DuPont

Last edited by Charlie Cray on August 28, 2008 - 10:54am

Company Snapshot:

DuPont is the third-largest chemical maker in the U.S., behind only Dow and Exxon Mobil Chemicals. In addition to chemicals, Dupont produces genetically modified seeds, synthetic fibres, coatings, electronics and security devices. DuPont's revenues totalled over $26.6 billion in 2005.

Ownership status:

Publicly traded

Number of employees worldwide:

60,000

Chief executive officer:

Charles O. Holliday Jr.

2008 Global Fortune 500 rank:

252

Website:

http://www.dupont.com

Corporate accountability

Accountability overview:

There is hardly a single chemical toxin in which DuPont has not played a major role in developing. “The company pioneered the production of sulphur dioxide, leaded petrol, CFC's and recently deep well injection of hazardous waste. The company then used dubious science, political manipulation and cover up to avoid restrictions on their use.” During its 200 years of existence, DuPont has committed a staggering amount of corporate crimes (far too many to mention here). The following section contains just a selection of these.

At the 2006 shareholder meeting, the Amalgamated Bank of New York is calling on DuPont to "issue a report on PFOA compounds used in DuPont products by the 2007 annual meeting, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, evaluating the feasibility of an expeditious phase-out of the use of PFOA in the production of all DuPont products including materials that may degrade to PFOA in use or in the environment, and the development and adoption of safer substitutes." [Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, 05/01/2006]

The New York City Employees Retirement System (NYC Pension Funds), that holds all of these companies in its portfolio, has filed a resolution with each company asking for the development of a code of conduct that is based on the International Labor Organization's core labor standards and the UN's Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations with Regards to Human Rights. ILO conventions include the right to form and join a union, a prohibition on discrimination and intimidation, and prohibition against forced labor, child labor, and prison labor. [Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, 01/01/2006]

Five New York City pension funds filed shareholder proposals with 13 companies requesting the adoption of workplace human rights policies. According to the New York Comptroller's office, these policies are to include "banning child labor; allowing all workers to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively; prohibiting discrimination of worker representatives; barring discrimination or intimidation in employment; and, not using forced labor, including bonded or prison labor." Among others, proposals were filed with Kimberly Clark of Dallas, TX, in which the systems own 1.6 million shares worth $109 million; Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. of Union, NJ, in which the systems own more than 1 million shares worth $40.9 million; E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company of Wilmington, DE, in which the systems own 3.2 million shares worth $163.9 million. [New York City Comptroller Office, 02/24/2005]

In 2005, Charles O. Holliday made $8.07 billion in total compensation including stock option grants from DuPont. From years past, DuPont’s CEO cashed out $92,990 in stock option grants. Holliday received another $2.2 billion in unexercised stock options from previous years.

Labor:

Health and Safety

DuPont has a miserable environmental health and safety record and, in the past, has frequently run afoul of occupational safety and health laws. In 1987, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that DuPont had deliberately concealed medical records identifying that several workers were suffering illnesses related to asbestos exposure. The same year, DuPont’s then subsidiary Consolidation Coal was cited for ‘reckless disregard’ in reporting worker injuries. Consolidation Coal was also among a group of coal companies fined for falsifying air samples provided to federal inspectors testing for conditions that could cause black lung disease.

In 1999 the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined DuPont $70,000 for Health and Safety record keeping violations at its Seaford DE plant in the US. The company was also ordered to implement a series of Health and Safety improvements. Health and Safety records at the site were investigated in response to a complaint filed by an employee, whose cumulative trauma injury was not acknowledged by the company as work-related. It was found that the company failed to record 117 occupational injury and illness cases during 1997 and 1998 that should have been recorded and that certain cases of injury and illness were recorded incorrectly.

Ripping off pensioners

DuPont has been recently been criticised for redesigning its U.S. health-care plan. This has dramatically increased the premiums for the company’s approximately 61,000 retirees and surviving spouses aged 65 and older.

Genetic Screening

In the early 1980s, DuPont was reported to have tested thousands of US workers to determine if any of their genes made them vulnerable to certain chemicals in the workplace. The company also apparently gave blood tests to all black job applicants to determine which were carriers of sickle-cell anaemia.

Environment and product safety:

DuPont was rated as the number one worst polluter on the Political Economy Research Institute's Toxic 100 index. The index is based on 2002 EPA Toxics Release Inventory data. PERI's Toxic 100 index ranks the nation's largest companies based on the quantity of their emissions, relative toxicity of chemicals emitted, and proximity to population centers, among other criteria.

