One of the topical issues causing lively controversy, and at the same time affecting the health of every person, is the so-called asbestos problem. Since January 2005, the use of asbestos has been banned in the European Union. This material is interesting both on the direct topic of the use of asbestos as a material unique in its properties in construction and as an example of a voluminous problem in the development of technical regulations (Peng et al., 2015).
Asbestos is a cumulative definition of natural fibrous silicate minerals that exist as bundles of fibers. The length of the fiber bundles can be up to several centimeters, and the diameter can be different, but mostly not exceeding millimeter values (Kameda et al., 2014). They have elasticity, physical and chemical stability, and high tensile strength. During processing, the fiber bundles can break into smaller pieces, some of which are less than a micron in size.
The asbestos case is a notable theme to consider in the framework of business challenges and operations. In this particular case, European Communities – Asbestos, the Panel, as well as the Appellate Body, dismissed the claim of Canada regarding the cancelation of France’s import ban on the substance and products that contain it. Such a decision aligned the position of the WTO that maintains the aspiration of the members to protect global health.
According to WTO (n.d.) itself, “Chrysotile asbestos is generally considered to be a highly toxic material, exposure to which poses significant threats to human health” (para. 2). Nevertheless, this substance was characterized by its broad utilization and many industries, given its particular useful features. In order to take control over the related health issues, the French authorities decided to impose a ban on asbestos.
The European Communities grounded their claims in favor of asbestos prohibition, referring to the fundamental principles of human health protection. It was argued that the substance was dangerous both for construction employees and people who may be affected by accidental exposure. Canada, in turn, challenged this rationale; it did not try to contest the related dangers caused by asbestos but stated that “a distinction should be made between chrysotile fibres and chrysotile encapsulated in a cement matrix” (WTO, n.d., para. 3). According to the Canadian party, this matrix did not hazard health. Moreover, it was said that the materials that France utilized as substitutes to asbestos could themselves be dangerous due to the fact that they were not appropriately explored.
It should be noted that Canada founded its challenge on specific legal international provisions. It stated, “the Decree violated GATT Articles III:4 and XI, and Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.8 of the TBT Agreement, and also nullified or impaired benefits under GATT Article XXIII:1(b)” (WTO, n.d., para. 3). The EC opposed – it insisted that this Decree did not fall under the coverage of the TBT Agreement.
It was found that the violation of Article III took place indeed; nevertheless, the Panel made a decision in favor of the EC. The crucial point here is that the ban that was imposed by France was considered reasonable as Article XX(b) seemed to justify it. This ban could be determined as one protecting animals, humans, and global health; moreover, it completely aligned with the provisions contained in the chapeau of the mentioned article.
In further, Canada made an appellation, but the WTO Appellate Body supported the previous decision of the Panel.At present, the risk group includes workers carrying out repair and reconstruction work in buildings made of asbestos-containing material, as well as the dismantling of asbestos structures, stokers, equipment installers, auto mechanics, etc. Today, compensation for damage to people who have been exposed to asbestos in the course of their professional activities is a subject of discussion all over the world (Park, 2018). Many states participate in the discussion of the legal aspects of this problem and in the search for an effective solution, taking into account the views of the victims themselves.
The European Union has respectable goals and is likely to make progress in addressing the issue of reparations for the hundreds of thousands of victims of widespread and often unregulated use of asbestos. In 1998, an informative article by the French research group “Europe Against Cancer” was published, which states that in the early 1990s, more than 1.2 million people in the 15 member states of the European Union were exposed to asbestos in the course of their work (Furuya et al., 2018).
An epidemiological study has also been published that predicts that more than half a million Europeans will die from asbestos-related diseases in the next 25 years. In Europe, in the past, asbestos was massively used both in the construction of houses and shopping centers and in other spheres of human activity (Allen et al., 2018). Here are the principles and methods of compensation for damage to people affected by asbestos in European countries and other countries of the world.
