ISO gently responds to terse letter from Global Compact

The secretary-general of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has responded to a letter from the Global Compact Office. In the letter, the executive director of the Office requested ISO to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard – an international standard that provides guidance on social responsibility.

In his reply to the Global Compact Office, ISO's secretary-general Robert Steele says that he views as "unfortunate" that the Office wishes there not be any mention of the Compact in the ISO 26000 standard. According to Mr. Steele, the current draft of the standard is "at least consistent with the ten universal principles" of the Compact. He also states that the Global Compact Office has been involved in different levels of the working group that is drafting the standard, and that the Office has "indeed been able to contribute and indicate [its] perspectives on the evolution of this ISO standard."

In 2006, the Office signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ISO related to the development of the ISO 26000 standard. The purpose of this MoU was to encourage cooperation and mutual support between ISO and the Global Compact Office. Specifically, both parties agreed to collaborate extensively on the development, promotion and support of the ISO 26000 standard. In an explanatory note published in November 2006, the executive director of the Office said that the outcome of the ISO 26000 process as a minimum should be consistent with and complement the ten principles of the UN Global Compact.

As Mr. Steele correctly states in his letter, the current version of ISO 26000 is consistent with the principles of the Compact. However, it is clear that the Global Compact expected to feature as a main character in the new ISO 26000 standard.

© Photo by Fred.

Who said what in June 2009

"We are disappointed that neither in the body of the standard nor in the annex is there any recognition of the world's foremost social responsibility initiative, and have concluded that the current reference to the UN Global Compact does not provide the UNGC with the prominence it deserves." - Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, requesting ISO to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard.

"A fundamental flaw with the UN Global Compact voluntary approach is that Communications on Progress by Nestlé and other companies are not subject to verification. Nestlé's misleading submissions are published on the UN Global Compact website and have even been launched at events with the Global Compact Office so bringing the initiative as a whole into disrepute. We are using Integrity Measures to call on the Global Compact Office to act to try to salvage its own credibility by removing Nestlé from its list of participating companies. Nestlé uses the UN Global Compact to cover up its malpractice so that abuses can continue." - Mike Brady, campaigns and networking coordinator at Baby Milk Action, urging the Global Compact Office to delist Nestlé.

"Bayer has a long history of giving profits precedence over human rights and a sound environment. We have documented hundreds of cases when Bayer's products or factories have harmed people or the environment. Bayer's participation in the Global Compact is detrimental to the reputation of the program and its participants". - Axel Koehler-Schnura, board member of the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, in a press release about the complaint letter that was sent to the Global Compact Office.

"The Global Compact has been praised for engaging a diverse mix of companies and other stakeholders from all regions in learning and capacity building efforts, including in the area of human rights. But it has been criticized for not adequately monitoring participant performance and for potentially allowing corporations to gain public relations benefits for associating with the United Nations while maintaining questionable business practices." - Scott Jerbi, senior adviser with Realizing Rights, in an article in Human Rights Quarterly.

© Photo by Fundillo.

Global Compact wants to be removed from ISO 26000 standard

The Global Compact Office has requested the Secretary-General of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard – an international standard that provides guidance on social responsibility. In a recent letter to ISO, the executive director of the Global Compact Office states that it is "disappointed that neither in the body of the standard nor in the annex is there any recognition of the world's foremost social responsibility initiative". The Office believes that "the current reference to the UN Global Compact does not provide the UNGC with the prominence it deserves".

In 2006, the Global Compact Office signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ISO related to the development of the ISO 26000 standard. The purpose of this MoU was to encourage cooperation and mutual support between ISO and the Global Compact Office. Specifically, both parties agreed to collaborate extensively on the development, promotion and support of the ISO 26000 standard. In an explanatory note published in November 2006, the executive director of the Global Compact Office said that the outcome of the ISO 26000 process as a minimum should be consistent with and complement the ten principles of the UN Global Compact.

Although the current version of ISO 26000 is indeed consistent with the principles of the Compact, it seems that the Global Compact Office would have expected to receive more credit from the ISO 26000 working group, which consists of 435 experts from over 90 countries.

Over 900 employees complain about CNPC

The employees of the Kazakh company AktobeMunaiGas have sent a letter of complaint to the president of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Hu Jintao. AktobeMunaiGas is a subsidiary of China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). In the letter, over 900 employees of AktobeMunaiGas ask the president of China to take appropriate measures to address the violation of "international norms". According to the letter, AktobeMunaiGas has been involved in several breaches of Kazakh law, such as violations of environmental laws, labor laws, tax laws, rules regarding the use of natural resources, and violations of norms and rules concerning the rights of shareholders.

In June 1997, CNPC acquired a 60.3 percent stake in AktobeMunaiGas, the fourth-largest oil company in Kazakhstan. CNPC now owns 85.42 percent of the shares of AktobeMunaiGas.

