Portside

When Hwang Yumi got her first job working at Samsung semiconductor at age 18 in 2003,, she and her family were happy that she was on her way toward economic independence as part of the booming technology revolution in South Korea. But her high hopes came crashing down when she learned that she had developed leukemia from her toxic exposures on the job, and her family was devastated when she died at age 22 in 2007. While trying to cope with his grief, her father - Hwang Sang-ki — was prompted to action, knowing that a co-worker of Yumi’s had also recently died from leukemia. He made a commitment that he was going to find out why this had happened and to make sure that it never happened to anyone else’s children.



This set of circumstances prompted Mr. Hwang - a taxi driver from Sokcho - to start his own investigation which resulted in his collaboration with occupational health and safety professionals based in Seoul to get to the bottom of this tragedy. Through their efforts, they discovered that over 285 other Samsung employees had developed leukemia and other rare and terrible cancers and chronic diseases, and that more than 100 had died during the past few years.

(Data compiled by Dr. Jeong-ok Kong for a presentation at the ANROEV Meeting in Hanoi, September 2015)



He teamed up with a young attorney - Jong Ran Lee and a young occupational health physician - Dr. Jeong-ok Kong and formed Supporters for the Health And Rights of People in the Semiconductor (SHARPS) and started an advocacy campaign to get Samsung to acknowledge their responsibility. They started pressing Samsung to take action to compensate those who had suffered and to take steps to remedy the health and safety conditions in their factories. They set in motion a chain of events that continues to unfold.



They were shocked and appalled by Samsung’s response - they not only refused to acknowledge any responsibility, they actively fought back, denigrating the efforts of SHARPS and then hiring a notorious U.S. consulting firm - ENVIRON - to produce a slick report that claimed to exonerate Samsung.



In the meantime, SHARPS helped the victims’s families to file workers’ compensation law suits, which were resisted by Samsung and the South Korean government. Eventually South Korean courts began to rule in favor of some of the victims, creating a wave of revelation to many in South Korea that there was truth to the allegations of Samsung’s culpability. But the government and Samsung appealed the decisions, and the court battles are ongoing.



Because of their expert documentation and dogged determination — which included multiple protest demonstrations at Samsung headquarters — SHARPS was able to generate local press attention to the plight of the Samsung victims (no small feat in a media climate where “the Republic of Samsung” bears inordinate clout). Other sectors of civil society began to mobilize, and 2 films were produced that prompted a spike in public awareness and concern.



As local and international pressures began to build, Samsung started to change tactics, and moved from complete denial to explore a resolution that could put this all behind them. In May, 2014, Kwon Oh-hyun, one of the three chief executive officers of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., shocked the world by making an apology at a press conference and announced that Samsung would compensate the victims and stop appealing the court cases.



Samsung next decided to support a mediation effort in an attempt to resolve all outstanding issues. A Mediation Committee was established, which included well respected leaders in law and academia and chaired by Kim Ji-hyung, a retired Judge.



After months of research, engagement and deliberation, the Committee issued its recommendations on July 23, 2015. Their findings largely supported the claims of the victims and included the following 4 bold provisions:

• Samsung should contribute 100 billion won ($85.8 million) to fund an independent public interest organization to objectively carry out the recommendations of the mediation committee:
• The independent fund will provide compensation to victims who developed a wide range of illnesses while working at Samsung
• The fund will also support specific measures to prevent diseases in the future and a pledge to maintain a healthy workplace
• An apology from Samsung as a joint declaration to address human rights and health issues.

While SHARPS responded with cautious support (while maintaining that it didn’t go far enough), Samsung only agreed to the recommendation that it contribute funding, but rejected the key provisions that were designed to address the long term solutions of preventing future diseases.



Consequently, ICRT decided to mobilize global civil society to support SHARPS and the recommendations of the Mediation Committee through the distribution of an Open Letter to Samsung to Accept the Recommendations of the Mediation Committee. Since then, many prominent leaders from a wide range of global civil society—including 1000’s of organizations and individuals from more than 40 countries — have endorsed the Open Letter.



Sensing their vulnerability, Samsung decided to strike back at ICRT, claiming that “We would like to clarify and provide corrections to certain inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained in the open letter posted on your website” and asserted that the establishment of the independent process “would be an inefficient method to solve this issue and not in the best interest of the families involved.”



ICRT issued a pointed reply to Samsung on September 17 supporting SHARPS and pointing out the fallacies in their position:

“We share the belief with SHARPS and a large number of civil society groups

from around the world that the best path forward is for Samsung to accept the

recommendations of the Mediation Committee to establish an independent

foundation to resolve all outstanding issues, especially the forward looking

proposals to address prevention, research and other public interest efforts. This

would assure a fair, just, credible and effective solution to the many issues that

face Samsung. It would also lead to more effective safer chemicals policy and

pollution prevention solutions which would better protect people and save

Samsung money in the long run. The Mediation Committee process has been

the one effort that has succeeded in bringing all of the parties together, and

continues to be the best opportunity to resolve all outstanding issues. It was for

these reasons that we wrote the Open Letter; we continue to urge Samsung to

adopt this path.”

