RIGHTS: Corporate Responsibility Core of UN Sub-Commission Debate

By Gustavo Capdevila Reprint | | Print |

Gustavo Capdevila

GENEVA, Aug 2 2002 (IPS) - The initiative under discussion at the United Nations to establish human rights principles applicable to transnational corporations has brought to light the discrepancies among the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) dedicated to this issue.

For some groups, “it goes too far in the way of restraining corporations. For others, it does not go far enough,” summarised Isabella D. Bunn, senior policy adviser for Christian Aid, the official relief and development agency of 40 church denominations in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

The discussion led the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce and the International Organisation of Employers, headquartered in Geneva, to propose that work on drafting the “Human Right Principles and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises” should be suspended.

The process “does not constitute a positive contribution to the current growth of voluntary corporate social initiatives and should not proceed,” argue the two organisations.

However, the European-Third World Centre (CETIM), based in Geneva, and the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), with offices in Buenos Aires and New York, issued a statement saying that the draft “not only distorts the UN working group’s mandate but represents a significant step backwards from the current state of international human rights law.”

Other leading NGOs like Amnesty International, based in London, and Human Rights Watch, in New York, gave their approval of the working group’s draft of the corporate responsibility initiative, though proposed changes aimed at strengthening the principles.

The effort has been under way since 1998 by a working group of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and has recently taken on added relevance as a result of the accounting scandals of major companies based in industrialised countries.

The Sub-Commission, made up of 26 independent experts designated by five regional groups of countries, serves as an assessment body for the Commission on Human Rights, the maximum authority on this issue at the UN.

The working group presented its initiative this week during the Sub-Commission’s annual period of sessions, which this year extend from Jul 29 to Aug 16.

The draft document establishes criteria to govern the activities of transnational companies as far as human rights, but also with respect to other social issues, such as environmental protection and combating corruption.

The title, “Human Right Principles and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises”, did not originally include the reference to “other business enterprises,” as it was not part of the mandate granted by the Sub-Commission. The working group defines this addition as “any commercial entity”.

The representative from CETIM, Malik Ozden, pointed out that by extending the scope of the initiative, thus making it applicable to a neighbourhood shoemaker or baker, the working group is altering the mandate established by the Sub-Commission.

The Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), of the UN itself, proposed to settle the disagreement by replacing “other business enterprises” — the working group’s wording — with “other large corporations”.

“Human rights law is fundamentally about protecting the individual from powerful entities such as the state,” said UNRISD. “The question remains,” added the institute, “whether it is appropriate to include all family, small and medium sized enterprises” in the scope of the initiative.

“Corporate social responsibility is about ensuring that large corporations that have acquired increasing rights and freedoms in recent decades also acquire commensurate responsibilities,” according to UNRISD.

The UN-based institute predicts that the draft text will face criticism because it is voluntary, non-binding and omits any mention of penalties for companies that fail to comply with the principles.

On that point, Alejandro Teitelbaum, AAJ representative in Geneva, commented that the project favours self-monitoring or “pseudo-monitoring” by private external entities that receive payment from the companies themselves.

With a declaration of principles that is optional in nature, the initiative opens the door for transnational corporations to escape their obligation to submit to international laws and standards, said Teitelbaum.

Most of the NGOs taking part in the debate presented criteria facilitating the Sub-Commission’s immediate approval of the document on corporations’ human rights responsibilities.

Activist Bunn stated that Christian Aid supports that approach, but stressed that “these principles are emerging just as massive corporate scandals are undermining economic growth”, as recent events in the United States prove

There is “widespread recognition that self-regulation has failed,” she added.

Among the members of the Sub-Commission, meanwhile, the predominant feeling is that the text presented by the working group requires further study.

As such, Human Rights Watch suggested that the Sub-Commission extend the working group’s mandate for another three years.

This would “provide further opportunities for the group to refine these principles and consult with interested parties,” argues the human rights organisation.