EXPERT STUDY CRITICIZES CHEMTURA ETHICS

In a sense the above title is actually a left handed compliment to Chemtura. Afterall it suggests that they do have ethics. At this point in time I think they should take whatever they can get. All appearances seem to suggest that that is exactly what they are doing in regards to *Responsible Care verification. Last week here in the Advocate I posted about a study underway at McMaster University examining how *Responsible Care has affected Sulco here in Elmira. This study focuses of course on Sulco (Canada Colours) however in its' analysis it compares Sulco to their next door neighbour Chemtura. Terms like CSR or corporate social responsibility and ethics are used extensively. I will admit to being a little skeptical about the use of such terms while describing corporate behaviour in general. That being said from first hand local accounts as well as from this study, I am strongly reconsidering. Sulco seem to have embraced the letter of the rules, the ethics and seem genuine in their attempts to behave in a socially responsible fashion.

Chemtura have not. That is the conclusion after a little over four pages being dedicated to them in the eighteen page Draft distributed to interviewees last week. That being said this Draft indicates that Chemtura were verified for the first time in 2004/2005. I believe they were unsucessful (failed, incomplete etc.) in achieving verification three times before that. They failed again in 2011 after once having achieved verification. It is no exaggeration to say that Chemtura are leaders within the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC). No other company has failed verifcation attempts as often as they have. P Topalovic on page 18 of his Draft suggests that the CIAC do not have significant sanctions for companies (like Chemtura) who repeatedly fail verifications.

A two page response to this Draft has been distributed by the CIAC. I was quite amazed at how candid the comments were in regards to Chemtura. While the CIAC were supportive , possibly defensive, of the *Responsible Care program, they were blunt in regards to Chemtura's position within *Responsible Care. They stated that Sulco are at one end of the spectrum (presumably the top) and Chemtura at the opposite end. I and CPAC, based upon their public comments at the last CPAC meeting, would be in agreement with that statement. Nevertheless the CIAC also make the case that society and the environment are better off with Chemtura within *Responsible care than without.

It is very obvious to me and other SWAT (soil, water, air, technology) team members as to what the decision of the verification team is based upon the extraordinarily fast turnaround time and comments of the CIAC. They are clearly defending what will be a locally unpopular decision. I expect that the only possible way they can make this fly is by having one of the two local members (out of 6 verification team members) do what she has been groomed to do ( hotels, meals, travel expenses etc., per diem???). That would be to support Chemtura in their moment of extreme need. Afterall exactly how many times can they appropriately fail verifcation without putting a stain upon the whole program? How embarassing would it be to them to possibly get the boot from *Responsible Care or the CIAC? All of this should come out when the public announcement is made by Chemtura presumably at the public CPAC meeting of Thursday February 28, 6 pm..