rome

Japan -- Japon -- Japón

Mr. Junichi Tagawa, Deputy Chief Expert Officer in Industrial Health, Ministry of Labour, Tokyo

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Mr. Akira Isawa, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Japan in Geneva

Mexico -- Mexique -- México

Sra. Rosalva Ortuño, Subdirectora de Actividades Académicas y Educativas, Secretaria del Trabajo y Previsión Social, México

Netherlands -- Pays-Bas -- Países Bajos

Ms. Yolanda Van Der Kamp, Policy Maker, Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, The Hague

Norway -- Norvège -- Noruega

Ms. Ragnhild Eriksen, Senior Engineer, Directorate of Labour Inspection, Oslo

South Africa -- Afrique du Sud -- Súdafrica

Ms. Jo Bradley, Deputy Director, Occupational Health and Safety, Department of Labour, Pretoria

Switzerland -- Suisse -- Suiza

M. Eduard Brunner, chef de l'Inspection fédérale du travail du 2^e arrondissement, Aarau

Turkey -- Turquie -- Turquía

Ms. Filiz Anik, Chief Labour Inspector, Head of Child Labour Unit, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Ankara

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Onan Kuru, Head of Occupational Health and Safety Department, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Ankara

M. Nihat Ünal, Direction générale des services pour les travailleurs à l'étranger, Ministère du Tavail et de la Sécurité sociale, Ankara

Ms. Handan Sabir, Director, Occupational Safety and Health Institute, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Ankara

United Kingdom -- Royaume-Uni -- Reino Unido

Mr. Colin Weeks, Executive Officer, Health and Safety Executive, International Division, Department for Education and Employment, London

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejera técnica

Ms. Sara Brattan, Executive Officer, International Relations Division, Department for Education and Employment, London

United States -- Etats-Unis -- Estados Unidos

Mr. Francis Frodyma, Deputy Director of Policy, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor, Washington, DC

Members representing the employers
Membres représentant les employeurs
Miembros representantes de los empleadores

Sr. Victoriano Angüis Terrazas, Presidente, Nacional de la Comisión de Seguridad e Higiene, Confederación Patronal de la República Mexicana, México

Mr. Dom Bausano, Chairman, International Conference of Chemical Associations, Huntsman Corp., Houston, Texas, United States

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Mr. Bruce Bonnevier, Director, International Human Resources, Rohm & Haas Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Mr. Ali Büyükuslu, Consultant, Industrial Relations and Human Resources, Turkish Confederation of Employers Organization, Istanbul

Mr. Serge Chimkovitch, European Public Affairs, Solvay SA, Brussels, Belgium

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Mr. Jacques Busson, Counsellor, European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Brussels, Belgium

Sr. Alfonso Donday Fernández, Federación Empres de la Industria Química Española, Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empreses, Madrid

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Sr. Jaime López-Cózar Navarro, Federación Empres de la Industria Química Española, Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empreses, Madrid

Sr. José M. Fumagalli, Director Ejecutivo, Cámara de Industrias Químicas y Petroquímicas de Argentina, Buenos Aires

M. François Gaschka, directeur, Affaires sociales, Puteaux, France

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejera técnica

M^me Catherine Lequime, Département technique, union des industries chimiques, Paris La Défense, France

Mr. Jonathon Hanks, Environmental Adviser, AECI Ltd., Gallo Manor, South Africa

Mr. Vincent Harris, Director, Education, Innovation and Employment Affairs, Chemical Industries Association, London, United Kingdom

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Christopher Beckett, Technical Adviser, BP Chemicals, c/o Chemical Industries Association, London, United Kingdom

Mr. James Whiston, Chairman, CEFIC Responsible Care Committee, c/o Chemical Industries Association, London, United Kingdom

Mr. Frantisek Hrobsky, Safety Department Manager, Chemopetrol A.S., Confederation of Industry, Litvinov, Czech Republic

Mr. Börre Jacobsen, Chief Negotiator, Federation of Norwegian Process Industry, Oslo

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Mr. Sverre Hoestmark, Assistant Director, Federation of Norwegian Process Industry, Oslo

Mr. Erik Kjaergaard, Confederation of Danish Industries, Copenhagen

Mr. Harold Lai Chuck Choo, Technical Manager, Mauritius Chemical and Fertilizer Industry Ltd., Port-Louis

M. Nicola Messina, directeur des relations industrielles, Federchimica (Fédération nationale de l'industrie chimique), Milan, Italie

