Posted on 9-9-2003
Modern
Slavery Defended By Corporations
by Oliver Balchm September 1, 2003, The Guardian
Nike factories and Coca-Cola bottling plants could be forced
to open their
doors for "periodic monitoring" by UN inspectors, under new
proposals
released last month.
The recommendations by a UN human rights panel will require
businesses to
demonstrate how they are living up to a range of existing human
rights,
labour, environmental, consumer protection and anti-corruption
laws. On the
face of it, it is difficult to see how the corporate sector
could object to
the UN's request not to engage in human rights violations, such
as torture
or slave labour. But object they have. Thomas Niles, president
of the US
Council for International Business, has been one of the most
vociferous
opponents of UN norms on the responsibilities of multinationals
in recent
weeks. His principal objection is that the norms are "totally
duplicate and
unnecessary". Mr Niles is right that the norms are duplicative.
The
guidelines read like an index of every human rights convention,
charter and
declaration passed since the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1947.
However, by putting the full body of existing legislation into
one
document, the UN is providing businesses with a long-overdue
statement of
what actually constitutes their recognised responsibilities.
"The norms
help to level the playing field for companies that want to do
the right
thing for human rights. Now every company's obligations are
detailed and no
company can say that it doesn't have responsibilities in the
area of human
rights," said Arvind Ganesan, director of corporate responsibility
at the
US human rights organisation Human Rights Watch.
As to Mr Niles' second objection - that the norms are unnecessary
- his
case rests on the small tranche of large multinationals that
have
implemented comprehensive human rights policies and practices.
Over the
last decade, the combination of enlightened self-interest, expensive
lawsuits and intense public scrutiny has seen systematic human
rights
violations almost eliminated from the activities of the world's
largest
companies. Though largely unreported, the vast majority of human
rights
violations occur in smaller, less visible businesses, operating
either in
the informal sector or in poorly regulated markets.
In as much as the norms go beyond multinational companies and
extend to all
"other businesses", they represent a significant step towards
dealing with
the real problem. If big corporations are genuinely going to
cast
themselves as responsible corporate citizens, however, then
they must look
beyond their own immediate operations to the practices of their
suppliers,
contractors and other business partners - what the UN norms
refer to as
"their respective sphere of activity". The reluctance of all
but the most
progressive multinationals to stamp out human rights abuses
throughout
their supply chain provides one clear argument for the necessity
of the norms.
In claiming that the norms are unnecessary, Mr Niles also invokes
the UN's
own policy to date, which advocates a voluntary approach in
contrast to the
compliance-led tack adopted by the UN human rights sub-commission.
The big
business lobby is quick to point out that more than 1,000 companies
are
signatories to the UN's flagship "global compact", which requires
companies
to commit to supporting and protecting fundamental human rights.
Again, the
main problem lies not with the small number of corporations
that
voluntarily abide by the human rights agenda, but with their
less
responsible peers that refuse to do so. "There are about 75,000
transnational corporations. Only 1,000 of them have joined the
global
compact. So what about the other 74,000?" asks David Weisbrodt,
one of the
authors of the norms.
The question is a good one. Unfortunately, the solution of the
sub-commission is not. The accompanying commentary to the norms
goes no
further than proposing that the UN commission establish "a group
of
experts, special rapporteur or working group to receive information
and
take effective action when businesses fail to comply". It remains
unclear
what effective action the UN commission can bring to bear when
non-compliant companies are already riding roughshod over established
national and international human rights laws.
What is really necessary between now and March, when the full
53-nation UN
human rights commission meets to consider the norms for approval,
is
evidence of a political will by world governments to hold businesses
to
account. Given that the sub-commission also chose its August
session to
criticise governments for stalling the international criminal
court, the
prospects for this latest move to raise international accountability
standards do not look good. Which only goes to show that Mr
Niles would
have lost nothing by keeping his arguments to himself.
* Oliver Balch is managing editor of Corporate Citizenship Briefing,
a
weekly publication on corporate social responsibility issues.
|