Bill Overview
Title: Hide No Harm Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes criminal penalties for corporate officers who fail to inform federal agencies, their employees, or affected individuals of any serious physical danger that is associated with their products or services. It also prohibits retaliatory action against whistleblowers.
Sponsors: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: People who use or are affected by corporate products or services
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill affects corporate officers across the globe as they might have products or services that pose serious physical dangers.
- The bill is relevant to consumers globally who might be using products or services that could be dangerous.
- Employees of corporations worldwide may be affected as it prohibits retaliatory actions against whistleblowers who report dangers.
- Whistleblowers worldwide would benefit as this legislation seeks to protect them.
- Given the global nature of many corporations, the impact extends to multiple countries and thus potentially impacts a global population.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily aims to hold corporate officers accountable for withholding information about serious physical dangers associated with their products or services. This means it directly impacts corporate leaders, potentially improving safety standards and transparency.
- Whistleblowers benefit because this policy provides them with protections when reporting unsafe practices or products, potentially increasing the number of whistleblower reports and leading to safer work environments.
- Consumers could experience indirect benefits by being informed about potentially dangerous products or services, potentially leading to safer consumption choices and improved wellbeing over time.
- The impact differs based on occupation. Corporate officers may experience immediate pressure to comply, while consumers and employees notice changes over a longer duration as corporate practices potentially become safer.
- Given the budget constraints, a strategic focus may be on educating stakeholders about the law and establishing mechanisms to report and protect whistleblowers, resulting in varied impacts among different stakeholders.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Officer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Initially skeptical as initial compliance costs might increase.
- Concerned about the penalties but sees potential benefits in improved consumer trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Product Safety Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees the policy as a positive step towards more transparency in product safety.
- Believes it aligns well with her personal and professional values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels more secure about reporting potential hazards due to the protections.
- Hopes the policy will improve working conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Whistleblower (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees the policy as crucial for his security and professional integrity.
- Encouraged by the additional layer of legal protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Consumer Electronics Buyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Appreciates improved transparency which aids in selecting safer products.
- Believes the policy will enhance market standards globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Corporate Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees this policy aligning with her goals of increased corporate accountability.
- Expects an increase in workload, but supports the positive outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Manufacturing Supervisor (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes the policy should have been implemented sooner.
- Optimistic about the future safety improvements for current workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public Health Researcher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Welcomes the policy as a necessary step toward safer consumer markets.
- Eager to see data on the policy's impact over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes the policy could push companies to better use data to protect users.
- Hopes it leads to higher trust in the tech products.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about possible increased costs due to compliance.
- Hopes the policy will weed out unsafe products thereby increasing customer trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $82000000)
Year 10: $68000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $96000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $130000000)
Key Considerations
- High variability in compliance costs among corporations due to diverse operational sizes and sectors.
- Potential backlash or lobbying from corporate entities against the policy's enforcement.
- The effectiveness of protections for whistleblowers could significantly influence the policy's success.