Who said what in January 2009

"It may not be a bad thing to do - but it is a rather minor measure to have been welcomed in such fulsome terms by, for instance, the Global Compact, who said that the bill should become 'a model for others to follow'." - Mallen Baker, in a blog post about the Danish law on CSR reporting.

"After having received the advice and guidance of a number of Board Members, we have decided not to handle this matter as an integrity issue of an individual company, PetroChina. The matters you raised in your correspondence could equally apply to a number of companies operating in conflict prone countries. As you have previously confirmed to us, PetroChina has been singled out largely because it, unlike many of the other companies that your coalition has been focusing on, has recently taken the step of joining the Global Compact. Since we are a learning initiative, this is a step that should be welcomed instead of criticized." – Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, in his response to the complaint against PetroChina.

"We do not agree with the UNGC that PetroChina or other companies should be immune from criticism by virtue of becoming a signatory to the Global Compact. On the contrary, it is precisely because companies are signatories that they should be challenged to live up to the principles embodied in the Compact. [...] We hope that the UN Global Compact will reconsider its ill-advised initial response and apply its Integrity Measures. The UNGC would be setting an extremely unfortunate precedent by declining to use its own documented process to preserve the integrity of its work in this extreme situation." – Eric Cohen, Chairperson of Investors Against Genocide, on the decision of the Global Compact to reject the complaint against Petrochina.

"One root of the problem is the structure of the Global Compact. It combines setting the standard with judging those who try to apply it. This gives it the potential for conflicts of interest. Dealing with such issues is a well-trodden path. Maybe it is time the Global Compact set out on that journey." – Adrian Henriques, on the Global Compact’s handling of the complaint against PetroChina.

Constructing the Compact

By Adrian Henriques.

The Global Compact is facing a real challenge in its handling of the complaint against PetroChina by NGOs.

If it fudges the issue, its credibility will be undermined. If it de-lists PetroChina, it will appear to be going backwards. So if PetroChina will not respond constructively, then perhaps the Global Compact should.

One root of the problem is the structure of the Global Compact. It combines setting the standard with judging those who try to apply it. This gives it the potential for conflicts of interest. Dealing with such issues is a well-trodden path. Maybe it is time the Global Compact set out on that journey.

Source: Adrian Henriques’ blog / © Photo by Ben Alman.

NGOs to further challenge UN Global Compact to uphold its “Integrity Measures”

The Global Compact Office sets the wrong precedent by rejecting complaint regarding PetroChina’s complicity in genocide.

BOSTON, MA – January 19, 2009 - Following the refusal by the UN Global Compact (UNGC) to accept and act on a formal complaint of "systematic or egregious abuse" of the Global Compact's overall aims and principles by PetroChina, a UNGC participant, the NGOs that submitted the complaint plan to escalate the matter to the UNGC's Board of Directors.

The complaint, submitted by Investors Against Genocide (IAG) and Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), asks the UNGC to formally apply its established "Integrity Measures". If after three months, there is no satisfactory resolution of the issues raised, the groups ask that the UNGC remove PetroChina from the list of participants. The UNGC's Integrity Measures define steps to safeguard the reputation, integrity and good efforts of the Global Compact and its participants.

The complaint was supported in an open letter sent to the UNGC by over 80 civil society organizations including human rights, corporate accountability, and religious groups from 25 countries, as well as government officials and actor Mia Farrow. The complaint followed a letter in May 2008, which was also signed by numerous civil society organizations, and seven months of private engagement by IAG and SOMO with representatives of the UNGC in an effort to address the concern.

PetroChina, the publicly traded arm of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), is Sudan's largest oil industry partner with extensive financial links to the regime perpetuating the six-year humanitarian crisis in Darfur. According to the complainants, the company is uniquely positioned to influence the government of Sudan, but is failing to act and denying involvement.

The founding principles of the Global Compact call for businesses to support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights and for businesses to ensure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

In its response to the open letter, Georg Kell, Executive Director of the UN Global Compact Office, states that the UNGC "decided not to handle this matter as an integrity issue of an individual company, PetroChina." He states that "the matters you raised in your correspondence could equally apply to a number of companies operating in conflict prone countries." In the letter, Kell asserts that PetroChina was been "singled out" because it "has recently taken the step of joining the Global Compact."

