Academic literature on the topic 'Most Favoured Nation Principle'

<p>The aim of this study is to provide an academic framing of the philosophical foundation of the Most-favored-nation principle (MFN) in international investment law. The MFN principle is one of the most important principles in international law. In international investment law, MFN principle serves as a mechanism to create conditions in which foreign investors from many countries have equal opportunities to compete fairly in host country.</p><p> </p>

The existence of trade liberalization are faced with the fact that competition in the trade of countries particularly in this export and import kian feels very rapidly. The existence of instruments of international law contained in the General Agreement on the set fee and Trade (GATT) becomes an important point in the conception of international trade arrangements for States parties who joined GATT in the World Trade Organization (WTO). So the principles inherent in the preparation of the concept of a national law for countries that have ratified GATT. Indonesia one of the countries that have ratified GATT would of course be bound by those principles, one of which is the principle of Most Favoured Nation tariff arrangements that implicates to import in Indonesia. So the protection of local commodities closed chances though limited to keep the continuity of the national production.

AbstractMutual recognition agreements present unique legal issues in the application of the most-favoured nation obligations flowing from Article I:1 of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement. Mutual recognition agreements come in two types – those recognizing the equivalence of technical regulations, and those recognizing the equivalence of conformity assessment procedures. Both carry potential trade advantages for state parties, but both also carry the potential to create unintended trade consequences for state parties if combined with a broad application of the most-favoured nation principle. The WTO Appellate Body has touched on a number of the relevant legal issues in a series of reports culminating in the May 2014 EC–Seals decision, but many questions remain. This article seeks to provide states and practitioners with a guide to the issues and the way in which the Appellate Body would most likely address the remaining questions, based on the existing jurisprudence.

Most favoured nation (mfn) clauses, extending the benefits of the most favoured nation to the treaty partner, have existed since at least the 11th century. From the 18th century on, mfn clauses were frequently included in trade agreements. The widespread use of the mfn principle has furthered the equal treatment of nations and created prosperity and peace. In the multilateral framework of the World Trade Organization (wto), the mfn principle is a cornerstone, with only few exceptions to it. This article reviews the development of the mfn clause in major trade agreements in relation to historical events from 1648 onwards. The aim of this study is to determine what the consequences of protectionism, measured by unequal treatment of trading partners and protectionist policies has been in the past.

This study aims to identify and elaborate the Non-Discrimination Principles of the GATS related to the use of foreign workers in the provisions of tourism. The main non-discriminatory principle used in this study is the principle of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and National Treatment. Indonesia agreed to be bound on GATS by promulgating law Number 7 the year 1994 regarding the Ratification of Agreement on Establishing the World Trade Organisation, that ensures Indonesia to obedient non-discrimination principle on Indonesia’s regulations. As a member of GATS, Indonesia must submit a schedule of commitments that explain the types of services that are ready to apply the principle of non-discrimination. This research is a normative legal research by examining norms, principles, and related legal aspect of foreign labor in Indonesia. The authors found that there was a conflict of norms in the application of the GATS non-discrimination principle in Indonesian labor law in the trade of foreign labor services. Indonesia actually has its own sovereignty that can not be imposed by any party and in the application of GATS non-discrimination principle not by contradicting Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as the basis of the development of employment. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi dan mengelaborasi Prinsip Non Diskriminasi GATs terkait penggunaan Tenaga Kerja Asing dalam ketentuan kepariwisataan. Prinsip non diskrimininasi yang utama digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah prinsip Most Favoured Nation (MFN) dan National Treatment. Indonesia setuju untuk terikat pada GATS dengan meratifikasi Undang-Undang Nomor 7 tahun 1994 tentang Pengesahan Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization yang mengikat Indonesia untuk mematuhi prinsip-prinsip non diskriminasi dalam pengaturan perdagangan jasa di Indonesia. Sebagai anggota GATS, Indonesia harus menyerahkan komitmen yang berisikan jenis perdagangan jasa yang siap menerapkan prinsip non diskriminasi. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan meneliti norma, asas, dan bahan-bahan hukum penunjang terkait tenaga kerja asing di Indonesia. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa ada konflik norma dalam penerapan prinsip non-diskriminasi GATS dalam hukum ketenagakerjaan Indonesia, khususnya dalam penggunaan tenaga kerja asing. Indonesia sebenarnya memiliki kedaulatan tersendiri yang tidak dapat dipaksakan oleh pihak manapun dan dalam penerapan prinsip non-diskriminasi GATS tidak boleh bertentangan dengan Pancasila dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 sebagai dasar pengembangan ketenagakerjaan.

