The CSB is not a regulatory agency. It doesn't enforce anything against companies. It investigates major disasters and publishes recommendations.

It's like the NTSB but for industries that use hazardous chemicals.

I still think it's ideologically consistent with insulating companies from externalities. Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events. Boeing did this with the NTSB recently:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boeing-punished-by-ntsb-fo...

Ok but the NTSB's response was to refer to DOJ because NTSB has no teeth.

In a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth. It’s not about finding wrongdoing it’s about determining what happened and how to avoid it in the future. If a company takes negligent actions referring to DOJ should be enough.

> In a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth.

Did I say I want the NTSB to have teeth?

> Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events.

They can do this with investigations too. Just as Boeing did. NTSB can't do anything about it. The "punishment" was a referral to DOJ who can.

Just the knowledge about chemical risks is a threat to profits.

You say "force them" like that's actually going to happen. Historically, companies are terrible at auditing themselves.