Precautionary principle widely adopted as a policy base
The precautionary principle is a principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. Globally, this precautionary principle is increasingly being adopted as a base for the development of environmental policies by multilateral organizations, national regulators and corporates. This principle is particularly fundamental in relation to the regulation and management of chemicals because scientific data on the use and impacts of many substances is incomplete, especially in the face of changing usage patterns.

Evolving scientific understanding and technology advancement drives regulation 
Given that potential impacts of chemical use must first be proven before controls are developed and implemented, science plays a pivotal role in driving risk management. Rapid improvements in scientific understanding during the past two decades, together with more sophisticated technology, have resulted in a significantly shortened timespan between scientific findings and the enactment of legislation.

Globalization creates a new regulatory dynamic 
As globalization drives a wedge between consumer markets and producer markets, we are seeing new regulatory tools which establish tougher standards for producers hoping to access markets. This is reflected in regulatory trends as demonstrated by the EU's Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipement (WEEE) and Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of chemicals (REACH) directives. Not only will the impact be direct and global, but it is hoped that such regulations will influence other nations to adopt similar mandates. China, Korea, Japan and California in the US, for example, have either already adopted similar laws or are preparing such for legislation.        

SRI & responsible corporate behavior
The emergence of Sustainable and Responsible Investment (SRI) has in part led to a demand for businesses to be more accountable. As part of their sustainable business practices, a few companies have already responded promptly and proactively to growing concerns over hazardous substances. An examination of best practice underscores the fact that in many cases there are cost-effective and safe or safer alternatives available.  

Investor pressure
As toxic chemical issues become increasingly global, the finance community - banks and investors - is seeking ways to identify standards for corporate performance on toxic chemicals and to protect their reputational and business risks. Investor activity includes increasing due diligence activities, dialogue with corporate management and filing of shareholder resolutions. 

Asian corporates - lagging behind their global peers 
In Asia, there have been some efforts to address health and environmental risks associated with toxic chemicals by government and environmental advocacy groups. On a corporate level, however, it is obvious that there is still a significant gap between leaders and laggards. Leaders tend to be in the export-oriented businesses and market to global customers. This is in part due to the fact that there is, as yet, limited pressure from Asian investors and the public to change corporate behavior.  In addition, there is simply not enough information available for customers to form a disciplined view on toxic chemical issues in Asia.