Amnesty International and The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum have issued comprehensive practical guidelines for companies on developing and implementing a human rights policy. Human Rights – is it any of your business?, published in April, is positioned as part of risk management, and sets out the steps to take after developing a policy – like demonstrating top level support, consulting with stakeholders, getting independent verification. It says pressures for action are coming from shareholders, new communications technologies and a trend to greater corporate transparency through social reports and audits. Case studies and sample human rights policies from Shell, Reebok, Pentland, B&Q, BP Amoco, Rio Tinto and Levi Strauss demonstrate the dilemmas involved, and the book closes with a guide to resources and more information. Contact the PWBLF on 020 7467 3600 (http://www.pwblf.org) or Amnesty on 020 7814 6200 (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/ business)
Human rights – business pressures
Amnesty International has also produced its own overview of recent developments in the field of business and human rights, with comprehensive illustration of the pressures on companies. Business and human rights in a time of change, published in April, highlights:
• reputation assurance and risk management;
• transparency and disclosure;
• socially responsible investment;
• lawsuits and selective purchasing laws;
• the informed consumer;
• shareholder resolutions and AGMs.
Amnesty International is now supporting work to develop social benchmarks for corporations operating in the developing world. Contact Amnesty International on 01788 545 553 (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/business)
Measuring up?
Also published this April is a survey, Business Responses to Human Rights, of the world’s 500 largest corporations by Ashridge Centre for Business and Society. Key findings from the 52 firms that replied include:
• 98% have an ethical code, principles or policy guidelines, but fewer than half make explicit reference to human rights;
• 36% were deterred from investment projects because of human rights issues, while 19% had disinvested from a particular country for the same reason;
• 60% of companies have someone responsible for human rights, but only 16% have a dedicated human rights manager;
• 45% try to ensure contractors, suppliers and business associates also have policies on human rights.
Total, Premier Oil and Unocal are in the spotlight after campaigning group EarthRights International published a report in May, criticising their relationships with the Burmese military regime and citing human rights and environmental abuses. The UK Government had already taken the unprecedented step, in April, of asking Premier to withdraw its interest in the Burmese Yetagun gas project, in an attempt to put pressure on the Burmese authorities. However, the CBI said the government should leave companies to make decisions about where they do business. Contact EarthRights International on 001 202 466 5188 (http://www.earthrights.org); Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 020 7270 1500 (http://www.fco.gov.uk); or CBI on 020 7395 8090 (http://www.cbi.org.uk)
Editorial Comment
Mention Amnesty International and for most people the torture of political prisoners comes to mind. That’s a topic not even the most active ‘third way’ fanatic would immediately demand a partnership with the private sector to solve. Yet if you own the country’s extractive industry, earn three quarters of its foreign exchange, provide a third of government revenues and your monthly royalty cheque pays the army’s wages, you are in a position to bring some pretty strong pressure to bear, if so minded.Of course few companies are in quite that position, but then human rights is about far more than political torture. The 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the fundamental document in all this – covers a broad range of issues, such as labour relations, working conditions, access to healthcare and education; it is universal in that it applies always and everywhere, not just in far away places. Other international conventions, such as the ILO, cover issues like child labour. These universal principles should unpin the whole approach to corporate social responsibility, at home as well as abroad. That one in five of even the few Ashridge respondents had actually disinvested due to human rights’ issues shows a level of active concern some in pressure groups would just not believe. Even so, deciding whether to invest or disinvest may actually be the easy options; the harder challenge is to stay engaged and make a stand, especially when you may put your own employees and their families at risk, most of whom can’t get on a plane and come home to safety. So it is not good enough for the CBI to argue that each company must be allowed to decide (by what and whose criteria?); nor for PWBLF to imply being active on human rights issues is in itself good risk management (it may actually increase risk, as the company gets caught between the host government and international campaigners). But the good news is that more and more companies are formulating a clear set of corporate values, in keeping with Declaration principles, which they consistently apply in the business operation, in their supply and distribution chains and around the world. And they increasingly have strength in numbers, support from their home governments and the backing of international agencies, so boosting the chances of success when they do take a stand.
Mention Amnesty International and for most people the torture of political prisoners comes to mind
Mention Amnesty International and for most people the torture of political prisoners comes to mind. That’s a topic not even the most active ‘third way’ fanatic would immediately demand a partnership with the private sector to solve. Yet if you own the country’s extractive industry, earn three quarters of its foreign exchange, provide a third of government revenues and your monthly royalty cheque pays the army’s wages, you are in a position to bring some pretty strong pressure to bear, if so minded.
Of course few companies are in quite that position, but then human rights is about far more than political torture. The 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the fundamental document in all this – covers a broad range of issues, such as labour relations, working conditions, access to healthcare and education; it is universal in that it applies always and everywhere, not just in far away places. Other international conventions, such as the ILO, cover issues like child labour. These universal principles should unpin the whole approach to corporate social responsibility, at home as well as abroad.
That one in five of even the few Ashridge respondents had actually disinvested due to human rights’ issues shows a level of active concern some in pressure groups would just not believe. Even so, deciding whether to invest or disinvest may actually be the easy options; the harder challenge is to stay engaged and make a stand, especially when you may put your own employees and their families at risk, most of whom can’t get on a plane and come home to safety.
So it is not good enough for the CBI to argue that each company must be allowed to decide (by what and whose criteria?); nor for PWBLF to imply being active on human rights issues is in itself good risk management (it may actually increase risk, as the company gets caught between the host government and international campaigners). But the good news is that more and more companies are formulating a clear set of corporate values, in keeping with Declaration principles, which they consistently apply in the business operation, in their supply and distribution chains and around the world. And they increasingly have strength in numbers, support from their home governments and the backing of international agencies, so boosting the chances of success when they do take a stand.
COMMENTS