Dupont was fined $10.25 million dollars and agreed to pay an additional $6.25 million for environmental projects to settle charges that it concealed information on the toxicity of a particular chemical used in its signature Teflon coating. The EPA argued that for 20 years Dupont deliberately covered up facts about the serious environmental and health dangers of the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also called C-8, which contaminated water supplies near its plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. PFOA has been identified as a likely human carcinogen.

Studies have shown that DuPont's Teflon non-stick coating releases toxic and potentially deadly gases as the particles breakdown under intense heat during cooking. Toxic offgases are produced at as low as 446°F, and at 680°F Teflon coating emits six toxic compounds including two cancer-causing agents, two global pollutants, and MFA which at low doses can be lethal to humans. Temperatures of 1000°F (which can be reached by stovetop pans) will cause Teflon and other non-stick coatings to break down to a chemical warfare agent called PFIB. DuPont has stated that non-stick coating can suffer serious decomposition at temperatures above 660°F, which the company claims is far above average cooking temperatures. The Environmental Working Group conducted tests that showed Teflon coated pans reaching 721°F within five minutes of sitting on a stovetop.

Gases from Teflon coating can cause "polymer fume fever," the symptoms of which resemble the common flu. Ailments include tightness of the chest, cough, headache, chills, fever, and shortness of breath. Teflon and non-stick coating has been linked to the deaths of hundreds of household birds.

According to the United Steelworkers International Union, DuPont lacks sufficient safety training for its workers, safety guidelines are poorly written and implemented, and factories are poorly designed. In addition, DuPont fails to record workplace injuries to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. According to OSHA, in 1997 and 1998, DuPont neglected to report 117 occupational injuries and illnesses. DuPont was fined $70,000 with instructions to conduct a corporate-wide review of injury and illness records over five years.

DuPont’s factories have experienced hundreds of chemical accidents:

On October 11, 2004, four citations were issued to DuPont after its Wurtland, Kentucky facility leaked hundreds of pounds of sulfuric acid into the ground, water, and air.
In July 2003, DuPont reached a $1.1 million legal settlement with the Justice Department and the EPA over Clean Air Act violations for the May 1997 chemical contamination in Louisville, Kentucky. Roughly 11,500 pounds of hydrogen fluoride had escaped into the air.
In July 2005, seven people had minor injuries during a maintenance clean-up at Sabine River Works plant.

DuPont has contributed to over 20 superfund sites, which are identified as the nation’s worst toxic waste sites. Sites that put people most at risk are placed on the National Priority List (NPL); two of DuPont’s sites have made the list. In addition, DuPont has numerous other contaminated sites that require clean-up and remediation. US Steelworkers International Union, 09/01/2005

Control of the food chain

Now the largest seed company in the world, DuPont is exerting increasingly more control over the human food chain. The company supplies seeds, agricultural inputs and also owns food-processing technologies. Recently Dupont and Monsanto decided to live in sync by sharing their proprietary agricultural biotechnologies with one another. The decision was met with alarm by the ETC Group, which believes that the quasi-merger will result in less choice for farmers, at the same or higher prices. Hope Shand, Research Director at the ETC, expressed concern that the companies “are being allowed to create global technology cartels that run below the radar screens of anti-trust regulators.”

In 2000, the Foundation on Economic Trends and the National Family Farm Coalition filed a lawsuit against DuPont and other GM seed producers, on behalf of both U.S. and international farmers who purchased genetically modified (GM) corn and/or soybeans, as well as farmers engaged in farming non-GM crops in the 1999-2000 growing season. They allege that the company was involved in a global cartel engaged in biotech product price-fixing. According to the plaintiffs' complaint, a 1996 internal Monsanto document known as the "Maize Protection Business Plan" describes how Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Novartis and AstraZeneca amongst others, formed a global cartel to monopolize and restrain trade in the GM seed market, effectively precluding additional competitors from entering the marketplace.

