Abstract
The prerequisites for chemicals risk management within the corporate sphere have changed over the last decade. This change has been driven by a number of factors such as an increased use of the precautionary principle, the reversed burden of proof and an increased focus on environmental and sustainable development initiatives, in the ED, ED Member States and elsewhere. In Sweden, this development has been highly pronounced. The objectives of the present study are to (1) explore the opinions within Swedish industry concerning items related to chemicals risk assessment and regulation and (2) to identify and rank various stakeholders and factors perceived to have affected the companies' risk management strategies of the brominated flame retardants (BFRs). The results were somewhat contradictory and indicated that the sampled companies favored precautionary measures, while they at the same time favored scientific ED risk assessments over national regulation. Furthermore, contrary to industry opinions elsewhere, they were favorably inclined to the increased burden of proof, to the novel REACH Directive, and to the Swedish government's objective of a nontoxic environment. Regarding the BFRs, the companies' risk management strategies were believed to have been mostly influenced by (1) internal policies and guidelines regarding sustainable development and corporate social responsibilities, (2) the application of the precautionary principle, (3) ED directives/risk assessments, (4) the Swedish Chemicals Agency and Swedish research, and (5) PRlmarketing considerations. Overall, the study indicated that the sampled companies displayed some inconsistencies regarding preferred approaches to regulating and managing risk. In a somewhat tentative manner, the paper ends with a discussion of possible explanations for these inconsistencies.