SECTOR Home | What's New | About SECTOR | Meetings | Publications | Discussion Forum | Contact Us | Links | Site Map

Go to main meeting page.

Voluntary initiatives affecting training and education on safety, health and environment in the chemical industries 

Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on Voluntary Initiatives Affecting Training and Education on Safety, Health and Environment in the Chemical Industries

Geneva, 22-26 February 1999

International Labour Office   Geneva

Copyright ® 1998 International Labour Organization (ILO)

To purchase this document, click here

Contents

List of abbreviations

Introduction

1. Voluntary initiatives on health, safety and environment

1.1. What are voluntary initiatives?
1.2. Why voluntary initiatives in the chemical industries?
1.3. Types of voluntary initiatives

1.3.1. Industry initiatives
1.3.2. Environmental agreements
1.3.3. Environmental management schemes and standards

1.3.3.1. European Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme
1.3.3.2. International Organization for Standardization
1.3.3.3. Industry acceptance of EMAS and ISO

1.4. The relationships between the VI schemes and standards

2. Chemical industry initiatives

2.1. Responsible Care

2.1.1. Structure of RC
2.1.2. Status of RC development worldwide
2.1.3. Employee and public recognition of RC
2.1.4. Worker involvement in RC
2.1.5. RC performance indicators

2.2. Responsible Distribution/Care

2.2.1. Structure of Responsible Distribution
2.2.2. Performance indicators

2.3. Coatings Care

2.3.1. Relation to Responsible Care
2.3.2. Structure of Coatings Care

2.4 The pesticide industry's Global Safe Use Initiative

2.4.1. Summary of results
2.4.2. Future developments
2.4.3. A trade union perspective

3. Voluntary initiatives and HSE training and education

3.1. The impact of VIs on HSE training and education
3.2. Company and plant-level training and education, including SMEs

3.2.1. Management training
3.2.2. Blue-collar worker training
3.2.3. Trade union/worker representatives
3.2.4. Contractor training
3.2.5. The role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

3.3. Trade association training and education activities

3.3.1. Industry awareness raising
3.3.2. The role of trade associations in developing and rapidly industrializing countries

3.4. Chemical distribution/supply training and education

3.4.1. Transport
3.4.2. Product stewardship

3.5. Outreach training and education

3.5.1. Community activities
3.5.2. Education programmes for schools, colleges and universities

3.6. Evaluating the impact of VIs on HSE training, education and performance

4. Summary and points for discussion

Suggested points for discussion

List of figure and boxes:

Figure 2.1. Number of courses in environment, health and safety and number of participants as a proportion of total personnel

Box 1.1. Conditions appropriate for environmental agreements (EAs)

Box 1.2. Corporate HSE reports

Box 1.3. Safety, Environment and Quality (SHEQ) Management Systems and Management Systems Standards

Box 1.4. The main differences between EMAS and ISO 14001

Box 1.5. The relationship of Responsible Care with EMAS and ISO 14001

Box 2.1. RC membership/endorsement criteria

Box 2.2. How do companies implement Responsible Care? One manager's view

Box 2.3. The Global Forum on Chlorine Chemistry

Box 2.4. Voluntary industry initiatives versus industry agreements: A view from the ICEM

List of abbreviations

ACIC	Australian Chemical Industry Council
AICM	Association of International Chemical Manufacturers
ABIQUIM	Brazilian Chemical Industry Association
ANIQ	Mexican Chemical Industry Association
ASIQUIM	Chilean Chemical Industry Association: Asociación Gremial de Industriales Químicos, Chile
BCDTA	British Chemical Distributors' and Traders' Association
BCF	British Coatings Federation
BS 7750	British Standard 7750
CAER	community awareness and emergency response
CAIA	Chemical and Allied Industries Association, South Africa
CAP	Community Advisory Panel
CC	Coatings Care
CCPA	Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
CEFIC	European Chemical Industry Council
CEP	company environmental reports
CEPE	European Council of the Paint, Printing Inks and Artists' Colours Industry
CIA	Chemical Industries Association, United Kingdom
CICM	Chemical Industries Council of Malaysia
CICT	Chemical Industries Club of Thailand
CIQyP	Argentinian Chemical Industry Association
CMA	Chemical Manufacturers' Association (United States)
COP	code of practice
CSD	Commission on Sustainable Development (United Nations)
CSG RENGO	Federation of Chemical, Service and General Trade Unions
DIEP	Declaration of Intent of the Implementation of Environmental Policy for the Chemical Industry, the Netherlands
EA	environmental agreement
EC	European Commission
EEA	European Environment Agency
EMAS	(European Union) Environmental Management and Eco-Audit Scheme
EMS	environmental management system
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency, United States
EU	European Union
FAO	(UN) Food and Agriculture Organisation
FCIO	Austrian Chemical Industry Association
FECC	European Association of Chemical Distributors
FEIQUE	Spanish Chemical Industry Association
GCPF	Global Crop Protection Federation (formerly GIFAP)
HACI	Hellenic Association of Chemical Industries, Greece
HCIA	Hungarian Chemical Industry Association
HSE	health, safety and environment
HSRC	Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa)
ICCA	International Council of Chemical Associations
ICCTA	International Council of Chemical Trade Associations
ICEM	International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions
ICFTU	International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
ICM	integrated crop management
ICMA	Indian Chemical Manufacturers' Association
ICRI	Industrial Chemistry Research Institute, Poland
IEA	International Energy Agency
IEC	International Electrotechnical Commission
IFCS	Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety
ILO	(UN) International Labour Organization
INCHEM	Industrial Chemical Association of Zimbabwe
IPM	integrated pest management
IPPIC	International Paint and Printing Inks Council
ISO	International Organization for Standardization
IUF	International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations
JCIA	Japan Chemical Industry Association
JEC	joint union-management environment
JHSC	joint union-management health and safety committees
JRCC	Japan Responsible Care Council
KPIA	Korean Petrochemical Industry Association
KS	Kemikontoret Service AB, Sweden
KT	Chemical Industry Federation of Finland
LCA	life cycle assessment
MSD	material safety data sheet
MSV	management systems verification
NACD	National Association of Chemical Distributors, United States
NAP	National Advisory Panel
NPCA	National Paints and Coating Association, United States
NGO	non-governmental organization
NZCIC	New Zealand Chemical Industry Council
OSH	occupational safety and health
OSH MS	occupational safety and health management system
OSHA	Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States
PACIA	Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association (Australia)
PIL	Federation of Norwegian Process Industries
PIPC	Polish Chamber of the Chemical Industry
PIRG	public interest research group
PPE	personal protective equipment
PS	product stewardship
RC	Responsible Care
RCLG	Responsible Care Leadership Group (of the ICCA)
RD	Responsible Distribution
SCC	Safety Checklist Contractors, the Netherlands
SCHP	Association of the Chemical Industry of the Czech Republic
SD	sustainable development
SGCI/SSIC	Swiss Chemical Industry Association
SHEQ	safety, health, environment and quality management systems and management system standards
SME	small to medium-sized enterprise
TRCA	Taiwan Responsible Care Association
TRI	Toxics Release Inventory (United States)
UIC	Union des Industries Chimiques, France
UNCED	United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: The Earth Summit
UNEP	United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCC	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNGASS	UN General Assembly Special Session: Rio +5
VCI	German Chemical Industry Association
VEEP	Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programme (Europe)
VI	voluntary initiative
VNCI	The Netherlands Chemical Industry Association
VOC	volatile organic compound
VPP	voluntary protection programme
VROM	Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, the Netherlands
WCC	World Chlorine Council
WG	working group
ZCHFP	Association of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry of the Slovak Republic
ZEW	(German) Centre for European Economic Research

Introduction

The last ILO tripartite sectoral meeting devoted to the chemical industries, held in 1995, adopted a resolution in which it called on the Director-General to convene a future meeting on the chemical industries "to examine programmes established under voluntary initiatives such as the Responsible Care programmes, as those programmes affect training and education on safety, health and environment".⁽¹⁾ The Governing Body, at its 267th Session (November 1996), endorsed that recommendation by including in the programme of sectoral meetings for 1998-99 a tripartite meeting on "voluntary initiatives affecting training and education on safety, health and environment" in the chemical industries.⁽²⁾

The rationale for the meeting, as stated in the document before the Governing Body, was as follows:

This proposal alludes especially to the programme called Responsible Care [Fr.:Engagement de Progrès; Sp.: Conducta responsable], which is a major industry-wide voluntary effort by employers to "clean up their act" and be seen to do so. It was judged important to stress particularly the training and educational aspects of the programme, since lack of understanding of health and safety education issues -- by the workforce, communities where chemical plants are located, and the general public -- is seen as one of the biggest threats to the industry's profitability and job outlook.⁽³⁾

The Governing Body fixed the purpose of the meeting in the following terms:

To exchange views on voluntary initiatives affecting training and education on safety, health and environment in the chemical industries; to adopt conclusions that include guidance and proposals for further action; and to adopt a report on the discussion. The meeting may also adopt resolutions.⁽⁴⁾

It was also decided that the Employer and Worker representatives to the meeting would be appointed on the basis of nominations made by the respective groups of the Governing Body.

