Effective March 17, 2020, San Francisco and six other Bay Area counties passed “Shelter in Place” ordinances preventing workers not engaged in providing Essential Activities, working at Essential Businesses or providing Essential Government Services from leaving their homes to go to work. Such laws are now being considered throughout the country. This alert provides actionable steps companies can take to ensure that Shelter in Place laws in their jurisdictions do not inadvertently block employees from getting to work at their Essential Businesses.

First, be proactive, contact your state and local government officials to make sure they understand why your business is essential. If your product or service is truly essential, no government official is going to want to be blamed for inadvertently causing a shortage of that product. Note the Bay Area Orders define Essential Businesses to include “Businesses that supply other essential businesses with the support or supplies necessary

The Modern Slavery Act (“MSA”) was introduced in the United Kingdom in October 2015 introducing criminal offences of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking. However, its most profound impact has been to drive a change in global business behaviour by introducing, pursuant to s54, a disclosure and transparency reporting approach. This requires a commercial organisation supplying goods or services (carrying on a business, of part of a business, in the UK with a turnover of £36M) to produce an annual statement on steps taken to combat slavery and human trafficking not only to a business’ direct operations but also their supply chains.

Following the MSA a legislative trend utilising due diligence and disclosure obligations to further responsible business conduct has developed and been reinforced by developing case law and test cases seeking to hold businesses accountable for social/human rights related issues. The launch of global Principles in 2018 for governments to use as

During Steve Poplawski’s June presentation at the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois’ Hot Topics conference on the opportunities and challenges presented by current efforts to make the life cycle of plastics more sustainable, one of the challenges raised by the audience was whether corporate sustainability pledges to improve packaging were getting ahead of consumer acceptance. An article published by WasteDive focusing on McDonald’s green pilot restaurants in Canada, suggests there is a business case for risking being ahead of consumer acceptance on this issue as a way of being ahead of an inevitable curve promoted by efforts like Yelp’s piloting of sustainability scoring at restaurants.

In speaking to over 200 EHS professionals in Kansas City in April, Steve made a similar argument on doubling down on sustainability.  In that presentation, Steve made the case that it was to every company’s advantage to develop and own their individual corporate sustainability

PFAS are currently the subject of significant regulatory action, research, litigation, and public debate based on recent reports which claim that two PFAS, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (“PFOA”) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (“PFOS”), that were formerly used in a variety of industries may be carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. Several states have begun investigating and regulating the levels of PFAS in drinking water, and in some cases, for example Minnesota and New York, have sued manufacturers of the chemicals themselves or products that historically contained PFOA and PFOS, bringing claims for the recovery of natural resource damages, trespass, nuisance, and negligence.

EPA has historically addressed these chemicals through a stewardship program under which the companies that manufactured PFOA and PFOS agreed to voluntarily stop their production, and companies that used PFOA and PFOS agreed to stop importing them. Now, however, Acting Administrator Wheeler is under increasing bipartisan pressure to take federal regulatory action.

Into the