Summer, 1997
Responsible Technology Goes Global
by Ted Smith
For the past several years we have been tracking the global expansion of high-tech electronics manufacturing and have been building our network--the Campaign for Responsible Technology (CRT)--into an international effort. We have identified the key countries where high-tech development is booming and have been reaching out to community, environmental and labor organizations in those countries Recently, we made a major breakthrough to build a global movement for responsible technology.
In mid-March, I attended the 6th European Work Hazards Conference in Holland. Several hundred activists from Europe and around the world attended. There were sectoral meetings on high-tech electronics and workshops on responsible technology. One exciting workshop examined the issues involved in assessing whether companies acted responsibly or irresponsibly. This workshop was facilitated by Jim Swan of the Lothian Trade Union and Community Resource Center in Scotland. I have been in touch with Jim over the past several years as "Silicon Glen" has grown into a major high-tech center.
The workshop challenged the participants to define responsible and sustainable corporate behavior, particularly within the global context. The workshop participants concluded that if a producer of a product or a user of a chemical has knowledge about any effects the product might have on the environment or health of anyone exposed to it, they must make such knowledge available to anyone manufacturing it or using it.
We discussed and embraced the precautionary principle which states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used to postpone cost effective measures to prevent degradation.
Participants also agreed that chip manufacturers have been guilty of paying more attention to the purity of their products than to monitoring the health of their workers. Too often there seems to be more concern about the next generation of chips than about the next generation of children.
Manufacturers have refused to accept the evidence presented by medical experts that processes used to manufacture semiconductors affect the health of workers employed in "clean rooms". The industry trade association eventually commissioned a study of clean room workers, but it took three positive epidemiology studies establishing a link between the abortions and the use of glycol ethers before the companies finally agreed to phase them out.
Cost vs Safety:
The participants discussed the historical situation of employers saving costs at the expense of safety. For example: If the cost to the producer or employer in implementing environmental or health and safety measures is likely to be financially high, they may decide to take a risk rather than take the necessary measures to prevent exposure to the workers or the pollution of the environment.
It was agreed that any short term financial gain will quickly be wiped out if it is established that they knowingly took such a risk. The cost in health and quality of life to those affected, however is not so easily measured. Therefore it makes sound economical sense to act responsibly.
Conclusion:
The workshop participants concluded that the issue of responsible technology needed to be tackled in a global strategy since transnational companies tended to export hazards to countries where labor was least organized. It was also agreed that information and knowledge was the key to responsible technology.
High on the agenda was the right of people to know the hazards associated with the exposure to substances and processes. This information must be easily accessed.
Recommendations:
That an International Campaign for Responsible Technology be established, with the following aims and objectives:
a) to use every legal means available to force companies to act responsibly and to highlight responsible alternatives, and to influence big companies to conform, especially those with a vulnerable image. The use of international communications is essential in this respect.
b) to encourage trade unions to work with communities to negotiate good neighbor agreements (with companies) which are aimed at minimizing pollution in the workplace and the local environment.
c) to make better use of the knowledge gained by workers serving on health & safety committees, and to network with universities and academics friendly to trade unions and workers to use the information for research purposes.
d) to campaign for the establishment of an international database accessible to all.
e) to campaign for an independent body to set Threshold Limit Values:
with the limits to be set at the most protective health standards; to set standards for the whole work environment; to examine synergistic affects of substances collectively rather than individually; and to continually monitor threshold limits and health with an effective structure for reporting and recording clinical observations, the symptoms of workers exposed to chemicals, and for more accurate monitoring of new and developing technologies.
f) To campaign for the continual monitoring of the way temporary workers are used, and how companies use private employment agencies to employ workers on zero contracts, and how sub-contracting methods are used to transfer hazards.
g) To campaign at all levels for legislation which puts the burden of proof on the producer rather than the victim of new processes and substances.
h) To campaign for rigorous testing of all new chemical substances similar to the criteria applied to new drugs
i) To campaign for technology to be used for responsible peaceful purposes.
Special thanks to Jim Swan whose conference notes provided the basis for this article.
Return to Newsletter Archive