Governments of the following 23 countries have been invited to participate in the meeting: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The following governments were placed on a reserve list from which replacements were to be selected in the event that a government in the first list declined the invitation or failed to reply: Algeria, Barbados, Chile, Finland, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Nicaragua, Romania, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia and United Arab Emirates.

This report has been prepared by the International Labour Office as a basis for discussions at the meeting. It was prepared by Peter Hurst, ILO Occupational Safety and Health Specialist, under the responsibility of Jon McLin, Senior Industrial Specialist, Sectoral Activities Department, ILO. It is published under the authority of the International Labour Office. In response to a request of the last sectoral meeting, an earlier, less formal document on voluntary initiatives was published in the form of a Sectoral Activities Programme Working Paper,⁽⁵⁾ and was widely circulated; account has been taken in the present report of the comments received in that exercise. Other information has been supplied by, or through the good offices of, employers' and workers' organizations active in this sector. In particular, important contributions have been made by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), both in its own capacity and in its role as secretariat for the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA); by the International Chemical Employers' Labour Relations Committee; and, for the workers, by the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM).

Documenting the relation between voluntary initiatives and training and education related to health, safety and environment is not a straightforward matter, for several reasons. One is that experience of voluntary initiatives is relatively recent and not all countries or regions have participated in them equally. Another is that of the training activities carried out by the chemical industries on health, safety and environment, it is difficult to identify which ones are attributable specifically to the voluntary initiatives, or how pre-existing training activities have been modified as companies and trade associations have committed themselves to the voluntary initiatives. Another difficulty concerns data collection and reporting. The ultimate aim of health, safety and environment (HSE) training and education in the context of voluntary initiatives is to improve HSE performance as measured, for example, by cutting lost-time accidents, reducing polluting emissions, etc. Industry is collecting data on, and developing indicators to measure, such HSE performance improvements. It is not necessarily collecting data or reporting on the means -- in this case, training and education -- by which improvements are achieved. Hence on certain aspects there was a shortage of relevant data. Nevertheless, the report is presented in the hope that it will provide the meeting with a satisfactory basis for its deliberations.

1.  ILO: Chemical Industries Committee, 11th Session, Note on the proceedings, Geneva, 1995, resolution No. 69, p. 53.

2.  GB.267/11, Nov. 1996.

3.  GB.267/STM/1.

4.  Programme of sectoral meetings, 1998-99, SM/1997/D.1.

5.  Kevin Munn: Responsible Care and related voluntary initiatives to improve enterprise performance on health, safety and environment in the chemical industry, Sectoral Activities Programme Working Paper No. 109 (available in English only), Geneva, 1997.

1. Voluntary initiatives on health, safety and environment

Voluntary initiatives (VIs) -- that is, codes of conduct or other enterprise initiatives not required by law, which address the performance of enterprises in respect of occupational health, safety, the environment (HSE) and other issues -- are becoming more prevalent. They are increasingly seen as a new policy instrument and management tool to help tackle HSE problems. They are promoted not only by the industries themselves but also by governments, often cash-strapped, who see a mix of government and voluntary (self-) regulation as a way of achieving higher standards in a more efficient and cost-effective manner than through "command-and-control" type regulation alone. Other groups such as trade unions are also taking an increasing interest in VIs and their roles within them. The chemical industry has been a leader in promoting VIs for reasons discussed in section 1.2 below.

1.1. What are voluntary initiatives?

The term voluntary initiatives can be understood in various ways. A recent UNEP Report on Voluntary Industry Codes of Conduct for the Environment notes that:

A wide range of terms is used to describe voluntary initiatives for environmental protection such as the environmental charter, environmental principles, environmental guidelines, environmental codes of practice, environmental codes of ethics and environmental commitment. Each may have different cultural, language, contextual, political and legal implications and even their definitions can have different meanings in different contexts. Even within a country, the same term can have different meanings.⁽¹⁾

A later supplement to the UNEP Report states that the term voluntary initiatives encompasses the following categories:

• voluntary agreements between industry and government;
• voluntary programmes of industry;
• voluntary standards such as those of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO);
• voluntary codes of conduct, guidelines, principles, statements, policies, etc.⁽²⁾
• A report⁽³⁾ comparing VIs in Austria and the United Kingdom lists the following types of voluntary programmes:
• voluntary agreements (e.g. on the reduction of emissions in the Netherlands);
• voluntary initiatives (e.g. Responsible Care);
• voluntary commitments, e.g. the European Union's Eco-Management & Audit Scheme EMAS.

(These examples are explained below.)

There is some dispute as to whether the "voluntary agreements" are genuinely voluntary, since they may involve legal commitments between industry and government. This is discussed in section 1.3.

In practice, voluntary initiatives range from arrangements in which the parties (usually enterprises or their associations) set their own targets and often do their own monitoring and reporting, to initiatives where an understanding is reached between a non-commercial body (e.g. a government authority, a citizen's organization, or a non-governmental organization) and a commercial party (an industry association or a particular company). The declared intent of the two types of initiative is usually the same: to stimulate members to voluntarily improve their environmental or general HSE performance. The premise is that by fostering long-term, cultural changes in business management, voluntary approaches can reach beyond some governmental regulations in improving industry's environmental [or HSE] performance.⁽⁴⁾ One central feature that they all have in common is that they attempt to tap market forces to improve performance and standards.

Based on the premise that the overall intent and results of industry's voluntary initiatives are more important than their precise definition, this ILO Report takes a broad view of the term "voluntary initiatives". It therefore covers company and industry-wide initiatives, government-industry environmental agreements, and environmental management systems.

Whilst recognizing that it is now widely accepted in most countries that a combination of regulatory and voluntary measures is increasingly the basis for HSE management systems, this Report, like the UNEP Report, is based on the premise that "voluntary codes cannot be effective without a sound government regulatory and policy framework and public involvement."⁽⁵⁾ This position is consistent with various international labour standards and conclusions of tripartite meetings.

Voluntary programmes are only one element of a comprehensive HSE protection strategy that includes a range of policies and programmes. They have important strengths and present particular challenges that should be recognized to ensure that they are used most successfully.⁽⁶⁾

• The strengths which make them powerful policy instruments are that they:
• use a market-based approach to encourage behavioural change that is not dependent on regulation;
• provide valuable benefits for participants, including access to low-cost information, reduced operating costs, and public recognition for their HSE accomplishments;
• tend to create partnerships between potential adversaries (government and industry, corporate competitors within an industry, industry and trade unions), which leads to improved dialogue and cooperation that can benefit all parties;
• can have far-reaching effects, influencing behaviour by changing the attitude of the public towards the chemical industry thus leading to improvements on many fronts.

The limitations of voluntary programmes, which are linked to their reliance on market forces, are that:

• they can be successful only when participants can be persuaded to change their actions voluntarily. Therefore, a careful analysis of opportunities and participant motivations is appropriate before choosing a voluntary approach;
• as the prospect of sanctions for non-compliance tends to be absent or weak, voluntary programmes may not be compelling enough to entice participants to change their behaviour;
• voluntary programmes often lack transparency and may fail to protect third-party rights; credible monitoring, evaluation and reporting components are needed to establish credibility with important stakeholders;
• voluntary programmes can violate competition rules in various ways, according to the European Commission. For example, non-signatory companies can be excluded from a market; or consumer prices can be inflated. The Commission points out, however, that this is not a significant obstacle to the use of voluntary programmes.⁽⁷⁾

1.2. Why voluntary initiatives in the chemical industries?

That the chemical industry has been a leading sector in introducing VIs can be attributed to its need to improve the public perception of its performance on occupational and public health and safety and on pollution prevention and control. Generally, the chemical industry suffers from a poor public image and low levels of public confidence owing to increasing chemical pollution in many parts of the world, and a series of well-publicized major chemical disasters such as Seveso, Bhopal and Basel. As a consequence, the industry feared increased government regulation, growing public opprobrium, difficulty in recruiting top-quality staff, and the threat of lawsuits in some countries.