The ICRT reply then focused on the key issues:

 

“By insisting that it control all of the key decisions moving forward - rather than

working collaboratively with the proposed independent non-profit foundation that

would include a multi-stakeholder process - Samsung has retreated into a bunker

mentality and has rejected a key opportunity to demonstrate that it is serious

about becoming a more sustainable company ready to take its place among the

emerging leaders in the industry. With Samsung’s credibility on the line, the

company has chosen to reject the objectivity and respect that could be gained

embracing the Mediation Committee recommendations. A new willingness to

open up the decision making process is particularly important for a company

such as Samsung that has been so secretive and closed to the outside world.



In your recent correspondence, you state that the incorporation of the

independent foundation would be too costly, and take too much time to

implement. If these are really your main concerns (rather than an excuse to

maintain control of all key decisions), they are easily addressed through

additional negotiations (through the Mediation Committee).



According to a recent report from Forbes, Samsung Electronics is the 7th

most valuable brand in the world with a market cap of almost $200 billion.

Compared to that, the $85 million compensation proposal is tiny. In fact, the total

amount recommended by the Mediation Committee is less than 3.6% of

Samsung’s annual advertising budget, so we don’t believe that the overall cost to

Samsung is the real issue here.

In your letter, you state:

 

‘The recommendation of the Mediation Committee suggests the incorporation of

an association that would consume up to 30% of the fund, a sum of KRW 30

billion ($ 25.2million), in order to cover operational costs and other expenses.

Samsung Electronics believes the greatest percentage of the fund possible

should be directed toward providing financial aid.’



You seem to fundamentally miss the key point here - the recommendation of the

Mediation Committee is to use 30% of the funds for prevention research to

avoid future health problems and to fund efforts to develop safer chemical

processes. This is one of the most important aspects of the recommendation -

and one that requires the development of an independent, credible body to

implement. We strongly urge Samsung to reconsider its dismissal of this

proposal by characterizing it as “operational costs and other expenses” and

acknowledge that this is in fact the key to the sustainability pathway that we all

seek.



As for the timing, there is no reason not to move forward with an expedited

process to determine compensation for the victims. There are ample precedents

for how to do this, and if Samsung is in fact motivated to do so, this should not be

an impediment. We agree that the victims should be compensated as soon as

possible - they have waited far too long already. But there is no reason that this

should stand in the way of resolving the longer term prevention issues which

require the critical involvement of independent, objective outside experts.

Perhaps a “dual track” could help to resolve the impasse - an expedited

compensation track and a longer term “prevention track” with robust and sincere

participation of outside experts to develop solutions.



We believe that the fact that 55 of the victims supported SHARPS in its statement

of September 7 shows overwhelming support for its position to support the

Mediation Committee proposals.



These longer term issues of how to prevent future illnesses, how to develop safer

chemicals and processes, how to implement thorough and effective workplace

monitoring, and all of the other issues that are addressed in the “Challenge to the

electronics industry” which has been sent to Samsung - are all issues that would

benefit from the formation of the independent foundation. In fact, if Samsung is

sincere in its interest in addressing and resolving these critical issues, it must

realize that the best way to succeed is to work within an independent framework

that includes a diversity of views that will develop effective and credible

solutions. We urge you to support this direction.



For all of these reasons, we reiterate our proposal to Samsung to adopt the

recommendation of the Mediation Committee and to move forward in

collaboration as quickly as possible. We would offer our support if you choose to

adopt this path, as would the many civil society organizations from around the

world that have endorsed the Open Letter. If, however, you continue to dig in

your heels and resist the independent path, these concerns will continue to

fester and grow, which will no doubt hinder effective and credible long term

solutions.”

We are now at an important crossroad in the long term struggle for sustainable electronics. It is clear that Apple and Samsung are the global kingpins and both have been severely challenged by mismanagement and human tragedy in their manufacturing supply chains. Apple was rocked by the rash of Foxconn suicides and the revelation of the use of benzene and leukemia clusters at their sub-contractor factories. They responded by hiring new staff - including Lisa Jackson (former Director of U.S. EPA) as Vice President, and agreed to ban benzene at least in their first tier suppliers.



Now the focus has shifted to Samsung, and we will see what they are made of - will they continue to be a technology leader but a sustainability laggard? Will they continue to travel the “low road” or will they decide to climb up to the “high road”? The future of technology development hangs in the balance. Civil society global leaders are watching intently to see which path Samsung choses.



Ted Smith is founder and former Executive Director of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a grass roots environmental coalition formed in 1982 in response to environmental pollution caused by electronics manufacturing in Silicon Valley, California. Ted is also co-founder and Chair of the steering committee of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which is working to promote life-cycle producer responsibility within the hightech electronics industry. In addition, Ted is co-founder and Coordinator of the International Campaign for Responsible Technology (ICRT), an international network committed to working for the development of sustainable, non-polluting technologies. Ted was recognized by the Dalai Lama for his environmental leadership. He is a widely published author and is co-editor of “Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry” published by Temple University Press, 2006 He is a graduate of Wesleyan University and Stanford Law School and was a VISTA Volunteer in Washington, DC from 1967 - 1969.