Biopiracy and patenting

DuPont owns over 20,000 worldwide patents and over 14,000 worldwide patent applications. In 2001, it was granted almost 500 U.S. patents and over 1,800 international patents. The company has been branded by Greenpeace as the “World-wide leader in biopiracy of plant genetic resources”. ‘Biopiracy’ is the term used to describe the patenting of genes, by private companies, that were originally selected for by indigenous people, using traditional breeding methods. Many developing countries regard this as the theft of their genetic resources, and biopiracy has become an extremely contentious issue in recent years. Greenpeace has accused DuPont of using ‘tricky patents’ (i.e. passing off items as their ‘inventions’ when they quite clearly aren’t) in an attempt to gain control over the most important food crops. They observe that DuPont has “a natural interest both in owning and exploiting plant genetic material, mostly derived from developing countries, and in replacing farmers’ own local varieties with few patented crops – and their often associated inputs.”

A number of cases of DuPont abusing patent law have come to light recently. These include a patent application accepted by the European Patent Office in August 2000 (Patent EP 744888). This covers all maize plants containing over 50% oil, including those produced by traditional breeding methods. The patent also covers any use of these maize varieties, including cultivation, harvesting, and processing, whether for food, animal fodder or industrial use. By obtaining this patent DuPont has managed to pass off any such varieties of maize as its invention. This is despite the fact that such varieties already exist in Latin America, having been obtained through traditional breeding techniques. According to the Mexico based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), “this patent may considerably impede the development of maize varieties in Latin America.” Dr Sukestoshi Taba from CIMMYT states that the patent could “seriously discourage further research on maize oil content if it is not challenged.”

According to Greenpeace, the maize patent application is just one example of a systematic strategy that DuPont is using to gain control of the most important food crops. Other ‘tricky patents’ that DuPont has filed based on fake ‘inventions’ include:

Describing special plant ingredients (e.g. protein or oil) and claiming all genetic resources with these characteristics.
Changing certain details in hybrid breeding processes and claiming all resulting seeds and plants.
Using cell culture techniques to reproduce plant genetic material and claiming all genetic resources with given characteristics.
Isolating genes in genome databanks and claiming gene sequences as their inventions.
Transferring foreign genes into existing varieties, then claiming all plants and seeds with the inserted genes.

Dupont has also faced heavy criticism for it patenting of the oncomouse – a mouse genetically engineered to carry a cancer-causing gene.

Pollution

(see also Endangering the public’s health)

DuPont has an appalling pollution record and is responsible for the production of a wide range of polluting chemicals. In 1999 DuPont was listed by the US Public Interest Research Groups as one of the ‘Dirty Five’ – the five biggest polluters in the US – that together spent $6,523,677 over the period 1991-1998 in lobbying Congress, the House of Representatives and Superfund-related committees in order to prevent stricter legislation (see Influence).

In 1996 DuPont’s proposal to dispose of 85 tons of toxic pollutants a year into the Guadalupe River in Texas prompted a local shrimper, Dianne Wilson, to go on hunger strike for 31 days. The proposal related to a DuPont facility, which already disposed of 20 million gallons of wastewater a day, mainly through seven underground injection wells. Ms Wilson argued that “DuPont's decision to begin toxic discharge into the Guadalupe River threatens an already sick bay. There is no need for this. Zero discharge is possible right now. All I am asking is that DuPont do a feasibility study to find out what it would take to achieve zero wastewater discharge from its Victoria plant.” DuPont however refused to accede to Wilson's demands. This is despite the fact that independent research has demonstrated that virtually any petrochemical plant can go to zero water discharge with an additional capital investment of about 2 percent.

In March 1991, the area around DuPont's Quimica Fluor plant in Matamoros, Mexico, was judged so toxic that the Mexican President ordered 30,000 people to give up their homes in order to create a two mile buffer zone around the site. The company paid $2.16 million to nearby farmers whose crops were damaged by toxic releases.

Oil exploration

Although DuPont has now sold its oil subsidiary Conoco, in the past this company was responsible for its fair share of environmental devastation and had an appalling Health and Safety record. Since DuPont today still remains heavily dependent on the oil industry to provide it with the raw materials of its business, the company must shoulder its share of the blame for the atrocities committed by its suppliers.

Global warming and carbon trading

Through its production of energy intensive petrochemical-based synthetic fibres, DuPont is a major contributor to global warming. The company produces large quantities of the greenhouse gases CO2, N2O (which has 310 times the warming effect of CO2), HFCs and PFCs. DuPont is also reported to have provided funding for the Global Climate Coalition, a global fossil-fuel lobby set up by Burson-Marsteller in 1989 in an attempt to discredit scientific evidence for global warming.