As one writer for a chemical industry magazine put it, "That the chemical industry has a poor public reputation is a belief strongly held within the industry itself."⁽⁸⁾ The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) has carried out a series of polls on public attitudes to the industry, aimed especially at assessing the impact of Responsible Care (RC) on public attitudes. The 1994 poll, based on a sample of 7,300 people in Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom⁽⁹⁾ showed that despite some improvements, the chemical industry continued to have a poor standing in public opinion. Only 39 per cent of those questioned gave it a positive rating, compared to 56 per cent for the automotive industry, 74 per cent for the food sector, and 80 per cent for the telecommunications industry. Only 46 per cent agreed with the proposition that it "deserves to be trusted". Only 24 per cent concurred with the proposition that the industry "informs the public fairly and openly"; 88 per cent of the public wanted the chemical industry to be controlled by "far stricter regulations", a figure which varied little between countries, ranging from 81 per cent in Germany to 92 per cent in Spain. However, 50 per cent accepted that chemical companies were "informing the public more factually and openly" than two years earlier, and two-thirds agreed with the proposition that the industry was "making considerably greater efforts to control pollution than it did two years ago".

The 1996 CEFIC poll of 7,000 people showed that opinions in Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom had changed little since the 1994 poll. Key findings were as follows:

• Reputation: the industry had retained its position as second only to the nuclear industry as the least reputable of eight sectors.
• Trustworthiness: the proportion of the public who felt that the industry deserved to be trusted had fallen in nearly all countries. The results were most bleak in the UK, where a little over 20 per cent of the public trusted the industry.
• Voluntary initiatives: less than one-third of the United Kingdom public believed voluntary programmes of the chemical industry itself to be more effective than further laws and regulations.
• Responsibility: fewer people than in 1994 believed that the industry was making greater efforts to control pollution, and that it was fair and open with its information. This last finding comes despite the growing number of chemical companies publishing environmental reports.⁽¹⁰⁾

In the United Kingdom, opinion polls conducted by the Chemical Industry Association (CIA) have shown that the 1980s were a decade of decline in public confidence in the chemical industry from 40 per cent public favourability in 1980 to 20 per cent in 1990. A 1989 poll showed that in terms of public favourability, the chemical industry was next to bottom; only nuclear power fared worse.⁽¹¹⁾ A 1998 CIA survey of 4,028 people found that 23 per cent viewed the industry unfavourably and 23 per cent favourably; about 50 per cent were undecided.⁽¹²⁾

In a 1992 opinion poll carried out for the United States Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA), the chemical industry scored a 25 per cent favourability rating, ranked below the nuclear industry which scored 35 per cent. The 1993 figure was again 25 per cent, while 35 per cent of respondents had an unfavourable attitude and 40 per cent were undecided. The improvement by 1993 was attributed by the CMA to the industry's information programmes and to the Responsible Care initiative.⁽¹³⁾ In 1991, CMA had begun an outreach campaign to communicate with the public about the industry's RC activities and improve public perception of the chemical industry. Another 1993 poll similarly concluded that there had been "a fairly strong turnaround in public opinion"; the 10 per cent of respondents that the Roper poll considered as influential Americans showed an increasingly favourable stance to the chemical industry.⁽¹⁴⁾ This turnaround has continued. According to CMA's 1997 RC report, the outreach campaign stopped a 25-year decline in the general public's opinion of the chemical industry.⁽¹⁵⁾

Since the 1980s, the chemical industry in most parts of the world has been developing initiatives to voluntarily improve its performance on health, safety and environment (HSE) and, to counter its poor image, to be seen doing so. These industry-initiated programmes, which are described in Chapter 2, aim at continuous improvement of HSE performance on a national, regional and global basis. Furthermore, the industry aims to communicate, and in some instances demonstrate by third-party verification, that the improvements are genuine, not just a "public relations gimmick".

These initiatives are generally viewed by the industry as part of its commitment to the goal of sustainable development (SD), a concept adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 and promoted worldwide through the Agenda 21 programme.⁽¹⁶⁾ In its position paper on SD, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) says:

Commitment by the world chemical industry to the concept of sustainable development requires words to be transposed into company-specific action programmes in order to provide a framework for all those working in the sector. Its "Responsible Care" initiative, self-monitoring systems and other voluntary programmes such as sustainable technology (SUSTECH), education-industry partnerships, energy efficiency programmes are also part of this framework. Thereby, companies are also confronted with new challenges and must act responsibly. They must take account of their actions upon society and future generations.⁽¹⁷⁾

In a given country, however, not all companies may have joined a relevant VI, and this is especially the case for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Hence the important role played by national trade associations in encouraging the raising of standards in all companies, bringing along industry laggards, and trying to ensure that "black sheep" do not continue to give the industry a bad name even though the majority of companies are actively and voluntarily seeking to improve their performance.

Pressure for VIs has also come from other sources. Government has played a dual role. First, the threat of increased government legislation, backed by public opinion hostile to the chemical industry, has been a driving force. The industry has realized that to counter this threat, it needs to prove that voluntary programmes can work and be cost-effective. The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), for example, says that to reduce government intervention in environmental management it must first raise awareness about Responsible Care. It hopes to achieve this through dialogue with the European Commission and the German Land governments. As VCI's RC coordinator says, "Our aim is to bring politics and stakeholders into [our] boat rather than the other way round."⁽¹⁸⁾ Secondly, and at the same time, in respect of HSE regulation governments have been moving away from command-and-control models to those that are more goal-oriented, whereby both parties (government and industry) agree on common goals and timetables while the method of realization is left to the industrial sectors and companies themselves to work out. Section 1.3 deals with this issue and gives examples. Indeed, in some circumstances, industry sees VIs as a substitute for regulation, as evidenced by an ICCA statement in 1996 to the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) to the effect that:

The ICCA further seeks national governments' understanding of the work we are doing and of the major importance of voluntary industry initiatives to complement and, where appropriate, replace regulation and thereby protect human health and the environment.⁽¹⁹⁾

The other main source of pressure to adopt VIs is the trend toward independently certified management systems and standards, which companies agree to adhere to and implement on a voluntary basis to improve their HSE efficiency and image. These are having an increasing impact on company and industry performance worldwide. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) systems and standards evolved from quality management systems, whilst the European Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) also involves certified and reportable, third-party verification.

In summary, the three considerations of government regulation, public opprobrium, and (in some countries) lawsuits have led to VIs such as Responsible Care. There has been a ratcheting-up effect in the way in which industry has taken on these initiatives. Each initiative has created expectations and provided a platform for stakeholders and industry critics to point out the shortcomings of the VI. This has led in turn to efforts to make existing VIs more complete and/or transparent and to complement them with others to address related issues. There is little evidence that this process has run its course.

1.3. Types of voluntary initiatives

This report divides VIs in the chemical industries into the following categories, giving a general description of each, with a focus on training and education where such information is available:

• Chemical industry initiatives: industry-wide programmes executed at the company, corporate and trade association levels.
• Environmental agreements between government and industry.
• Environmental management systems and standards: European Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and the environmental management systems and standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

1.3.1. Industry initiatives

The main industry initiatives dealt with in this report are Responsible Care, Responsible Distribution/Care, Coatings Care, and the Pesticide Global Safe Use Initiative. Responsible Care and Coatings Care cover chemical and coatings manufacturing. Responsible Care is the longest established of all the initiatives, having started in Canada in 1984, and now encompasses national programmes in some 40 countries. Coatings Care is more recent and only became fully operational in 1997-98; there is little to report so far concerning its impact on HSE training and education. Chemical distributors have developed their own programme entitled either Responsible Distribution or Responsible Care, depending usually on whether a partnership agreement has been signed with the chemical manufacturing Responsible Care organization in a given country. The geographical coverage of this programme is at present more restricted than that of Responsible Care for manufacturing, being limited to distributors in North America, Europe and Japan. The pesticide industry has developed a Global Safe Use Initiative which encompasses hundreds of separate projects in both developed and developing countries. Three of these projects, entitled Pesticide Safe Use Pilot Projects, provide voluntary training for users and handlers of agricultural pesticides in developing countries; these are examined in Chapter 2.

Of all voluntary initiatives covered in this report, these industry-wide efforts, especially Responsible Care, are the most advanced. They have a wide body of industry support and more relevant experience to report on in respect of HSE training and education. These initiatives are dealt with in more detail in Chapter 2. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to the other initiatives, in particular environmental agreements, and environmental management systems and standards which are newer and still being implemented in many companies and countries; there is correspondingly less empirical evidence concerning their impact on HSE training and education. The corporate HSE report is another category of industry-initiated VIs that is briefly touched on in box 1.2.

