At the European Chemical Industry Council's (CEFIC) annual conference on Responsible Care, which will be held in Istanbul in October, attendees will participate in Europe's first fundamental review of Responsible Care since it was adopted in the region in 1989. They will also tackle the thorny subject of third-party verification.

Major topics on the meeting agenda will be the reports from various CEFIC Responsible Care review working groups. Each group will present its results, followed by a roundtable discussion to enable CEFIC members to comment on and be involved in shaping the future direction of the chemical industry's operational philosophy.

CEFIC's review is part of a wider effort. The American Chemistry Council, for example, has recently been soul-searching its Responsible Care initiative. And earlier this month, the International Council of Chemical Associations announced a major strategic review--to be completed next year--to revitalize and strengthen Responsible Care worldwide.

"This is probably overdue," says Richard Robson, director for Responsible Care at Brussels-based CEFIC. "Responsible Care has been in the world since 1985 and in Europe since 1989, and this is the first review of its kind."

He adds: "We are trying to go from strength to strength. It is important to keep Responsible Care moving in the right direction and fitting in with contemporary requirements."

"To implement a single system in 23 countries--each with different issues and different cultures, developing at different rates--is not easy," Robson agrees. "What is it we should be doing with Responsible Care to bring better focus to the systems across the region, while supporting the diversity?"

The CEFIC review provides a way for the industry to pull its Responsible Care initiative together--not necessarily a simple task. CEFIC encompasses 23 national Responsible Care initiatives, which one national-association director describes as ranging from just emerging to well-established, highly developed programs.

Working teams within CEFIC are reviewing five crucial issues: verification and certification, membership support and extension, communications, performance, and product stewardship and business values.

Of those, third-party verification of results from specific Responsible Care programs has become one of the major points of debate within the European initiative.

Third-party verification of Responsible Care compliance can be incorporated, for example, into the environmental standards set by the International Organization for Standardization in Geneva. In such a scheme, verification would come through inspections already conducted for the ISO 14000 family of environmental management systems, particularly ISO 14001. Some of the more specific concerns of Responsible Care, such as product stewardship and occupational health and safety, could be tacked on.

And that is where the European approach differs from that of the U.S., Robson says. Chemical companies in the U.S. are just starting to adopt ISO 14000 standards, so they are able to integrate Responsible Care verification and ISO 14001 certification into one auditing program. European companies, on the other hand, adopted ISO 14001 early on. Their audits are already set, and they see no reason to establish a brand-new audit for Responsible Care.

"If you are just starting on 14001, to latch something additional on at the same time is a logical thing to do. To latch something else onto a system widely established is another thing," Robson says. "If there is something that could warrant the company going through the hoops again, then it would be worthwhile. So it is a question of finding the business value."

THERE CAN INDEED be business value, says Colin Chambers, Responsible Care development manager at the U.K.'s Chemical Industry Association (CIA). The U.K. is one of the countries pioneering the use of third-party verification of Responsible Care that is compatible with ISO 14001.

However, the U.K. position is not widespread. For example, in Germany, third-party Responsible Care verification is seen as an unnecessary burden, and only a clear business value would encourage German companies to move from that position. In France, the country's trade association favors self-assessment and considers other goals--such as bringing new members into Responsible Care--more important than verification. On the other hand, members in some countries, such as Turkey, want third-party verification to differentiate themselves from their competitors.

In the U.K., Chambers points out, many member companies had Responsible Care auditing processes in place before 1997, when CIA agreed that all members should have a management system consistent with the formal CIA Responsible Care guidance first issued in 1992.

In June 1998, CIA introduced a formal verification procedure. It also said that self-assessment would be mandatory for members by December 2000, with certification by external certification bodies a voluntary option. Third-party certification is still voluntary, but, more and more, Chambers says, CIA member companies are moving to full Responsible Care third-party certification.

"Increasingly, national associations and federations have to strike the right balance between a pragmatic approach and that of the evangelistic motivator," Chambers notes. But as he sees it, the compelling question for the industry as it weighs third-party verification has become, "Should we do it on a pan-European basis, and, if so, how shall we do it?"

---

TAKING THE NEXT STEP The U.S. Responsible Care program takes on security and verification issues as keys to enhancing its longevity and reputation TELL ME--AND PROVE IT European chemical industry looks back at Responsible Care and forward to verification

Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2003 American Chemical Society