AbstractNumerous WTO members pursue regional economic integration with both other members and non-WTO-members. The resulting derogation from the most-favoured-nation principle needs to be justified in accordance with the relevant WTO provisions. Regional integration in the service sector is expressly allowed between WTO and non-WTO members pursuant to GATS Article V. In the absence of clear regulation, it has been questioned whether the same is true for regional trade agreements (RTAs) covering trade in goods. Providing a comprehensive interpretation, this paper argues that neither GATT Article XXIV nor the Enabling Clause require the WTO membership of all the parties to an RTA.

AbstractBorder tax adjustments in the form of carbon taxes on products from countries with lax environmental production standards or in the form of a required participation in an emissions allowances' trading system have become a heavily debated issue under WTO law. Such an adjustment might be permissible if energy taxes as indirect taxes are applied on inputs during the production process. Compliance with the Most Favoured Nation principle has less practical importance than the not-yet settled likeness discussion under the National Treatment principle. Consequently, since the compatibility of carbon-related border tax adjustment measures is partly contested, potential justifications such as the conservation of exhaustible national resources or the protection of health (Art. XX GATT) become relevant. The application of the necessity and proportionality test requires that carbon measures are tailored so as to substantially contribute to the achievement of environmental objectives and do not create any arbitrary or unjustified discrimination.

A rule-based regime of international trade is built upon norms of equality and non-discrimination. It helps maintain equity in international trade by the observance of principles such as that of Most Favoured Nation and National Treatment. A closer inspection of the sector wise international trade practices of nations suggests that there are deviations from the rule-based mechanism of World Trade Organisation. This detrimentally impacts the balance of trade. This research article analyses the application of the rule-based regime of the World Trade Organisation with special reference to instances of inequalities in regulations imposed on trade in food products in the context of India and other developing countries. The paper concludes with an analysis of the plausible reasons for the rejection of exports from developing countries and suggests the need for the rectification of such inequalities.

The master thesis provides a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the scope of most-favoured-nation clauses, focusing on the application of such clauses to dispute resolution mechanisms in bilateral investment treaty’s (BIT).

The ICSID decision in Maffezini was the first in a series to extend the scope of an MFN clause to dispute resolution in such context. Traditionally, such a clause had been relied on regarding substantive rights. The debate evoked by this and subsequent decisions of arbitral tribunals, which often conflict with each other in their outcome and in their analytic methodology, illustrates the controversy of this issue.

This thesis examines whether the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty prescribe most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment. The right to MFN treatment concerns the issue whether taxpayers resident in one Member State can “cherry-pick” the most beneficial tax treaty available to other taxpayers. Two issues of fundamental impor-tance are examined in this thesis. First, whether a resident of a Member State (A) who receives income in another Member State (B), can claim from that state, the most beneficial tax treaty available to a resident of a third Member State (C). Second, whether a resident can claim from his state of residence (A), the same tax treatment as provided in a tax treaty concluded by his state of residence and another Member State (C), when this tax treaty provides better treatment in terms of avoiding double taxa-tion in the state of residence than the tax treaty applicable to the source of income (B).

The ECJ has held that discrimination arises only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situa-tions. The current state of EC law prohibits unequal treatment of residents and non-residents as well as residents who have exercised their rights to free movement in comparison to residents who have not. The condition is that they must be considered to be in comparable situations and that there is no objective difference to justify the difference in treatment. The ECJ has so far not ruled on the MFN issue. It is there-fore uncertain as to whether Member States are obligated to treat; 1) different non-resident taxpayers equally and, 2) whether Member States are prohibited from treat-ing their own residents differently when they exercise their rights to free movement in different Member States.