Mr. Ray Mowling, President, Monsanto Canada Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Mr. Norihiko Nishiyama, Managing Director, Mitsubishi Chemical Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

Adviser/conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

Mr. Motoo Kawamata, Japan Chemical Industry Association, Tokyo

M^me Lubélia Penedo, Directora Geral, Associação Portuguesa das Empresas Químicas, Lisboa

Mr. Harald Richter, Professor, Technical University Aachen, Bundesarbeitgeberverband Chemie, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Frauke Druckrey, Responsible Care Coordinator, Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V., Kelheim, Germany

Mr. Friedrich Karl Weinspach, General Executive Manager, Landesausschuss der Arbeitgeberverbände der Chemischen Industrie Nordrhein Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Germany

M. Claudio Rollini, secrétaire général, Association des industries chimiques genevoises, Genève

Mr. Anwar Salama, Petrochemical Industries Co., Kuwait City, Kuwait

Mr. James Smith, Director, Safety, Environment and Sustainability, Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association, Melbourne, Australia

Mr. Emile Strating, Director, Corporate Industrial Relations, DSM, Heerlen, Netherlands

Mr. Göran Trogen, Director-General, ALMEGA Industrial & Chemical Association, Stockholm, Sweden

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Ms. Kerstin Brodowsky, Lawyer, ALMEGA Industrial & Chemical Association, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. Inge Lundström, Adviser, Association of Swedish Chemical Industries, KEMIKONTORET, Stockholm

Members representing the workers
Membres représentant les travailleurs
Miembros representantes de los trabajadores

Sr. Elías Quintero Arauz, Secretario de Organización, Sindicato de Trabajadores Petroleros Químicos y Afines (SITRAPEQUIA), San José, Costa Rica

M. Roland Conus, secrétaire, secrétariat central, Syndicat industrie et bâtiment, Lausanne

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

M. Alain Lamat, secrétaire syndical, Syndicat industrie et bâtiment, Genève

M. Bernard Lagrèze, conseiller, Syndicat industrie et bâtiment, Genève

M. Pascal Roux, Syndicat industrie et bâtiment, Genève

M. Joseph De Luca, Syndicat industrie et bâtiment, Genève

M. Michel Decayeux, secrétaire général, Fedechimie CGT-FO, Paris, France

M. Denis De Mey, conseiller social, Centrale générale de la FGTB, Bruxelles, Belgique

Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico

M. Paul Lootens, Centrale générale de la FGTB, Bruxelles, Belgique

Mr. Nilton Freitas, International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Union, São Paulo, Brasil

Mr. Ussikhah Gabdushev, President, Chemical Workers' Union, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Sr. Carlos Gaitan, Secretario General, Federación Latinoamericana de Trabajadores de la Industria, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Mr. Pal Gergely, Senior Expert, Federation of Trade Unions of the Chemical, Energy and Allied Workers (VDSZ), Budapest, Hungary

Mr. Fred Higgs, National Secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union, London, United Kingdom

Mr. Krzysztof Hnatio, President, NSZZ "Solidarnosc" Chemical Industry Workers' Secretariat, Wroclaw, Poland

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Krzysztof Witkowski, Head of Trade Union's Committee for Health and Safety, NSZZ "Solidarnosc" Chemical Industry Workers' Secretariat, Bydgoszcs, Poland

Ms. Monika Trojan, International Secretary, NSZZ "Solidarnosc" Chemical Industry Workers' Secretariat, Wroclaw, Poland

Mr. Teunis P. Hubert, Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond (CNV), De Houten, Netherlands

Adviser/ Conseiller technique/Consejera técnica

Ms. Chantal Nijhuis, CNV BedrijvenBond, De Houten, Netherlands

Mr. Hirokazu Iwasaki, President, Japanese Federation of Chemical Workers Unions (KAGAKUSOREN), Tokyo

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Akinaga Yamane, Vice-President, Japanese Federation of Chemistry Workers' Unions, Tokyo

Mr. Hideo Tahara, CSG Rengo Takeda Chemical Workers' Union, Central Committee, Osaka, Japan

Mr. Kang Yeon-Bae, Director of Public Relations Division, Federation of Korean Chemical Workers' Unions, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Mr. Brian Kohler, National Representative, Health, Safety and Environment, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Ottawa

Mr. Napoleon D.K. Kpoh, General Secretary, Industrial and Commercial Workers Union, Accra, Ghana

Mr. Ulf Lavenius, Industrifacket, Stockholm, Sweden

M. Thomas Lukusa, secrétaire national, Confédération syndicale du Congo (CSC), Kinshasa, République démocratique du Congo