More recently, DuPont has been making a small fortune at the taxpayers expense through the new UK emissions trading scheme. This year the company looks set to walk away with £26.7 million of taxpayers’ money by bidding in emissions targets that have already been met as a result of regulatory requirements. According to the ENDS Report, the company looks set to meet its emissions target without lifting a finger and stands to make millions more by selling emissions credits of “dubious integrity”.

3 case studies:

The following three examples show just how far DuPont is prepared to go to keep its toxic products on the market, regardless of their detrimental effects on human health and the environment.

· Tetraethyl lead In the 1920s DuPont and General Motors developed tetraethyl lead, also known as ethyl, to help car engines run more smoothly (see History and Strategy). The product has been labelled by the World Health Organisation as “the mistake of the 20th Century”. The lead ingredient of leaded petrol, TEL is said to account for 80-90% of all environmental lead contamination and is known to retard the mental development of children, cause hypertension in adults and impair coordination. According to Curtis Moore, former counsel to US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, leaded gasoline “has irrevocably damaged the intelligence of two generations of American children and is responsible for 50,000 deaths a year by heart attack and stroke”.

The chemical was discovered to be dangerous to human health quite early on. In 1924, reports broke out that 80 percent of workers involved in the production of TEL at DuPont and Standard Oil plants had been killed or severely poisoned. When TEL was pulled off the market, DuPont ran a series of advertisements in Life magazine, and managed to reverse the decision after a hearing in which it called TEL an “apparent Gift of God”. To entrench its market position, DuPont introduced a new car engine that ran only on leaded petrol. The product was finally banned half a century later, after scientists conclusively proved its detrimental affects. In December 1988, the US Department of Justice sought to collect $9.2 million from DP for illegally blending excessively high levels of lead into gasoline between 1983-1985.

Once banned in the US in the 1980s, DuPont exported TEL to other countries where it was not banned. With Pemex, the Mexican Oil Company, it exported TEL to Latin America. DuPont finally sold its 40% shares in the production plant in Coatzalcoalcos, Mexico in 1992. According to the Council on Economic Priorities 1993 report on DuPont, the company has “aggressively promoted the use of leaded gasoline”.

· Ozone depletants (CFCs, HCFCs) “The parallel’s between DuPont’s handling of CFCs and Ethyl are striking. Both were invented by the same team in the same lab at roughly the same time…the DuPont company adopted similar strategies to maintain sales of these environmentally hazardous products. In both cases, DuPont answered critics’ concerns about health and environmental hazards with bold faced denials.” Curtis Moore, Multinational Monitor, 3/1990[64]

CFCs were developed and patented by DuPont in the 1930s. In 1993, the company supplied 25% of the global CFC market and almost 50% of the US market. When ozone depletion was identified in 1974, DuPont was prominent in downplaying the scientific findings and in “orchestrating a political campaign to forestall regulation.” At the same time the company was investing in researching alternatives. To strengthen the commercial sector drive for a non-regulatory approach, DuPont used its network to establish the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy. However, as the threat of federal legislation died down with the Reagan Administration, DuPont put a stop to its $3-4 million research programme for alternatives.

In 1988, when pressure against the use of CFCs again began to mount, DuPont pledged to cease CFC production by 2000. As part of its solution strategy, the company put forward two of its products - Hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs) and Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) as substitutes for CFCs. At the time, neither of these chemicals were regulated by the Montreal Protocol or the US Environmental Protection Agency. HCFCs, however, have proven to be ozone depleters and greenhouse gases, while HFCs are potent greenhouse gases. As HCFCs and HFCs began to be criticised for their environmental effects, DuPont once again launched a multi-pronged strategy to ensure weak regulation and a distant phase-out.

According to a 1996 Third World Network (TWN) report, DuPont will continue to manufacture CFCs in the US and other industrialised countries for export to the less-industrialised world until 2010. The company will also continue the use of HCFCs in industrialised countries until 2030, with no termination date set for less industrialised countries. The company is still also involved in the production of HFCs. According to Jack Doyle from TWN "DuPont is probably most culpable for stringing out the CFC era for its own business reasons and for delaying a shift to safe alternatives."

