Search results

What is the problem? Asbestos exposure may well be the number one occupational and environmental health problem in the United Kingdom today. Actions for compensation regarding consequences of asbestos exposure have affected thousands of individuals and major companies and have shaken the insurance industry. For many years, how‐ever, there has also been increasing concern over the potential for asbestos exposure in public buildings, including schools and office buildings.

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.

Invented in late 1890s, asbestos cement sheeting rose to prominence during the post-Second World War period as a building material for low-cost housing by state housing commissions and low-income families (“fibro homes”). The adverse health effects of asbestos fibres in the building industry and home renovation activities are well documented. Fibro homes of the 1950s and 1960s are increasingly coming under the gaze of heritage studies, which brings to the fore the question of how to deal with the asbestos cement sheeting most are clad with.

This paper provides the first systematic review to assess the literature (126 papers were identified in Google Scholar and scanned for content) on the conservation management of asbestos cement sheeting in heritage properties.

Overall, engagement with the conservation management of asbestos cement sheeting in heritage properties was low, with only two sources dealing with asbestos cement sheeting in any level of detail. The studies note that if asbestos cement sheeting is in good condition, it should be left alone. Numerous conservation and repair options do exist, in particular the application of (coloured) sealants that extend the life of asbestos cement sheets and asbestos cement roofing.

This paper represents the first systematic review to assess conservation management options for asbestos cement sheeting in heritage properties.

This study aims to investigate disclosure of asbestos-related liabilities in corporate accounts and counter-accounts to examine whether and how accounting contributes to corporate accountability for asbestos-contaminated products.

This study uses the Goffmanesque perspective on impression management to examine instances of concealed asbestos-related liabilities in corporate accounts vis-à-vis the revealing of such liabilities in counter-accounts.

The findings show counter-accounts provide significant information on liabilities originating from the exposure of employees and consumers to asbestos. By contrast, the malleability of accounting tools enables companies to eschew accounting disclosures. While the frontstage positive performance of companies served an impression management role, their backstage concealing actions enabled companies to cover up asbestos-related liabilities. These companies used three categories of mechanisms to avoid disclosure of asbestos-related liabilities: concealing via a “cloak of competence”, impression management via epistemic work and a silent strategy of concealment frontstage with strategic reorganisation backstage.

This study has policy relevance as regulators need to consider the limits of corporate disclosures as an accountability tool. The findings may also initiate academic and practitioner conversations about accounting standards for long-term liabilities.

This study highlights the strategies companies use both frontstage and backstage to avoid disclosing asbestos-related liabilities. Through analysis of accounts and counter-accounts, this study identifies the limits of accounting as an accountability tool regarding asbestos-induced diseases and deaths.

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.

Introduction In the paper ‘Asbestos: The Hidden Threat’ published in Property Management Vol 3 No 4, the nature of the asbestos problem and the various means of managing the risk were discussed. In particular, reference was made to the use of consultants, laboratories, and contractors, unless an occupier has in‐house capabilities. In considering the problem in the UK, it is necessary to discuss the constraints which are placed upon these parties, as well as on employers and occupiers.

Last month we dealt with the problem of identifying the nature and extent of the asbestos used in your buildings. This month we offer more detailed advice on dealing with that problem.

One of the more disturbing features of surveying in the 1980s is the ever‐increasing number of building materials, structural systems and working practices that have been labelled ‘hazardous’ or ‘unhealthy’. Although consumerism and melo‐dramatic media coverage have fuelled much of this, it must not be forgotten that business interests may be behind many of the campaigns: allowing disinformation or exaggeration to discredit competitors. Fortunes have been made by some firms from exploiting the public's fears and offering specialist remedies covered by dubious guarantees.

The growing attention paid to the adverse health effects of exposure of the Israeli public to asbestos fibres has resulted in a comprehensive programme of sampling and analysis. Monitoring covered many regions, especially areas where relatively high concentrations of fibres were expected. Modern electron microscopy techniques give an accurate picture of the situation in the general environment. In addition, specific regulations dealing with the asbestos problem were issued by the Ministries of Health and Labor, including occupational and emission standards. For the general environment a guideline (but not a standard) value of 1,600 f/m⊃3 was adopted.

REGULATIONS The Secretary of State—