1.3.2. Environmental agreements

The term "environmental agreements" (EAs) used in this report covers those commitments undertaken by firms and sector associations which are the result of negotiations with public authorities and/or explicitly recognized by the authorities. This definition is used by the European Environment Agency (EEA) of the European Union, a region in which such agreements are common. By 1996, for example, more than 300 EAs had been concluded at the national level in the EU, that is, are currently recognized by national authorities of EU countries.⁽²⁰⁾ All EU countries are reported to have EAs. The Netherlands leads the way with over 100 in place. Many of the EAs implemented in EU countries to date are found in those sectors where most pollution occurs -- such as metals and metal finishing, chemicals, energy, transport -- with more than 20 per cent of the total number of EAs operational in the chemical sector. Furthermore, this figure of 300 EAs may be deceptively low because it excludes EAs that have been concluded at the subnational level.

The same European Environment Agency (EEA) report on EAs observes that:

Since the late 1980s, there has been increased use of environmental agreements (EAs) as policy tools in EU Member States, especially in industry and waste management. This approach to environmental management mirrors current trends of consensus-building and participatory processes in public policy and complements the traditional command-and-control approach. EAs reflect both the development of shared responsibilities and the integration of environmental considerations into company management structures.⁽²¹⁾
 

The EEA report states, however, that there is no standard definition of "environmental agreements" which are also known as "voluntary agreements", "negotiated agreements" or "covenants". The term, in fact, covers different types of agreements ranging from voluntary "codes of conduct" to legally binding agreements.⁽²²⁾ Similarly, the European Union Communication on EAs states that they may be legally binding with obligations for both parties, or they may be non-binding "gentleman's agreements" in the form of a unilateral commitment recognized by the public authority.⁽²³⁾ The European Commission argues that the term voluntary agreement, despite its wide usage, is confusing and suggests a pull-back from regulation. It considers that the terms covenant, negotiated agreement or environmental agreement are more accurate and preferable.⁽²⁴⁾ It further notes that EAs are valued for fostering partnership between industry and public authorities and drawing on industry expertise for achieving enhanced environmental protection. The Communication goes on to say that EAs "can bring about effective measures in advance of legislation and thus reduce the volume of regulatory and administrative actions. However, environmental agreements are not a panacea and need to be applied in a mix of policy instruments, i.e. as a supplement to legislation and environmental taxes". They also "have the advantage of encouraging a proactive approach from industry, they are likely to lead to cost-effective measures, because they allow industry to adjust environmental investment to their medium-term capital investments, and they are usually in place than regulations are, which is an important advantage in areas with technological developments".⁽²⁵⁾ The EEA Report also notes that EAs appear to be most useful when they complement other policy measures, such as regulation and fiscal instruments. In its view they can be especially valuable in terms of their ability to raise awareness, create consensus and provide a forum for information sharing among different parties. EAs also seem to be useful in improving environmental management in industry and business.

Some concerns have been expressed, however, about the rise of EAs as a new policy instrument, particularly by third parties such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and trade unions not involved in the negotiation of the agreements. These concerns include lack of mechanisms and sanctions to ensure the objectives are met, lack of transparency, and lack of third-party verification.

The European Commission argues that wherever possible, environmental agreements should be legally binding. Its Communication on EAs notes that "not all of the past 'voluntary' agreements were transparent and credible. The Commission therefore suggests that interested parties should be consulted before an agreement is concluded and that agreements should, wherever possible, be binding to the parties".⁽²⁶⁾ Where not legally binding, transparency and publicity should in the Commission's view compensate for the weaker sanctions provided. Furthermore, agreements should go beyond best effort clauses and include quantified targets. Clear monitoring measures should be defined. Third-party verification is also suggested as well as the publication of the agreement and of the results achieved.

Concerning the effectiveness of EAs, the EEA Report concludes that:

Compared to other policy instruments, e.g. taxes, few evaluations of EAs, whether ex-ante or ex-post, have been made and there is little literature available on their use ... [and] ... In most cases it was not possible to make a quantitative assessment of the environmental effectiveness of the agreements due to the lack of reliable monitoring data and consistent reporting, which prevented comparisons being made between the current situation and what would most likely have happened if no agreement had been concluded (the 'business-as-usual' situation). Some wider benefits were found, however, including environmental improvements on the situation prior to the agreement and the encouragement of environmental management in business.⁽²⁷⁾

However, a report commissioned by the German Government was highly critical of certain VIs. It argued that negotiated environmental agreements between industry and government, because they are unenforceable, could weaken environmental protection. It also claimed that the bargaining process results in lower environmental standards. The study was commissioned by the German Ministry of Economic Affairs from ZEW, a German economic research institute. The institute examined three current examples of German EAs: a take-back scheme for the automotive industry, CO₂ reduction by a group of industries and the "green dot" DSD packaging recovery scheme. The report concluded: "Agreements are not the remedy of first choice -- they are non-binding and difficult to enforce. In the bargaining situation, the targets you are aiming at have to be reduced and you do not achieve what could be done with environmental law."⁽²⁸⁾

Examples of environmental agreements (EAs)

In the Netherlands, Integrated Environmental Covenants arose as a result of consultation under the target group approach (TGA). They constitute one policy measure aimed at achieving the targets of the 1989 National Environment Policy Plan (NEPP). The TGA resulted from the recognition of the need for cooperation between different sectors of society to achieve the 200 plus quantifiable targets of the NEPP. In particular, the Government perceived that the necessary improvements in industrial performance would be more easily achieved by obtaining industry's commitment to solving problems and by using their expertise. The Government considered traditional command-and-control measures as insufficient for meeting the ambitious NEPP targets.⁽²⁹⁾

The Declaration on the Implementation of Environmental Policy in the Netherlands Chemical Industry (DIEP)⁽³⁰⁾ was the second covenant to be signed under the target group approach. It is viewed as one type of policy measure to help achieve the Government's Integral Environmental Target Plan for the Chemical Industry (IETP) relating to environmental pollution caused by the chemical industry in the Netherlands. The Declaration covers all segments of the industry except for the paint, lacquer, varnish and printing industries, pharmaceuticals companies and soap and cosmetic manufacturers. In 1997, 149 companies fell into these categories, of which about ten were large multinationals; 126 companies are signatories to the Declaration, and according to the VNCI, the Dutch Chemical Industry Association, three companies were complying with the terms of the agreement without being signatories (117 of the companies are members of the VNCI, which is itself a signatory to the Declaration).⁽³¹⁾

The EA offers signatory companies greater flexibility in complying with environmental regulations. All companies whose corporate environment plan is approved by the licensing authorities benefit from greater flexibility in planning environmental investments and from a simplified licensing procedure.

• The impacts and activities covered are:
• climate change;
• acidification;
• diffusion (of environmentally hazardous substances to different environmental media and radiation);
• eutrophication;
• waste disposal (including soil);
• disturbance (noise, odour, external safety);
• company-based environmental management.

The targets set do not cover all emissions from chemical plants.

One of the EEA Report's six case studies dealt with the implementation of the Chemical Industry Declaration. Its assessment concluded that in terms of environmental improvement the Declaration earned the top rating "+++"; in terms of environmental effectiveness, it rated a "+/?" (slightly positive/uncertain outcome); and in terms of technical change it rated "+" (slightly positive).⁽³²⁾

Another example of a toxic emissions reduction initiative is the United States Environmental Protection Agency's EPA 33/50 Program.⁽³³⁾ The overall objective was to reduce the releases and transfers of 17 toxic chemicals. Using a 1988 baseline, the first goal was a 33 per cent national reduction for 17 chemicals by 1992 and a 50 per cent reduction by 1995. The data used to track progress came from the mandatory Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The EPA and chemical industry considered the 33/50 programme a success. It achieved overall reductions of 50.7 per cent in 1994, a full year ahead of the 1995 target. By that time, 757 million pounds of releases and transfers had been eliminated since the 1988 baseline year. The 1,300 companies participating in 33/50 were expected to continue reductions in 1995 and 1996. Releases of the 17 chemicals were reduced at nearly twice the rate of other TRI chemicals after 1991, when the programme began; 33/50 participants achieved their reductions at a much faster rate than other companies -- 50 per cent versus 30 per cent from 1991 through 1994, and 60 per cent versus 35 per cent after 1988.

