This case, briefly presented in October 25th edition of the Economist, is the example of an already known ailment of business' ethic failures, with the complicity of the state. From time to time, thanks to the technology advance and public awareness proper of the first world, some materials or products are found to have a deleterious impact on human health or the natural environment. An immediate ban on the commercialization of the substance will follow, plus a long process of epidemiological research and, probably, some kind of compensation. Yet, that is far to be the end of the story. Beyond the ethical problem behind compensation - how much is human life worth? - and internal struggle, there is always the problem of companies survival.
Apart from subsidies, which always distort the pollution problem because instead of "polluters pay" it becomes "taxpayers pay", there is always the option to take the problem somewhere else. It was a shameless business during eighties and early nineties, when hazardous waste was traded between rich countries and corrupt governments in the LDCs. Then Basel convention entered into force in 1992, and nowadays such problems rarely appear in the headlines - though the problem of electronic garbage remains an issue.
The problem regain public attention later inside the agricultural sector. Herbicides baned by health authorities in rich countries were exported to developing countries, which later could not export their production to the countries that sold them the poison, because the products had traces of the substance (Notwithstanding the reasons for the prohibition in the origin nation).
Yet, Canadian position on the Asbestos industry, with the largely accepted carcinogenic effects the material has, is closer to a criminal act. There might be some discussion about whether it is or not buyer's problem to take the risk of using the hazardous material. One project of Japanese international cooperation in the 80s was blocked by NGOs because it included a lot of strong agrochemicals to a tropical country in Southeast Asia, but because of the weather protection clothes were unbearable. But, beyond technical discussion, is this the attitude expected for the number one defender of the Responsibility to Protect?
OAGS