Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
policies and, when necessary, to acquire the clout that is required to further strengthen these policies.
However, the chemical and farming industries will always resist attempts at regulation, and govern-
ments are often all too slow to deal with this issue.
Governments are responsible for protecting their own people and safeguarding the environmen-
tal riches of their countries, although this may not always be evident based on their actions. They
must work in partnership with chemical corporations, conservationists, and the research community
to implement the recommendations detailed in this chapter. They must also be at the forefront in
fi nancing such interventions. The government of Argentina provided a commendable example of
leadership when it canceled the use of the organophosphate monocrotophos following the deaths
of an estimated 5 000 plus Swainson's hawks (
Buteo swainsoni
) in a single season of grasshopper
control. Manufacturers must also be held accountable for the repercussions that their products have
on human, wildlife and ecosystem health.
In the absence of tangible government action, private citizens can also sometimes intervene.
In July 2009, for example, David Brook, a practicing attorney in the United States saw the '60
Minutes' segment entitled 'Poison Takes Toll On Africa's Lions',(http://www.cbsnews.com/
stories/2009/03/26/60minutes/main4894945.shtml, and see Chapter 3) and was deeply affected by
both the content and the implications of the piece. After consulting the rules of the US Securities and
Exchange Committee (SEC, http://www.sec.gov/), the governmental body that oversees the opera-
tion of corporations and is mandated to ensure they comply with existing regulations and laws, he
purchased stock in FMC Corporation (i.e., 'FMC') the next day. According to SEC Rule 14A-8,
corporations are obligated to entertain proposals from owners, i.e., 'shareholders', who must hold a
qualifying dollar amount of stock for one year before a shareholder proposal can be brought forward.
In November 2010, Mr Brook prepared and submitted a shareholder proposal to FMC. In essence,
the proposal stated that FMC:
1. Did not have a solid grasp on the use of its product, Furadan, to poison wildlife, especially
lions, in Kenya.
2. Needed to establish a credible stewardship programme to address (1).
3. Had an obligation to determine whether or not FMC products/carbofuran (i.e., Furadan) were
being used to poison wildlife, via testing by third party (i.e., independent) laboratories.
Mr Brook also called on FMC to establish a 'human equality declaration', whereby FMC should
establish its own corporate social responsibility principles to treat all people equally (as this relates
to potential human exposure to its products) by using the United States as its benchmark for expo-
sure standards. This declaration would set the direction for which FMC would encourage all users
and developing nations to adhere to the US standards set for human exposure, which are currently
much lower and less tolerant than those agreed in many developing nations.
Once a shareholder proposal is fi led, the burden falls on the corporation to demonstrate why
the proposal should not be adopted, and hence the information therein should not be presented to
shareholders for a vote regarding whether or not to adopt its contents during the annual meeting.
FMC objected to Mr Brook's shareholder proposal and sought to exclude it from the annual proxy
statement on the basis that:
1. FMC had already substantially implemented most of the elements requested in the shareholder
proposal (specifi cally, that a stewardship programme was already in place).
2. The shareholder proposal contained false and misleading information [Mr Brook had cited the
work of a number of contributors to this topic, including Mineau and colleagues and Frank and
colleages].
Search WWH ::
Custom Search