Leading Consumer Brands CEOs Critical of Shimkus TSCA Reform Proposal: Falls Short on Transparency, Safety Standards and Incentive for Innovation
Yesterday, Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) introduced a legislative proposal entitled the “Chemicals in Commerce Act” to reform the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) in the U.S. House of Representatives. The following statements are from the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and member businesses of the Companies for Safer Chemicals coalition, which is pushing for meaningful reform of chemical regulations.
“While it is good to see that Chairman Shimkus recognizes the need to fix TSCA, meaningful reform must address three fundamental aspects: transparency, robust safety standards, and incentive for innovation,” said David Levine, CEO and Co-Founder of ASBC. “Upon initial review, this draft falls short on the business principles we’ve identified to achieve meaningful reform. Our business leaders understand that we are in dire need of comprehensive chemical policy reform to drive a system-wide shift away from hazardous chemicals and towards safer chemicals. Meaningful reform will invigorate consumer confidence to grow our business and our economy.”
“TSCA is woefully outdated, and if it’s taken thirty-eight years to address its flaws, we need to be sure that the new legislation is right and stands the test of decades to come. While we can’t afford to risk waiting longer and allowing further toxic exposure, we have to ensure the new law is rooted in smart policy. For example, the legislation should require public access to information regarding the safety of chemicals and the onus must be appropriately placed on chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the chemicals they use are safe. Finally, we also must ensure that the federal government has the regulatory tools and financial resources to protect consumers and uphold the law. If these conditions are not met, we should urge Congress to continue to work on the legislation until they get it right,” said John Replogle, CEO of Seventh Generation, a leading supplier of household and personal care products.
“As a company that is meeting increasing consumer demand for cleaner and safer products, we believe reform legislation must clear the way for the EPA to act, not erect further barriers to action, on the most hazardous chemicals in the marketplace,” said Barry Cik, Co-Founder of Naturepedic, a leading manufacturer of mattresses.
“Meaningful reform will improve consumer confidence in American made products,” said Rebecca Hamilton, Director of Product Development of Badger, which makes personal care products. “Making safety information available to the business supply chain and the public will drive the market towards cleaner and safer products.”
The American Sustainable Business Council and its member organizations represent more than 200,000 businesses nationwide, and more than 325,000 entrepreneurs, executives, managers and investors. The council includes chambers of commerce, trade associations and groups representing small business, investors, microenterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business, local living economy and women and minority business leaders. ASBC informs and engages policy makers and the public about the need and opportunities for building a vibrant and sustainable economy. www.asbcouncil.org
Cambrian Innovation and WaterFX are testing the viability of energy-positive water treatment approaches
New research calls for greater protection to prevent malaria spreading into higher altitudes in Africa and South America
With Power Comes Responsibility: Technology Firms Face Increasing Expectations to Respect Human Rights
Today Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launched a briefing highlighting the human rights responsibilities of information and communications technology (ICT) companies around the world. The briefing is launched in advance of RightsCon, a major gathering of human rights experts, business people and government representatives in Silicon Valley from 3-5 March, organized by Access.
Technology is a powerful tool for human rights. The 10-page briefing calls on ICT firms everywhere to maximize their positive contribution to human rights, and to avoid abuses. With the ever-increasing scrutiny of ICT companies’ conduct – much of this enabled by the internet itself – and the growing availability of practical guidance on how to do the right thing, there is little excuse for inaction.
Since 2005, the non-profit Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has invited companies to respond publicly to human rights concerns raised by civil society. Over 220 of these approaches have been to ICT firms, which have a response rate of 70% (full details here). In 2005-6, only four percent of all the companies we invited to respond to concerns were from the ICT sector – by 2012-13, this figure increased to thirteen percent, demonstrating the increasing attention on the sector.
“Information technology: The Power and Responsibility of Business” features ways in which some ICT firms have shown disregard for human rights – for example the Canadian firm Netsweeper which was found to be assisting censorship efforts by the government in Pakistan.
It demonstrates how others have been on a learning curve, to now take a leadership stance. These include Yahoo! which, following criticism for handing user details of the journalist Shi Tao to the Chinese authorities that led to his arrest, then became a founding member (along with Google and Microsoft) of the Global Network Initiative, a multi-stakeholder initiative to address privacy and freedom of expression.
