Viewpoint pubs.acs.org/est
Redefining Risk Boundaries in a Shifting Global Chemical Market David C. Volz†,* and Kevin C. Elliott‡ †
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, United States ‡ Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, United States questions resulting from this shift are (1) whether Western assumptions about human health and environmental risks of chemical production and use reflect realities on the ground and (2) if not, whether these transferred and exacerbated risks within emerging and developing countries should, based on ethical reasons, be considered when evaluating risks within industrialized countries. Within industrialized and developed countries, consumers along the supply chainincluding end users such as the publichave already benefited from this shift due to increased access to high volumes of low-cost chemicals for basic necessities (e.g., construction and agriculture) and specialty products (e.g., smart phones and fuel cells).1 Similar to the influence of information input on perceptions about nuclear power risks,2 the positive affective evaluation associated with these economic and societal benefits is presumably based on the assumption that industry wages, working conditions, and environmental regulations throughout Asia are aligned with current regulatory standards and societal expectations within Western countries. However, this assumption is likely misguided due to either incomplete information or a general lack of awareness. Indeed, European and American multinational chemical companies facing intense competition by Asianver the last 10−15 years, the global chemical industry based companies are now raising domestic awareness about an an industry that includes specialty chemicals, petrochemuneven playing field within Asia.1 For example, as the global icals, polymers, basic inorganics, and consumer chemicalshas leader in chemical production (2011 sales equaled €735 billion, experienced remarkable growth, an increase that has been or 52% of total Asian sales),1 China’s government provides largely driven by eastward migration of the global economy direct subsidies, research and development (R&D) investtoward Asia. From 2001 to 2011 alone, world chemical sales ments, and leniency on regulatory noncompliance for stateincreased from €1.407 trillion to €2.744 trillion, representing a owned enterprises and/or private domestic companies,3 giving 95% increase in growth over just one decade (http://www. Chinese companies a competitive advantage over foreign cefic.org/Facts-and-Figures/). This growth has also been multinational companies pursuing expansion and production coupled with substantial redistribution of chemical production within China. among major markets around the world. In 2001, the European Based on current Western risk assessment practices, risk Union (EU) and North American Free Trade Agreement estimates for chemicals produced and exported from Asia (NAFTA) countries accounted for approximately 58% of world either as raw material or integrated within articles prior to chemical production (30% and 28%, respectively), whereas exportare strongly dependent on geographical boundaries Asian countries contributed roughly 33% of total production used to define risk,4 a practice that is likely a consequence of (http://www.cefic.org/Facts-and-Figures/). However, in 2011, limited jurisdiction for federal agencies responsible for the total percentage of sales within the EU and NAFTA sharply regulating chemical importation and use. For example, although declined to approximately 37%, a loss that was, in large part, a chemical-containing article may comply with the U.S. attributed to a nearly 60% increase in Asian chemical Environmental Protection Agency’s import requirements production and market share (http://www.cefic.org/Factsunder the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and, as a and-Figures/). As a result, EU- and NAFTA-based multinaresult, may not pose an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or tional companiesin particular, those located within Germany the environment” following importation (http://www.epw. and the United Statesare rapidly losing ground to Asianbased multinational companies, with current projections that Asia will own 75% of the global chemical market by 2030.1 Received: May 3, 2013 Therefore, while the rise in market share within Asia poses Revised: May 16, 2013 long-term strategic challenges for EU- and NAFTA-based Accepted: May 20, 2013 Published: May 29, 2013 companies, we argue that the key public health-related
O
© 2013 American Chemical Society
6069
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401979g | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6069−6070
Environmental Science & Technology
Viewpoint
536196/Chemical+Industry+Vision+2030+A+European+Perspective. pdf/7178b150-22d9-4b50-9125-1f1b3a9361ef. (2) Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 1999, 19 (4), 689−701. (3) Hartmann, B.; Deutschmann, U. China’s Chemical Industry: Flying Blind?; ATKearney, 2012; pp 1−24, http://www.atkearney.com/ documents/10192/647356/Chinas-Chemical-Industry---Flying-Blind. pdf/d830dd95-dcbf-46a6-afc6-8fcab1fc9204. (4) Wilson, R.; Crouch, E. A. C. Risk-Benefit Analysis, 2nd ed.; Harvard Center for Risk Analysis: Cambridge, MA, 2001; p , xiii. (5) Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012, 32 (6), 957−72.
senate.gov/tsca.pdf), potential risks within the chemicalproducing country are not considered since the scope is restricted to human populations and ecosystems within American borders. While restricting risk boundaries may be legally defensible, this practice does raise ethical questions given the current global shift in chemical production and use. Although there is psychological evidence that people are less motivated to address risks not “in their own backyard”,5 this tendency to ignore distant risks is ethically questionable. For example, within a consequentialist ethical framework, factors such as distance and national boundaries are irrelevant when prioritizing and addressing environmental health disparities. Considering that geographical areas with increasing chemical production tend to be located in emerging and developing countries facing limited political representation, high background levels of risk, and less stringent regulation and enforcement, there are also strong ethical reasons for attempting to minimize the imposition of additional risks for these socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Given these ethical concerns, in our opinion the boundaries used for evaluating risks within industrialized countries should be redefined to account for inconsistent regulatory standards and compliance that, by Western standards, likely contribute to unacceptable human health and environmental risks within intensive chemical-producing regions of emerging and developing countries. On the one hand, a formal subpopulation-level risk-cost-benefit analysis (RCBA) could, in the short term, be used as a quantitative tool to (1) account for distributional inequities in risk of chemical production between industrialized vs emerging/developing countries and (2) develop compensating mechanisms for subpopulations inhabiting areas of greater risk.4 However, as uncertainties tend to amplify with expansion of geographical boundaries used to define and estimate risk, it is unlikely that regulatory agencies within industrialized countries will routinely adopt RCBA as a quantitative framework for decisions about chemical production, importation, and use. Therefore, a more viable and long-term alternative would be to (1) survey the global chemical industry landscape; (2) identify high-priority subsectors (e.g., basic off-patent chemicals), countries, and regions requiring risk mitigation; and (3) encourage rebalancing production for these chemical subsectors within industrialized countries. Given that operating costs would be higher within industrialized countries, offering production subsidies (e.g., tax credits, etc.) for multinational chemical companies would be critical in order to attract relocation and provide chemicals to consumers along the global supply chain at or below current market prices. In addition to addressing potential ethical concerns about transferring and exacerbating risk to emerging and developing countries, the latter proposal would also help revitalize chemical production, jobs, and investment within EU and NAFTA countries.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Schulz, O.; Rings, T.; Forrest, R.; von Hoyningen-Huene, J. Chemical Industry Vision 2030: A European Perspective; ATKearney, 2012; pp 1−14, http://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/ 6070
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401979g | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6069−6070