Another important subsidiary of CNPC, PetroChina, has been accused of complicity in human rights violations in Sudan. In January 2009, over 80 civil society organizations submitted an open letter to the UN Global Compact in support of a formal complaint against PetroChina. PetroChina is Sudan's largest oil industry partner and has financial links to the regime perpetuating the six-year humanitarian crisis in Darfur which many consider to be genocide. The complaint against PetroChina will be discussed by the Global Compact Board on July 24.

Shell Nigeria case may temper Big Oil policies

By Rebekah Kebede.

NEW YORK, June 18 (Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell's cash payment of $15.5 million -- roughly four hours of its 2008 profits -- to settle a human rights case in Nigeria may not be enough to change Big Oil's policies in the developing world.

A better incentive may be a desire to avoid the high legal costs and the bad publicity from the 13-year case accusing Shell of abuses in the Niger Delta region.

The suit involved incidents including the 1995 hangings of author and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other protesters by Nigeria's then-military government.

Shell admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. But experts said Big Oil will note the lengthy legal feud that kept international spotlight trained on the oil major as an alleged accomplice in human rights abuses.

Oil companies have a long track record of being accused of human rights and environmental abuses in developing nations like Nigeria, Sudan, Ecuador, Peru and others.

"Many times the most important things about (these claims) is to keep alive the case and keep it focused before the public and before the courts," said Peter Rosenblum, a professor in human rights law at Columbia University in New York.

The case, settled before it was to go to trial at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, was brought by victims' families and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

Shell insists the charges were untrue and says the evidence would have supported this. It called the settlement a "humanitarian" gesture.

Chevron Corp was accused of similar violations in Nigeria, but was cleared by a San Francisco court. A case currently being brought against Occidental Petroleum for its operations in Peru alleges that the company's oil production damaged the health of nearby communities.

TOKEN GESTURE

Shell's critics said the settlement is a token gesture amounting to about half a percent of Shell's record $31.4 billion profit in 2008.

Rosenblum said legal fees and public relations costs for the 13-year case probably far exceeded the settlement sum and Shell likely wanted to end the "beating" its reputation took in connection with the accusations.

After the suit was launched, Shell increased involvement in development activities in the Niger Delta, including partnering with local non-profits and providing micro-credit loans, experts said.

Shell also signed on to the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary set of standards on human rights, environmental standards, labor and anti-corruption.

Other companies have taken similar steps in response to human rights and environmental scandals.

Talisman Energy Inc sold its interests in Sudan's largest oil field in 2003 after a suit accused it of giving the government resources to fuel the protracted civil war.

Talisman's chief executive has since said it will not operate in regions where it does not have the support of the local community. Prior to the accusations, the company had already adopted the UN Global Compact, and funded schools, hospitals and other social programs in southern Sudan.

"Given the recent number of high-profile lawsuits targeting the oil industry, it's highly likely that the companies will not only pay attention to the public relations implications but also, indeed, continue to adopt practices that meet international standards for human rights and environmental protection," said Matthew Chen, a researcher at the Baker Institute at Rice University.

Among oil giants, BP Plc and Total SA are participants in the Global Compact, although Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp are not. (Additional reporting by Jeff Jones in Calgary and Braden Reddall in San Francisco; Editing by Matthew Robinson and David Gregorio).

Source: Guardian.co.uk (18/6/2009) / © Photo by Metropole 21.

International campaign calls on the Global Compact to expel Nestlé

It must be a busy time for the Global Compact Office in New York. In the last three days, the Office has received at least two complaints. The first complaint, against Bayer, was sent on Tuesday. Yesterday a group called Nestlé Critics submitted a report in which it urges the Global Compact Office to delist Nestlé. The campaigners argue that the company commits systematic abuses and that it brings the Compact "into disrepute".

Nestlé Critics allege that Nestlé's Communications on Progress are misleading and that the company uses its participation in the Compact to divert criticism so that abuses of human rights and environmental standards can continue. According to the campaigners, Nestlé has three months to respond to the allegations in the report under the terms of the Compact's Integrity Measures.

The concerns raised by Nestlé Critics include:

- Aggressive marketing of baby milks and foods and undermining of breastfeeding;
- Trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;
- Failure to act on child labor and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;
- Exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;
- Environmental degradation, particularly of water resources.

Mike Brady, campaigns and networking coordinator at Baby Milk Action, is very critical of Nestlé's participation in the Global Compact: "a fundamental flaw with the UN Global Compact voluntary approach is that Communications on Progress by Nestlé and other companies are not subject to verification. Nestlé's misleading submissions are published on the UN Global Compact website and have even been launched at events with the Global Compact Office so bringing the initiative as a whole into disrepute. We are using Integrity Measures to call on the Global Compact Office to act to try to salvage its own credibility by removing Nestlé from its list of participating companies. Nestlé uses the UN Global Compact to cover up its malpractice so that abuses can continue."

Contributors to the report include the International Labor Rights Fund, trade unionists from the Philippines, Corporate Accountability International and Baby Milk Action.

The report / complaint is available here.

© Photo by David Boyle.