The EPA cites the 33/50 programme as a groundbreaking non-regulatory initiative for reducing the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. Representing a shift from the traditional command-and-control approach for lessening the risks associated with specific chemicals, the programme sought cooperation with industry rather than confrontation. The EPA identified the environmental goals and the preferable targets, while letting industry determine the best and most effective route for reaching the goal. As a result, environmental protection was achieved more rapidly and lower cost than would have been done in the absence of the programme.

To every newly committed company, the EPA provided a certificate signed by the EPA Administrator. The agency also profiled companies which achieved release and transfer reductions based on pollution prevention activities. Companies were able to use the EPA certificates for both internal and external purposes, which enabled them to demonstrate to their own staff and to the local communities where they operated that environmental protection was taken seriously. Whilst stating that participation in the 33/50 programme was not legally required, the EPA recognized that the data to measure the reductions came from the mandatory TRI. According to the EPA, the 33/50 programme is a non-regulatory initiative which was built upon, and received accountability from, a regulatory policy.⁽³⁴⁾

One shortcoming of the programme was the failure of some businesses to join the initiative. Out of approximately 8,000 eligible companies -- any company which submitted at least one TRI report for any of the 17 targeted chemicals -- 1,300 companies committed themselves to the programme. The participation rate for the 600 largest companies was over 60 per cent while the rate for SMEs was only 13 per cent. As the EPA concluded, what these statistics indicate is that, for future non-regulatory initiatives, EPA has greater hurdles to overcome with SMEs than with the larger companies.⁽³⁵⁾ Another issue concerned the limitations of TRI data. While the information from TRI formed the backbone of the programme, not all pertinent information was available from the database. Ascertaining the reasons for any decreases in releases and transfers is difficult. Reductions can result from pollution prevention activities, from end-of-pipeline practices, or merely from a slowdown in business. The usefulness of TRI data is limited further by the unavoidable time lag between the reporting year and the publication date.

Brazil provides an example of an environmental agreement in which trade unions and employers share responsibility. Chemical trade unions and employers in this country, in cooperation with the Government, have negotiated a National Accord for Accountability. The agreement provides detailed guidelines and procedures for the safe use of benzene. The arrangements provide for full participation of workers and their unions. The "Benzene Accord" was signed in 1995 by a total of 12 bodies drawn from industry, trade unions and government. In the Accord, a technical standard defines benzene as a carcinogen and provides a technological reference value that Brazilian workers, employers and government consider to be safe. Workers are given equal representation on a Permanent National Commission on Benzene to oversee developments, monitor compliance, promote studies, supplement laws and regulations, provide for alternative control measures and issue certificates for the controlled use of benzene. The Accord is administered at the plant level by a representative group of benzene workers (GTP) which has full responsibility for programmes, including worker training. Full employer cooperation with the GTP is required, including access to information and records and provision of office space and equipment, and heavy penalties are provided for violations.⁽³⁶⁾

EAs are also being widely used to improve energy efficiency. Hundreds of voluntary programmes around the world are successfully reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while increasing the competitiveness and efficiency of businesses and individuals in the countries in which they operate. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has identified more than 350 such voluntary approaches in operation today (IEA 1997).⁽³⁷⁾

The European chemical industry has been implementing a Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programme (VEEP) since 1992, in line with initiatives of the European Commission. VEEP 2005 is a unilateral commitment to reduce specific energy consumption by a further 20 per cent between 1990 and 2005, provided that no additional energy taxes are introduced. CEFIC stresses that this approach is fully in line with the RC programme and the principle of continuous performance improvement.⁽³⁸⁾

To address the problem of climate change, the German chemical industry has committed itself to a rational use of energy in chemical manufacturing as well as a rational use of energy through products of the chemical industry. In 1995, the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), the German Chemical Industry Trade Union (IG Chemie) and the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs published a joint position paper on reduction of energy consumption and CO₂ in the chemical industry. Building on this joint work, and on the practical reductions in energy use already achieved, the German industry voluntarily committed itself to: (i) a reduction in specific energy consumption by more than 30 per cent during the period 1990-2005; and (ii) a similar reduction of energy-related CO₂ emissions during the same period.⁽³⁹⁾ However, the VCI adds the caveat that this self-commitment must not be counteracted by additional fiscal burdens or regulations.⁽⁴⁰⁾

The United Kingdom's Energy Efficiency Agreement between the Chemical Industries Association and the Government (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) was signed in November 1997. It aims to reduce the chemical industries' specific energy consumption (energy/unit output) by 20 per cent of its 1990 level by 2005. In large part, this is seen as one way of helping both the Government and the chemical industry to meet their commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). It is an example of a long-term agreement programme as a partnership between government and industry associations, and some individual companies, to increase energy efficiency.⁽⁴¹⁾

Voluntary agreements between firms and local authorities, to supplement and strengthen existing regulations, are also common in Japan. Some 40,000 such agreements have been concluded since 1970, many of them in the chemical industries (2,553 agreements were concluded in the one-year period between October 1991 and September 1992 alone and 198 of these were in the chemical industries). They are adapted to local conditions, and set standards that tend to be stricter than those in national or municipal regulations.⁽⁴²⁾

1.3.3. Environmental management schemes and standards

Some voluntary initiatives have government and industry participation, but with criteria, standards and certifying or auditing processes that are determined by a third party. Two such initiatives are reviewed in this report, namely the European Union's Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), and the quality management and environmental management systems standards set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Such initiatives are designed to support the implementation of environmental management systems and to enable companies to obtain external recognition of their systems either through third-party verification or self-declaration. Both apply to environmental management systems, but do not necessarily, especially in the case of the ISO, cover health and safety as well. The International Labour Office is currently carrying out a study on the advisability of developing a code of practice on occupational health and safety management systems. How such an ILO code would relate to EMAS and ISO environmental standards remains unclear at the moment (see section 1.4).

1.3.3.1. European Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

The European Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) was established under European law by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 and is implemented and administered nationally by EU Member States.⁽⁴³⁾ EMAS was established to improve the quality of environmental management throughout European industry, to help companies gain a competitive advantage from these improvements, and to communicate their progress to the general public. It is based on the premise that environmental management is a fundamental part of good management and is essential to any well-run business. Introduced in 1995, it is a voluntary scheme in which individual industrial sites register with their national EMAS authority. In order to participate in EMAS, companies agree to develop an environmental management framework and to implement each of the following steps at the relevant site:

(1) Company environmental policy. There must be a company-wide environmental policy before any individual site can be registered. The policy should be in written form and adopted at the highest managerial level. It should state the company's overall environmental aims and its commitment to continuous improvement (beyond compliance with minimum legislative requirements), and to compliance with relevant environmental regulations. The company must also establish a corporate overview and coordination system.

(2) Environmental review. This involves a comprehensive analysis of the inputs, processes and outputs at the site to identify the relevant environmental impacts and issues to be tackled by the site management.

(3) Environmental programme. This should be set out in accordance with the policy and review. The programme should list activities to achieve defined objectives which translate the policy's aims into specific quantified goals for improvement.

(4) Environmental management system. The system should define responsibilities, procedures and tools for implementation of the policy and programme. Companies wishing to register under EMAS may devise their own environmental management system, or use a recognized international standard such as ISO 14001.

(5) Environmental audit cycle. Periodic audits should be carried out whereby environmental practices and performance are checked against stated policy. There should be activities to assess whether the programme is being followed and if the management system is adequate, or if any changes are needed.

(6) Environmental statement. After the initial review and, generally, each subsequent year, a concise and comprehensible statement of environmental performance for the public should be drawn up and made publicly available by each participating site. The statement should include a summary of "significant environmental effects" -- consumption of raw materials, energy use, water use, emissions, hazardous wastes to land -- although this will often be aggregated data.

(7) Validation. The environmental statement must be validated by an EMAS-accredited, independent environmental verifier. The policy, programme, management system and audit procedure also have to be verified as conforming with the requirements of the scheme.

Training and EMAS

Annex IB.2 of EMAS sets out the training requirement for personnel whose work might have a significant effect on the environment. The usual practice is for all the workforce to receive basic training on environmental awareness. More in-depth and focused training is usually required for personnel who will be auditing the environmental management systems that are implemented. Annex IIC of EMAS states that "Environmental audits must be performed by persons or groups of persons with appropriate knowledge ... [and] ... sufficient training and proficiency in the specific skills of auditing to achieve the stated [audit] objectives".⁽⁴⁴⁾ Therefore, HSE training will be promoted as more and more companies sign on to EMAS.

