International law is increasingly making companies legally obliged, both directly and indirectly, for human rights issues. Such is the conclusion of a recent report by the Geneva-based research group, International Council on Human Rights Policy, which argues that voluntary initiatives alone are insufficient to uphold human rights and that voluntarism should be complemented by a more comprehensive legal framework. Beyond Voluntarism argues that such a framework would protect enlightened companies from losing out to noncompliant competitors, provide clarity and establish uniform minimum standards by which to judge performance.
The authors concede that primary legal responsibility for protecting human rights remains firmly with state governments, but they point out that companies may find themselves accused of complicity in human rights abuses committed by others – especially political authorities. Contact David Petrasek, ICHRP, on 00 41 22 775 3306 (http://www.ichrp.org)
Friends Ivory & Sime is calling for companies to adopt more effective controls to manage the risks posed by bribery and corruption. In a new report published on February 5, FIS highlights that although two-fifths (59%) of companies have a code of conduct, less than a quarter have the necessary management systems to back up their policy commitment.
The report precedes new anti-bribery legislation passed on February 14, which outlaws all UK registered companies from making unofficial payments overseas. However, the ban on bribery, which forms part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, boasts several discrepancies. Owing to ‘the realities of life’ for example, the government states that it will not prosecute companies in the UK that make ?esmall facilitation payments, extorted by a foreign official in countries where this is normal practice. Moreover, the new legislation does not apply to overseas subsidiaries, although UK nationals will be held liable for bribery offences. Contact Karina Litvack, FIS, on 020 7796 1219 (http://www.friendsis.com); Lynette Falk, DTI, on 020 7215 8415 (http://www.tradepartners.gov.uk)
UBS joins Balfour Beatty (see Briefing 61) as the latest company to withdraw from involvement in the construction of Turkey’s Ilisu dam. Confusion over managing the social and environmental impact of the dam, which environmentalists claim would displace 30,000 local Kurdish citizens, contributed to the bank’s decision. UBS was set to structure and arrange financing for the project. Meanwhile, Amec announced on March 13 that it is pulling out of the Yusufeli dam, also in Turkey, ‘following a commercial review’. Human rights campaigners argue that the dam would displace the local Kurdish and Georgian communities. Contact Christoph Meier, UBS, on 00 41 1 234 8316 (http://www.ubs.com)
The largest public pension fund in the USA announced on February 20 that it is to withdraw its investments in the Philippines, China and Pakistan following a comprehensive review of conditions in emerging markets, including human rights standards. From now on, investors for the California Public Employees Retirement Scheme, which controls more than $151 billion in assets, will consistently consider political stability and protection of civil liberties as key investment criteria, alongside economic and market factors. Contact Brad Pacheco, CalPERS, on 00 1 916 326 3991 (http://www.calpers.ca.gov)
Managers at Norsk Hydro will receive expert training in handling human rights as part of a one-year programme with Amnesty International, it was announced on March 19. Norsk Hydro operations, which stretch over 70 countries, appear in AI’s recent catalogue of human rights abuses (see Briefing 62). Contact Tor Steinum, Hydro, on 00 47 22 53 27 31 (http://www.hydro.com) The Swedish Government will contribute over $270,000 to the UN Global Compact, according to a statement on February 28. Sweden joins the UK, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland as state sponsors of the UN initiative. Contact Lott Jansson, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, on 00 46 8405 55 50 (http://www.regeringen.se)
Editorial Comment
In our last edition, we reported that Amnesty International and the IBLF had teamed up to map where individually named global companies in seven industry sectors are operating in ‘at risk’ countries for human rights abuses. But pushed to say ‘so when should we stop doing business and disinvest?’, the AI response is ‘you must decide, we can’t say’.
There’s a real danger here that companies are being pushed into the role of global policemen, putting pressure on regimes which other governments dislike but are not prepared to stand up to. If that’s what governments and pressure groups want, they should explore the concept of extending international law, as the ICHRP suggests. Usually companies argue against legal obligations and for a voluntary approach. Here is one case where they should think again.
A clear set of international obligations, legally enforceable against companies, might actually bolster their positions. Already employees and managers can be tried for complicity in crimes against humanity. Broader rules would create a level playing field and help global companies with high standards compete against more dodgy national counterparts. Such a concept is a long way off. In the meantime, companies must go back to their own value systems and decide what is right for them. External points of reference are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, more practically, the nine headline principles of the UN Global Compact, which incorporate core labour standards. Then, country-by-country, think about scale: do we have a small local sales office or a huge mine or manufacturing plant? Think about pressure points: do we actually do business with an unsavoury government – obtaining exploration licences, paying royalties or supplying goods? Think about sensitive issues: what about the role of women in society, underage workers or oppressed minorities? Ultimately the only solid rock on which to build corporate behaviour on human rights are our values and business principles and whether we live them out, everywhere everyday.
Corporate Citizenship Briefing, issue no: 63 – April, 2002
COMMENTS