"PetroChina is in gross violation of UNGC principles for its failure to respect human rights and its lack of due diligence in avoiding human rights violations in Darfur," states Eric Cohen, Chairperson of Investors Against Genocide. "We do not agree with the UNGC that PetroChina or other companies should be immune from criticism by virtue of becoming a signatory to the Global Compact. On the contrary, it is precisely because companies are signatories that they should be challenged to live up to the principles embodied in the Compact."

The NGOs now plan to bring their complaint before the UNGC Board of Directors which is chaired by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. "We hope that the UN Global Compact will reconsider its ill-advised initial response and apply its Integrity Measures," states Eric Cohen. "The UNGC would be setting an extremely unfortunate precedent by declining to use its own documented process to preserve the integrity of its work in this extreme situation." Thus far, the UNGC has not applied its Integrity Measures to any previous allegation of systematic or egregious abuse.

Bart Slob, senior researcher at SOMO, concurs that the public image of the UN should not be used by companies to cover up irresponsible behaviour. "What is the point of adopting Integrity Measures, if the UNGC fails to apply them given the grave human rights abuses and seriousness of this complaint? The unwillingness to apply the Integrity Measures undermines the integrity of the Global Compact itself."

In his response to the NGOs, Kell further asserts that the "Global Compact's approach to business and peace emphasizes engagement rather than divestment and the power of collective action rather than focusing on any one individual company" and that "handling this matter as an integrity issue of one company would run counter to the Global Compact's approach of looking for practical solutions on the ground."

"If the UNGC is serious about effective engagement, then it should apply its Integrity Measures to request that PetroChina engage on the substance of the allegations we documented in the formal complaint," states Cohen. "Taking action against PetroChina, far from discouraging collective action and practical solutions on the ground, would greatly improve the chances for constructive engagement. Only by demonstrating that inaction and lip service are not acceptable will the corporate community take the actions that are clearly warranted in Sudan and other conflict zones."

In his remarks to the Global Compact Board on December 15, 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, "When we met for the first time in this room more than a year-and-a-half ago, I called on you to ensure that the momentum of the Global Compact is not lost on the slippery slope of the lowest common denominator. This is now more urgent than ever. In particular, I will be relying on you to further refine the good measures that have been taken to strengthen the quality and accountability of the corporate commitment to the Compact. As we move forward, it will be critical that the integrity of the initiative and the credibility of this Organization remain beyond reproach."

In an April 2008 report, John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Representative for business and human rights, specifically addressed the issue of financial support for genocide. The report states, "The Global Compact also suggests that businesses establish clear safeguards to ensure that if financial or material support is provided to security forces it is not used to violate human rights." Similarly, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has written, "A company is complicit in human rights abuses if it authorizes, tolerates, or knowingly ignores human rights abuses committed by an entity associated with it."

In Kell's response to the open letter, he also expresses "surprise" regarding the public nature of the open letter which "he read in the media." However, IAG and SOMO refute any implications regarding impropriety in the engagement process (see timeline below). The Global Compact is currently the world's largest and most widely known voluntary corporate responsibility initiative, with nearly 5,000 corporate participants.

Timeline of interaction between NGOs and UN Global Compact

Nov. 18, 2008: Draft of formal letter of complaint sent to UNGC.

Nov. 26, 2008: Meeting with UNGC for discussion and feedback on draft complaint.

Dec. 1, 2008: UNGC meeting in Khartoum to launch their Global Compact Network Sudan.

Dec. 11, 2008: Meeting with UNGC for discussion, including the plan to formally submit the complaint.

Dec. 15, 2008: Investors Against Genocide (IAG) and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) file a formal letter of complaint with the UNGC.

Dec. 15, 2008: UNGC email requesting to withdraw the complaint.

Dec. 16, 2008: IAG and SOMO email refusing to withdraw and stating that letter of complaint is now a public document, formally submitted.

Dec. 17, 2008: UNGC email indicating that they would consult with UNGC Board members and would reply in the first or second week of January.

Jan. 6, 2009: Courtesy copy provided to the UNGC in advance of publishing a sign-on letter supporting the complaint.

Jan. 7, 2009: Publication of the letter in support of the complaint against PetroChina, signed by over 80 NGOs from 25 countries.