This thesis identifies the requirements for the application of MFN treatment and ex-amines in which tax treaty provisions it is possible to apply MFN treatment. The ECJ, has in its case law, concluded that the application of tax treaties must be exer-cised in accordance EC law. It can be argued that a well-functioning internal market cannot allow bilateral tax treaties to provide preferential tax treatment to residents of one Member State, while denying it to residents of the remaining Member States. However, the application of MFN treatment could have far-reaching ramifications on the Member States’ existing tax treaty network. It is therefore fair to assume, as has been stated in other doctrinal opinions, that the ECJ will approach this issue care-fully when providing its interpretation on the matter.

The introduction and signing of the Economic Partnership Agreements (hereafter EPA’s) have been received with mixed feelings legally, politically and economically. African Caribbean and Pacific countries have taken different positions with regards to their signing, ratification and implementation. A lot has been written about the legal effect of EPA’ The Southern Africa Customs Union (hereafter SACU) has not been spared either. SACU is made up of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. Article 31 (3) of the 2002 SACU Agreement prohibits any of the SACU member states to negotiate and enter into new preferential agreements with third parties or amend existing agreements without the consent of other member states. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland signed Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Union in direct violation of article 31 (3) of the 2002 SACU Agreement. The actions of these three countries have exposed the vulnerabilities and short-comings of the 2002 Agreement. The key findings of this study are that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland have violated the 2002 Agreement. Namibia and South Africa have openly castigated the actions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. SACU institutions that are mandated to monitor and implement the 2002 Agreement such as the Council of Ministers, Customs Union Commission, Secretariat, Tariff Board, Technical Liaison Committees and ad hoc Tribunal appear to have not taken sufficient action to penalise the actions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. This has led some critics to argue that the SACU 2002 Agreement has to be reviewed or suspended or that it has lost its legal force.
Thesis (LLM (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

After years of intense negotiations between member states of the East African Community (EAC) and the European Union, an interim Economic Partnership Agreement was finally initialled on the 27 November 2007. This interim agreement is intended to be an instrument for development by furthering poverty reduction, sustainable development, regional integration and integration of EAC countries into the world economy. However provisions contained in the interim agreement have raised legitimate concerns as to their ability to address these development issues. The African ministers of trade identified nine contentious provisions which are regarded as both legally and developmentally problematic. One of these issues is the most favoured nation (MFN) clause under which parties are required to extend to each other any better or more favourable treatment granted to other countries, which are either developed countries or major trading economies. The urgency behind the negotiation of Economic partnership agreements between the EU and the African Caribbean and Pacific Countries (within which category fall the EAC member states) was the requirement for a WTO compliant legal regime to govern the relationship between both parties. Previous trade regimes were challenged by other WTO members for being discriminatory. However provisions in the interim agreement such as the contentious MFN clause are more than what is required for WTO compatible regional trade agreements. The inclusion of the MFN clause poses major challenges to the trade and development needs of the EAC countries especially the least developed among them. This dissertation will attempt to critically analyze the potential implications of the MFN clause to the East African countries particularly Uganda as one of the least developed member states in the region.
Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2010.
Centre for Human Rights
unrestricted

The non-discrimination principle is one of the fundamental principles underpinning international investment treaties. Its most common manifestations are the most-favoured-nation clause (MFN) and the national treatment (NT) clause. All Chinese BITs and FTAs have included some form of non-discrimination requirements—all of them have an MFN clause, whilst fewer than half of them also have an NT clause. This chapter deals with the two standards of non-discrimination treatment: most-favoured-nation treatment and national treatment. For each standard, the general meaning and application by arbitration tribunals of are analyzed. The particularities of such standard under Chinese investment treaties are then examined.

The fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard is an ‘absolute’, or ‘non-contingent’, standard of treatment, i.e. a standard that states the treatment to be accorded in terms that have their own normative content, as contrasted with the ‘relative’ standards embodied in the ‘national treatment’ and ‘most-favoured-nation’ principles, which define the required treatment by reference to the treatment accorded to other investments in similar circumstances. The FET is the most often invoked treaty standard in investor-state arbitration, present in almost every single claim brought by foreign investors against host States. This chapter tackles the FET standard from two angles: its position in the international law context and the elements identified by arbitral tribunals as forming part of this standard (and their balance).