· Benlate On April 19th 2001 DuPont announced that by the end of the year it would stop selling the fungicide Benlate, after 33 years on the market. The company cited the high legal cost of defending the product as the reason for its decision. Litigation and settlement charges relating to the compound have cost the company approximately $1 billion over the last ten years. DuPont has set aside additional money to cover future losses and litigation expenses, bringing the total financial cost to $1.3 billion dollars.

DuPont’s problems with the fungicide began in 1992 when it recalled its Benlate 50DF fungicide, in response to complaints from more than 2,100 US growers that the chemical had ruined their crops and land. The fungicide is believed to have been contaminated with a herbicide. By November of that year the company had paid more than $510 million in damages. The company then abruptly stopped payments however, claiming that its own tests showed that Benlate could not have caused the damage. As a result, more than 400 lawsuits were filed against the company in 21 states. Since then the company has been reprimanded five times by US for abusive litigation tactics and misconduct, including concealing evidence that supported the growers’ claims. DuPont was accused of shredding documents, destroying dead and dying plants, mislabelling documents and producing illegible records in an effort to withhold the results.

In one of the cases US District Court Judge J. Robert Elliot fined DuPont $115 million. In his decision Elliot wrote that “Put in layperson’s terms DuPont cheated…and it cheated deliberately and with purpose.” In August 2001, a Florida jury found the company liable under Florida’s racketeering statute (this allows plaintiffs to recover treble damages where they can prove a continuing pattern of fraud) and for product defect involving alleged crop damage. Plaintiffs are seeking to have judgement entered for about $88.5 million. As of 2001, DuPont plans to appeal.

Twenty-eight cases are also pending against DuPont in the State Court in Broward County, Florida. These cases were brought by Ecuadorian shrimp farmers, who allege that Benlate run-off from banana plantations poisoned their shrimp farms. The company lost two cases to the shrimp farmers in the autumn of 2000 and in early 2001, and was ordered to pay $10.2 million and $12.3 million respectively. The company has appealed both cases. DuPont contends that the injuries alleged are attributable to a virus, Taura Syndrome Virus, and in no way involved Benlate. The untried cases are on hold awaiting resolution by the appellate court of the case tried in 2000.

There are also concerns about the impact of Benlate on human health. The company has faced a string of lawsuits in recent years, brought by parents whose children were born without eyes. These defects are alleged to have occurred due to the children’s mothers being exposed to the fungicide Benlate whilst pregnant. Reports in the UK from the Pesticides Trust indicate that the fungicide can cause eye birth defects at high dose exposure.

The whole Benlate affair is a constant headache to DuPont, with approximately 110 cases pending and no end in site. Nevertheless the company still purports that “Benlate did not cause the damages alleged in these cases” and “denies the allegations of fraud and misconduct.”

Social responsibility:

Endangering the public’s health

Numerous DuPont products and the pollution caused by their production have been implicated in a range of different health problems, including cancer and birth defects (see also Pollution).

DuPont has faced criticism for endangering the health of both its employees and the public (see also Working Conditions).

Former DuPont Top Expert: Company Knew, Covered Up Pollution of Americans' Blood for 18 Years link

According to the Working Group on the Community’s Right to Know, a 1998 analysis of ten DuPont chemical plants shows that up to seven million people in surrounding communities are at risk from potential worst-case chemical accidents. The analysis of the plants’ hazards addressed three chemicals commonly associated with chemical accidents -chlorine, ammonia, and hydrofluoric acid.

Irresponsible waste disposal

DuPont has an appalling record of irresponsible waste disposal although it is impossible to quantify how many people’s lives have been adversely affected by the company’s dash for profits at any cost.

In 1990 it was revealed that a former DuPont landfill site, in Newport, New Castle County, Delaware had contaminated the groundwater both on and off the site, with heavy metals, including barium, cadmium, and zinc, as well as trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the pollution potentially threatened the water supply of 131,000 people.

DuPont is one of the companies that operates in what has become known as “Chemical Valley” in Sarnia, Ontario. Chemicals discharged into the St. Clair River from this site include mercury, chlorinated organics, volatile hydrocarbons, PCBs and lead. The high levels of birth defects and cancer among indigenous residents on Walpoe Island have been attributed to pollution from the site.

In 1998 DuPont was ordered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out a $65 million clean up of its Necco Park landfill site near Niagara Falls. This was necessary due to concerns regarding hazardous liquid seepage from the site.

