306
To protect against these risks and manage elimination of hazardous substances in
their products, producers can use a combination of approaches. As a basic underpinning and assurance, producers can ask their third party manufacturers and suppliers
to complete and sign declarations that they will ensure all materials, components or
products comply with all hazardous substance restrictions applicable in the jurisdictions where the product will be distributed. First and foremost, this alerts suppliers
to the necessary requirements. It also may provide some assurance to producers in
terms of liability for any resulting fi nancial losses. Signed supplier declarations ,
however, do not provide guarantees that the products themselves will be in compliance. Government authorities often fi nd quite a high proportion of products investigated through market surveillance do not actually comply with substance restrictions.
For an example, in 2014, the Swedish Chemicals Agency found that over 40 % of
the plastic articles such as handbags, wallets, pencil boxes and cases for mobile
phones that they tested contained short-chain chlorinated paraffi ns which are prohibited under the EU Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation (KEMI 2014 ).
To minimise risk further, producers can submit samples of products for testing at
laboratories, undertake chemical testing themselves or ask suppliers to provide test
reports that show their products meet legal limits. Testing provides a robust check; for
example, test reports can be used to detect any substances suppliers are unaware of
from sources ‘upstream’ in their supply chain. Alongside signed supplier declarations ,
test reports can also be used to show regulatory enforcement agencies documented
evidence of due diligence. Testing, however, also has its limitations: it only provides a
‘snap-shot’ of one or perhaps a few products at one point in time, so multiple samples
may be needed as well as retesting on periodic basis e.g. monthly, quarterly, or annually. As testing is expensive and samples are usually destroyed in the testing process,
testing statistically representative samples of products can be infeasible.
To gain an overall perspective and level of assurance, producers can also audit
their supplier’s manufacturing facilities. Auditing can be used to ascertain the level
of competency and understanding of staff working in manufacturing, ensure the
necessary controls are actually in place, check the effectiveness of procedures used
to control hazardous substances, and assess unforeseen risks in the process. For
example, if manufacturers do not have a process to isolate any products suspected
to have compliance issues from compliant stock, then there is a risk the products
may enter the supply chain. The limitation of such audits is that they too only provide a ‘snap shot’ in time of how any supplier may be operating. Audits should,
therefore, be repeated every year or so, but this may involve a substantial amount of
time and resources as global supply chains typically have many different suppliers
involved.
For any new substance compliance requirements, producers must ensure their
products comply by time they come into force. There are several different approaches
to stock control that can be used to clear-out older stocks of non-compliant products
(Fig. 16.1 ).
If preventative measures fail and non-compliant products enter distribution
(where, in the worst-case, producers may face fi nes and sales prohibitions), then corrective measures are needed both to identify any current non-compliant stocks of
K. Mayers
To protect against these risks and manage elimination of hazardous substances in
their products, producers can use a combination of approaches. As a basic underpinning and assurance, producers can ask their third party manufacturers and suppliers
to complete and sign declarations that they will ensure all materials, components or
products comply with all hazardous substance restrictions applicable in the jurisdictions where the product will be distributed. First and foremost, this alerts suppliers
to the necessary requirements. It also may provide some assurance to producers in
terms of liability for any resulting fi nancial losses. Signed supplier declarations ,
however, do not provide guarantees that the products themselves will be in compliance. Government authorities often fi nd quite a high proportion of products investigated through market surveillance do not actually comply with substance restrictions.
For an example, in 2014, the Swedish Chemicals Agency found that over 40 % of
the plastic articles such as handbags, wallets, pencil boxes and cases for mobile
phones that they tested contained short-chain chlorinated paraffi ns which are prohibited under the EU Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation (KEMI 2014 ).
To minimise risk further, producers can submit samples of products for testing at
laboratories, undertake chemical testing themselves or ask suppliers to provide test
reports that show their products meet legal limits. Testing provides a robust check; for
example, test reports can be used to detect any substances suppliers are unaware of
from sources ‘upstream’ in their supply chain. Alongside signed supplier declarations ,
test reports can also be used to show regulatory enforcement agencies documented
evidence of due diligence. Testing, however, also has its limitations: it only provides a
‘snap-shot’ of one or perhaps a few products at one point in time, so multiple samples
may be needed as well as retesting on periodic basis e.g. monthly, quarterly, or annually. As testing is expensive and samples are usually destroyed in the testing process,
testing statistically representative samples of products can be infeasible.
To gain an overall perspective and level of assurance, producers can also audit
their supplier’s manufacturing facilities. Auditing can be used to ascertain the level
of competency and understanding of staff working in manufacturing, ensure the
necessary controls are actually in place, check the effectiveness of procedures used
to control hazardous substances, and assess unforeseen risks in the process. For
example, if manufacturers do not have a process to isolate any products suspected
to have compliance issues from compliant stock, then there is a risk the products
may enter the supply chain. The limitation of such audits is that they too only provide a ‘snap shot’ in time of how any supplier may be operating. Audits should,
therefore, be repeated every year or so, but this may involve a substantial amount of
time and resources as global supply chains typically have many different suppliers
involved.
For any new substance compliance requirements, producers must ensure their
products comply by time they come into force. There are several different approaches
to stock control that can be used to clear-out older stocks of non-compliant products
(Fig. 16.1 ).
If preventative measures fail and non-compliant products enter distribution
(where, in the worst-case, producers may face fi nes and sales prohibitions), then corrective measures are needed both to identify any current non-compliant stocks of
K. Mayers