Search results

The question of health and safety at work is a central issue for trade unions. In Britain it is an area of concern where there were important legislative initiatives in the 1970s and 1980s, although surprisingly this has received relatively little attention in the debates about trade unionism. This neglect results in an aspect of union activity about which little is known. Explores through a detailed longitudinal study of a middle‐range engineering firm, from the late 1970s into the 1990s, the ways in which trade unions organize and act on health and safety questions. Argues that it is almost “routine” that workers face dangers and hazards at work, a central feature of the work and employment experience of most workers. However, this is often difficult to deal with as individual issues, or as matters which are subject to collective consideration. On the one hand, workers often appear to accept the dangers and hazards they face. On the other hand, managements are preoccupied with questions relating to production and finance, rather than the day‐to‐day problems faced by workers. This tension suggests that the future wellbeing of workers in unionized workplaces lies not so much with legislative provisions and rights at work, but in education and the organizing ability of workplace unions, raising and addressing what often seem like individualistic problems in collective ways.

This chapter considers the toxic chemical asbestos as a salient example of the ever-widening gap in achieving the paradoxical aspirations of ensuring a high-quality environment and a healthy economy espoused in the Agenda 21 principles arising from the Earth Summit in 1992. In particular, this chapter reviews the scrutiny proposed around the production of toxic components and the disposal of poisonous and hazardous wastes. Despite an increase in global regulation, the elimination of asbestos mining, production and disposal of waste has not been achieved globally. We consider the various non-government and supranational organisations that provide commentary and responses to the global asbestos issue, as well as, a sample of key campaigns and corporate exemplars to highlight issues of governance and risk.

The purpose of this paper is to explore issues relating to imposing a ban on the importation of asbestos-contaminated building materials (ACBMs) in the Australian context to better understand the multiple accountabilities and consequences.

This study undertakes a qualitative content analysis of the multiple accountabilities and stakeholder expectations using the lens of actor–network theory. This study further explores the weaknesses and complexities associated with implementing a complete ban on asbestos, ensuring that only asbestos-free building materials are imported to Australia. This study uses data collected from 15 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, responses from the Australian Border Force to a questionnaire and 215 counter accounts from the media, the Australian Government, industry organizations, non-governmental organizations and social group websites during the period from 2003 to 2021.

This study reveals that stakeholders' expectations of zero tolerance for asbestos have not been met. This assertion has been backed by evidence of asbestos contamination in imported building materials throughout recent years. Stakeholders say that the complete prevention of the importation of ACBMs has been delayed because of issues in policy implementations, opaque supply chain activities, lack of transparency and non-adherence to mandatory and self-regulated guidelines.

Stakeholders expect public and private sector organizations to meet their accountabilities through mandatory adoption of the given policy framework.

This research provides a road map to identify the multiple accountabilities, their related weaknesses and the lack of implementation of the necessary protocol, which prevents a critical aspect of legislation from being effectively implemented.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.