Pesticide production

Some of the chemicals used in pesticides produced and marketed by DuPont have been linked to brain damage and disruption of the hormone system. The company has also faced a string of lawsuits in recent years, brought by parents whose children were born without eyes. These defects are alleged to have occurred due to the children’s mothers being exposed to the fungicide Benlate whilst pregnant (See Benlate). In 2007 DuPont settled these lawsuits agreeing to pay $9 million in damages. Since the 1950s DuPont has paid more than $1 billion in settlements and legal fees on claims of damage from Benlate.

In 1994 DuPont agreed to phase out its toxic herbicide Cyanazine by 1999, when the US EPA discovered that it and other related herbicides were contaminating drinking water in parts of the US. DuPont’s Sulfonylurea (SU) Herbicides, which it bills as environmentally sound and cost-effective, have also been found to be toxic according to studies by the US EPA and the National Coalition against the Misuse of Pesticides. These chemicals may also contaminate surface and ground waters, due to their high solubility in water and low soil absorption.

DuPont has been criticised for exporting pesticides to developing countries, such as DDT, aldrin, clordane, and clorobenzolate, that have been banned in the US. However, even pesticides that are considered scientifically ‘safe’ can be dangerous in these areas. Due high illiteracy levels, farmers may ignore, or not understand, warning labels or instructions for proper use. Pesticides applied in too large doses, or to the wrong crops result in lethal consequences. DuPont was recently fined $1.89 million by the US EPA for shipping pesticides on 380 occasions, without adequate labelling specifying that protective eyewear should be used when handling the product.

Lead paint

The company is one of several facing dozens of lawsuits seeking recovery of lead paint damage and cleanup costs. State, county and local governments in New Jersey and Rhode Island in the US argue that lead paint manufacturers should have known and warned of health dangers.

Formaldehyde

DuPont is a major producer of formaldehyde. This chemical is a known carcinogen and is also implicated in other health problems such as respiratory illness. Despite this, DuPont has vigorously fought efforts to get the chemical banned, using spurious science and disinformation. It is one of the companies that provided funding for the Formaldehyde Institute, a corporate front group set up to defend the chemical (see Influencing Research and Education). For more information see the book Toxic Deception.

Dioxins

DuPont and other chemical companies have been accused of trying to suppress evidence regarding the severe toxicity of dioxins, hardly surprising given the quantities of these carcinogens they churn out every year. Recently, residents in Mississippi, in the US, threatened a $3 billion lawsuit against DuPont, claiming damage from dioxin pollution. The pollution was left in wastes similar to those found piled near DuPont's Edge Moor titanium dioxide plant in Delaware in 2001, for which the US EPA is forcing DuPont to pay approximately $12.4 million in remediation costs.

Related campaign organization includes: DuPont Safety Revealed

“From the time people brush their teeth in the morning

 using a toothbrush with DuPont Tynex nylon bristles,
 to the time they go to sleep at night with a pillow filled
 with DuPont Qualifol polyester, DuPont products have
 become an essential part of daily life.”

DuPont is a company that is difficult to boycott in the developed world, producing everything from plastic bottles to seeds and textiles. The company currently owns over 20,000 worldwide patents and over 14,000 worldwide patent applications. In 2001, the company was granted almost 500 U.S. patents and over 1,800 international patents. The company also has over 2,100 unique trademarks for its products and services and has over 23,000 worldwide registrations and applications for these trademarks.

Some of the company’s more well known brands include Teflon resins, SilverStone non-stick finish, Lycra brand spandex fibre, Stainmaster stain-resistant carpet, Antron carpet fibre, Dacron polyester fibre, Kevlar brand fibre, Corian solid surface material, Mylar polyester films, Tyvek brand protective material, and Coolmax and Cordura textile fibres. The company also manufactures Solae soy protein which can be found in a number of foodstuffs marketed by other companies, such as So Good soy milk. An overview of the products which contain Solae can be found at: http://www.solae.com/company/mediaroom/mediaproducts.html

A further breakdown of the company’s products and projects and their contribution to overall revenue can be found in its annual Data Book at: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/73/73320/2006Databook.pdf

A complete list of the company’s products and services can be found at: http://www2.dupont.com/Directories/en_US/Products_Services_Index/index.html

Location(s)

Headquarters

1007 Market St.

Wilmington, DE, 19898

United States

See map: Google Maps

History

An explosive beginning

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company was founded in 1802 on the banks of the Brandywine River near Wilmington, Delaware in the US. The company began life as a partnership in gunpowder and explosives, becoming the nation’s largest gunpowder manufacturer by 1811. When the company was incorporated in 1902, it controlled 36% of the US powder market. By 1905 it held a 75% share. DuPont alone was responsible for 56% of the national production of explosives and, with $60 million in estimated assets had become one of the nation’s largest corporations. The company was so dominant that in 1907 the US government initiated anti-trust proceedings it. In 1912 the company was deemed a gunpowder monopoly and was ordered to divest itself of a substantial portion of its business. Despite having been streamlined, DuPont still managed to supply 40% of all explosives shot by the Allied forces during World War 1 (1.5 billion lbs).