Mr. Pelelo Simon Magane, Union Official, Chemical Workers Industrial Union, Johannesburg, South Africa

Mr. Abdul Halim Mansor, General Secretary, International Federation of Chemical, Energy and Mining, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Mr. Michael Mersmann, Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Energie, Hannover, Germany

Mr. Valery Stanin, President, Chemical Workers Union, Moscow, Russian Federation

Advisers/Conseillers techniques/Consejeros técnicos

Mr. Victor Chaov, Chemical Workers Union, Moscow, Russian Federation

Mr. Alexandre Soukhanov, Chemical Workers Union, Moscow, Russian Federation

Mr. Petr Danilov, Chemical Workers Union, Moscow, Russian Federation

Mr. Bala Tampoe, General Secretary, Ceylon Mercantile, Industrial General Workers' Union (CMU), Colombo, Sri Lanka

Mr. Robert Wages, Executive Vice-President, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers' Union (OCAW), Lakewood, Colorado, United States

Others
Autres
Otros

Representatives of member States present at the sittings
Représentants d'Etats Membres présents aux séances
Representantes de Estados Miembros presentes en las sesiones

France -- Francia

M^me Joëlle Ory, chargée de la mission internationale, ministère Economie, Finances et Industrie, Direction générale de l'industrie, Service des industries manufacturières, Paris

Nigeria -- Nigéria

Mr. Abdullah S. Ahmad, Permanent Mission of Nigeria in Geneva

Representatives of United Nations, specialized agencies
and other official international organizations
Représentants des Nations Unies, des institutions spécialisées
et d'autres organisations internationales officielles
Representantes de las Naciones Unidas, de los organismos
especializados y de otras organizaciones
internacionales oficiales

Arab Labour Organization
Organisation arabe du travail
Organización Arabe del Trabajo

M. Adnan El-Telawi, chef de la Délégation permanente, Genève

Representatives of non-governmental international organizations
Représentants d'organisations internationales non gouvernementales
Representantes de organizaciones internacionales no gubernamentales

Global Crop Protection Federation

Mr. Ulrich Ramseier, Global Crop Protection Federation, Novartis Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
Confédération internationale des syndicats libres
Confederación Internacional de Organizaciones Sindicales Libres

Mr. Dan Cunniah, Director, Geneva

Ms. Anna Biondi, Assistant Director, Geneva

International Council of Chemical Associations

Mr. Bryan Sanderson, Chairman, c/o BP Amoco Chemicals, London, United Kingdom

Mr. Hugo Lever, Director-General, c/o CEFIC, Brussels, Belgium

Mr. Jacques Busson, Counsellor, c/o CEFIC, Brussels, Belgium

Mr. Mark Devisscher, Head of Media Relations, European Chemical Industry Council, Brussels, Belgium

International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine
and General Workers' Unions
Fédération internationale des syndicats des travailleurs de la chimie,
de l'énergie, des mines et des industries diverses
Federación Internacional de Trabajadores de la Química, Energía,
Minas e Industrias Diversas

Mr. Peter Michalzik, Dep. General Secretary, Brussels, Belgium

Mr. Reg Green, Health, Safety and Environment Officer, Brussels, Belgium

M. Oraldo De Toni, Responsabile Nazionale, Flerica CISL, Rome, Italie

Mr. Peter Schmitt, Chemicals and Process Officer, Brussels, Belgium

Ms. Noriko Miyazaki, Japanese Research and Liaison Officer, Brussels, Belgium

International Federation of University Women
Fédération internationale des femmes diplômées des universités
Federación Internacional de Mujeres Universitarias

Ms. Conchita Poncini, Coordinator, Troinex/Geneva

Ms. Kesso Diallo, Geneva

International Organization of Employers
Organisation internationale des employeurs
Organización Internacional de Empleadores

Mr. Jean Dejardin, Deputy Executive Secretary, Cointrin/Geneva

Mr. Grigori A. Tomtchine, Member of the Governing Board, Coordinating Council of Employers' Association of Russia, Moscow

Mr. Vladimir Lopukhine, Member, Coordination Body of Russian Employers, Moscow

International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant,
Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations
Union internationale des travailleurs de l'alimentation, de l'agriculture,
de l'hôtellerie-restauration, du tabac et des branches connexes
Unión Internacional de Trabajadores de la Alimentación, Agrícolas,
Hoteles, Restaurantes, Tabaco y Afines

Mr. Peter Hurst, Health, Safety and Environment Coordinator, Petit-Lancy/Geneva

World Confederation of Labour
Confédération mondiale du travail
Confederación Mundial del Trabajo

M^me Béatrice Fauchère, Représentante permanente, Genève

Updated by BR. Approved by OdVR. Last update: 28 September 2000.

