Responsible Steel



Provisional interpretations on requirements of the ResponsibleSteel Standard Version 1-0In November 2019, the ResponsibleSteel Standard Version 1-0 was launched, covering 12 Principles on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues associated with the steel sector. Over the last few months, we have received enquiries from stakeholders, asking us to interpret some of the criteria and requirements in the Standard. An interpretation provides guidance on the application of a criterion or requirement where the correct meaning is not clear from existing guidance, context or other sources of information. The provisional interpretations in this document have been drafted by the ResponsibleSteel Secretariat. In line with ResponsibleSteel procedures, they are published for stakeholder consultation. Stakeholders can provide feedback on the provisional interpretations by tracking changes in this document and sending it to assurance@. Consultation is open until 02 October 2020.The logic of this document is as follows: The criterion or requirement for which interpretation is sought is shown below together with the respective Principle of the ResponsibleSteel Standard and the number of the criterion or requirement in the Standard. If stakeholders seek more context to the criterion or requirement, they are advised to study the ResponsibleSteel Standard. In the tables, the left column describes the issue that was put to ResponsibleSteel by stakeholders, the middle column lays out considerations by the ResponsibleSteel Secretariat in developing the provisional interpretation, the right column provides the actual provisional interpretation.Following consultation, the received input will be reviewed and considered by the ResponsibleSteel Secretariat for finalisation of the interpretations. The final interpretations will have to be approved by the Standards and Assurance Committee of the ResponsibleSteel Board before they become effective and are binding for all steel sites and certification bodies applying the ResponsibleSteel Standard. The approved interpretations will be published on the ResponsibleSteel website. Principle 4 Labour RightsRequirement 4.9.1. The site has a public policy stating that: ... b) Activities requiring overtime work are accepted voluntarily by workers.Issue requiring interpretationConsiderationsProvisional interpretationIn crisis situations, companies may have to force overtime (called 'required overtime'). Required overtime is permissible under EU law and is agreed with the labour unions. The company follows the applicable law on maximum working hours. They always try to make allowances for the personal and domestic circumstances of individual workers when requesting overtime, and provisions are made for certain workers, e.g. pregnant or nursing mothers, in accordance with applicable law. The company requests that required overtime is permitted where it is within the limits allowed under Applicable Law or Collective Bargaining Agreements.The introductory chapters to the ResponsibleSteel Standard state that the law prevails where there is a conflict between ResponsibleSteel and the law.For the presented issue, we propose that this is not a conflict between the law and the ResponsibleSteel Standard, but an example of the Standard going beyond the legal requirements. In other words, the law permits contractual obligations of this kind. It does not make it mandatory to impose them.Another question is whether any such contractual obligations have been accepted by labour unions and, if so, whether this can be considered to be ‘accepted voluntarily by workers’. In principle ResponsibleSteel proposes that this could be the case, but the auditors should seek further information in their interviews with workers and with union representatives. Firstly, it would be relevant whether the unions are genuinely representing workers' interests or are so-called 'paper unions'. Then, is the provision genuinely applied to 'specific circumstances' as defined by law, or has it become something that is regularly applied to force workers to accept conditions that they would otherwise consider unacceptable?In some jurisdictions and under specific circumstances, the law might permit to require overtime from workers, for example in crisis situations. Where sites can credibly demonstrate that this kind of required overtime has been agreed with unions and that it is imposed in exceptional circumstances only and in a way that takes account of the needs of vulnerable workers such as pregnant women, auditors might accept this as meeting requirement 4.9.1.b.However, auditors should verify that the respective unions genuinely represent workers' interests and that they are not so-called 'paper unions'. Secondly, they should verify that the provision is only applied to 'specific circumstances' as defined by law and has not become something that is regularly applied to force workers to accept conditions that they would otherwise consider unacceptable. This might be verified through interviews with worker and union representatives.Principle 4 Labour RightsRequirement 4.9.1. The site has a public policy stating that: ...d) The site provides all workers with paid annual leave of at least three working weeks after the worker reaches one year of service.?Issue requiring interpretationConsiderationsProvisional interpretationDo the 3 weeks of paid annual leave include paid federal holidays?This Standard requirement has been framed around ILO Convention C132 - Holidays with Pay. The Convention says in Article 3: The holiday shall in no case be less than