| What's New In KLD RESEARCH | ||
|
||
|
Three recent cases have highlighted questions about corporate responsibility with regard to human rights. Developments at the international level may help eventually to clarify these responsibilities. In April 2005, the nine-story Spectrum Sweater factory in Savar, Bangladesh collapsed, killing at least 83 workers. Several large European brands, all of which have labor codes of conduct and auditing programs, sourced from Spectrum. In June 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report, "The Curse of Gold," in which HRW alleged that the gold mining company AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) had paid an armed rebel group with a record of committing significant human rights violations, helping the company gain access to gold in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The company denied it had a relationship with the rebel group, but admitted it had made payments to the group "under protest and duress" after the rebels had threatened the safety of AGA staff and assets. Also in June 2005, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) accused Microsoft Corporation of complicity in the Chinese government’s censorship of the Internet. Users of MSN Spaces, Microsoft's online web log ("blog") service in China are prevented from using words like "democracy," "human rights," or "Taiwan independence." In response to RSF's accusations, Microsoft, which opened its portal in China in May 2002 through a joint venture with a Chinese government-funded company, acknowledged it was cooperating with the government in censoring the site, but claimed it was only complying with Chinese law. How far do the responsibilities of corporations extend regarding the human rights of workers in their supply chains, local populations in the vicinity of their operations, and customers who use their products and services? In the case of Bangladesh, to what degree should the foreign brands be held responsible for the fact that their codes were not enforced, or for the fact that the codes did not cover the structural soundness of the building?1 With regard to AngloGold Ashanti, if a company has to pay extortion money to protect its employees, should it even be operating in that area? Does Microsoft have a responsibility to refuse to uphold laws that violate a universal value such as free speech, or to pressure the Chinese government on censorship? The ongoing international debate on the human rights responsibilities of corporations has led to a resolution in April 2005 by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The resolution called for the UN to appoint a Special Representative on human rights and business. In late July, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed Professor John Ruggie, of Harvard University, to the position. In 2003, the UN adopted a set of draft norms, the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. The non-binding Norms have provoked a backlash from critics, including major industry associations such as the International Chamber of Commerce. Critics have argued, among other things, that the Norms would shift responsibility for protecting human rights from states to companies. Supporters of the norms have rebutted these claims and argued that critics have distorted the intent of the norms2. Despite the backlash, there has been some progress, as the 2005 resolution demonstrates. Ten companies, members of the Business Leaders Initiative for Human Rights, have agreed to "road test" the Norms to determine what their effect might be on corporate operations. One of the tasks of the new UN Special Representative will be to define what has come to be known as the "sphere of influence" of corporations with regard to human rights, as well as what is meant by "complicity" in human rights abuses. If the Special Rep, working with business, human rights organizations and governments, can clarify such concepts, that will be a good start in addressing the questions posed above. We can expect all of these processes to continue to meet significant resistance and to take many years. But they should also advance the debate about the human rights responsibilities of corporations, and hopefully lend clarity to a very complex area.
1 Carrefour’s response to early reports of the collapse included a statement that the company had asked its audit companies to start including documentation of construction permits and information on technical inspection of buildings. Carrefour, "Statement in Response to an article by Clean Clothes Campaign on involvement in Spectrum Sweater Factory," May 9, 2005. 2 Sir Geoffrey Chandler, "Corporate Social Responsibility: The International Aspects," keynote address, June 25, 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Role of the Lawyer, Amsterdam 25-26 June 2004. |
||
|
||
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|