1.3.3.2. International Organization for Standardization

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a non-governmental, worldwide federation of national standards bodies established for the purpose of standardizing industrial operations across national borders and facilitating the international exchange of goods and services. Standards are documented agreements containing technical specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics, to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. International standardization is market-driven, and therefore based on voluntary involvement of all interests in the marketplace.⁽⁴⁵⁾

Traditionally, the ISO's main work consisted of technical standardization, but in the 1980s it widened its mandate to work on "soft" management issues of total quality and environmental management. The two main products to date are:

(i) The ISO 9000 family of international quality standards and guidelines for establishing quality management systems. They represent an international consensus on good management practices with the aim of ensuring that an organization can consistently deliver the product or services to meet its clients' quality requirements. The standards provide organizations with guidelines on what constitutes an effective quality management system, and models against which this system can be audited to give the organization and its clients assurance that it is operating effectively. "ISO 9000 certification" means certification against ISO 9001, ISO 9002 or ISO 9003.⁽⁴⁶⁾

The ISO lists many advantages accruing to firms which comply with the ISO 9000 standards, including performance, coordination and productivity improvements, the opening up of new market opportunities and, for small and medium-sized firms, the opportunity to compete on equal terms with larger organizations. In many instances, bidding for potential contracts is limited to firms with ISO 9000 certification. An example of this is Sweden, where the Ministry of Labour gives preference to bidders for state-financed training contracts who have ISO certification for the training institutes which will deliver such training.

(ii) The ISO 14000 family addresses various aspects of environmental management. The first two standards, ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, deal with environmental management systems. These are management tools to enable an organization of any size or type to control the impact of its activities, products or services on the environment. An environmental management system represents a structured approach to setting environmental objectives and targets, to achieving these and demonstrating that they have been achieved. ISO 14001 "Environmental management systems -- Specification with guidance for use" specifies the requirements for such an environmental management system. There is a widespread expectation that ISO 14001 certification will be required for any large firm doing business internationally (and even nationally) within the near future.

The ISO uses the term "ISO 14000 certification" for the sake of consistency, although in practice only the ISO 14001 standard includes a model for environmental management certification, and organizations whose environmental management systems are certified are issued with an ISO 14001 certificate.⁽⁴⁷⁾

The ISO standards do not address health and safety. In 1997, the ISO decided against developing an international standard for occupational health and safety management systems (OH&S) which would have been compatible with the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 series.⁽⁴⁸⁾ This decision was based on the outcome of an ISO international workshop on OH&S management system standardization in September 1996, which indicated that there was little support from the main stakeholders for ISO to develop international standards in this field.⁽⁴⁹⁾ This raises the issue of the integration of standards for management systems pertaining to environment and those for occupational safety and health.

Training aspects of ISO 9000 and 14000

Training is dealt with in the quality system requirements for ISO 9000 standards. The ISO defines the standard for training in the following terms:

The supplier shall establish and maintain documented procedures for identifying training needs and provide for the training of all personnel performing activities affecting quality. Personnel performing specific assigned tasks shall be qualified on the basis of appropriate education, training and/or experience as required. Appropriate records of training shall be maintained.

ISO 14001 defines the standard for training as follows:

The organization shall identify training needs. It shall require that all personnel whose work may create a significant impact upon the environment, have received appropriate training. It shall establish and maintain procedures to make its employees or members at each relevant function and level aware of:

(a) the importance of conformance with the environmental policy and procedures and with the requirements of the environmental management system;

(b) the significant environmental impacts, actual or potential, of their work activities and the environmental benefits of improved personal performance;

(c) their roles and responsibilities in achieving conformance with the environmental policy and procedures and with the requirements of the environmental management system, including emergency preparedness and response requirements;

(d) the potential consequences of departure from specified operating procedures.

Personnel performing the tasks which can cause significant environmental impacts shall be competent on the basis of appropriate education, training and/or experience.

1.3.3.3. Industry acceptance of EMAS and ISO

German chemical firms have been at the forefront in seeking EMAS registration and have been encouraged by the VCI which sees it as complementary to Responsible Care (RC). In fact, the highest rate of participation anywhere in the world in both EMAS and ISO 14001 is to be found in Germany.⁽⁵⁰⁾ In 1997, 140 chemical sites had a verified EMAS system (up from 59 in 1996) and the number was expected to grow.⁽⁵¹⁾ The VCI also encourages its members to register their environmental management systems (EMSs) under ISO 14000. It estimates that by 2001, 80 per cent of its members will have an EMS based on ISO 14000. With such an EMS, companies that participate in RC may benefit from simplified licensing and inspection procedures required by authorities.⁽⁵²⁾ The same applies to EMAS. In 1997, the Bavarian Government and the chemical industry signed an environmental agreement giving EMAS-accredited companies more freedom in deciding how to implement and execute environmental management. Negotiations were under way in three other regions to come to similar agreements.⁽⁵³⁾

In order to help SMEs participate in RC and set up EMSs, the VCI started a pilot study in 1996 involving 19 companies. It entrusted its environmental advisory service with organizing the project which aims at preparing these companies for certification/validation under EMAS/ISO 14001 in an optimal manner.⁽⁵⁴⁾

The extent of EMAS and ISO accreditation has also been growing in the United Kingdom. The Chemical Industry Association reports that the proportion of its sites with formal or certified HSE management systems including EMAS and ISO had increased since 1994. By 1998 71 per cent of sites had formal or certified systems for the environment and 83 per cent for health and safety (the total number of sites is around 325); 11 per cent of sites had ISO 14001 or EMAS, whilst 60 per cent had formal, uncertified environmental management systems. The Association defines a "formal system" as a "comprehensive documented system for the control of the process in question -- this need not be an externally accredited system". The Association lists these "formal systems" as:

• Quality: ISO 9001/2/3, Good Laboratory Practice, International Quality Rating System, National Accreditation of Measurement and Sampling;
• Health and safety: International Safety Rating System, British Safety Council 5-Star;
• Environment: International Environment Rating System, ISO 14000, EMAS.

The CIA says that the formal process of risk assessment which has to be undertaken to achieve certification had undoubtedly had benefits for the companies involved. It adds that there is statistical, but as yet unpublished, evidence to show that these sites have a better safety performance than those with no formal management systems.⁽⁵⁵⁾

Auditor-verified, EMAS site environmental reports are a new source of information on training and education initiatives. For example, the 1997 EMAS report for DuPont's facility at Gloucester in the United Kingdom states:

All employees receive training in occupational HSE issues and they are provided with the necessary protective equipment where potential risks are identified. Auditing is a cornerstone of our QSHE [Quality, Safety, Health and Environment] management system ... During 1996, Gloucester Site achieved an Investors in People award. One of the key principles of this commitment is to regularly review training and development of all employees. In 1996, this concept included seminars on environmental awareness and our management system, to all site personnel including contractors.⁽⁵⁶⁾

The New Zealand Chemical Industry Council (NZCIC) says that uptake of ISO 9000 Series certification in New Zealand is second only to that in the United Kingdom. There is less enthusiasm for the ISO 14001 Series which is seen as a complex and relatively expensive means of implementing a recognized EMS. The New Zealand Responsible Care™ Management System recognizes ISO certification where appropriate. It also incorporates an EMS based on British Standard 7750 (BS7750) which includes a self-assessment process.⁽⁵⁷⁾

In 1994, chemical companies apparently led all other industries in the United States in gaining ISO 9000 certification with some 600 registrations, about 19 per cent of total registrations.⁽⁵⁸⁾

As of April 1997, 35 Indian companies were certified under ISO 14001, eight of which are in the public sector, and ten of which have an association with Western manufacturers. There is so far only one chemical company, Herdillia Chemicals, which is both a signatory to the RC programme and certified to ISO 14000. Furthermore, there is a preponderance of petroleum refineries, mining, and cement manufacturing units going in for ISO certification, while the RC participants are largely involved in the manufacture of base and intermediate chemicals and pharmaceuticals. ⁽⁵⁹⁾

Pharmaceutical firms in Yugoslavia are taking a concerted approach to implementation and certification of environmental management systems based on ISO 14000 standards. In 1997, the Yugoslav Association for Global Quality Approach -- YU Quality Forum organized the first Yugoslav Conference on Environmental Management in the Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Industry which helped raise awareness about the relevance and benefits of the ISO 14000 series in developing environmental management systems.⁽⁶⁰⁾

1.4. The relationships between the VI schemes and standards

One of the oft-proclaimed benefits of VIs is that, being voluntary, they are designed in some measure to avoid the "costly and time wasting burden" of reporting on different regulations to different authorities. Nevertheless, the proliferation of different voluntary schemes and standards means that companies often find themselves carrying out multiple voluntary audits under the different schemes and collecting and reporting non-standardized data to a variety of non-statutory bodies. The industry has recognized the workload this creates for large companies as well as SMEs, as evidenced by CEFIC's position paper on Safety, Health, Environment and Quality (SHEQ) Management Systems and Management System Standards (box 1.3).