three working weeks for one year of service. It also says in Article 6: Public and customary holidays, whether or not they fall during the annual holiday, shall not be counted as part of the minimum annual holiday with pay.Requirement 4.9.1.d has been framed around ILO Convention C132 - Holidays with Pay. The Convention says in Article 3: 'The holiday shall in no case be less than three working weeks for one year of service'. It also says in Article 6: 'Public and customary holidays, whether or not they fall during the annual holiday, shall not be counted as part of the minimum annual holiday with pay'.To remain in line with this ILO Convention, the required 3 weeks of paid annual leave do not include paid federal holidays.??For workers that have been with the site for less than 1 year, it is acceptable that paid federal holidays count towards the 3 weeks.?Principle 4 Labour RightsRequirement 4.9.3. The site grants paid maternity leave of at least 12 weeks.?Issue requiring interpretationConsiderationsProvisional interpretationDoes it matter who pays for the maternity leave? Can the pay come from the government or does it have to come from the site?The related ILO Convention is C183 - Maternity Protection Convention. The Convention does not specify the paying party. Key is that paid maternity leave is available to workers and so it is acceptable if that payment comes from government rather than the site.It is acceptable if payment for granted maternity leave comes from the government rather than the site.Principle 9. Noise, Emissions, Effluents and WasteCriterion 9.1: Noise and vibrationThe site implements plans to prevent and reduce adverse impacts from noise and vibration on communities or the environment.Issue requiring interpretationConsiderationsProvisional interpretation'Vibration' is understood to mean the vibration of solid objects. Noise is what you hear and vibration is what you feel. From a health and safety perspective, companies take actions to reduce worker exposure to vibration. But from a community impact perspective, there are no regulations on vibration. Vibration is not included in any permit conditions, and hence companies have no legal obligation to monitor it. It has never arisen as a community issue with our company, for example through complaints. The legal situation will be the same for companies in the EU and probably also worldwide. If we were to have an audit, would it be sufficient to only look into noise?ResponsibleSteel has not defined the term ‘vibration’. A quick search suggests there are two types of vibration that might be relevant, firstly vibration in relation to the operation of machinery (a health and safety issue), and secondly groundborne vibration that might be a nuisance to communities or at high levels potentially damaging to structures. ResponsibleSteel proposes to provide a glossary definition along these lines in the future. The IFC EHS Guidelines mention vibration in the context of construction and decommissioning, and in relation to workers (exposure to hand-arm vibration). One can envisage situations where groundborne vibration could be a concern to communities, for instance in relation to transportation (by lorry, rail) or operation of heavy machinery. Criterion 9.1 focusses on the ‘adverse impacts’ from noise and vibration, and ResponsibleSteel proposes that this is the framework for consideration of vibration in the requirements. For a future revision of the Standard it may be useful for ResponsibleSteel to propose that the requirements make explicit reference to preventing and reducing ‘adverse impacts’ of noise and vibration, rather than just noise and vibration per se, or potentially, separate out the two issues. At this point it is proposed that an appropriate response to the requirements would be for a site to document how it has considered the issue of potential adverse impacts of vibration. That would presumably consider the potential adverse impacts of vibration from machinery, as well as of groundborne vibration. Assuming no adverse impacts of groundborne vibration have been identified or raised as potential issues by stakeholders or regulators, then that would be the starting point for justifying a minimal response to the requirements 9.1.1. to 9.1.6 in relation to vibration. Based on the information above one would expect some consideration of how a site addresses the potential H&S impacts of machine vibration. But in relation to groundborne vibration, the site would make the case that since no adverse impacts of vibration have been identified or proposed a programme is not in place to address them. The outstanding question would be whether some kind of baseline measurement should be taken. There could potentially be some value in this – specifically as a basis to be able to respond if concerns were to be raised in the future.ResponsibleSteel understands that vibration related to steel sites and their operations might not pose an issue to communities.Sites are expected to document how they have considered potential adverse impacts of machinery-related and groundborne vibration on communities. Assuming no adverse impacts have been identified or have been raised as issues by stakeholders or regulators, sites might be able to justify why they provide a minimal response to requirements 9.1.1. to 9.1.6 in relation to vibration.Sites are expected to address the potential health and safety impacts of machine vibration on workers though.Ultimately, auditors must be satisfied that the intent of Criterion 9.1 in relation to vibration is met. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download