Chapter 7 examines central treaty provisions on the treatment of investors. It begins with a discussion of the basis and character of treatment obligations, paying attention to the rule of law in international investment protection, the structure of investor treatment provisions within investment treaties, the historical evolution of the treatment standards, and the use of general rules in their interpretation. It then considers how the treatment standards have been developed and applied in contemporary arbitral awards. It conducts a detailed analysis of the principal treaty protections of fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, national treatment, and most-favoured-nation treatment. It concludes by offering an integrated approach to the determination of contested rights.

AbstractWhile on the international plane Germany has as strong a position as one could wish for, a second appeal to the ICJ does not seem advisable. Though not formally estopped from challenging Sentenza 238/2014, Germany would at least face a principled contradiction (Wertungswiderspruch). Like Italy, Germany takes the position that international obligations must be disregarded should they be found incompatible with fundamental rights enshrined in the national constitution. Concerning the underlying conflict, another formally strong German position proves to have inherent shortcomings. To argue that, as far as Italian citizens are concerned, all matters of compensation had been dealt with comprehensively in the German–Italian lump sum agreement of 1961 carries some conviction. However, the limitations of that agreement, the erosion of the individual’s strict mediatisation in international law, and recent German compensation schemes for other victims of World War II (WWII) have fuelled a growing discontent with this final settlement. Having been doubly denied recognition as victims by the injustices of non-retroactivity and of differentiation, the Italian WWII victims ‘in oblivion’ have pursued compensation claims for over a decade now. It would go too far to argue an individual claim for financial compensation under international law for historic wrongs. The principle of intertemporal law, however, has its merits as well as its defects. This chapter argues in favour of mildly piercing the veil of intertemporality by reliance on fundamental ethical principles as part of the law in force already at the time of the original violation. A breach in this kind of obligation should give rise to an obligatio de negotiando under the principle of just satisfaction. Such a legal construction takes up the idea that in most of the recent cases of ‘history taken to court’, compensation is but a secondary aim, the primary aim being to ‘tell one’s own story’ as a counter-narrative to hegemonic discourse. By entering into negotiations with the victims ‘in oblivion’, Germany—and Italy—could and should attempt to finally solve what has been and remains a fundamentally unjust situation.

This chapter begins by defining international economic law. It then discusses the main international economic institutions: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It goes on to elaborate on the key principles of international trade law: tariffication, binding tariffs, most favoured nation treatment and the national treatment obligation and discusses exceptions to these principles, anti-dumping and subsidies, regional trade arrangements, and developing States and dispute settlement within the WTO. The chapter also discusses the key principles of international investment law (including foreign direct investment, protection standards, expropriation and dispute settlement); the international financial architecture; and international economic law and State sovereignty.

“Sustainable Development” is now a widely accepted concept, yet there are surprisingly few concrete examples of it in practice. The pipeline industry operates at broad landscape and regional levels, and now has the opportunity to provide a strong lead in showcasing how society can benefit from major new energy pipelines while not significantly compromising natural and cultural values. To achieve this requires adoption of a fundamental proactive, ecosystem-based principle — the “Conservation First Principle”. In Canada this principle, first stated by Hummel [1], is that “there should be no new or expanded large-scale industrial development until a network of protected areas is reserved which adequately represents the natural region(s) affected by that development”. This approach is not new (e.g., the 1992 commitment by all levels of Canada’s governments to complete such protected areas networks), but it is more urgently needed now in an energy-rich frontier nation like Canada to truly safeguard our natural and cultural values while developing new energy corridors. It is a precautionary approach, akin to an insurance policy we would all be familiar with at a personal level. By identifying key natural habitats in each natural region (areas of similar bio-physical characteristics — there are 486 terrestrial natural regions in Canada), and using sophisticated GIS-based gap analysis, working with local communities, industry and governments, a network of protected areas can be identified and then reserved for legal protection. This network then adequately protects a representative sample of habitats, biodiversity and ecosystem processes in each natural region before or simultaneous with development proposals and approvals. The development of natural gas reserves in the Mackenzie Valley provides all stakeholders with a timely high-profile opportunity to showcase this balanced approach. The NWT’s Protected Areas Strategy provides the widely-supported community-led process to identify and then reserve key cultural and ecological areas in tandem with gas pipeline development. Investors, industry, governments, local communities and the general public all seek the greater certainty and security that such advance planning and balancing provides. The knowledge that certain key areas are off-limits to future development, and that other areas (the largest portion of each natural region) are assigned for sensitive industrial development, sets the stage for a more secure, stable future, in which all values are accommodated satisfactorily. In the push for greater energy security, the pipeline and oil and gas industry should now embrace the Conservation First Principle in energy developments across Canada’s lands and oceans, most immediately as it plans for a major gas pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley.