DuPont gradually diversified into other areas of business, besides explosives, in the early part of the 20th century. The experiments of the company’s chemists with a product known as guncotton, an early form of nitroglycerine, led to its involvement in the textile industry. After the end of World War 1, the peacetime use of artificial fibres proved to be more profitable than explosives. In the 1920s DuPont acquired the rights to make cellophane from a French company. Researchers from DuPont managed to produce moisture-proof cellophane, transforming it from a decorative wrap to a packaging material for food and other products. The 1920s also saw DuPont acquire General Motors, and enter into a 50-50 joint venture with Standard Oil (now known as Exxon) to produce and market the lead additive in petrol (known as ethyl). The new company was called the Ethyl Corporation.

Economically, the company’s most important discovery was Nylon. This product was first created in 1930, by a polymer research group headed by Wallace H. Carothers. A large number of synthetic products followed. These included Lucite (a clear, tough plastic resin), Teflon (a resin used in non-stick cookware), Butacite PVB interlayer (a plastic used in automotive safety glass) and CFCs.

The 2nd World War - making a killing (again)

World War 2 brought even more profits for DuPont. Over the course of the war the company produced 4.5 billion pounds of military explosives.[15] The company was also heavily involved in weapons research, making major contributions to the development of plastic and other forms of explosives, gun and rocket propellants, and chemical warfare. From 1941 -1945 DuPont contributed to the top secret Manhattan Project that was to produce the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The company was also the principal mass producer of plutonium in the US, having designed, built and operated the world’s first plutonium production plant, the Hanford plant in Washington, at the request of the federal government. It also designed, built and operated the Oak Ridge pilot plant in Tennessee. During the war DuPont managed a total of 25 US government plants, manufacturing mainly explosives, methanol, ammonia and neoprene rubber. DuPont profited immensely from the war, emerging from the fighting with a cash fund exceeding $196 million.

1945-1980: the rise and fall of fibres

The post-war years brought further discoveries for DuPont, including Mylar (a strong plastic film), Dacron polyester, Orlon (a bulky acrylic fibre) and Lycra. The company quickly became known as the world’s most proficient synthesiser, and the range of textiles it supplied reoriented the whole synthetics industry.

The company faired extremely well, on the back of its discoveries, until the 1970s when the fibres industry stagnated from overcapacity. DuPont’s stream of discoveries had fostered the company’s over-dependence on fibres, without the company looking elsewhere for new products. When the demand for fibres collapsed in the mid 1970s, DuPont was in trouble.

Instead of attempting to diversify, the company concentrated on repairing its old business. DuPont’s rebuilding efforts were hindered by its reduced commitment to research and development however. The company’s continued reliance on fibres caused it to be one of the worst hit chemical companies in the 1980 recession.

Diversification in the early 1980s

Since DuPont was completely reliant on petrochemicals to produce the vast majority of its products, in 1981 the company purchased the petroleum company Conoco. The merger, which was the largest in history at the time, protected DuPont from the rise in crude oil prices, giving the company a competitive advantage. The move also helped secure DuPont’s position as one of the worst air polluters in the US.

In the 1980s DuPont began to reduce its dependence on synthetic fibres, beginning with the purchase of Remington Arms (a manufacturer of sporting firearms and ammunition). The Remington Arms unit of DuPont made several multimillion-dollar contracts with the army to operate government owned plants, bringing the company greater financial security. Other purchases in the 1980s included the New England Nuclear Corporation, a leading manufacturer of radioactive chemicals for medical research and diagnosis.

The 1980s also saw DuPont branch out into the life sciences. The company began to delve into the development and production of biomedical products and agricultural chemicals and in 1982 purchased the agri-chemicals division of SEPIC. In addition to mergers and acquisitions, DuPont became heavily involved with joint ventures.

