Evaluating the Justice and Risk Dimensions of Ethylene Oxide Governance in the US

We investigate the governance and environmental justice (EJ) outcomes from the hazard reclassification of ethylene oxide (EtO) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2016. In response to EtO pollution after 2018, federal and state regulators engaged constituents to respond to complaints about EtO but adhered to a cost-benefit governance approach that ultimately inhibited risk mitigation. We argue risk mitigation was constrained by path dependent approaches that simultaneously enabled recognition of constituent concerns about EtO pollution while minimizing the costs of institutional change. Drawing on data from government documents and interviews, we analyze governance responses in Illinois and Georgia, selected due to their cross-cutting exposures to EtO and public mobilization in response to EtO risk. Our research reveals how structural and political factors limit risk mitigation and create a mismatch between environmental outcomes and public expectations. Drawing from theories of environmental justice and risk society, we show how this acceptance of EtO risk aligns with Ulrich Beck's theory of a risk society while generating significant justice concerns for its inability to consider how risk experiences vary according to social class.