Jan. 12, 2009: UNGC publishes response to the complaint against PetroChina.

Investors Against Genocide is a non-profit organization dedicated to ending investment in genocide. The organization works to build awareness of this problem and to advocate for investment firms and companies to change. The ultimate goals are that the Government of Sudan ends its deadly genocide in Darfur and that companies and investment firms avoid investing in genocide.

SOMO is a Dutch non-profit research organization. Established in 1973, SOMO undertakes research on the impact of multinational enterprises and the consequences of the internationalization of business, particularly for developing countries.

For more information please contact:
Susan Morgan, Director Of Communications
Investors Against Genocide
617-797-0451
www.investorsagainstgenocide.org

Who says what about PetroChina, Darfur and the Global Compact

On January 7, over 80 civil society organizations submitted a letter to the UN Global Compact in support of a formal complaint against PetroChina, a Global Compact participant. Five days later, the Global Compact responded that it had decided to reject the complaint. Much has been said about this case in the media in the past few days. Here are some of the most striking statements and opinions:

"The complaint against PetroChina/CNPC may or may not prompt the company to live up to the principles it espouses by its participation in the UN Global Compact. However, the issues raised by the complaint should prompt the broader international business community to reflect on its own practices regarding genocide." – Susan Morgan, Director of Communications of Investors Against Genocide, in an article in the Huffington Post.

"We're not asking PetroChina to threaten to withdraw from Sudan if the oil companies' demands aren't met. We're only asking them to step up to their responsibility to be an ethically good business partner. [...] If a company seeks legitimacy by joining the Global Compact, it should be required to have a genuine commitment. If the Compact's principles aren't enforced, the UN risks making the Global Compact an international joke." – Eric Cohen, Chairperson of Investors Against Genocide, in an interview on Matter Network.

"As for the UN, since its earliest days it's been characterized by the gaping chasm between its aspirations and its actions. To date this pattern has applied to the Global Compact as well: the UN has never de-listed an organization for substantive (as distinguished from procedural) reasons." – Carl Frankel in an article on Matter Network.

"After having received the advice and guidance of a number of Board Members, we have decided not to handle this matter as an integrity issue of an individual company, PetroChina. The matters you raised in your correspondence could equally apply to a number of companies operating in conflict prone countries. As you have previously confirmed to us, PetroChina has been singled out largely because it, unlike many of the other companies that your coalition has been focusing on, has recently taken the step of joining the Global Compact. Since we are a learning initiative, this is a step that should be welcomed instead of criticized." – Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, in his response to the letter on PetroChina.

"Another bad case for the UN Global Compact..." – Comment from a reader of the Global Compact Critics blog.

© Illustration by Cate Anevski.

UN Global Compact rejects PetroChina complaint

Last week over 80 civil society organizations including human rights, corporate accountability, and religious groups from 25 countries, as well as government officials and actor Mia Farrow, submitted an open letter to the United Nations Global Compact in support of a formal complaint against PetroChina, a Global Compact participant.

In spite of the overwhelming support for this initiative and the seriousness of the allegations, the Global Compact responded today that it rejects the complaint. These are some of the most relevant passages from the reply sent by Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact:

"After having received the advice and guidance of a number of Board Members, we have decided not to handle this matter as an integrity issue of an individual company, PetroChina. The matters you raised in your correspondence could equally apply to a number of companies operating in conflict prone countries. As you have previously confirmed to us, PetroChina has been singled out largely because it, unlike many of the other companies that your coalition has been focusing on, has recently taken the step of joining the Global Compact. Since we are a learning initiative, this is a step that should be welcomed instead of criticized.

[…]

In summary, handling this matter as an integrity issue of one company would run counter to the Global Compact’s approach of looking for practical solutions on the ground.

[…]

“Notwithstanding the above, as we have previously indicated, we have shared your letters with PetroChina and with CNPC. The latter is not yet a participant in the UN Global Compact, but has engaged in the establishment of the Local Network in Sudan. CNPC has written to me and I enclose a copy of their letter for your information.”

[…]

[O]ur objection is to the use of the UN Global Compact as a vehicle for targeting individual companies because of their willingness to engage in the initiative."

