Of the three communications standards discussed, HI is definitely the outlier, as it emphasizes worker control of the process of identifying hazard and deemphasizes employer control of identification of hazards and dissemination of hazard information. GHS may not be as protective of American workers as HazCom is, but for workers in less-developed countries, where regulation of workplace health and safety is less strong than in the United States, Canada, many countries in Europe, and Japan, GHS--if adequately enforced-will likely represent an improvement in information on chemical hazards in the workplace. American workers may well see a decline in workplace protection against chemical hazards while protection may improve for workers in less-developed countries. This trade-off is part of the ongoing debate about globalization, of which worker protection from chemical hazards should be an important aspect. The next paper in this series will compare the proposed and final versions of GHS, and will discuss possible improvements to GHS to better serve American workers. As OSHA moves forward with the GHS rule, people and organizations concerned with worker right-to-know should consider possible improvements to GHS to better serve workers in the United States and worldwide.