Over three quarters of the Resource Centre’s approaches to ICT companies for responses have related to concerns in four countries/regions:
- China (32% of the invitations to respond, many in relation to working conditions in ICT firms’ supply chains);
- Middle East & North Africa (23%, largely relating to surveillance, censorship and internet shut-downs);
- South Asia (12%, regarding working conditions and censorship issues) and;
- USA (10%, which includes approaches to ICT companies regarding lobbying by US business associations against the implementation of the “Dodd Frank” Act rules on the sourcing of conflict minerals – some firms distanced themselves from the business associations on this).
The many companies responding include Apple’s supplier Foxconn over allegations of harmful working conditions in its factories, South African telecoms firm MTN regarding an internet shut-down during protests in Sudan, and Qatari firm Ooredoo regarding steps it will take to ensure human rights are respected through its new telecoms license in Myanmar.
This response process ensures the company headquarters is aware of the concerns; encourages companies to publicly address them; provides fair coverage; and enables comparison of the substance of the company responses. While the quality of responses varies, a response on the part of the company demonstrates a willingness to engage publicly with civil society on human rights issues.
The scale of the recent Facebook acquisition of WhatsApp is just one illustration of the global reach and influence of ICT companies: a firm with over 1.2 billion monthly users acquires for US$19 billion another that is aiming to also have one billion users worldwide. With technology’s influence comes enormous potential to help realize human rights: by enabling the free flow of information and enhancing transparency, empowering marginalized groups, and strengthening links between activists for example.
At the same time, ICT companies run the risk of committing human rights abuses on a large scale, from violation of privacy to facilitating censorship and repression. They might do this directly, or by being involved in abuses by governments and others.
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, said: “As this briefing shows, all around the world human rights activists are calling for greater responsibility from the ICT sector. From the exposure of misconduct, to online petitions, to street protests, to collaboration and engagement with firms that are committed to human rights – the common purpose is to maximize the potential of technology to bring about a freer and fairer world.”
The briefing illustrates the human rights dimensions of ICT in six areas:
- Combating censorship
- Curbing surveillance and repression
- Protecting privacy
- Broadening access
- Engaging the supply chain
- Respecting children’s rights
It concludes with recommendations to companies and also to governments – given that action by both is needed for change.
The Resource Centre’s Program Director Annabel Short said: “For ICT companies that want to do the right thing, there is no shortage of practical guidance on human rights. Technology changes by the day, and reaches across national boundaries with conflicting laws: ensuring respect for human rights throughout a company’s operations is challenging, but it is a goal that all companies can and should be aiming for.”
NOTES FOR EDS
- Contact Annabel Short, Program Director, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre: +1 212 564 9160 / +1 646 246 0359
- Access the full briefing: www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/information-technology-briefing-feb-2014.pdf
- About the Resource Centre: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, an independent non-profit organization, provides the leading information hub on business & human rights: www.business-humanrights.org.
The website tracks reports about the human rights impacts (positive & negative) of over 5000 companies in over 180 countries, and provides guidance tools and resources for all those working in this field. Its researchers are based in Brazil, Colombia, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Myanmar, Senegal, South Africa, UK, Ukraine and USA.
Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and President of Ireland, is Chair of the Centre’s International Advisory Network. The Centre does not accept funding from companies or company foundations, in order to maintain its independence and to prevent any possible perception of a conflict of interest.
Mission: To encourage companies to respect and promote human rights, and avoid harm to people. The Resource Centre does this by advancing:
- Transparency – pursuing, collecting and disseminating to a global audience information about company conduct, positive and negative;
- Public accountability – helping civil society get companies to address concerns; seeking responses and drawing attention to each company’s response or failure to respond; and
- Informed decision-making – providing the leading business & human rights resource and guidance hub, to assist civil society, companies and others.
Countries to work together on green manufacturing, low carbon cities, and offshore renewables projects
Microinverter company believes technology can compete on its own merits and says falling costs will continue to drive growth in traditional markets