It is still too early to say how this reply should be interpreted. In the coming weeks, the groups that submitted the allegations against PetroChina will surely express their views on the Compact's refusal to deal with this complaint.

Investors send reminder to lax Global Compact participants

A coalition of investors worth over US$3 trillion has today launched an initiative to help police the corporate responsibility reporting of companies as diverse as Air France, GAP Inc and LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy).

The 38 members of the international investor coalition have written to the CEOs of 130 major listed companies, all of them participants in the UN Global Compact. By joining the UN Global Compact, companies commit to producing an annual corporate responsibility report known as a Communication on Progress (COP).

Twenty-five of the companies have been praised by the investors for producing notably high-quality COPs, including Air France and Starbucks, while over 100 companies were identified as laggards by the investors for failing to submit a COP this year. Those companies that failed to produce COPs include GAP Inc, Severn Trent plc and LVMH.

The investors are all signatories to the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and include funds such as Aviva Investors, CalPERS and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The total assets under management of all signatories to the PRI are estimated at around US$18 trillion (according to pre-crisis estimates).

This new initiative builds on a shareholder engagement last year that identified which UN Global Compact participants were leaders or laggards in their reporting of corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.

Last year's initiative resulted in over 32% of the companies identified as laggards subsequently submitting a Communication on Progress and improving their engagement with the UN Global Compact. The status of all the companies from last year's engagement can be found here.

Source: UN PRI (12/9/2009) / © Photo by Jon.

The Danish law on CSR reporting: a model to follow?

In September last year we blogged about the Danish Action Plan for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In the blog post, we criticized the plan for using the Global Compact as a benchmark for business-driven social responsibility. The Danish government opted for a "safe" option which was more about perceived change than real steps forward in social responsibility.

Last week blogger and CSR expert Mallen Baker also made some critical remarks about the recently adopted law that requires the 1,100 largest companies in Denmark to report on CSR related activities. Here is a transcript of his blog post:

The curious truth behind the Danish law on CSR reporting

A few people have gotten excited over the new Danish law to require corporate social responsibility reporting of the top 1,100 companies. But my question is this: what kind of CSR report can you write in three hours? That's the estimation the government has of how long it will take to comply with the requirements of the Act.

Overall, I'm not a great fan of governments mandating CSR reporting - even though I am a fan of companies communicating with stakeholders about their social responsibility issues.

Take this instance. There are 1,100 companies the government says will be covered by the new Act. So they all must now include information about their CSR programmes with their annual reports - including information about standards or guidelines the company is using, how the company goes about putting its principles into practice, and an assessment of its impact or results.

Or not. If you have no interest in such issues, you can just say so. So long as you disclose, there is no requirement for what you must do, or what you must seek to achieve.

Is there a proven audience for this information, so that the government should require it? I don't mean a casually interested audience - I mean one that will read 1,100 reports because it gives them useful information? A government mandate like this can all too easily be used because someone thinks in theory it's a great idea, and then it is required. But in fact, nobody then uses the information produced to make decisions.

Shouldn't one instead be engaging with the mainstream investors to understand which aspects of the agenda are important to them, and getting them to demand useful information on those aspects? Wouldn't that then drive quality and relevance of information upwards over time?

But the real kicker - and the one that makes it quite clear that this is not the radical move that some would like to think - is the government's estimation that overall 1,100 companies will use up 3,000 hours between them in order to comply with the Act.

I couldn't quite believe it when I read this, and assumed it was a fault of the translation. So I contacted the press release contact, and they confirmed it. 3 hours per company on average.

This may be CSR reporting, but not as we know it. De facto, it is the barest of summaries of what a company is, or is not, already doing without metrics, without case studies, without detail.

It may not be a bad thing to do - but it is a rather minor measure to have been welcomed in such fulsome terms by, for instance, the Global Compact, who said that the bill should become "a model for others to follow".

Source: Mallen Baker's blog (9/1/2009).

Over 80 organizations ask Global Compact to delist PetroChina for complicity in genocide

Groups ask the UN initiative to remove PetroChina as a participant unless it acts to help end human rights violations in Sudan.

