Environmental, health and safety cost benefit analysis in the United States chemical industry

The purpose of this research project is to determine whether there is a cost/benefit to allocating financial and other company-related resources to improve environmental, health and safety performance beyond that which is required by law. The issue of whether a company benefits from spending dollars to achieve environmental, health and safety performance beyond legal compliance is an important issue to the chemical manufacturing industry in the United States because of the voluminous and complex legal requirements impacting environmental, health and safety expenditures. The cost/benefit issue has practical significance because many U.S. chemical manufacturing companies base their environmental, health and safety management strategies on just achieving and maintaining compliance with legal requirements when in reality this strategy may actually be a higher cost way of managing environmental, health and safety practices. This difference in environmental, health and safety management strategy is being investigated to determine if managing environmental, health and safety to achieve performance beyond that which is required by law results in a greater benefit to companies in the U.S. chemical manufacturing sector.

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^