Communications on open thematic sessions > #2 Major Industrial Risks and Environments

Contacts for submissions

Michèle Dupré : michele.dupre@msh-lse.fr

Jean-Christophe Le Coze : Jean-Christophe.LECOZE@ineris.fr

Aims and Scope of the session

Major Industrial Risks (RIM) related to industrial activities remain serious problems that are still topical, as shown by the AZF disaster in 2001 and the fire at the Lubrizol chemical plant in 2019 in Rouen. These questions are always the subject of the attention of researchers with an insider approach and attentive to the manufacture of the prevention of ADRs within these complex socio-technical systems that are nuclear, gas, petrochemical, mining, chemical, metallurgical, hydroelectric facilities, etc. Their work aims to describe and analyze the plurality of actions to be implemented internally and externally with the aim of unveiling the internal functioning (Bourrier, 2001, Dupré, Le Coze, 2014, 2021, Hopkins, 2012, Le Coze, 2016, Perrow, 1984, Turner, 1978, Vaughan, 1997). It is now clear that maintaining a certain level of safety is the result of a rather complex set of factors that are not limited to the application of rules, instructions, etc. This work is complementary to that which addresses the issue of ADRs from the outside, through territories for example (Bécot, Le Naour, 2023, Flanquart, 2016) or through public action (Bonnaud, Martinais, 2008).

However, the current period is marked by new issues that raise the issue of RIMs once again. Consider, for example, global warming. From being a source of pollution to the social and technical environment, these factories can also be affected by events caused by climate change: floods, fires, rising temperatures that influence the use of products. Let us also think of the desire for reindustrialisation expressed by various interlocutors to regain an 'industrial sovereignty' that was lacking during the Covid pandemic in a globalisation that stretched global value chains. Let's also think of the digitalization of organizations (teleworking, cybersecurity, automation-artificial intelligence) which is shaping new environments for employees, new conditions for making security on a daily basis. What are the multiple effects of this, in the organizations and territories concerned by these new establishments? In addition, the revival of mining raises old questions in a new way, particularly about the major accidents that occur in these productive entities.

The ambition of the book on which this session is based (Dupré, Le Coze, 2025), was precisely to broaden the view by comparing internal and external visions, by crossing the views of chercheur.es from different disciplines, towards a better understanding of their potential articulations, by going beyond the times and spaces taken into account by public and private managers of RIMs.

The problem is that this need, shared by the community of researchers working on these issues, is not the subject of real interest on the part of the actors concerned, both economic and political actors. And this is all the more so since the major risks are no longer at the forefront of the political agenda, climate risk, the energy transition having occupied everyone's minds for a time (to the point that nuclear power is now thought to be largely risk-free) before being partly put in the background. It can be observed that major risks, as serious as they may be, are now intended to be managed discreetly.

In the face of the nuisances regularly mentioned, the pollution caused by productive activity and the technological risks, it is also clear that the mobilizations have little impact. With the exception of the strong action taken on PFAS, which has benefited from strong media coverage and which may be translated into a law.

In the face of this inaction, we can then raise the need to take the question of the future of industrial sites with major risks as a strong political question to be debated by turning away from a "Manichean, overly simplistic" vision of chemistry for example, as Bernadette Bensaude Vincent, philosopher and specialist in chemistry, indicates: "Chemical, versus natural, The all-black and white pattern of the early environmental movement is no longer tenable. (Bensaude-Vincent, p. 229)

We can then consider different perspectives that shed light on these questions from the inside, or from the outside or in a cross-sectional way. One, more external in its orientation, aims to redefine the way in which society intends to rethink the place of industry in its social and natural environment. The question is therefore broad for long-term action:

What contract does society want to make with both chemistry and the environment? What should be the role of manufacturers? of the State? of civil society in this transition to an industry that is more respectful of health and the environment?

The other perspective, which is more internal in its positioning, draws the consequences of the transformations underway.

Except in times of crisis, the activity of these factories is carried out quietly in the implementation of coordinated professional knowledge and practices of operators, managers and engineers in their daily interactions. The current developments indicated in this text are all new parameters for these professionals.

At the intersection of the internal and the external, new forms of interaction will emerge in the light of current developments.

Our session will welcome contributions from chercheur.es who have participated in this book, but also all the contributions of chercheur.es from various disciplines to the elucidation of these questions relating to the interaction between: RIM/society/environment/climate change.

Dealing with the various themes and possible perspectives mentioned above, our session gains even more relevance in Toulouse, a territory that with the AZF disaster has already experienced the consequences of an internal malfunction on the environment of a factory.

References

Bécot R., Le Naour, G., 2023 Vivre et lutter dans un monde toxique, Violence environnementale et santé à l’âge du pétrole Paris, Seuil.

Bensaude Vincent B., 2005, Faut-il avoir peur de la chimie ?, Les empêcheurs de tourner en rond.

Bonnaud L., Martinais  E., 2008,  Les leçons d’AZF : chronique d’une loi sur les risques industriels, Paris, La Documentation française.

Borraz O., Gilbert C., Joly P.B.,2005, Risques, crises et incertitudes : pour une analyse critique. Cahiers du Gis Risques Collectifs et Situations de Crise, n°3.

Bourrier  M (2001), Organiser la fiabilité organisationnelle, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Dupré M., Le Coze J.-C.,2014, Réactions à risques, regards croisés sur la sécurité dans la chimie, Paris, Lavoisier.

Dupré M., Le Coze J.-C., 2021, Des usines, des matières et des hommes, Paris, Presses des Mines.

Dupré M., Le Coze J.-C., 2025, Risques industriels majeurs et environnements, Lille, Presses du Septentrion (à paraître).

Flanquart H., Des risques et des hommes, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2016.

Hopkins A., 2012, Disastrous decisions, CCH Australia.

Lascoumes P (1991), De l’atteinte à la prévention des risques industriels. In : Dourlens C, Galland JP, Theys J, Vidal Naquet PA (1991). Conquête de la sécurité, gestion des risques. ’Harmattan, Paris.

Lascoumes P., 2012, Action Publique et Environnement, ¨Paris, PUF.

Le Coze J.C., 2016, Trente ans d'accidents - Le nouveau visage des risques sociologiques. Toulouse, Octarès.

Perrow C., 1984, Normal accident theory, living with high risk technology,  New York, Basic Books.

Stengers I., 2009, Au temps des catastrophes, resister à la barbarie qui vient, Paris, La découverte, Les empêcheurs de penser en rond.

Turner B., 1978, Man made disasters. The failure of foresight. Wykeham.

Vaughan D., 1997, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, University of Chicago Press.