Maximising profits in the late 1980s

After the acquisition spree of the early 1980s, in the late 1980s management decided to return to its former policy of focussing on areas of maximum profit. The company began moving away from commodity production, instead concentrating on oil, healthcare, electronics and speciality chemicals.

The early 1990s - further streamlining

The onset of the Gulf War drove up oil prices and refinery margins leading to profits of over $1 billion for Conoco in 1990. However, a worldwide recession was hurting most of the rest of the company. The same year, DuPont entered into a pharmaceutical joint venture with Merck. DuPont later acquired Merck’s share of the venture in 1998.

Throughout the 1990s DuPont continued to streamline itself, shedding its unprofitable businesses and getting rid of 36,000 of its employees. In 1993 the company sold its Remington Arms business. It also sold its acrylic business to ICI and in turn bought ICI’s nylon business and later its worldwide polyester films, resins and intermediates business. By acquiring the ICI polyester technology DuPont could make plastic bottles, unfortunately a growing market, for less than anyone else in the world. The company also increased its marketing of synthetic fibres, finding new uses for its Lycra, Tyvek and Kevlar products.

DuPont accelerated the globalisation of the textile industry in the mid 1990s, taking advantage of the cheap labour and lax environmental standards in the developing world. The company set up joint ventures to manufacture Lycra in China and nylon in India, Brazil and Mexico.

The late 1990s - DuPont goes GM

DuPont reaffirmed its commitment to the life sciences as a core business area in the late 1990s. The company saw the bioindustrial, pharmaceutical and feed and food industries as potential areas for the increasing integration of chemistry and biotechnology. In 1997 DuPont acquired an interest in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, the world’s largest seed company. The company also acquired Protein Technologies International, a leading supplier of soya proteins. In 1999 DuPont shed its Conoco subsidiary, using the money to invest in its growing biotech business by assuming 100% ownership of Pioneer.

The year 2000 saw DuPont produce the polymer Sorona. Although petrochemical derived, DuPont scientists hope to be able to produce plant-based Sorona fibres. It appears that DuPont is hoping to move into producing genetically modified plant-based fibres as an ‘environmentally friendly’ alternative to synthetic fibres.

In 2001 DuPont announced it would sell its pharmaceutical business to Bristol Myers Squibb. The company continued to streamline its workforce, shedding a further 14,000 staff through restructuring and sell offs.

Other Information:

According to Forbes magazine DuPont is the 33rd largest company in the US, ranking 17th in terms of profit this year. The company is the second largest chemical manufacturer in the US and is also the world’s largest seed company.

Chemicals provide the main focus of DuPont’s operations. According to the company’s annual report, it is the global leader in the sale and manufacturing of nylon and is the world’s largest manufacturer of titanium dioxide, elastane and fluropolymers. The company also claims to be the world’s leading automotive coatings supplier and a leading global manufacturer of industrial and speciality flurochemicals. In addition, DuPont is apparently a world leader in supplying resins and films for the packaging and selected industrial markets, advanced electronic materials to the global electronics industry and holographic optical components and holograms for electronics, security and authentication [ http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/nys/dd/reports/ar2001.pdf applications.]

DuPont’s principal competitors include major chemical companies based in the United States, Europe and Asia (principally Japan, China and Korea). Arch-rivals include BASF AG, Bayer AG and Dow Chemical. According to the company’s SEC filing, competitors offer a comparable range of products from agricultural, commodity and speciality chemicals to plastics and fibres products. While simultaneously competing this these rival companies Du Pont and other corporations such as Monsanto also enter into synergistic relationships that further centralize their power. The company also competes in certain product markets with smaller, more specialised firms and with petrochemical operations in oil-producing countries.

Since acquiring Pioneeer Hi-Bred in 1999, DuPont has become the world’s largest seed company, with sales of more than $1.9 billion in 2000. It sells hybrid seeds principally for the global production of corn and soybeans, and thus directly competes with other hybrid seed suppliers. DuPont’s Agriculture & Nutrition segment also provides crop protection chemicals. In addition, the segment provides soya based food ingredients and food safety equipment in competition with other major grain and food processors.

Financial information

Stock ticker symbol:

DDPRA

Total revenue:

$30,653.00 Million

Fiscal year:

2007

Net Income:

$2,988.00 Million

Fiscal year:

2007

Additional descriptive data