ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund. (More. . .)
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Amanda.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Confirmed: New shower curtain smell is gross
House bill would ban BPA in food, beverage packaging
Chemical injections in Colorado
FEATURED
BPA in your body: How to minimize your exposure
Caution: These 7 household items may feminize baby boys
BPA in infant formula: This is not a call to panic
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
Is there eco-friendly jewelry?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« Making makeup safe for kids | Main | Healthy Choices, Healthy Lives »
May 16, 2008
When government won't step in
This is the final post by EWG social media intern Howie. Thanks for all your hard work, Howie, and good luck in the future!
Accountability in the world of industrial pollution is a wonderful thing, especially when businesses that have the power to harm people’s health are kept in check. However, when businesses try to limit the government’s ability to keep them in check, those businesses become less accountable to Americans who do not deserve to have their health compromised due to those businesses’ negligence. If concerns for the health and safety of Americans are not enough to motivate businesses to clean up their act, there are persuasive tools that can be used to turn those businesses in the right direction.
Shareholders in an industrial business, when provided with information about the pollution created by the business and the effects of that pollution on people near the business’ facilities, might feel compelled to ask the business they invested in to reduce the amount of environmental harm it causes. If those shareholders come to realize that the business’ current levels of pollution result in great financial risks, they can threaten to withdraw their money and resources if the business does not change its ways. Businesses are wise to listen to their shareholders if they want to keep their economic base of support strong.
Empowering shareholders in industrial businesses to properly evaluate related financial risks is one of the main goals of the 2008 update of the Toxic 100 Index, which was produced by the University of Massachusetts’ Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). The Toxic 100 Index identifies the top 100 air polluters in the United States and describes how much and what types of pollution are released from every facility controlled by one of the 100 polluters in the study.
General Electric is an example of a business that has resisted governmental health and safety standards and that also has the potential to be turned in the right direction through pressure from its shareholders.
In 1998, GE spearheaded efforts to limit the company’s responsibilities imposed by the “Superfund” law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act). This law required it and certain other businesses to clean up pollution under certain circumstances, and GE attempted to reduce the degree to which it would have to clean up its pollution.
Now, GE is America’s seventh highest air polluter according to the Toxic 100 Index. Shareholders in GE and other industrial businesses can use the knowledge provided in the Toxic 100 Index and other documents to improve their own financial future by demanding their businesses adopt better waste management policies. This has the potential to result in a safer, healthier environment for us all.
You can click here to access a database of the businesses included in the Toxic 100 Index. After you select a company and navigate to PERI’s page on that company, you can click one of the names of that company’s facilities to see data about that facility.
Photo by Proggie.