Attention to safety and health are of ever-increasing priority to industrial organizations. Good Safety is demanded by stockholders, employees, and the community while increasing injury costs provide additional motivation for safety and health excellence. Safety has always been a strong corporate value of DuPont and a vital part of its culture. As a result, DuPont has become a benchmark in safety and health performance. Since 1990, DuPont has re-engineered itself to meet global competition and address future vision. In the new re-engineered organizational structures, DuPont has also had to re-engineer its safety management systems. A special Discovery Team was chartered by DuPont senior management to determine the “best practices’ for safety and health being used in DuPont best-performing sites. A summary of the findings is presented, and five of the practices are discussed. Excellence in safety and health management is more important today than ever. Public awareness, federal and state regulations, and enlightened management have resulted in a widespread conviction that all employees have the right to work in an environment that will not adversely affect their safety and health. In DuPont, we believe that excellence in safety and health is necessary to achieve global competitiveness, maintain employee loyalty, and be an accepted member of the communities in which we make, handle, use, and transport products. Safety can also be the “catalyst” to achieving excellence in other important business parameters. The organizational and communication skills developed by management, individuals, and teams in safety can be directly applied to other company initiatives. As we look into the 21st Century, we must also recognize that new organizational structures (flatter with empowered teams) will require new safety management techniques and systems in order to maintain continuous improvement in safety performance. Injury costs, which have risen dramatically in the past twenty years, provide another incentive for safety and health excellence. Shown in the Figure 1, injury costs have increased even after correcting for inflation. Many companies have found these costs to be an “invisible drain” on earnings and profitability. In some organizations, significant initiatives have been launched to better manage the workers’ compensation systems. We have found that the ultimate solution is to prevent injuries and incidents before they occur. A globally-respected company, DuPont is regarded as a well-managed, extremely ethical firm that is the benchmark in industrial safety performance. Like many other companies, DuPont has re-engineered itself and downsized its operations since 1985. Through these changes, we have maintained dedication to our principles and developed new techniques to manage in these organizational environments. As a diversified company, our operations involve chemical process facilities, production line operations, field activities, and sales and distribution of materials. Our customer base is almost entirely industrial and yet we still maintain a high level of consumer awareness and positive perception. The DuPont concern for safety dates back to the early 1800s and the first days of the company. In 1802 E.I. DuPont, a Frenchman, began manufacturing quality grade explosives to fill America’s growing need to build roads, clear fields, increase mining output, and protect its recently won independence. Because explosives production is such a hazardous industry, DuPont recognized and accepted the need for an effective safety effort. The building walls of the first powder mill near Wilmington, Delaware, were built three stones thick on three sides. The back remained open to the Brandywine River to direct any explosive forces away from other buildings and employees. To set the safety example, DuPont also built his home and the homes of his managers next to the powder yard. An effective safety program was a necessity. It represented the first defense against instant corporate liquidation. Safety needs more than a well-designed plant, however. In 1811, work rules were posted in the mill to guide employee work habits. Though not nearly as sophisticated as the safety standards of today, they did introduce an important basic concept — that safety must be a line management responsibility. Later, DuPont introduced an employee health program and hired a company doctor. An early step taken in 1912 was the keeping of safety statistics, approximately 60 years before the federal requirement to do so. We had a visible measure of our safety performance and were determined that we were going to improve it. When the nation entered World War I, the DuPont Company supplied 40 percent of the explosives used by the Allied Forces, more than 1.5 billion pounds. To accomplish this task, over 30,000 new employees were hired and trained to build and operate many plants. Among these facilities was the largest smokeless powder plant the world had ever seen. The new plant was producing granulated powder in a record 116 days after ground breaking. The trends on the safety performance chart reflect the problems that a large new work force can pose until the employees fully accept the company’s safety philosophy. The first arrow reflects the World War I scale-up, and the second arrow represents rapid diversification into new businesses during the 1920s. These instances of significant deterioration