RIGHTS: Big Business Out to Improve Image

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

MEXICO CITY, Oct 23 1999 (IPS) - The Royal Dutch-Shell oil company recently boasted in an advertisement in a leading international that it really cared about human rights.

“We are committed to support fundamental human rights and have made this commitment in our published statement of General Business Practices,” said the two-page advertisement.

Such bold words, echoed elsewhere by other multi-national companies, intended to show that Shell was out to promote an image of caring about principles as well as profits but there were those who had their doubts.

One human rights activist who has been monitoring the record of such multinational companies offered a guarded response about this a change of heart in the world of international finance and investment.

“We welcome moves by Shell and British Petroleum-Amoco to address human rights in the course of their operations,” said Arvind Ganesan of the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW).

At the end of the day, however, “they will have to be judged on their willingness and ability to adopt such policies throughout their business and to adequately enforce them.”

There must be a commitment toward transparency, where information will be available to all concerned parties, “the cornerstone to any human rights effort by a company,” added Ganesan.

Before Shell and British Petroleum made their new commitment on rights other multinationals , such as the Nike sports clothing manufacturer, declared its business activities in the developing world were senstive to the question of fundamental rights.

The latest Human Development Report, released in July by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), drew attention to two events that promoted the need for multinationals to conduct business with “social responsibilities.”

One was the effort by the Council for Economic Priorities, a US- based non-governmental organisation, which gives annual awards and public recognition to Fortune 500 companies demonstrating exceptional performance in, among other things, “gender equity and human rights.”

The other was the 1998 conference hosted by the British-based Ethical Trading Initiative in London which brought together hundreds of people from a range of companies to discuss “fair trade issues and company codes of conduct.”

According to the Human Development Report six of the nine British companies among the top 100 multinationals were drafting such codes.

But many people in the Third World remain unconvinced that such signs are indicative of a trend. They point to examples of multinationals in their countries living up to their widely-held reputation of being “agents of exploitation.”

For example, the African Inter-Church Coalition has been running a month-long campaign against Talisman Energy Inc., a Canadian company that has made inroads into the oil reserves in Sudan.

“Why is Canadian involvement in Sudan’s oil development programme an issue?” asks the coalition’s bulletin.

The answer: Talisman’s legal business partner, the National Islamic Front Government of Sudan, one of the world’s worst violators of human rights.

“International human rights agencies and the UN Commission on Human Rights have accumulated volumes of carefully gathered evidence charging the Sudanese regime with acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes against humanity,” the coalition points out.

In India, the activities of US energy conglomerate Enron have been labelled “abusive” by activists.

Early this year, Human Rights Watch published a 166-page book exposing Enron’s “complicity in human rights abuse connected with the Dabhol Power Corporation,” in the state of Maharastra.

“Innocent people were beaten up and arrested on trumped up charges, sometimes outside the very gates of Enron’s power plant, because they were demonstrating against what they believe are the plant’s adverse effects on the local environment and economy,” HRW alleged.

And in Latin America, those who monitor the presence of multinationals remember the involvement of these companies in political affairs to preserve their business ventures in such countries as Guetemala and Chile.

According to Ganesan, the multinationals who have developed human rights policies have done so “in response to a crisis.”

In the case of Shell, it followed the 1995 execution of Ken Saro Wiwa, the Nigerian environmental and democracy activist, Ganesan said.

Shell spokesman Robin Arram, conceded the death of Saro Wiwa was “an influence on our thinking” but he maintained “dealing with human rights issues is not new to Shell.”

Arram told IPS that for years “we had to face difficult human rights issues in South Africa under apartheid.

“It is also a sad fact that oil and gas reserves seem to be found in countries with questionable human rights records. More recently we began our current phase of thinking and developing policy on human rights in 1995. This culminated in the inclusion of human rights in the Shell General Business Principles in March 1997 and we have continues development since then.”

Arram said in Shell’s view there was a “good business case for supporting human rights and, indeed, sustainable development.

“Societies’ expectations of companies have been changing, and continue to change – the price for being allowed to continue to do our business is to recognise these societal expectations and to take them on board. These include issues such as health, safety, environmental protection and the complex area of human rights,” he said

Expectations of society today had moved away from a accepting those who said “trust me” to a “tell me” and “show me” world, Arram added. “It is most advanced in North America, least so in the Far East and somewhere in between in Europe.”

A variety of factors – “globalisation and, in particular, instant global communications and their effective use by non-governmental organisations” were involved in the trend toward a “show me” world, Arram said. “Developments on one side of the world can become known everywhere in a few seconds.”

Shortly before he retired some years ago John Jennings, the chairman of Shell Transport and Trading Company noted that the United Nations had tried over the years to establish a comprehensive code, but had found it extremely difficult to win sufficient support for any proposals.

“I think it unlikely that it will find an all-embracing code of conduct. What I would like to see is other multinational enterprises standing up in the way Shell has done,” Jennings said

What were the prospects of that happening in large numbers?

“Many are reluctant but that is for them to decide,” Jennings said.