IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v12y2009i1p75-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate risk management of chemicals: a stakeholder approach to the brominated flame retardants

Author

Listed:
  • Kristian Kallenberg

Abstract

The prerequisites for chemicals risk management within the corporate sphere have changed over the last decade. This change has been driven by a number of factors such as an increased use of the precautionary principle, the reversed burden of proof and an increased focus on environmental and sustainable development initiatives, in the EU, EU Member States and elsewhere. In Sweden, this development has been highly pronounced. The objectives of the present study are to (1) explore the opinions within Swedish industry concerning items related to chemicals risk assessment and regulation and (2) to identify and rank various stakeholders and factors perceived to have affected the companies' risk management strategies of the brominated flame retardants (BFRs). The results were somewhat contradictory and indicated that the sampled companies favored precautionary measures, while they at the same time favored scientific EU risk assessments over national regulation. Furthermore, contrary to industry opinions elsewhere, they were favorably inclined to the increased burden of proof, to the novel REACH Directive, and to the Swedish government's objective of a non-toxic environment. Regarding the BFRs, the companies' risk management strategies were believed to have been mostly influenced by (1) internal policies and guidelines regarding sustainable development and corporate social responsibilities, (2) the application of the precautionary principle, (3) EU directives/risk assessments, (4) the Swedish Chemicals Agency and Swedish research, and (5) PR/marketing considerations. Overall, the study indicated that the sampled companies displayed some inconsistencies regarding preferred approaches to regulating and managing risk. In a somewhat tentative manner, the paper ends with a discussion of possible explanations for these inconsistencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristian Kallenberg, 2009. "Corporate risk management of chemicals: a stakeholder approach to the brominated flame retardants," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 75-89, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:12:y:2009:i:1:p:75-89
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870802456898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870802456898
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870802456898?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Donald Macrae, 2011. "Standards for risk assessment of standards: how the international community is starting to address the risk of the wrong standards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 933-942, September.
    2. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    3. Tian Sang & Peng Liu & Liang Zhao, 2022. "Judicial Response to Ecological Environment Risk in China—From the Perspective of Social Systems Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    5. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    6. Alexandra P. Bocharova, 2020. "Network Analysis Of The Chinese Media On The Evidence From The Hong Kong Protest Movement," HSE Working papers WP BRP 76/PS/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    8. Dirk Haubrich, 2006. "Modern Politics in an Age of Global Terrorism: New Challenges for Domestic Public Policy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 399-423, June.
    9. R. Quentin Grafton & Mahala McLindin & Karen Hussey & Paul Wyrwoll & Dennis Wichelns & Claudia Ringler & Dustin Garrick & Jamie Pittock & Sarah Wheeler & Stuart Orr & Nathanial Matthews & Erik Ansink , 2016. "Responding to Global Challenges in Food, Energy, Environment and Water: Risks and Options Assessment for Decision-Making," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 275-299, May.
    10. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    11. Cass Sunstein & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "Overreaction to Fearsome Risks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 435-449, March.
    12. Courard-Hauri, David, 2004. "The effect of income choice on bias in policy decisions made using cost-benefit analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3-4), pages 191-199, December.
    13. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    14. William H. Simon, 2010. "Optimization and its discontents in regulatory design: Bank regulation as an example," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 3-21, March.
    15. Hens A.C. Runhaar & P.P.J. Driessen & L. van Bree & J.P. van der Sluijs, 2010. "A meta-level analysis of major trends in environmental health risk governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 319-335, April.
    16. Stuart Shapiro & John F. Morrall III, 2012. "The triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis and political salience," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 189-206, June.
    17. Waheed Hussain, 2009. "No More Lemmings, Please – Reflections on the Communal Authority Thesis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 717-728, October.
    18. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2009. "Burden of Proof in Environmental Disputes in the WTO: Legal Aspects," Working Paper Series 793, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    19. Stephen John, 2015. "Efficiency, responsibility and disability," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    20. Goeschl, Timo & Perino, Grischa, 2009. "On backstops and boomerangs: Environmental R&D under technological uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 800-809, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:12:y:2009:i:1:p:75-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.