Boston, MA – January 7, 2009 - Today, over 80 civil society organizations including human rights, corporate accountability, and religious groups from 25 countries, as well as government officials and actor Mia Farrow, submitted an open letter to the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) in support of a formal complaint against PetroChina, a Global Compact participant. PetroChina, the publicly traded arm of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), 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 UN Global Compact's founding principles call for businesses to support and respect human rights, and its "Integrity Measures" define steps to safeguard the reputation, integrity and good efforts of the Global Compact and its participants. The complaint, which was submitted under these Integrity Measures, asks the UNGC to use its "good offices" to influence PetroChina to engage with the government of Sudan on behalf of the Darfuri people. If, after three months, there is no satisfactory resolution of the issues raised, the group requests that the Global Compact "consider PetroChina’s participation to be detrimental to the reputation and integrity of the Global Compact and remove the company from the list of participants."

"The UNGC must take a strong stand against the abuse of its founding principles," states Eric Cohen, Chairperson of Investors Against Genocide (IAG). "PetroChina is in violation of UNGC principles for its failure to respect human rights, its lack of due diligence in avoiding human rights violations, its continuing refusal to correct the abuses and the widespread recognition that it is a major contributor to the conflict in Darfur." The Government of Sudan has a well-documented history of susceptibility to economic pressure. It is highly reliant on foreign direct investment not only to pay its debts and subsidize government expenditures, but also to fund its military and finance the conflict in Darfur. The government’s financial dependence on PetroChina/CNPC creates a unique opportunity for the company to influence events in the region.

Although PetroChina has claimed independence from CNPC, the two companies are inseparable. In a May 2007 report on the relationship between PetroChina and CNPC, KLD Research & Analytics, an independent research firm, concluded that "investors should treat CNPC and PetroChina as if they were a single entity." Comprehensive research by the Genocide Intervention Network reaches the same conclusion. The Multinational Monitor named CNPC as one of the worst companies of 2008 as a result of its role "fueling violence in Darfur".

This request for the UN Global Compact to engage with its participant, PetroChina, follows the UN's year-long campaign in 2008 to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UN Global Compact derives the first two of its ten principles from the UDHR. The first principle of the UN Global Compact states that businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights. The second principle requires that businesses ensure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

In his remarks on December 15, 2008 to the Global Compact Board at a meeting in New York, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, "When we met for the first time in this room more than a year-and-a-half ago, I called on you to ensure that the momentum of the Global Compact is not lost on the slippery slope of the lowest common denominator. This is now more urgent than ever. In particular, I will be relying on you to further refine the good measures that have been taken to strengthen the quality and accountability of the corporate commitment to the Compact. As we move forward, it will be critical that the integrity of the initiative and the credibility of this Organization remain beyond reproach."

In order to follow up on this request by the Secretary-General, the UNGC must address the allegations made against PetroChina using the processes defined by its own Integrity Measures.

In an April 2008 report, John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Representative for business and human rights, specifically addressed the issue of financial support for genocide. The report states, "The Global Compact also suggests that businesses establish clear safeguards to ensure that if financial or material support is provided to security forces it is not used to violate human rights." Similarly, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has written, "A company is complicit in human rights abuses if it authorizes, tolerates, or knowingly ignores human rights abuses committed by an entity associated with it."

The Global Compact is currently the world’s largest and most widely known voluntary corporate responsibility initiative, with nearly 5,000 corporate participants. It is often criticized by civil society organizations because of its purely voluntary nature. Bart Slob, a senior researcher at the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), said: "Unfortunately the Global Compact has admitted companies with dubious humanitarian and environmental records. These records are in stark contrast to the principles advocated by the Compact. Those Compact participants, such as PetroChina, who merely pay lip service to the principles, will inevitably be denounced by civil society organizations and will have to abandon the UNGC. The public image of the UN should not be used by companies to cover up irresponsible behaviour."

Today's open letter follows an earlier letter sent May 12, 2008, which was also signed by numerous civil society organizations. Since May 2, representatives of Investors Against Genocide and SOMO have privately engaged with representatives of the UNGC in an effort to address the concern. On December 15, 2008, after more than seven months and with still no response from PetroChina, IAG and SOMO submitted a formal complaint against PetroChina of "systematic or egregious abuse" of the Global Compact's overall aims and principles.