Boxes 1.4 and 1.5 explain the differences and relationships between the principal VIs (EMAS, ISO and Responsible Care).

In practice, the different initiatives tend to merge into each other and at company and/or plant level form part of an HSE management system. The HSE Director for the Association of the Chemical Industry of the Czech Republic (SCHP), for example, says that ISO, EMAS and RC are really part of a general environmental management system package, so that it is often impossible to separate out the individual elements. He adds, "If we try to separate RC, ISO 14000 and EMAS, it will create conceptual and practical problems, which could lead to difficulties with other manufacturing sectors which don't have RC-type initiatives and so naturally concentrate on ISO 14000 and EMAS. There is a need to harmonize the RC initiative with other sectors of industry to avoid their jealousy."⁽⁶¹⁾
 

Box 1.3 Safety, Health, Environment and Quality (SHEQ) Management Systems and Management System Standards

In general, chemical companies have used a variety of systems for managing and improving SHEQ performance. This approach is recognized by many organizations as not being cost-effective. CEFIC fully supports the view that companies should implement, develop and strengthen SHEQ management systems. Such systems, when appropriately applied, are achieving, maintaining and demonstrating SHEQ control and improvement. Management systems support the chemical industry's Responsible Care initiative. Integrated management systems are based on common core elements, designed to manage and coordinate the requirements of several management control systems such as safety, health, environment or quality. Core elements include: Definition of policies, objectives and targets. Management of resources (ie. people, material and equipment). Identification of stakeholder requirements. Planning and prioritization. Business and operational process management. Monitoring and evaluation of performance, including corrective action. Management review (of performance effectiveness, improvement needs). The purpose of having an integrated system is to provide clear direction and effective allocation of resources at the lowest possible cost. This helps business functions to perform effectively together in pursuit of the organization's business goals. CEFIC supports the integration of internal SHEQ management systems where this is efficient and effective for an organization. Before the development of any SHEQ management system standard there should be clear justification of the benefits, in order to avoid unnecessary proliferation. Any new or revised standard must be compatible, and thus integratable with, existing management system standards. Consolidation of existing standards should take priority over the development of new standards.

Source: Position Paper on Safety, Health, Environment and Quality (SHEQ) Management Systems and Management System Standards (Brussels, CEFIC, 09.04.98).

 

Box 1.4 The main differences between EMAS and ISO 14001

EMAS requires continual improvement of environmental performance with a view to reducing environmental impacts to levels not exceeding those corresponding to economically viable application of best available technology (EVABAT). In ISO 14001, EVABAT is only an option that companies may consider. Auditing of environmental performance is an EMAS requirement, whereas in ISO, assessment of performance is covered under monitoring and measurement and management review. EMAS requires publication of an environmental statement with a specified content. ISO does not have any public information disclosure requirements. Registration to EMAS requires third-party verification of the environmental statement and the environmental management and auditing system by accredited professional validators. ISO allows for third-party certification, by whom is not specified, of the environmental management system or self-declaration of conformance. Furthermore, compliance is encouraged in EMAS because the European Union retains the right to issue directives if self-regulation is ineffective.

Source: CEFIC -- The relationship of Responsible Care with EMAS and ISO 14001 (Brussels, 1997).

 

Box 1.5 The relationship of Responsible Care with EMAS and ISO 14001

CEFIC and the ICCA argue that Responsible Care is a much wider concept and programme than either EMAS or ISO 14001. The two organizations state that: "The requirements of EMAS and ISO 14001 are consistent with part of the Responsible Care commitment ... It should be clearly recognized that Responsible Care is much broader in scope. Safety and health are not specifically included in EMAS and ISO 14001 ... As internationally recognized schemes for environmental management both EMAS and ISO 14001 potentially provide added value with respect to the environmental commitments of Responsible Care. By, for example, acting as a reference point with respect to environmental management systems under Responsible Care." CEFIC suggests that "... the management system requirements of EMAS and ISO 14001 could be viewed as potential 'codes of practice' to be used within Responsible Care". In order to fulfil the Responsible Care commitment, CEFIC recommends its members to implement and/or improve their safety, health and environmental management systems, building on existing company systems and activities. "When implementing these systems, CEFIC recommends to take into account the environmental management system requirements of EMAS and ISO 14001."

Source: CEFIC -- The relationship of Responsible Care with EMAS and ISO 14001 (Brussels, 1997).

* * *

For several reasons, voluntary initiatives are becoming more important as means to promote good health, safety and environment performance in the chemical industries as elsewhere. Although this approach does not eliminate the role of government regulation, it does tend to be accompanied by a shift away from "command-and-control" type regulation. Although not precisely defined, the term "voluntary initiatives" is taken here to comprise company and industry-wide initiatives, government-industry environmental agreements, and environmental (or HSE) management systems. The evidence is mixed, but there is some reason to believe that the development of voluntary initiatives such as Responsible Care has led the public in some countries to take a less negative view of the chemical industries. Environmental agreements -- bilateral agreements between industry and government -- have been widely developed in western Europe and have been used for some purposes in the United States. Formal environmental management systems form another significant class of voluntary initiatives. The main examples are EMAS in the European Union and the ISO 14000 standard. Increasing numbers of firms and sites are being certified under one or both of these schemes. Corporate HSE reports represent yet another kind of voluntary initiative that is gaining in importance. Although there are identifiable differences between these voluntary initiatives, there is considerable scope for integrating them at company and plant level so as to minimize confusion and duplication in reporting requirements.

Notes

1.  UNEP: Voluntary Industry Codes of Conduct for the Environment (Paris, Industry and Environment Office, 1998), Technical Report No 40, p. 7.

2.  UNEP: Voluntary initiatives for responsible entrepreneurship: A questions and answers guide (Paris, Industry and Environment Office).

3.  Florian Wegleitner: Responsible Care -- ein Vergleich zwischen Oesterreich und England (Vienna, Austrian Chemical Industry Association, 1997), available in German only.

4.  UNEP: Voluntary industry codes of conduct for the environment (Paris, Industry and Environment Office, 1998), Technical Report No. 40, p. 7.

5.  ibid., p. 4.

6.  UNEP: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions: The role of voluntary programmes (Paris, Industry and Environment Office, 1997), p. xii.

7.  European Commission Directorate General III.01 -- Industry: Study on voluntary agreements concluded between industry and public authorities in the field of the environment -- Final report (Brussels, 1997), Executive Summary.

8.  G. Liardet: "Public opinion and the chemical industry", in Chemistry and Industry magazine (London, 18.02.91), pp. 118-123.

9.  Uncertain progress for Responsible Care (London, ENDS Report 233, June 1994), pp. 16-18.

10.  What's wrong with Responsible Care? (London, ENDS Report 259, Aug. 1996), p. 20.

11.  ibid.

12.  "Europe begins to measure performance", in Chemical Week (Washington, DC, 1-8 July 1998), p. 111.

13.  "Responsible Care: The second phase", special issue of Chemical Week magazine, United States, 7/14 July 1993.

14.  ibid.

15.  United States Chemical Manufacturers' Association: Responsible Care progress report 1997 (Washington, DC, 1998), p. 10.

16.  United Nations: Earth Summit Agenda 21 -- The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio (New York, UN Department of Public Information, 1992).

17.  ICCA: Position paper on sustainable development and the chemical industry (Arlington, United States, 1996), p. 2.

18.  "Germany: Regulation or volunteer action?", in Chemical Week (London, 1-8 July 1998), p. 125.

19.  ICCA: Responsible Care status report (Arlington, United States, 1996), p. 13.

20.  European Environment Agency: Environmental agreements -- Environmental effectiveness (Copenhagen, 1997), Environmental Issues Series No. 3, Vol. 1, Executive Summary, p. 11.

21.  ibid.

22.  ibid.

23.  European Union: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Environmental Agreements COM (96)561 (Brussels, 1996).

24.  European Commission Directorate General III.01 -- Industry: Study on voluntary agreements concluded between industry and public authorities in the field of the environment -- Final report (Brussels, 1997), Executive Summary.

25.  European Union: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Environmental Agreements COM (96)561 (Brussels, 1996).

26.  ibid.

