Here is an interview, whether to close the industry? And analyze your reasons, what would you suggest in the face of employee unemployment and the health of the population? Introduction Today, we will discover the pollution caused by ArcelorMittal through interviews. It is one of the largest steel producers in Europe. The steel plant that was opened in Taranto has had a negative impact on the environment and the people of the region. Created to combat Italy's rising unemployment rate, the steel plant has become more of a curse than a blessing for the people of Taranto. The Italian state has failed to help its citizens and protect the environment from the additional pollution caused by the company. ArcelorMittal has tried to use new innovations to try to limit the pollution, but the problem has gotten out of hand and the company now poses social and environmental risks. Part 1. Journalist: We are fortunate to have several speakers on this digital set who specialize in this case which is full of twists and turns. I would like to thank each of you for being here and for coming to decipher this case. To begin, I will immediately put the first question to our first speaker, Pauline Heyrendt. This case seems to involve many different actors, can you name them and explain the consequences for each party? Speaker: Hello, thank you for having me on this panel. Indeed, many actors are involved in this case, starting with the inhabitants of Torrente and the ArcelorMittal group. The latter wanted to cut 6,000 jobs, but in order to protect the population from unemployment, which was already very high, the Italian state decided to buy AM. This meant that no jobs would be cut at the expense of environmental conditions. There are two other actors also very important: the court where the residents of Torrente appealed in 2015 as well as M5S and its leader Luigi Di Maio: During the 2018 legislative campaign, the leader of M5S Luigi Di Maio had promised the population of the region the unconditional closure of the site and support for employees... Except that once in power, he changed his mind and let the senators question the legal protection of the group. (Let me also make a point about the Italian government, which is very important. (It should also be noted that the country has undergone many political changes in recent decades, including having adopted the most a right-wing government in Europe since the advent of the republic. The country is far behind its European compatriots (one and a half centuries behind) and two powers have been in continuous conflict for decades: the Christian Democracy and the Communist Party. These tensions have also had an impact on the ArcelorMittal affair and political interests). Part 2. Journalist: Who were the responsible persons involved in this affair? Within the ArcelorMittal organization, many actors were responsible and contributed to the pollution of the site. The takeover of the Ilva branch was a strategic decision, taken by the group in order to move a little closer to its objective: to become a "European steel giant". It was the senior management of ArcelorMittal who first put this project into practice. First of all, there is the CEO, Lakshmi Mittal, the Vice President Stefan Buys and the CFO and Flat Steel Europe, Aditya Mittal among others. Then we turn to the people who were in charge of managing the Italian site and ensuring that the company's activities were problem-free: Lucia Morselli, the CEO, the financial director, the head of purchasing, the head of human resources, but also the head of legal affairs, the production manager, the head of environment, health and safety, the coordinator of the investment plan and finally the general manager of quality. Part 3. Journalist: Can we specify exactly who the leaders in this case are and explain what happened? What choices were made and what difficulties had to be overcome? Speaker (Constance): In this case, among all the actors involved, we have two different leaders: Arcelor Mittal and the Italian State. At the very beginning of the affair, the Torrente region had a growing need for jobs and Italy was in the midst of disinflation. The arrival of Arcelor Mittal seemed to be a stroke of luck and a real opportunity for the people and the country. ArcelorMittal's managers were looking for a place to base their production. All the other countries refused to accept their establishment because of the environmental dangers that such a type of production represented. Even though this seemed like a great opportunity for the two leaders, there were still negotiations but nothing limiting for the company. Regarding the choices and difficulties, the leaders had two options: either save the unemployment rate or avoid the pollution. If they chose to save the unemployment rate and preserve jobs, then there would have been a deterioration of the environment and living conditions because of the pollution. On the other hand, if they chose to preserve the environment and protect the inhabitants of Torrente from pollution, people would have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate would have exploded knowing that it was already very high... Journalist: Concretely, today, what are the risks linked to the production? Speaker : As my colleagues have already mentioned, we are in a situation with multiple risks. Among these risks we have, 1) The environmental risk Indeed, the risk of pollution from ArcelorMittal in Taranto has been and still is the subject of numerous discussions and debates between the company, the government and the European Union. In order to limit the risks of pollution caused by the production of steel, the company is investing massively in innovation to limit the flow of pollution. However, despite all the efforts made by the various parties, the situation is deteriorating. Indeed, the pollution is growing, the anger of the inhabitants of Taranto is felt and the company is pointed out. Faced with this critical situation, Arcelormittal has even considered withdrawing in 2019 to avoid any further problems. Indeed, it was afraid that the repercussions would be too great and thought that this problem could go beyond Taranto. 2) The social risk ArcelorMittal's risk is not only environmental but also social. "When production increased, mortality increased", "Scientific studies have shown that in the Taranto area there is an excessive number of cases of certain diseases" - 2020. Thus it is scientifically proven that the production of the steel plant impacts the quality of life of the inhabitants of Taranto and that this impact is more and more obvious the closer one gets to the plant. 3) Industrial Finally, we are talking about an international company and the largest steel plant in Europe. Therefore, when we talk about the takeover or industrial closure of such a large plant, it is obvious that the consequences in terms of employability are at stake. Today it is estimated that 8,000 - 10,000 workers will be lost at this steel plant. The risk of unemployment in the country can thus be strongly impacted if the closure of the steel plant were to happen. Journalist: I suppose you have solutions to limit these risks? Yes, of course we are working on solutions that could be put in place to reduce the risks. For example, we are working on a relocation program for the inhabitants. In order to limit the risks linked to the toxicity of steel production, the government and Arcelormittal could set up a relocation program for the inhabitants so that there are no more victims linked to pollution. This program could allow the inhabitants to find a new home far from the production area. In the long run, no more inhabitants would be exposed to the pollution except for the workers who will be equipped to deal with the pollution. The social risk that was mentioned earlier would be eliminated. In order to reduce risks, it is clear that production must become more responsible. Thus, stakeholders must find an agreement to limit waste. This can be done by slowing down production so that it does not exceed a certain peak, or by allowing unlimited production that is more environmentally friendly. The second option requires investment from ArcelorMittal and the government in innovation and R&D to find alternative solutions, notably by creating new machines with low CO2 emissions