Ending poverty and winning human rights can't be left to voluntary initiatives of corporations
- The Guardian,
- Tuesday May 6 2008
- Article history
This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday May 06 2008 on p27 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:03 on May 06 2008.
For an event aimed at convincing the public that multinational corporations have a positive contribution to make, the line-up is likely to raise a few eyebrows. UK mining giant Anglo American, one of the first to come on board, has been widely criticised for profiting from human rights abuses against local communities in the developing world.
Fellow participant Wal-Mart, savagely opposed to trade unions, has built its global empire on relentless cutting of costs in retail stores and supply chains, including ever-lower wages for factory workers in China and Bangladesh. This downwards pressure on earnings prevents people from working their way out of poverty, in complete contrast to the stated aims of Brown's initiative.
Other companies are the subject of similar criticisms. Coca-Cola has long been the target of legal action in India for taking communal water resources from poor farmers, and for its pollution of agricultural land. Bechtel attained notoriety over the failed privatisation of water in the Bolivian town of Cochabamba. Other participating companies have also come in for criticism.
The government unit responsible for today's event classifies complicity in human rights abuses, labour rights violations and pollution as "unacceptable" corporate behaviour. On that basis alone, several of the multinationals lining up alongside Gordon Brown today are less than appropriate for an anti-poverty event. When we raised this, the civil servant in charge said "some of the companies might seem a bit unusual", but added cheerily: "Isn't that great?"
It would indeed be great if the initiative had been designed to challenge the companies' behaviour and bring them into line with international standards. Yet the government has made clear there is no such intention and insists the initiative will not be used to challenge poor business practices when companies are found to have strayed from the path of righteousness.
Moreover, the government has admitted that there is no mechanism in place to measure whether any of the products and services to be launched by the companies will actually make a difference to poverty levels in the developing world. Without such checks the event looks suspiciously like a PR exercise designed to allow a few questionable multinationals to talk up their credentials without altering their behaviour in any way.
In his new report on business and human rights, UN special representative John Ruggie attacks the "permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds" which has been fostered as a result of government reliance on voluntary initiatives rather than regulation of business. He also laments government failure to take action in defence of the victims of corporate abuse. When the UN human rights council convenes to debate his recommendations, Ruggie will call on world leaders to introduce a proper framework of regulation and accountability to restore some balance between the interests of big business and the needs of working people.
The battle to end poverty and win human rights is too important to be left to voluntary initiatives of corporations. The mantra that "enlightened self-interest" will lead business to behave responsibly has been exposed as a myth by the very companies that have signed up to Brown's initiative. Only by ensuring that corporations can be held accountable can we stop the abuses and make progress towards a better world.
· The writer is executive director of War on Want
jhilary@waronwant.org
Invite your Facebook friends to Messenger! Get Started!
No comments:
Post a Comment