Global Sources of Influence



European Union law is not the only source of influence and inspiration in the international arena regarding chemical management. There are several important tools and initiatives regarding chemical management on the global level. The main aim of this chapter is not to comprehensively explore all conventions, treaties and initiatives dealing with chemicals. This is not possible due to large area covered. This chapter rather introduces the main aspects of the most important tools including the Basel Convention, Rotterdam Convention and Stockholm Convention which are introduced in separate chapters. Other important instruments and initiatives, such as the Aarhus Protocol, Responsible Care or Safe Planet are introduced as well. This chapter is descriptive in its nature, exploring the material nature of chemical regulation at the international level which might be, next to the EU, other source of influence on the countries outside the EU. It helps to distinguish between Europeanization and globalization as it presents instruments on the global level.


  1. African Union (2013) List of countries which have signed, ratified/acceded to the Bamako Convention on the ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa. Accessed 16 Sept 2016
  2. Basel Convention (2015b) Ban amendment to the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. Accessed 17 Sept 2016
  3. Benton-Short L, Benton JR (2008) Cities and nature. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. CEFIC (2006) Responsible Care® Global Charter. Accessed 21 Sept 2015
  5. CEFIC (2010) European Responsible Care® Security Code. Accessed 22 Sept 2015
  6. CEFIC (2015a) The chemical industry’s commitment to sustainability. Accessed 24 Sept 2015
  7. CEFIC (2015b) 10th Edition of the European responsible care awards 2015 entries closed. Applications under review. Accessed 14 Oct 2015
  8. ChemSafetyPro (2015a) GHS in other countries. Accessed 1 Oct 2015
  9. ChemSafetyPro (2015b) Top 10 differences between K-REACH and EU REACH regulation. Accessed 21 Sept 2015
  10. ČT 24 (2008) Valašskomeziříčská chemička DEZA tajila únik naftalenu. Česká Televize. Aired 8 Nov 2008. Accessed 23 Nov 2016
  11. Cunningham WP, Cunningham MA (2015) Principles of environmental science. Additional case studies. Second edition. Accessed 11 Nov 2015Google Scholar
  12. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000. establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policyGoogle Scholar
  13. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008. establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policyGoogle Scholar
  14. EPA (2015a) Persistent organic pollutants: a global issue, a global response. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 17 Nov 2015
  15. FAO (2015) International code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed 28 Dec 2015
  16. Finkel M (2007) Malaria. National Geographic, July 2007. Accessed 17 Nov 2015
  17. Gibson RB (1999) Voluntary initiatives: the new politics of corporate greening. Broadview Press, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunter, Valerie J and Harris, Craig K (1998) Noisy Winter: The DDT Controversy in the Years Before Silet Spring. Rural Sociology 63(2):179–198Google Scholar
  19. ILO (2003) Safety in the use of chemicals at work. International Labour Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. ILO (2015) Ratifications of C 170–Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170). Accessed 13 Feb 2016
  21. King A, Lenox M (2000) Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical industry’s responsible care program. Acad Manag J 43(4):698–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinkela D (2011) DDT and the American Century: global health, environmental politics and the pesticide that changed the world. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipman Z (2002) A dirty dilemma: the hazardous waste trade. Harv Int Law Rev 23(4):67–71Google Scholar
  24. OSPAR Commission (2015) Chemicals for priority action. Accessed 14 May 2016
  25. Prakash A (2000) Responsible care: an assessment. Bus Soc 39(2):183–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rotterdam Convention (2015a) History of the negotiations of the Rotterdam convention. Accessed 22 Oct 2016
  27. Rotterdam Convention (2015b) Frequently asked questions about the Rotterdam convention. Accessed 22 Oct 2016
  28. SCHP ČR (2014) 20 years: responsible care in the Czech Republic. Svazchemického průmyslu ČR. Accessed 1 Jan 2015
  29. Stockholm Convention (2015a) Status of ratifications. Accessed 20 Apr 2016
  30. Stockholm Convention (2015b) The new POPs under the Stockholm Convention. Accessed 21 Apr 2016
  31. Synergies (2015) History of the synergies process. Accessed 30 May 2016
  32. Topalovic P (2007) The Challenges in implementing responsible care. School of engineering practice. Accessed 11 Feb 2015
  33. UNECE (2011) Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). Fourth Revised Edition. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. UNECE (2015) Status of ratification of The 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Accessed 8 Jan 2016
  35. UNEP (1989) London guidelines for the exchange of information on chemicals in international trade. United Nations Environment Programme. Accessed 17 Feb 2016
  36. UNEP (2010) Planet’s leading chemicals and waste treaties launch reform of global environmental governance. United Nations Environmental Programme. Accessed 17 Feb 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of Ss. Cyril and MethodiusTrnavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations