Greenwashing For 10 Years
From corpwatch.org

NOTE from Editor, A Marston: Corporates have readily adopted a global spin
policy broadly termed <business or group> for Social Responsibility. The
heart of which is self-regulation, opposition to government or any other
form of regulation. In New Zealand the local chapter of this pro-corp
anti-regulation movement is Businesses for Social Responsibility (BSR). The
terms Green, Natural, Pure have, like the words social responsibility been
so utterly spun-out as to be worse than useless, they are now used to lie
and cheat.

............

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro represented a high point of hope
for the international community in general and the United Nations in
particular. The Rio Summit led to a series of challenging negotiations
whose purpose was to protect the earth and improve life for its most
impoverished inhabitants. Unfortunately, that purpose was undermined by the
Summit's failure to confront corporate power in any meaningful way.

The 2002 Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development is an opportunity
to re-dedicate ourselves to the goals of Rio and to avoid the mistakes made
since the first Earth Summit. With a highly respected Secretary-General in
place, it is a chance to strengthen the UN as an institution that can
monitor global corporations and hold them accountable. But the Johannesburg
meeting takes place as the UN is increasing its commitment to corporate
partnerships, a situation that threatens the success of the Summit.

The highest profile partnership is the Global Compact. This asks business
to adhere to nine principles derived from key UN agreements and is becoming
a general framework for UN cooperation with the private sector. The
motivation of the Secretary-General is to bring corporate behavior in line
with universal values. However, business influence over its design has
riddled the Global Compact with weaknesses and contradictions.

In the first 18 months of the Global Compact, we have seen a growing but
secret membership, heavy influence by the International Chamber of
Commerce, and a failure to publish even a single case study of sustainable
practices. The Global Compact logo has been used without attribution by
DaimlerChrysler, even as Global Compact officials insist that use of the
general UN logo is strictly controlled. The Global Compact represents a
smuggling of a business agenda into the United Nations.

Global Compact Violators

The Global Compact associates with notorious violators of UN values.
Several Global Compact companies have already violated one or more of the
Principles of the Compact since it was launched. For instance:

Aventis has violated Principle 7, "support a precautionary approach to
environmental challenges" with its introduction of genetically engineered
StarLink corn in the U.S.

Nike has violated Principle 3, "freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining" in Vietnam, China,
Indonesia, Cambodia and Mexico.

Rio Tinto has violated Principle 1, "support and respect the protection of
international human rights within their sphere of influence," and Principle
8, "undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility"
at the PT Kelian gold mine in Indonesia.

Norsk Hydro has violated Principle 1, "support and respect the protection
of international human rights within their sphere of influence," and
Principle 2, "make sure their own corporations are not complicit in human
rights abuses" at their bauxite/alumina joint venture in India.

Unilever has violated Principle 7, "support a precautionary approach to
environmental challenges," Principle 8, "undertake initiatives to promote
greater environmental responsibility," and Principle 9 "promote the
diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies" at their thermometer
factory in Kodaikanal, India.
Global Compact: Theory and Reality

Theory:

With the Global Compact, the Secretary-General asked world business to
follow nine basic principles.

Reality:

Some companies that joined the Compact turned around and violated them
almost immediately.

Theory:

The Global Compact is a learning forum.

Reality:

In a year and a half, not a single learning forum case study has been
published.

Theory:

The Global Compact advocates openness and transparency.

Reality:

The names of most participating companies are secret.

Theory:

Corporate use of the UN logo is strictly controlled.

Reality:

Corporate use of the UN Global Compact logo is not controlled.

The International Chamber of Commerce has violated Principle 7, "support a
precautionary approach to environmental challenges," and Principle 8,
"undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility" in
their overall program of lobbying on behalf of big business.

Business Action for Sustainable Development

The success of Johannesburg is threatened by the industry lobby group
Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD). BASD intends to
advocate voluntary measures and "self-regulation," while publicizing
anecdotal case studies to prove industry's contribution to sustainable
development. The selection of former Shell head Mark Moody-Stuart to lead
BASD is a slap in the face to citizen movements for corporate
accountability, as Shell is a symbol of transnational corporate impunity.

Launch a Framework Convention on Corporate Accountability

The Johannesburg Summit is framed by the question of whether governments
can take action to re-direct corporate behavior in more sustainable
directions while simultaneously increasing partnership and cooperation with
the private sector. Voluntary corporate responsibility, while potentially
positive, can become an obstacle when used as a diversion from attempts to
hold corporations accountable. A Convention on Corporate Accountability
would provide a step toward democratic control over corporations at an
international level. The Johannesburg Summit is a perfect opportunity to
launch negotiations on such a Convention.

Recommendations

We recommend that:

* The Global Compact should be renamed the Global Accountability Compact
and substantially redesigned. The redesign should make clear that it is not
a partnership of allies that agree on all goals, and should clarify that
the purpose of the Compact is not to support a liberalized trade agenda.
The Compact should include provisions for monitoring of compliance with its
Principles, and for public review of corporate case studies. Global
Accountability Compact companies should commit to supporting the
implementation of UN-brokered multilateral agreements.

* In the meantime, the names of corporations participating in the Global
Compact should be made public. Corporations violating one or more Global
Compact principles should be suspended from further UN partnership activities.

* Governments should not look to Business Action for Sustainable
Development (BASD) or similar advocates of voluntary corporate
responsibility for the primary solutions to unsustainable business practices.

* Instead, governments at the Summit Preparatory meetings in New York
should begin discussion of a Framework Convention on Corporate
Accountability to be launched in Johannesburg.