Hence, it seems that the companies that were somehow involved in the direct utilization and distribution of asbestos have no legal opportunities to operate and gain profits in Europe. The primary complexity that occurred is that this material has a severe impact on people’s health and cannot be allowed. The global community recognized this state of affairs long ago, as well as created the related legislation that forbids asbestos use (Douglas & Borre, 2019). There are many campaigns worldwide trying to reduce the harm that asbestos caused, and the implied compensations might be perceived as considerable. In Europe, the companies that are still related to this sphere operate mostly for the sake of dealing with the mentioned substance in the framework of its removal from buildings and diminishing its influence if it cannot be removed.
Adopted Strategies
As mentioned above, in Europe, there are no companies that are allowed to utilize asbestos nowadays. Instead, entities that are involved in the issue – to an exact extent – are called to reduce the impact of the substance on people’s health. The following organizations might be notable examples of how companies adapt their strategies to the current state of the art. Their approaches may be perceived as coherent and consistent, given increased attention of the authorities to them. There are also firms that used to manufacture asbestos products and were forced to change their strategies.
European Asbestos offers “a range of Sustainable Solutions, from consultancy and initial survey through to removal and ongoing management of asbestos” (European Asbestos, 2021, para. 1). The company operates strictly according to the related regulations and tends to achieve the mentioned goals by continuous surveys across sites to identify asbestos-containing structures. Then, the company also emphasizes its focus on significant sustainability in its activities.
Furthermore, Westfield Group UK Ltd is another noticeable actor in the industry. “From asbestos consultancy to asbestos management, removal, surveying and asbestos awareness training, Westfield Group is seen as the cost‑effective answer to asbestos issues, with your safety our Number One Priority” (Westfield Group UK Ltd, 2021, para. 2). The company provides a wide range of services, which is justified by the complex needs of the potential customers.
In this context, MB Dustcontrol also can be mentioned – it is a producer of the SprayCannon and SprayWall Dust Suppression Series (MB Dustcontrol, 2021). This company is not focused on merely dealing with the asbestos issue but contributes to its resolving, given its global scope and technological advancement. Thus, the primary characteristic of the adopted strategies is that the companies provide a wide range of services related to the asbestos problem in Europe. The potential customers are identified by constant surveys. It should be noted that in most cases, the firms get support from the government and thus should pay much attention to accountability, transparency, and adherence to fundamental laws. Finally, companies that are global-scope players offer rather technological solutions – particular products – aimed at reducing asbestos’s impact.
Suggestions and Viewpoints
The industry is characterized by great complexity and a considerable number of regulations, recommendations, and surveillance from the governmental sector. Hence, the first suggestion is to adapt corporate founding documents and their provisions to the mentioned regulations thoroughly so that the adherence could be visible. Then, the actors can cooperate with each other so that the governmental financial support could be given in increased amounts, give the authorities’ concern about the issue and willingness to encourage ones involved. The final viewpoint is that the firms should increase their campaigns regarding the public awareness of the asbestos issue – this might be a key to the increased customer flows.
References
Allen, L. P., Baez, J., Stern, M. E., Takahashi, K., & George, F. (2018). Trends and the economic effect of asbestos bans and decline in asbestos consumption and production worldwide. International Journal of Environmental Research for Public Health, 15(3), 1–9.
Douglas, T., & Borre, L. (2019). Asbestos neglect: Why asbestos exposure deserves greater policy attention. Health Policy, 123(5), 516–519.
European Asbestos. (2021). Welcome to European Asbestos. Web.
Furuya, S., Chimed-Ochir, O., Takahashi, K., David, A., & Takala, J. (2018). Global asbestos disaster. International Journal of Environmental Research for Public Health, 15(5), 1–11.
Kameda, T., Takahashi, K., Kim, R., Jiang, Y., Movahed, M., Parkc, E.-K., & Rantanen, J. (2014). Asbestos: use, bans and disease burden in Europe. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 92(11), 790–797.
MB Dustcontrol. (2021). Home. Web.
Park, S.-H. (2018). Types and health hazards of fibrous materials used as asbestos substitutes. Safety and Health at Work, 9(3), 360–364.
Peng, W., Mi, J., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Asbestos exposure and laryngeal cancer mortality. The Laryngoscope, 126(5), 1169–1174.
Westfield Group UK Ltd. (2021). Asbestos removal in the UK from the Westfield Group. Web.
WTO. (n.d.). European Communities — Asbestos. Web.