Government group
Chairperson:	Mr. F. Frodyma (United States)
Vice-Chairperson:	Mr. C. Weeks (United Kingdom)
Secretary:	Mr. J. Tagawa (Japan)
Employers' group
Chairperson:	Mr. G. Trogen
Vice-Chairpersons:	Mr. V. Angüis Terrazas
	Mr. H. Lai Chuck Choo
	Mr. N. Nishiyama
Secretary:	Mr. J. Dejardin (IOE)
Workers' group
Chairperson:	Mr. F. Higgs
Vice-Chairpersons:	Mr. T.P. Hubert
	Mr. N.D.K. Kpoh
Secretary:	Mr. P. Michalzik (ICEM) (22-24 February 1999)
	Mr. R. Green (ICEM) (25-26 February 1999)

Government members
Egypt:	Mr. Shahin
Finland:	Mr. Hanhela
Switzerland:	Mr. Brunner
Turkey:	Ms. Sabir (adviser)
United Kingdom:	Mr. Weeks
Employer members
Mr. Bausano
Mr. Busson (adviser)
Mr. Harris
Mr. Mowling
Mr. Smith
Worker members
Mr. Higgs
Mr. Kohler
Mr. Lavenius
Mr. Magane
Mr. Mersmann

Officers of the Meeting
Mr. P. Simanjuntak (Chairperson)
Mr. E. Brunner (Government Vice-Chairperson)
Mr. J.M. Fumagalli (Employer Vice-Chairperson)
Mr. R. Wages (Worker Vice-Chairperson)
Government members
Italy:	Ms. G. Rocca
South Africa:	Ms. J. Bradley
United States:	Mr. F. Frodyma
Employer members
Mr. S. Chimkovitch
Mr. J. Hanks
Mr. G. Trogen
Worker members
Mr. N. Freitas
Mr. H. Iwasaki
Mr. V. Stanin

Chairperson:	Mr. C. Weeks, Vice-Chairperson, Government group
Panellists:	Mr. I. Obadia, Occupational Safety and Health Branch, ILO, Geneva Ms. J. Diller, Office of the Legal Adviser, ILO, Geneva Mr. A. Abate, Bureau of Multinational Enterprise Activities, ILO, Geneva

Moderator:	Mr. R. Wages, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Meeting
Panellists:	Mr. Oliver Strohm, Institut für Arbeitsforschung und Organisationsberatung, Switzerland Mr. H. Richter, Bundesarbeitgeberverband Chemie, Germany Mr. H. Iwasaki, KAGAKUSOREN, Japanese Federation of Chemical Workers' Unions

Moderator:	Mr. J.M. Fumagalli, Employer Vice-Chairperson of the Meeting
Panellists:	Mr. J. Whiston, Chemical Industries Association, United Kingdom Ms. J. Aloïsi de Larderel, Director, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Mr. M. Decayeux, Secretary-General, Fédéchimie CGT-FO, Paris

Score	5	4	3	2	1
	Excellent	Good	Satisfac- tory	Poor	Unsatis- factory	Average score
The choice of the agenda item (subject of the Meeting)	7	25	3			4.11
The points for discussion	4	21	11			3.81
The quality of the discussion	2	24	8	2		3.72
The Meeting's benefits to the sector	8	19	8	1		3.94
The conclusions	4	21	10	1		3.78
The resolutions	6	17	11			3.85
Panel discussion on ILO activities relevant to the Meeting	4	15	5	2		3.81
Panel discussion on recent trends in work organization in the chemical industries	3	16	11			3.73
Panel discussion on the future of the chemical industries: Shared responsibilities for sustainability	4	16	5	1		3.88
Opportunity for networking	2	18	7			3.81

	Too much	Enough	Too little
Discussion of the report	1	30	5
Panel discussions	1	28	4
Groups	2	30	2
Working Party on Resolutions	3	22	4
Working Party on Conclusions	3	20	7

Excellent		Good		Satisfactory		Poor		Unsatisfactory		Average score
18		15		2						4.46

Government	Employer	Worker	Observer	Unidentified	Total
10	10	15	0	1	36	(29.3% of participants)