Contact:
Susan Morgan - Investors Against Genocide - (001) 617-797-0451, susan@paxcommunications.org
Phillip Honour - Act for Darfur - +44 7979 541520, philhonour@googlemail.com

© Photo by Nico.

PetroChina, the UN and blood money

By Susan Morgan, The Huffington Post.

It's expensive to wage genocide. Weapons need to be bought, contract killers must be paid. However, for the genocidal regime in Sudan, expense is not a problem. The government controls the country's oil resources, a valuable commodity in the global marketplace. As Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir boasted, "Just when some countries gave us sanctions, God gave us oil."

The regime is further emboldened thanks to the silent complicity of its largest partner in the exploitation of its oil resources, PetroChina/CNPC. This Chinese oil company is more than happy to turn a blind eye to the fact that it is largely funding the Government of Sudan's six-year reign of terror over its own people in its Darfur region. Labeled genocide by the US Congress in 2004, this massive humanitarian crisis has resulted in the deaths of over 300,000 people, the displacement of at least 2.7 million and the rapes of countless women and young girls.

Clearly, if the senior executives of PetroChina/CNPC, which is controlled by the Chinese government, expressed concerns about the genocide to its partners, Omar al-Bashir and the National Congress Party, they could have a significant impact on the lives of the innocent victims of Darfur. The government of Sudan has a well documented history of susceptibility to economic pressure.

However, in spite of tremendous international outcry directed at the company, including divestment actions by 27 US states, 61 colleges and universities, Members of the European Parliament's pension fund, and PGGM, one of the largest public pension funds in Europe, PetroChina/CNPC has not lifted a finger to use its influence to help the desperately suffering people of Darfur.

Instead, PetroChina/CNPC has been taking disingenuous steps to improve the public perception of its track record on corporate social responsibility. For the last two years, the company has published Corporate Social Responsibility reports, although those reports conspicuously lack any mention of the human rights crisis in Darfur. PetroChina has even become a participant in the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.

According to the UNGC website, Principle One of the Compact states that "businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights." Principle Two states that "businesses should make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses." PetroChina becoming a signatory to such laudable principles flies in the face of the company's total abdication of responsibility regarding the genocide in Darfur.

That's why, on January 7, a group of over 80 civil society organizations led by Investors Against Genocide and Center for Research on Multinational Corporations issued an open letter supporting a formal complaint to the UN Global Compact about PetroChina/CNPC. The complaint, which was submitted according to the UNGC's Integrity Measures, asks the UNGC to use its "good offices" to influence PetroChina to do the right thing in the face of genocide. If after three months, there is no satisfactory resolution of the issues raised, the group requests that the Global Compact "consider PetroChina's participation to be detrimental to the reputation and integrity of the Global Compact and remove the company from the list of participants."

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon seems to share the civil society groups' concern that signatories to the Global Compact should uphold the principles upon which the Compact was founded. In his remarks on December 15 to the Global Compact Board at a meeting in New York, Ban said, "When we met for the first time in this room more than a year-and-a-half ago, I called on you to ensure that the momentum of the Global Compact is not lost on the slippery slope of the lowest common denominator. This is now more urgent than ever. In particular, I will be relying on you to further refine the good measures that have been taken to strengthen the quality and accountability of the corporate commitment to the Compact. As we move forward, it will be critical that the integrity of the initiative and the credibility of this Organization remain beyond reproach."

In an April 2008 report, John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Representative for business and human rights, specifically addressed the issue of financial support for genocide. The report states, "The Global Compact also suggests that businesses establish clear safeguards to ensure that if financial or material support is provided to security forces it is not used to violate human rights." Similarly, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has written, "A company is complicit in human rights abuses if it authorizes, tolerates, or knowingly ignores human rights abuses committed by an entity associated with it."

The complaint against PetroChina/CNPC may or may not prompt the company to live up to the principles it espouses by its participation in the UN Global Compact. However, the issues raised by the complaint should prompt the broader international business community to reflect on its own practices regarding genocide. Looking back, what companies would condone funding Zyklon-B gas for the Nazis or machetes for the genocide in Rwanda? Similarly, companies today should not stand idly by while their money funds genocide. While ethical business practices may mean different things to different companies, one hopes that all can agree to draw the line at funding genocide.

Source: The Huffington Post (7/1/2009).