International Occupational Health and Safety Risk

TransfersAndrew Watterson

Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group

Improving Health Outcomes Research ProgrammeUniversity of Stirling, Scotland

International Occupational Health and Safety Risk Transfers Workshop

Workshop framework

1. The issues

2. Case studies

3. Controls and standards

4. Trade union/NGO actions

5. Campaigning

The issues

• Increase/reduction of ‘risks’ (hazards/exposures - export) in materials, processes, work organisations etc

• Increase/decrease in numbers of workers exposed• Increase/decrease in types of workers exposed and

possible community/environmental exposures• Increase/decrease in monitoring, surveillance of hazards

and risks• Increase/decrease in regulation/inspection/enforcement

of laws on risk movement and risk arrival• Increase/decrease in civil society checks and balances

on risk transfer. Freedom of information, media investigation, rights of trade unions and NGOs.

International Occupational Health and Safety Risk Transfers

• Through capital movement – companies and industries

• Through science and technology movement – such as biotechnology techniques, nanotechnology, nuclear technology

• Through labour movement

Trends which may lead to OHSE issues?

Movement of people • Between countries• Within countries

Movement of industries and services

• High wage to low wage countries and regions

• High technology to low technology

• High technology to high skills, low wages and low technology

Case studies

from workshop members

Risk transfer from Latvia:

• In December 2004, Swedish trade unions launched a boycott of Laval & Partneri, a Latvian construction firm doing building work near Stockholm, calling for the Latvian workers involved to be paid the same as their Swedish counterparts. The conflict has attracted considerable attention in Latvia, with the government stating that EU free market rules are being breached, and employers' organisations and trade unions becoming involved

• The Latvian company obtained a contact to build a school building. The construction work started in late 2004, and 14 Latvian building workers are involved.

Risk control in Latvia?

• Baltcom GSM, a limited liability company, incorporated in Latvia to construct and operate a mobile communications network using the GSM 900 standard. The commercial service launch of the company took place on 18 March 1997

• “ During the selection and planning of buildings and construction activities, Baltcom has taken account of all relevant environmental and worker health and safety standards. Technical inspectors, with responsibility for occupational health and safety, will be responsible for enforcing health and safety requirements to ensure prevention of accidents, work safety and occupational health. Noise and exhaust emissions from emergency power generators will meet international standards”.

Examples

Roznov

Promoters and inhibitors of occupational and environmental health standards

How to export OHSE promoters with risks?

• Promoters Inhibitors • Effective standards (EU,ILO and other) economic decline – low wages, conditions• Effective information de-regulation • Effective training non-enforcement• Effective enforcement weak/passive workforce• Committed managers workforce ◄ foreign investment?► • Adequate investment/economy professionalized workforce? • Strong workplace organization isolated workforce/community• TUs no TUs/sweetheart TUs• Active environmental NGOs inactive or uninterested NGOs• Vigilant media captured media/ lack of information about hazards

• Modifiers:• Regional and national economic, political and social variations. • Company variations• Enforcement traditions and resources

Underpinning controls on risk transfer in the

electronics industry • the development of a charter for labor inspectors that offers meaningful

protection and support for them in their work, adequate staff and resources, and promotes best practice and autonomy from industry and state influences national governments’ commitment to introducing enforcing good health and safety laws – prescriptive where necessary and risk based where appropriate - that are properly enforced and linked to meaningful criminal and civil sanctions for those companies that break the OHSE laws.

• government and industry recognition of the rights of workers to organize generally and specifically on occupational health and safety matters linked to rights to receive information, negotiate with companies, inspect workplaces and stop work when hazardous conditions are identified

• an organized, well equipped – in terms of information education, rights – workforce which has clear trade union rights to address workplace health and safety. These will provide both another line in enforcing regulation – perhaps through the Swedish worker rights not only to inspect workplaces but to stop work in potentially dangerous situations.

• an alert, active and independent media not cowed or corralled by government and industry

• community and environmental groups willing to work with trade unions and employees to press for effective enforcement of work environment as well as wider environmental laws.

• better educated and informed boards and managers who take the rhetoric of corporate governance and OHSM systems and apply them to raising standards and practices further in their own semiconductor plants

Country TU Strength+ -

Environmental group strength+ -

Researchreports

Cancerreports

Reproreports

State of Occup med+ -

Russia - - + Yes No Yes +

Belarus - - - - _ No No No - - -

Poland ? + + + Yes - 2 No No ?+ +

Czech ?+ + + No No No ?+

Slovakia ? ? No No No -

Romania - + No No No ?

UK +++ ++++ Yes Yesfew

Yes +

USA + ++++ Yes Yes few

Yes + +

Agricultural risk transfer?

