Asbestos Exposure: Stakeholder Analysis in Environmental Health

Introduction

This paper applies an environmental health and risk management framework to a stakeholder analysis of asbestos exposure, drawing on a standard stakeholder identification methodology to examine three principal groups: people who have been exposed to asbestos, businesses that have used or continue to use asbestos, and consumer protection groups working to limit its use. For each group, the analysis examines characteristics, primary interests and needs, potential strengths and weaknesses, and key patterns of conflict or cooperation.

Affected Workers and Residents

While anyone can be exposed to asbestos, some of the most common professions suffering the dangerous consequences of long-term exposure are shipbuilders, individuals employed in the construction industry, and other skilled and unskilled workers (Asbestos exposure and cancer risk, 2009, The National Cancer Institute). Residents and workers in buildings containing asbestos can also be exposed to high concentrations of asbestos fibers.

Workers are often disabled with lung ailments or cancers and face the challenge of providing for their families. Additionally, they frequently come from professions that have been particularly hard-hit by economic downturns.

Many of these workers seek legal redress through the court system for their injuries. Beyond a desire for compensation, they may also feel that their health concerns were not properly regarded by society or by their employers. Because they are often blue-collar workers — despite the fact that many worked in skilled trades — they may also feel that their concerns are minimized.

These workers may be more focused on personal compensation and redressing past wrongs than on improving conditions for future workers, in contrast to consumer action groups. However, they may be profoundly sympathetic figures to the general public, given the demanding nature of their previous employment and the severity of their illnesses.

Their most obvious point of conflict is with industries that allowed workers to be exposed to asbestos and that are now attempting to avoid costly settlements, as well as with industries that continue to use asbestos and seek to minimize public perception of the substance's harms. This group can find alliances with consumer protection groups wishing to ban asbestos outright, although workers' interest groups are less future-focused and may be less interested in banning the substance from ordinary consumer products — such as crayons — than in obtaining personal damage settlements (Asbestos exposure and cancer risk, 2009, The National Cancer Institute).

Businesses That Use or Have Used Asbestos

Businesses that have used or currently use asbestos represent a diverse range of industries, from construction and shipbuilding to the automotive and textile sectors. Their primary concerns include potential litigation from individuals suffering lung ailments due to asbestos exposure and the costs of transitioning to alternative materials, especially during periods of economic difficulty.

Both businesses that used asbestos in the past and those that continue to use it have an interest in limiting asbestos bans, as such bans could be used as evidence to support the validity of further litigation against the industry. According to the American Bar Association (ABA): "It is hard to see or hear the word 'Asbestos' without the word 'Crisis'. In this context, numbers abound. $145 billion proposed for a federal trust fund, 600,000 lawsuits filed, 10 to 20 million people exposed in industrial settings, 30,000 to 50,000 new lawsuits filed a year, and scores of bankruptcies. A single case may have thousands of plaintiffs and hundreds of defendants, with a settlement value of $600,000,000.00" (Model asbestos case management order, 2005, ABA, p. 15).

These businesses tend to appear unsympathetic to the public, who are alarmed by the dangerous use of asbestos in everyday life and are angered by companies' failure to address the risk. Industries may attempt to promote new safety measures to reduce the likelihood of further lawsuits. These industries have also tried — and failed — on numerous occasions to lobby Congress to pass laws limiting damages awarded to plaintiffs in asbestos-related suits in exchange for "trust funds" that would provide smaller compensations to victims and their families (Asbestos legislation, 2009, Asbestos news).

While undeniably in conflict with groups seeking greater restrictions on asbestos use, these companies can work with regulators to develop more stringent safety procedures for workers who do come into contact with the material.

Conclusion

The three stakeholder groups identified in this analysis — affected workers and residents, industry actors, and consumer protection advocates — occupy distinct and often conflicting positions in the ongoing debate over asbestos regulation. Affected workers prioritize personal compensation and legal redress; businesses seek to limit liability and resist regulatory restrictions; and consumer protection groups focus on preventing future exposure through policy change. Understanding the interests, limitations, and relational dynamics of each group is essential to navigating the complex environmental health and risk management challenges that asbestos continues to pose.

Works Cited

Asbestos ban and phase out asbestos ban. (2009). EPA. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from

Asbestos exposure and cancer risk. (2009). The National Cancer Institute. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/asbestos

Asbestos legislation. (2009). Asbestos news. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from http://www.asbestosnews.com/html/asbestos-legislation.html

Identifying stakeholders. (2009). MIT. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from

Model asbestos pre-trial case management order. (2005). American Bar Association (ABA). Retrieved May 12, 2009 from www.abanet.org/leadership/2005/annual/dailyjournal/103.doc