Title：Measuring Corporate Environmental Justice Performance
Authors：Michael Ash1* and James K. Boyce2
Source：Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management（Received 15 June 2009; revised 5 February 2010; accepted 17 February 2010）
作者相關的簡報說明在這裡（是政府的研究計畫案？）
個人感想：
- 老美談的環境正義，其實比較達意的說法是”族群正義”：因為相關廢棄物掩埋場、污染工業、核廢料堆放場或其他危害環境的設施往往設立在有色人種社區或貧困區域，當然對於這些政治上居於弱勢的族群是一種傷害而且不公平。（台灣設在蘭嶼的核廢料存儲場也是同樣的例子）
- 本文的創意：用行業排放的空氣汙染濃度來衡量與推估各網格內居民的承受狀況，代表各區域內的居民健康風險，另外再用前100大汙染公司的資料，比對其設廠區域內居民的：少數民族/有色人種、貧困居民比率，即為代表這些公司的環境正義度( 雖然感覺有些倒果為因，但此一研究非常有趣)
- 環境正義無法伸張是個『實然』的現象，在任何國家與社會當中都會發生與存在：污染工廠/工業區的設立決策只要經過討論與協調，最後的結果一定是”（錢權）少數服從（錢權）多數”的現實；或許關於”正義”，可以再進一步思考的是：如何做到多數”尊重”少數！
- 研究只有針對米國境的100大汙染（而且只有air polluter）公司進行環境正義研究，what if 把境外工廠與分公司納入研究？哪些落後國家與地區會是遭到先進國家工業污染霸凌？中國？非洲？台灣？原因與背後的運作脈絡？
- 如果拉回台灣，用台灣的各個縣市與同樣煉油與化工產業工廠為標的，可以做出一樣的Me Too Study？國內各機構是否有類似的GIS資料庫可以整合？(一個可以詢問的專家=>地圖會說話，台大地理系
葉 博士)，但猜測可能會沒有結果：台灣的工業區與工廠幾乎是計畫經濟下的產物 - Further Question：怎麼樣的配套補償機制與程度金額，對於權益受損的少數弱勢族群才算是”尊重”？
ABSTRACT
Measures of corporate environmental justice performance can be a valuable tool in efforts to promote corporate social responsibility and to document systematic patterns of environmental injustice. This paper develops such a measure based on the extent to which toxic air emissions from industrial facilities disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities and those on low incomes. Applying the measure to 100 major corporate air polluters in the United States US US
Introduction
This paper presents a measure of corporate EJ performance, bridging the gap between research on corporate environmental performance and that on EJ. Our measure is based on data that link pollution exposures to pollution sources. The audiences for this work include both corporate social responsibility (CSR) advocates who want information about this important dimension of environmental performance and EJ advocates who want documentation on systematic patterns in corporate behavior.
而討論環境正義，讀者主要為當地居民；討論企業社會責任讀者主要為客戶或公司經營者，而兩造雙方也有所不同；而環境正亦可視為企業更積極地展現其環境績效（the ultimate environmental performance of firms）
1. 把EPA的各廠域（101*101km-square網格）化學品暴露資料和各地人口普查資料連結比對We merge the EPA data with socioeconomic data from the US Bureau of the Census to analyze exposure disparities by race, ethnicity, and income.
2. 找出前100大的主要汙染公司link其各廠區的資料Political Economy Research Institute’s Toxic 100 Air Polluters which uses the same data sources to rank firms on the basis of total human health hazards resulting from air toxics emissions at their facilities.
3. 另外再針對特別汙染的煉油與塑化公司，和全產業的平均值相比，是否有某些公司其設廠的廠址特別是未在少數族群與貧困的區域
Data and Methods
The underlying data for the corporate EJ measure come from three sources: the EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI); the 2000 US
其餘數據與資料處理說明略過
A Measure of Corporate EJ Performance
Two corporate EJ performance indicators are reported here: the fi rst measures impacts on racial and ethnic minorities, and the second measures impacts on people with incomes below the national poverty line.
In the 2000 Census, racial and ethnic minorities12 constituted 31.8% of the US population, and people living below the official poverty line were 12.9%.有31.8%的有色與少數族群，貧窮線以下居民有12.9%
For all firms, the share of minorities and the poor in 2005 were 34.8% and 15.3%, respectively (above their respective national population shares of 31.8% and 12.9%)看起來好像稍微偏高（以所有公司而言，工廠的衝擊區域內的少數有色族群比例為34.8%，低於貧窮線的居民為15.3%）The shares for the Toxic 100 firms were slightly lower than for all firms, but still above the shares of these groups in the national population.（所以前100大毒化物的工廠平均來說沒有比較環境"邪惡"？！）
邪惡的公司現形：table1 table2
在針對比較髒的產業比較
煉油業（可以比對出相對沒那麼邪惡的公司？！）
塑化業：
再用二維的方式做圖
Y軸是這些公司產生總人口健康衝擊，X軸分別是這些公司衝擊區域當中的少數有色與貧困人口的比例(每個圈代表一家公司)
We believe that the joint measurement of total impact and disparate impacts provides the most robust picture of corporate environmental performance. Although correlated, neither measure adequately conveys information about the other. Both dimensions are relevant, and both should – and can – be incorporated into the assessment of CSR.
數量方法與data mining的感覺回來了
那個國光石化與七八九輕如果可以做類似的分析該有多好！
沒有留言:
張貼留言