Polish agricultural workers in UK

Chinese cocklers on Morecambe Bay UK

Controls

Legislative safeguards at various levels

Obstacles to regulation of risks that underpin economic drivers

• Nature of organizations – technical and political controls over civil servants and local government officers

• Lack of transparency and limited or no freedom of information rights

• Lack of resources to support staff workloads/ needs, fund investigations and possible prosecutions

• Lack of staff – enforcement, technical, scientific and legal staff - to pursue prosecutions

• Patronage – overt and covert of those who do the bidding of those who control or employ them.

• Political and commercial interference – difficult to assess but indicated by recent research

• Lack of accountability – technocratic decision-making divorced from public accountability?

• Legal constraints in drafting of laws and legal constraints in operations of courts.

Which bodies act and how?

1. Organisations• ILO• WTO- in the past IMF linked to World Bank• EU – genetic modification, antibiotics in food• National legislation2. Actions• Health and safety laws and codes ( general laws and specific

controls eg gangmaster laws in UK• Inspections• Enforcement through labour inspectors and courts• Prior informed consent – on materials and not processes, work

organisation

ILO policy affecting risk transfer

ILO Convention 139 1974 on Cancer causing substances calls for the substitution of known cancer causing substances

Article 1• 1. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall periodically determine

the carcinogenic substances and agents to which occupational exposure shall be prohibited or made subject to authorisation or control, and those to which other provisions of this Convention shall apply.

2. Exemptions from prohibition may only be granted by issue of a certificate specifying in each case the conditions to be met.

Article 2• 1. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall make every effort to

have carcinogenic substances and agents to which workers may be exposed in the course of their work replaced by non-carcinogenic substances or agents or by less harmful substances or agents; in the choice of substitute substances or agents account shall be taken of their carcinogenic, toxic and other properties.

ILO action on risk transfer

• The International Labour Office (ILO) is to pursue a global ban on asbestos, the world’s biggest ever industrial killer. The landmark decision came with the adoption of a resolution on 14 June 2006 at the ILO conference in Geneva and followed a high level union campaign ( Source: Hazards 2006)

ILO C187 Convention concerning the promotional framework for occupational safety and health,

2006 • Article 2 • 1. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall promote

continuous improvement of occupational safety and health to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths, by the development, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of a national policy, national system and national programme.

• 2. Each Member shall take active steps towards achieving progressively a safe and healthy working environment through a national system and national programmes on occupational safety and health by taking into account the principles set out in instruments of the International Labour Organization (ILO) relevant to the promotional framework for occupational safety and health.

• 3. Each Member, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, shall periodically consider what measures could be taken to ratify relevant occupational safety and health Conventions of the ILO.

ILO C184 Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001

• Article 4 • 1. In the light of national conditions and practice

and after consulting the representative organizations of employers and workers concerned, Members shall formulate, carry out and periodically review a coherent national policy on safety and health in agriculture. This policy shall have the aim of preventing accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of work, by eliminating, minimizing or controlling hazards in the agricultural working environment.

ILO Standardsfor migrant workers

• C97Migration for Employment Convention (Revised)1949• R86Migration for Employment Recommendation (Revised)1949  • C143Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention

1975• R151Migrant Workers Recommendation1975• C118Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention1962• C157Maintenance of Social Security Rights Convention1982• R167Maintenance of Social Security Rights Recommendation

1983

EU controls

EU directives that may impact on risk transfer

• General directives

• Specific directives such as REACH

WTO• The WTO, the Environment and Health and Safety Standards   “Because the WTO is more powerful than its predecessors, critics

claim that it poses a threat to national sovereignty. Concerns about the ability of nations to set their own environmental and health and safety agendas have figured prominently in these critiques. In addition, critics suggest that the WTO prioritises trade objectives at the expense of environmental and health and safety objectives.”

“The paper explores the extent to which the WTO has been able to reconcile trade, environmental and health and safety objectives by analysing its rulings on these matters. Overall, this analysis suggests that the WTO dispute resolution process has balanced all three sets of objectives. However, it is important to note the small number of disputes to date; only 21of the 175 disputes before the WTO involve environmental and OHS matters. WTO has only made a decision in 6 cases ( Kelly T The World Economy 2006)

WTO • 4 health and safety cases raised but only one was OHS: others

related to food. “The WTO upheld France's asbestos ban, the other three rulings went against the country imposing health and safety restrictions”. ( Kelly 2006)