in safety performance reinforced DuPont’s commitment to reduce the unsafe acts that were causing 96 percent of our injuries. Only 4 percent of injuries result from unsafe conditions or equipment — the remainder result from the unsafe acts of people. This is an important concept if we are to focus our attention on reducing injuries and incidents within the work environment. World War II brought on a similar set of demands. The story was similar to World War I but the numbers were even more astonishing: one billion dollars in capital expenditures, 54 new plants, 75,000 additional employees, and 4.5 billion pounds of explosives produced — 20 percent of the volume used by the Allied Forces. Yet, the performance during the war years showed no significant deviation from the pre-war years. In 1941, the DuPont Company was 10 times safer than all industry and 9 times safer than the Chemical Industry. Management and the line organization were finally working as they should to control the real causes of injuries. Today, DuPont is about 50 times safer than US industrial safety performance averages. Comparing performance to other industries, it is interesting to note that seemingly “hazard-free” industries seem to have extraordinarily high injury rates. This is because, as DuPont has found out, performance is a function of injury prevention and safety management systems, not hazard exposure. Our success in safety results from a sound safety management philosophy. Each of the 125 DuPont facilities is responsible for its own safety program, progress, and performance. However, management at each of these facilities approaches safety from the same fundamental and sound philosophy. This philosophy can be expressed in eleven straightforward principles. The first principle is that all injuries can be prevented. That statement may seem a bit optimistic. In fact, we believe that this is a realistic goal and not just a theoretical objective. Our safety performance proves that the objective is achievable. We have plants with over 2,000 employees that have operated for over 10 years without a lost time injury. As injuries and incidents are investigated, we can always identify actions that could have prevented that incident. If we manage safety in a proactive — rather than reactive — manner, we will eliminate injuries by reducing the acts and conditions that cause them. The second principle is that management, which includes all levels through first-line supervisors, is responsible and accountable for preventing injuries. Only when senior management exerts sustained and consistent leadership in establishing safety goals, demanding accountability for safety performance and providing the necessary resources, can a safety program be effective in an industrial environment. The third principle states that, while recognizing management responsibility, it takes the combined energy of the entire organization to reach sustained, continuous improvement in safety and health performance. Creating an environment in which employees feel ownership for the safety effort and make significant contributions is an essential task for management, and one that needs deliberate and ongoing attention. The fourth principle is a corollary to the first principle that all injuries are preventable. It holds that all operating exposures that may result in injuries or illnesses can be controlled. No matter what the exposure, an effective safeguard can be provided. It is preferable, of course, to eliminate sources of danger, but when this is not reasonable or practical, supervision must specify measures such as special training, safety devices, and protective clothing. Our fifth safety principle states that safety is a condition of employment. Conscientious assumption of safety responsibility is required from all employees from their first day on the job. Each employee must be convinced that he or she has a responsibility for working safely. The sixth safety principle: Employees must be trained to work safely. We have found that an awareness for safety does not come naturally and that people have to be trained to work safely. With effective training programs to teach, motivate, and sustain safety knowledge, all injuries and illnesses can be eliminated. Our seventh principle holds that management must audit performance on the workplace to assess safety program success. Comprehensive inspections of both facilities and programs not only confirm their effectiveness in achieving the desired performance, but also detect specific problems and help to identify weaknesses in the safety effort. The Company’s eighth principle states that all deficiencies must be corrected promptly. Without prompt action, risk of injuries will increase and, even more important, the credibility of management’s safety efforts will suffer. Our ninth principle is a statement that off-the-job safety is an important part of the overall safety effort. We do not expect nor want employees to “turn safety on” as they come to work and “turn it off” when they go home. The company safety culture truly becomes of the individual employee’s way of thinking. The tenth principle recognizes that it’s good business to prevent injuries. Injuries cost money. However, hidden or indirect costs usually exceed the direct cost. Our last principle is the most important. Safety must be integrated as core business and personal value. There are two reasons for