How We Do Our Work: Bringing Scholars Together Around Shared Issue Interests
The Center for Progressive Reform’s 50+ Member Scholars are working academics, employed by colleges and universities across the nation. They represent diverse research agendas, areas of expertise, and geographic location. They work in Issue Groups organized around four issue areas: Achieving a New Progressive Agenda, Clean Science, Government Accountability, and Corporate Liability and Accountability. Member Scholars work collaboratively and individually, through the Issue Group structure, to conceive and develop projects, with support from the organization's board of directors and staff.
CPR's four issue groups:
CPR’s Achieving the New Progressive Agenda Issue Group works to (1) offer an innovative and fundamental agenda of regulatory reforms; and (2) counter the relentless and extensively funded efforts of conservative think tanks to project their own conservative, or even libertarian, vision of the future.
CPR’s Corporate Liability/Accountability Issue Group works to (1) promote a progressive position on the use of state tort law and federal regulation to hold corporations accountable for harm to people and the environment; (2) develop new reforms to accomplish this goal, including the use of disclosure and other financial accountability laws; and (3) expose conservative efforts in Congress and in the courts to use federal preemption of state tort law as a strategy for reducing corporate accountability.
CPR’s Clean Science Issue Group works to (1) guarantee that state and federal regulatory agencies and courts can rely upon unbiased and reliable scientific information and advice in implementing health, safety, and environmental laws; (2) ensure that scientific disputes are not used to curtail the implementation of the law when precautionary approaches are appropriate; and (3) counter industry attempts to manipulate the scientific basis of tort law and health and safety regulation.
CPR’s Government Accountability Issue Group works to (1) identify which regulatory methods and institutional arrangements are most likely to lead to full and fair ways of protecting people and the environment; and (2) critique self-serving approaches offered by regulated industries and their allies in conservative think tanks that impede effective regulatory protections.