Assessing Responsible Care implementation for sustainability in Malaysian chemical industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The Responsible Care programme was first introduced in Canada in 1985 and now is implemented worldwide as one of the chemical industries' commitments to improve the industries' public image as well as their performance in health, safety and environmental aspects. In Malaysia, the Responsible Care programme has been implemented since 1994 with a current total of 148 companies pledged to implement it in their company; however, the effectiveness of the programme remains unknown. Hence, this paper aims to assess the effectiveness of the Responsible Care programme in improving performance in the environment, health and safety in terms of documentation, training, selection processes and stakeholders' engagement for the sustainability of chemical industries. Design/methodology/approach A survey was administered to the Responsible Care signatory companies in Malaysia. Of these, a total of 132 member companies either produced or provided services related to chemical products. Findings The majority of signatory companies agreed that the Responsible Care programme did improve their performance in the environment, health and safety. Besides that, the signatory companies were also keeping up their commitment to ensuring documentation, training, selection process and stakeholders' engagement run smoothly in line with Responsible Care's mission. Originality/value After more than two decades of implementation in Malaysia, it is important to assess the Responsible Care programme's effectiveness. As an increasing number of chemical firms, without good management, it will possibly pose a danger to the environment and human health and safety. Through assessment, advances in Responsible Care management practices will considerably increase programme effectiveness in terms of environmental health and safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".