For several weeks now, the Horne foundry has been singled out. Several studies confirm that it contributes to the poor state of health of some of the inhabitants of Rouyn-Noranda and that it contaminates the fauna and flora.
In view of the findings drawn up by scientists, isn’t it time to get tough? No argument advanced at this time seems to be serious enough to exclude the adoption of stricter rules and the end of a tolerance that has become unbearable. If there is government tolerance in the weeks or months to come, it should only be temporary, conditional and unilateral. Let us present these arguments.
In this case, the economy is not the only issue. The foundry illustrates the opposition between economic issues and health issues. On the one hand, there is the economy, characterized by support for business and market development with an ultimate objective: the optimal use of scarce resources. On the other side, there is health, which involves being concerned with the well-being of employees, but also with the company’s environment.
The health sector has long been characterized by state presence. In comparison, economics is often the excuse given for excluding any discussion of law. However, this is forgetting the teaching of the great thinkers of modern economics: economics does not in any way exclude the legal.
Indeed, non-optimal behaviors can be regulated in two ways: by incentives, but also by binding regulations. However, it should not be forgotten that the discharge of contaminants by the Horne smelter constitutes non-optimal behavior (a negative externality).
The Horne Smelter recently said it was prepared to invest up to $500 million to meet new arsenic emission requirements, but only if the government helps. This is how blackmail sets in regarding the improvement of a highly questionable situation.
Yet the Horne Foundry is responsible for what is happening. Moreover, it is the health of the people and the state of the fauna and flora over a large territory that are at stake here, nothing less. It should be added that the Horne smelter is owned by the Swiss company Glencore, which declared profits of more than 5 billion in 2021. Isn’t part of these profits then made at the expense of the environment and health? from Rouyn-Noranda?
The good financial health of Glencore and the Horne smelter shows that not all long-term investments have been made. The Horne smelter has been emitting arsenic for a long time, which endangers the health of the population. Smelter officials should have done more a long time ago instead of investing so much to get a pass on the level of contamination.
The company hides behind an argument that is too easy to justify its behavior: the non-existence of clean technology. How long will profit legitimize arsenic contamination and dictate the rules of the game?
False virtuous behavior
For a long time, corporate social responsibility (CSR) was left in the hands of companies, which it was hoped would self-regulate through market intervention. The latter was to eliminate non-citizen companies. But this reasoning ignored the phenomenon of greenwashing and instrumentalization of CSR.
This risk then justifies the intervention of the law. It is interesting to note that the Glencore Canada website indicates that “sustainable development is a guideline guiding our ways of doing things. Each of our actions and each of our projects are oriented in such a way as to contribute to the economic, environmental and social well-being of our community in addition to ensuring the health and safety of our employees and fellow citizens”.
The claims “Minimize our impact on the environment, wherever we operate” (environment) and “Improve the health and well-being of our employees and the communities who live near our facilities” (health) add doubts about the relevance of relying on the voluntary approach of the Horne Foundry to hope for a change.
Discussions on the Horne Foundry are astonishing by the gap they reveal between the place of concerns linked to CSR and the discourse of the Foundry. In its declarations, the Foundry forgets that the history of capitalism is inseparable from a socialization of the company which was supported by the State. The pandemic and the climate crisis are valuable accelerators of this movement.
Tomorrow’s business is certainly not yesterday’s. But the Horne Foundry has been trying for years to avoid the application of a standard that is morally binding on it. How can we seriously defend the relocation of citizens or the creation of buffer zones to preserve a business model that remains anchored in the past?
If morality has not succeeded in forcing the Horne Foundry to evolve, the law can and owes it to the inhabitants of Rouyn-Noranda. It will do this by imposing a limit so that the contaminant level does not go beyond 3 ng/m3. In any case, the Quebec state no longer has the choice of adopting stricter rules: legal proceedings have been launched, proceedings which risk targeting it sooner or later.
The company hides behind an argument that is too easy to justify its behavior: the non-existence of clean technology. How long will profit legitimize arsenic contamination and dictate the rules of the game?