Last week I traveled to St. Louis University to speak to students attending the school’s Product Safety Management Course. This executive education course is presented by the Center for Supply Chain Management Studies at the Cook School of Business at the University and is unique in presenting a concentrated focus on product safety-related issues. I was asked to discuss how the CPSC is organized and how agency policy and decisions get made and I discussed my perspectives, as a former commissioner, on the agency’s seemingly more contentious and less collaborative approach to product safety.
The class was made up of professionals from small, medium and global businesses with backgrounds that included law, engineering, business and science. The joy of opportunities like this is not only having several hours with engaged and very smart professionals in the classroom, but also having time outside of class to interact informally. While I hope I imparted knowledge, I know that I learned a great deal.
Boiling it down to a sentence, here was my message to the class: The CPSC is moving to more aggressive and expansive regulations and more aggressive and punitive enforcement. For companies that want to stay out of the agency’s sights, they should consider, among other things,
- implementing strategies to update and fine-tune their compliance programs;
- making sure that they have appropriate written procedures for addressing safety complaints and can demonstrate those procedures are followed;
- having and being able to show good control over their supply chain;
- keeping good records to show a testing program, test results and compliance with applicable regulations; and
- registering for the Business Portal of the Public Database as one device to know what some consumers are saying about their products.
Of course, safety must always be a core value of the company, and at all levels, including senior management. Unless that is true, none of these efforts will be truly effective in minimizing a company’s exposure.
I also learned a great deal from the students. One message especially resonated since it came from several different class members from different types of companies. These students described the importance their companies placed on regulatory compliance in the face of very constrained resources. They described the challenges of complying with different regulatory approaches to addressing the same risks, on local, state, national and international levels. They described different testing methods to measuring compliance—tests mandated by regulatory bodies in the U.S and abroad and by cautious retail customers who want to assure that the CPSC does not appear on their doorstep and have the market power to make those tests happen—with all these tests differing one from the other. The complaint I heard was that there is an expectation of compliance with no realistic understanding of the level of resource needed for full compliance, given the complexity of the myriad rules that have now been issued. Nor is there any effort, or feeling of responsibility, on the part of the government to simplify those rules to make them less burdensome so that compliance can be more realistically achieved.
Bottom line from my Midwest journey: The real world speaks but the government does not hear.