RESPONSIBLE CARE SURVEY (fwd)

[Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>]

  Apparently there were formatting difficulties in the message I sent to the
  list earlier today. Hopefully this version will work better. 
  
  For anyone who has trouble receiving this message but is interested in
  this labor critique of the chemical industry's Responsible Care
  initiative, you may want to check the international chemical, energy and
  mine workers web site <www.icem.org>. 
  
  Robert Weissman
  Essential Information			|   Internet:	rob@essential.org
  
  
  ICEM UPDATE
  
  No. 77/1997
  
  15 December 1997
  
  The following is from the International Federation of Chemical, Energy,
  Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM): 
  
  CHEMICAL FIRMS NOT SHARING THE CARING? 
  
  "RESPONSIBLE CARE" LEAVES MOST WORKERS OUT, SURVEY FINDS
  
  The chemical industry's "Responsible Care" programme on safety and the
  environment has had no impact on most of the world's chemical workers, a
  survey published today shows. 
  
  Workers and their trade union representatives are neither widely involved
  in nor well informed about "Responsible Care", according to research
  conducted by the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical,
  Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM). 
  
  "Responsible Care" (RC) has become the chemical industry's preferred term
  for a formal commitment to a set of guiding principles by chemical
  companies and/or industry associations aimed at improving their safety
  performance, both in the workplace and in the general environment.
  Industry analysts hold differing views on the content and effectiveness of
  the programme, which is often cited by chemical manufacturers in support
  of a "self-regulatory" (in effect, deregulatory) approach to safety and
  environment issues.
  
  The Responsible Care programme and related voluntary initiatives will be
  examined by representatives of the world's workers, employers and
  governments at a meeting to be held by the UN's International Labour
  Organisation (ILO) in early 1999. 
  
  A total of 29 unions from 21 countries took part in the ICEM survey,
  conducted during 1997.
  
  35% of respondents were not even aware of the RC programme. This was not
  limited to unions in developing or newly restructuring countries. Unions
  that were both aware of and in some way involved in RC were mainly in
  Japan, Scandinavia and North-Western Europe. The ability of workers and
  especially their union representatives in the USA to get involved in a
  formal and meaningful way in the RC programme is extremely limited,
  according to US respondents. Unions from the countries of Central and
  Eastern Europe Union and from developing countries are much less likely to
  be aware of the RC programme, let alone be involved in it. 
  
  Unions that are aware of the RC programme, and those unions involved in
  it, are in many cases sceptical about its real value.  Their main
  concerns: 
  
  - The voluntary nature of the RC programme may mean that it is more of a
  public relations exercise. One union called it "window dressing".
  
  - The RC programme does little more than ask member companies to comply
  with current legal standards and codes of practice. This is not
  particularly innovative. 
  
  - Neither the codes of practice nor the guiding principles of the RC
  programme address the importance of employee or trade union involvement in
  workplace health, safety and environmental issues. 
  
  - The RC programme does not appear to have improved the chemical
  industry's public image. For example, a 1995 survey by the US Chemical
  Manufacturers' Association (CMA) indicated that less than 2% of the
  general public have a favourable view of the RC programme. This is
  consistent with the observations of at least one of the ICEM's affiliated
  trade unions which surveyed communities located adjacent to chemical
  plants. 
  
  - On occupational health and safety, companies within the RC programme are
  only asked to track recordable injuries and illnesses. There is much more
  that companies could and should do. 
  
  - RC programmes are to be found only in the highly developed countries.
  This suggests that industry is concentrating its efforts where there is
  already strong legislation and enforcement, perhaps in a bid to prevent
  further legislation and stricter enforcement.  If this is the case, it is
  the opposite of what is really needed, since the developing countries and
  the newly restructuring economies face the greatest threats and have the
  greatest needs. 
  
  The ICEM survey also shows that companies based in countries with a
  high-profile RC programme (such as Japan, Germany and the USA) usually do
  not run similar programmes within their operations in other parts of the
  world. This raises important questions about the global applicability of
  the RC programme. 
  
  ICEM proposals for improving the RC programme include: 
  
  - Clear industry acceptance that the RC programme is no substitute for
  legislation, monitoring and enforcement, but is rather an ADDITIONAL
  commitment by the chemical industry to do the right thing. [The ICEM
  document notes that some chemical manufacturers are also coming round to
  this view. For example, Simon de Bree, Chief Executive Officer of the DSM
  company and past president of the European Chemical Industry Council
  (Cefic), publicly recognised in his presentation to the Intergovernmental
  Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) meeting in Ottawa in February 1997, that
  there had to be BOTH legislation AND Responsible Care - it was not a case
  of one or the other.]
  
  - Transparency and inclusiveness. The RC programme, if it is to be
  successful and credible, has to be independently verifiable. Companies
  within the RC programme must demonstrate a much greater willingness to
  engage openly with workers, their trade union representatives and the
  broader community. 
  
  - RC has to be understood, accepted and implemented by all those within
  the chemical industry - from the chief executive officer to the production
  worker. 
  
  "RC must stand for Real Commitment," says ICEM General Secretary Vic
  Thorpe.  "The ICEM and its affiliated unions could help make the RC
  programme a much more credible, verifiable and forward-looking means of
  tackling the challenges facing the global chemical industry. But this
  means that companies for their part must involve trade unions as full
  partners in the programme." 
  
  _________________
  
  
  Individual ICEM UPDATE items can be supplied in other languages on
  request. 
  
  Our print magazines ICEM INFO and ICEM GLOBAL are available in Arabic,
  English, French, German, Russian, Scandinavian and Spanish. 
  
  Visit us on the Web at http://www.icem.org
  
  ICEM avenue Emile de Beco 109, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. 
  tel.+32.2.6262020 fax +32.2.6484316 Internet: icem@geo2.poptel.org.uk
  
  Editor: Ian Graham, Information Officer
  
  Publisher: Vic Thorpe, General Secretary. 
  
  [end]