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.

Activists urge UN Global Compact to exclude Bayer

The Coalition against Bayer Dangers, an international network based in Germany, has urged the United Nations to exclude Bayer from the UN Global Compact. In a letter of complaint sent earlier today to the executive director of the Global Compact, the group said that Bayer seriously violates the principles and the integrity measures of the Compact.

In a press release, Axel Koehler-Schnura, board member of the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, said: "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". The Coalition has been monitoring Bayer for over 30 years and is working on a broad range of issues such as emissions of Bayer plants, hazards caused by Bayer products, and accidents in Bayer plants.

The complaint is based on the aftermath of a fatal explosion at Bayer's US facilities in Institute, West Virginia, in 2008. According to a US Congress investigation, faulty safety systems, significant shortcomings with the emergency procedures and a lack of employee training led to the catastrophe. The region narrowly escaped a catastrophe that could have surpassed the 1984 Bhopal disaster. The investigation found that "Evidence obtained by the committee demonstrates that Bayer engaged in a campaign of secrecy by withholding critical information from local, county and state emergency responders; by restricting the use of information provided to federal investigators; by undermining news outlets and citizen groups concerned about the dangers posed by Bayer's activities; and by providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."

According to Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, "These findings prove that Bayer systematically violates various principles of the Global Compact, such as principle 7 (Precautionary environmental protection), Principle 8 (Specific commitment to environmental protection) and Principle 9 (Diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies). Bayer's policies do not comply with the Compact's principles on the environment and thereby are harmful to the credibility of the program. We therefore urge the UN to exclude Bayer from the Global Compact."

The letter of complaint is available here.

© Photo by US House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Business and human rights at the UN: what might happen next?

In the last edition of Human Rights Quarterly, Scott Jerbi analyzes the recent developments on the subject of business and human rights within the United Nations. In his article, he reflects on possible future actions that could be taken in this area over the coming years.

The article touches upon the UN Global Compact's approach to business and human rights. Mr. Jerbi says:

"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. UN officials have explicitly stated that the Global Compact does not set out to 'police, enforce, or measure the behavior or actions' of companies that claim to adhere to its principles; instead, it relies on public accountability, transparency, and the enlightened self-interest of companies to share their experiences in seeking to implement the ten principles. Human rights advocates were deeply skeptical of initiatives like the Global Compact that focused on the ‘business case’ for social responsibility and voluntary action rather than new forms of regulation."

According to Mr. Jerbi, it is increasingly clear that the international human rights framework has begun to shape the direction of multi-stakeholder approaches to addressing specific governance challenges. However, it is less certain whether the UN Human Rights Council, still in the early stages of its institutional development, will seek to incorporate such new thinking and approaches into its activities in the future.

Mr. Jerbi believes that a significant number of governments maintain that improving social and environmental standards entails costs for companies and economies that may undermine enterprise development and employment generation strategies in many developing countries. Some view efforts by major multinational companies to exert influence on a wide range of suppliers in developing countries as detrimental to small business interests. Others argue that the actions of such corporations, which operate in countries with weak enforcement standards, require new forms of accountability.

What seems certain is that the movement towards greater corporate responsibility is one of the most deep-rooted developments in the human rights story of the first decade of the twenty-first century. The efforts of John Ruggie, the special representative on business and Human rights, to forge a consensus, combined with growing public calls for greater accountability and a developing body of good practice and experience in the field could together lead to a major contribution to the cause of human rights in the years to come.

The article is available here.

© Photo by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Who said what in May 2009

"The UN Global Compact was recently criticized by more than 80 civil society organizations for allowing PetroChina, the publicly traded arm of China National Petroleum Corporation, to become a member. Campaigners accuse the company, which is Sudan's largest oil industry partner, of being complicit in genocide by financially supporting the Sudanese government. The Global Compact had been previously criticized when it was discovered that several companies which joined it had not provided any report on their performance on the Global Compact's principles. The criticism prompted the compact to flag hundreds of companies as 'inactive'." - Rajesh Chhabara, in an article about voluntary CSR initiatives in Ethical Corporation Magazine.

"[…] The Global Compact is only one of the many initiatives that these [three] companies employ in shaping, implementing, and reporting about their CSR strategies, and [...] its role is at most modest. There are two important reasons. One is that many of the CSR issues that these companies deal with are industry specific and are hence addressed in specific networks. The second reason is that the GC principles are perceived as minimum requirements that do not provide many incentives to the three case study companies to perform better." - Hens Runhaar and Helene Lafferty, in an article about the contribution of the UN Global Compact to CSR strategies in the telecommunications industry.

"We have never disputed that companies joining the Global Compact with existing CSR codes and initiatives inherently have different motivations and expectations than those who require direction and assistance to reach the same degree of CSR engagement. But much has happened since Runhaar and Lafferty's research, and the notion that 'the Global Compact could have more impact if explicitly aimed at stimulating frontrunner companies to perform better' has actually been one of the drivers to launch more specific leadership platforms such as Caring for Climate or The CEO Water Mandate." - From Perspectives on Sustainability, a blog created and administered by staff members of the Compact.

"[…] There are considerable implementation shortcomings, most notably in supply chain management and subsidiary engagement. Less than ten per cent of participating corporations require their suppliers to become members of the Global Compact. It is, however, essential that responsible business practices are adopted through the complete supply chain. Finally, the increase in new participants is clouded by the delisting of 400 corporations, which failed to communicate their progress." - Jeannette Weisschuh, Director of Global Citizenship, HP EMEA, in a blog post in which she summarizes the key findings of the Global Compact's Annual Review 2008.

"[...] There is an even more important issue that does not appear in the [annual] review at all. According to John Ruggie's BASESwiki on non-judicial grievance mechanisms, 'there have been a total of 56 cases' filed under the Global Compact's Integrity Measures. The cases include complaints and request for dialogue about alleged violations of the Compact's principles. None of the cases are mentioned in the review. [...] I think that the Compact needs to be far more transparent and specific about the many complaints it receives every year." - Bart Slob, senior researcher at SOMO, in a response to Jeannette Wiesschuh’s blog post about the Global Compact’s Annual Review 2008.