this. First, we’ve learned from almost 200 years of experience that 96 percent of safety incidents are directly caused by the action of people, not by faulty equipment or inadequate safety standards. But conversely, it is our people who provide the solutions to our safety problems. They are the one essential ingredient in the recipe for a safe workplace. Intelligent, trained, and motivated employees are any company’s greatest resource. Our success in safety depends upon the men and women in our plants following procedures, participating actively in training, and identifying and alerting each other and management to potential hazards. By demonstrating a real concern for each employee, management helps establish a mutual respect, and the foundation is laid for a solid safety program. This, of course, is also the foundation for good employee relations. An important lesson learned in DuPont is that the majority of injuries are caused by unsafe acts and at-risk behaviors rather than unsafe equipment or conditions. In fact, in several DuPont studies it was estimated that 96 percent of injuries are caused by unsafe acts. This was particularly revealing when considering safety audits — if audits were only focused on conditions, at best we could only prevent four percent of our injuries. By establishing management systems for safety auditing that focus on people, including audit training, techniques, and plans, all incidents are preventable. Of course, employee contribution and involvement in auditing leads to sustainability through stakeholdership in the system. Management safety audits help to make manage the “behavioral balance.” Every job and task performed at a site can do be done at-risk or safely. The essence of a good safety system ensures that safe behavior is the accepted norm amongst employees, and that it is the expected and respected way of doing things. Shifting employees norms contributes mightily to changing culture. The management safety audit provides a way to quantify these norms. DuPont safety performance has continued to improve since we began keeping records in 1911 until about 1990. In the 1990–1994 time frame, performance deteriorated as shown in the chart that follows: This increase in injuries caused great concern to senior DuPont management as well as employees. It occurred while the corporation was undergoing changes in organization. In order to sustain our technological, competitive, and business leadership positions, DuPont began re-engineering itself beginning in about 1990. New streamlined organizational structures and collaborative work processes eliminated many positions and levels of management and supervision. The total employment of the company was reduced about 25 percent during these four years. In our traditional hierarchical organization structures, every level of supervision and management knew exactly what they were expected to do with safety, and all had important roles. As many of these levels were eliminated, new systems needed to be identified for these new organizations. In early 1995, Edgar S. Woolard, DuPont Chairman, chartered a Corporate Discovery Team to look for processes that will put DuPont on a consistent path toward a goal of zero injuries and occupational illnesses. The cross-functional team used a mode of “discovery through learning” from as many DuPont employees and sites around the world. The Discovery Team fostered the rapid sharing and leveraging of “best practices” and innovative approaches being pursued at DuPont’s plants, field sites, laboratories, and office locations. In short, the team examined the company’s current state, described the future state, identified barriers between the two, and recommended key ways to overcome these barriers. After reporting back to executive management in April, 1995, the Discovery Team was realigned to help organizations implement their recommendations. The Discovery Team reconfirmed key values in DuPont — in short, that all injuries, incidents, and occupational illnesses are preventable and that safety is a source of competitive advantage. As such, the steps taken to improve safety performance also improve overall competitiveness. Senior management made this belief clear: “We will strengthen our business by making safety excellence an integral part of all business activities.” One of the key findings of the Discovery Team was the identification of the best practices used within the company, which are listed below: ▪ Felt Leadership – Management Commitment ▪ Business Integration ▪ Responsibility and Accountability ▪ Individual/Team Involvement and Influence ▪ Contractor Safety ▪ Metrics and Measurements ▪ Communications ▪ Rewards and Recognition ▪ Caring Interdependent Culture; Team-Based Work Process and Systems ▪ Performance Standards and Operating Discipline ▪ Training/Capability ▪ Technology ▪ Safety and Health Resources ▪ Management and Team Audits ▪ Deviation Investigation ▪ Risk Management and Emergency Response ▪ Process Safety ▪ Off-the-Job Safety and Health Education Attention to each of these best practices is essential to achieve sustained improvements in safety and health. The Discovery Implementation in conjunction with DuPont Safety and Environmental Management Services has developed a Safety Self-Assessment around these systems. In this presentation, we will discuss a few of these practices and learn what they mean. Paper published with permission.