27.  European Environment Agency: Environmental agreements -- Environmental effectiveness (Copenhagen, 1997), Environmental Issues Series No. 3, Vol. 1, Executive Summary, p. 11.

28.  "German report warns of unenforceable agreements", in European Chemical News (Brussels, 12-18 Aug. 1996), p. 43.

29.  European Environment Agency: Environmental agreements -- Case studies (Copenhagen, 1997), Environmental Issues Series No. 3, Vol. 2, p. 55.

30.   Declaration of Intent on the Implementation of Environmental Policy for the Chemical Industry (The Hague, 2 Apr. 1993).

31.  ibid.

32.  European Environment Agency: Environmental agreements -- Environmental effectiveness (Copenhagen, 1997), Environmental Issues Series No. 3, Vol. 1, Executive Summary, p. 13.

33.   John Harman: The United States Environmental Protection Agency 33/50 Program (Paris, OECD, 1997), in Proceedings of the OECD Workshop on Non-Regulatory Initiatives for Chemical Risk Management, OECD HS Publications, Series on Risk Management No. 7, pp. 37-43.

34.  ibid.

35.  ibid.

36.  "Globalisation will hamper sustainability, say trade unions", in Careline (London, April-June 1998), Issue No. 11.

37.  UNEP: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- The role of voluntary programmes (Paris, Industry and Environment Office, 1997), pp. xii.

38.  CEFIC: Voluntary energy efficiency programme VEEP 2005 (Brussels, Nov. 1997).

39.  VCI: Self-commitment for the energy sector (Frankfurt, 1996).

40.  VCI: Contribution of the chemical industry to climate protection in the energy sector: Reduction of specific energy consumption and CO₂ emissions (Frankfurt, undated).

41.  CIA: The Energy Efficiency Agreement (London, 1997).

42.  OECD Observer, No. 189, Aug.-Sep. 1994, pp. 8-11.

43.  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme.

44.  ibid., Annex IIC.

45.  ISO: Compatible technology worldwide (Geneva, 1994), p. 12.

46.  ISO: Publicizing your ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certification, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 3.

47.  ibid.

48.  International Organization for Standardization: ISO decisions on OH&S, integration of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001, and information privacy (Geneva, 1997), ISO Press Release, Ref. 738.

49.  International Organization for Standardization: Spotlight, looking before leaping: ISO Workshop on Occupational Health and Safety, Geneva, ISO Bulletin 11/96.

50.  "Germany -- Regulation or volunteer action?", in Chemical Week, 1-8 July 1998, p. 125.

51.  CEFIC: Annual Responsible Care Report 1997 (Brussels, 1998), p. 11.

52.  "Europe begins to measure performance", in Chemical Week, 1-8 July 1998, p. 112.

53.  "Germany -- Regulation or volunteer action?", in Chemical Week, 1-8 July 1998, p. 125.

54.  VCI: Responsible Care report 1997 (Frankfurt, 1997), pp. 11-12.

55.  CIA: UK indicators of performance 1990-97 (London, 1998), pp. 25-26.

56.  DuPont Nylon: Environmental report 1997, Gloucester Site, United Kingdom (Gloucester, 1997), p. 15.

57.  New Zealand Chemical Industry Council (NZCIC): Personal communication from Barry Dyer, CEO, NZCIC, 21.07.98.

58.  Ann Thayer: "Chemical companies see beneficial results from ISO 9000 registration", in Chemical and Engineering News, 25.04.94, p. 10.

59.  ILO: Responsible Care in the chemical industry in India, A Status Report, Geneva, 1998, pp. 20-21.

60.  Franja Coha: Concerted approach to ISO 14000 by Yugoslav pharmaceutical firms, ISO 9000 News 6/1997 (Geneva, 1997), p. 28.

61.  Personal interview on 04.02.98 with Mr. Ivan Zika, SCHP RC Coordinator, Prague, Czech Republic.

2. Chemical industry initiatives

Voluntary HSE programmes developed by the chemical industries at international level comprise one general effort and other more specific programmes covering particular subsectors. The general effort, Responsible Care (RC), is the broadest and has attracted the largest share of attention and resources. It is the chemical industries' own worldwide initiative to continuously improve HSE performance. This has led some subsectors to create similar programmes. Chemical distributors and traders and chemical industry associations have established "partnership agreements" which allow each party to develop its own, specific RC programmes while using a common RC logo. In some cases distributors have developed their own Responsible Distribution initiative. This is also the case with the coatings industry. Finally, the Global Safe Use Initiative is the training-oriented effort of the pesticide manufacturers.

Whilst different programmes exist, the industry associations guiding the respective initiatives are at pains to stress that their individual programmes are all working towards the same broad goals of improving company HSE performance nationally and internationally, on the basis of greater public openness, public tracking and, in some instances, third-party verification. Indeed, at the national level there are often partnership agreements which recognize "compatibilities" or "equivalencies" between the schemes, meaning that performance improvement in one scheme will be mutually recognized in another.

A crucial difference between the initiatives is that whilst RC is international in coverage, the details of its content vary across its 40-odd national programmes. Whilst common objectives, guiding principles and approaches exist, national codes of practice, implementation plans and even performance indicators differ, and there is no one international RC programme which is uniformly implemented by national associations and by companies. By contrast, the Responsible Care/Responsible Distribution programme of ICCTA is international and based on a generic programme which is itself based on the American and European processes. It uses common standards and codes of practice with performance criteria which vary only as they embrace respective national legislation, associations and companies. Coatings Care is similar. The various initiatives are also at different stages of development and have different emphases. Responsible Care is the most advanced, having started in the 1980s. Responsible Distribution was begun in the early 1990s, and Coatings Care was only being developed in the late 1990s. The pesticide industry's Global Safe Use Initiative and its three safe use pilot projects, which are training-based, date from 1991. Similarly, within the individual initiatives, the regional and national programmes are at different stages of evolution and this is most clearly illustrated by RC.

2.1. Responsible Care

Responsible Care (RC) is the worldwide chemical manufacturing industry's voluntary commitment to continuous improvement in all aspects of HSE performance and to openness in communication about its activities and achievements.⁽¹⁾ It is described as the basis of significant cultural change within the chemical industry which is leading to improved performance and new levels of openness with the public.⁽²⁾

The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA)⁽³⁾ says that:

The global chemical industry believes that the key to improving the performance of the industry is both its commitment to achieving environmentally sound sustainable development and improved performance and transparency. Under the concept of "Responsible Care", chemical companies are committed, in all aspects of safety, health and protection of the environment, to seek continuous improvement in performance, to educate all staff and work with customers and communities regarding product use and overall operation. Through these efforts the industry is improving its efficiency, reducing risks to health and the environment and making better products which, in turn, help individual and industry customers.⁽⁴⁾

The industry argues that these features make Responsible Care a powerful programme for sustainable development. "The global chemical industry, as represented by the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), views Responsible Care as a practical and visible tool for meeting its obligation to safely manage the risks associated with the ever-widening range of chemical production and products."⁽⁵⁾ The industry stresses the ethical aspects of RC and the fact that it is a new way of doing business. It emphasizes that whilst RC is not itself a management system, it needs a management system(s) for implementation.

In a progress report to the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (a body set up to give effect to UNCED's Agenda 21), ICCA says that:

The global chemical industry intends to use Responsible Care as proof that voluntary industry initiatives which focus on flexibility and innovation can successfully complement appropriate regulation to succeed where command-and-control schemes have failed. Resource-strapped governments in both the developed and developing worlds are seeking new paradigms for environmental protection. Responsible Care is a partial answer to this search and its implementation will enable the chemical industry to make progress in reducing chemical risks.⁽⁶⁾

2.1.1. Structure of RC

ICCA and its Responsible Care Leadership Group (RCLG)⁽⁷⁾ now coordinate an international programme which since 1985 has been adopted by chemical associations and their member companies in 40 developed and developing countries. In 1996, these member companies accounted for approximately 86 per cent (by production volume) of world chemicals production.⁽⁸⁾ Regional industry associations also play an important role, and RC implementation is, for example, a condition of membership of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC)⁽⁹⁾ and of the United States Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA). National chemical industry associations are responsible for the detailed implementation of RC in their countries.

Each national RC programme must incorporate eight fundamental features, as outlined by ICCA:

• a formal commitment on behalf of each company to a set of guiding principles signed, in the majority of cases, by the chief executive officer;
• a series of codes, guidance notes and checklists to assist companies to implement the commitment;
• the progressive development of indicators against which improvements in performance can be measured;
• an ongoing process of communication