• “The WTO appellate body upheld the panel’s findings that France's ban could be justified under the agreement’s health & safety exemptions. The panel rejected Canada’s claim that controlled use of asbestos could meet France’s health & safety objectives. While the panel recognized that controlled use reduces risks to certain individuals involved in the manufacturing or processing of asbestos, it ruled that controlled use did not offer protection sufficient to meet the level of risk acceptable to France. The appellate body concurred emphasizing WTO members’ right to set their own risk levels (WTO 2000c and 2001a). “ (Kelly 2006)

World Bank and risk controls

International Finance Corporation

The International Finance Corporation (IFC the World Bank's private-sector lending arm) today posted additional sector-specific draftenvironmental, health and safety guidelines which it proposes to adoptfor 63 different sectors. The sector guidelines posted in August have aclosing date for consultation of 30 September. The sectors currentlyCover 20 industries and more will follow: • Geothermal Power Generation, Electric Power Transmission and • Distribution, Poultry Processing, Breweries, and Offshore Oil and

Gas • Development.  The IFC will accept comments on these guidelines. Emphasis is mainlyon pollution

ITGWFU view on what should be in IFC consultation

a)      The relevant ILO Conventions and Instruments that address occupational and environmental protection or promotion,

b)      The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and other guidelines for the related oversight of governments, e.g. for chemicals, and

c)      Global agreements and guidelines for the protection of the environment by UNEP, WHO and others.

TU/ NGO controls and wider campaigning

Campaigning? Who, what, how etc

• Through NGOs• International trade secretariats/ Global Union Federations

eg BWI etc- EWHN and Hazards groups- PAN Europe on pesticides- ICRT on electronics- TIE- No Sweat campaign targets consumers on clothes- War on Want on poverty- CAFOD on food, electronics- Collegium Ramazzini on asbestos- WWF and FOE on pollution

Trade Union actions

• International• Regional – ETUC ►ETUI-REHS ►Nanocap • National• Sectoral• Workplace

Other elements that TUs may engage with?• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR?)• ISO 14001(environment) and OHSAS 18001

(occupational health and occupational safety).

International Framework Agreements BWI view 2004

• “ Risk management, became one of the strongest components for MNCs to sign Global

Company Agreements with Union Federations which have a global network of member organisations around the world.

• The value added for MNCs is that TUs are able to discover severe workplace problems (which are not solved locally) at an early stage and take action before it becomes an issue for the media and the image of the company is damaged. Workers and their trade unions function as an alerting system for partner companies, which receive "in house" information on bad management practices, corruption and bribery in subsidiary companies or in the supply chain.

• Multinational companies signing Global Company Agreements with Global Union Federations (GUF) commit themselves to respect workersÕ rights based on the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

• The company should also agree to offer decent wages and working conditions as well as to provide a safe and healthy working environment; and in many cases they contain a complaint and/or monitoring system and cover also suppliers and subcontractors.

• Some consider framework agreements to be negotiated codes of conduct with complaints systems; however, this is not a useful way of looking at these agreements which are qualitatively different from codes of conduct.

• These framework agreements constitute a formal recognition of social partnership at the global level. These agreements provide a global framework for protecting trade union rights and encouraging social dialogue and collective bargaining.

• Therefore they complement and do not substitute for agreements at the national or local level. “

International Framework Agreements Global Union Agreements Agreements concluded between

Transnational Companies and Global Union Federations

• * Agreement includes explicit health and safety clauses.

• Company Country Sector GUF Year• Euradius * Global Print industry UNI 2006• RoyalBAM Grp* Global Construction BWI 2006• Securitas * Global Security services UNI 2006• PSA• Peugot/Citroën* France Auto industry IMF 2006• Arcelor * Global Metal Industry IMF 2005• Lafarge * Global Construction BWI/ICEM 2005• Stabilio * Germany Retail BWI 2005• Gebr. Röchling* Germany Auto supply IMF 2005• BMW * Germany Automotive IMF 2005• EADS * Netherlands Aerospace IMF 2005• Veidekke * Norway Construction BWI 2005• Rhodia * France Chemical ICEM 2005• Electricite de France • (EDF Group) * France Energy ICEM 2005

• UNI = Union Network International• HAZARDS MAGAZINE • WORKERS' HEALTH INTERNATIONAL NEWS 2006

International Trade union actionOn specific issues:-

BWI campaign on asbestos bans through ILO

International controls on corporate harm?

• Corporate homicide laws (Australian and Italian models?)

- that apply both to workplace fatal injuries and fatal diseases• Corporate harm laws that would cover injury and

non-fatal diseases• Laws that would allow companies that transfer

and fail to control risks to be prosecuted in their ‘home’ countries

• Recovery of costs – personal, medical, economic – from those companies that damage workers in risk transfer enterprises. OHSE ‘polluter pays principle