Corporate Social Responsibility by Amnesty International 11:25am 10th Dec, 2003   10th December, 2003    Amnesty International has been working on the issue of human rights and business for over 10 years. We have specialised groups in 17 countries around the world working on these issues. This work involves hundreds of individuals, most of them volunteering their time. They come from disparate backgrounds, but they include many people with considerable experience of the private sector.    All companies should ensure just and favourable conditions of work, reasonable job security and fair and adequate remuneration and benefits. [Human Rights Principles For Companies]    Our experience has shown that many of those in the private sector engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues are well-meaning, concerned, and serious about the human rights issues we bring to their attention. The number of companies interested in human rights is growing.    When we first began our work on business and human rights ten years ago, it was difficult to get companies to even agree to speak with us, let alone understand the relevance of human rights to their business. Today, over 1,100 companies are participating in the UN Global Compact, which lists human rights as one of the nine principles to which signatories must commit.    A number of large, well-known corporations have adopted policies explicitly respecting human rights. A number of companies, in diverse sectors of industry, from diamonds to petroleum, have committed themselves to following voluntary codes of ethical corporate behaviour, including human rights.    Human rights groups like Amnesty International are regularly invited to dialogue and discuss human rights issues with the business sector, whether bilaterally or in multi-stakeholder forums such as the World Economic Forum. No responsible CEO of a leading corporate today would deny the relevance of human rights to their business.    It would be only fair, however, to recognise that much of the interest and action on human rights have come about as a result of pressure and exposure. Just as disasters like Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the disposal of the Brent Spar platform brought environmental concerns on to the agenda of companies, human rights popped up on their companies' radar screens as a result of crises.    The execution of the Ogoni 9 in Nigeria and the conduct of private security firms in Colombia convinced oil giants Shell and BP to take human rights concerns on board. Evidence linking diamonds from Sierra Leone with the reprehensible armed opposition group, the Revolutionary United Front, and its terror tactics of amputating the limbs of civilians, led the diamond industry to agree to a system of international certification to weed out conflict diamonds. Allegations of profiting from "sweatshops" forced apparel companies to look at human rights concerns.    In many cases, the key motivating factor for change has been the risk to reputation. The fur industry suffered grievously during the campaign against them from animal rights activists. This is probably one of the reasons why the diamond industry came rapidly to the negotiating table over the issue of conflict diamonds.    For the pharmaceutical industry, risks to reputation are particularly high - because of the direct correlation between its activities and the rights to life and health, and because of the huge profit margins. Pharmaceutical companies may argue that such profits are needed to support research, but, in the absence of transparent reporting on how much it actually costs to develop a drug, it will be difficult to shift public opinion from a simple analysis of greed over need.    Another reason why companies are beginning to change is because of the increasing risk of litigation. Cape Plc is being sued in the UK over allegations that it has exposed its workers to asbestos in South Africa. UNOCAL, EXXON Mobil and Coca Cola are all facing lawsuits for complicity in human rights violations in Myanmar, Indonesia and Colombia respectively. In the case of the pharmaceuticals industry and generic drugs, the risk of litigation was a contributory factor in shifting the position of companies.    Companies are also beginning to pay attention to human rights because bad corporate behaviour can lead to shareholder divestment and poor staff morale. Pension funds are large investors and shareholders in companies and many people today want to know where their pensions are being invested. Many people also care about where they work, and the ethical standards of their employer. The dividing line between investors, shareholders, consumers, employees and the general public is being blurred.    Thanks largely to a combination of these issues, a number of companies have adopted voluntary codes. But, while interest has been widespread, genuine commitment on human rights, leading to concrete action, has been less common. Only one in five companies in the OECD countries have adopted codes of conduct or publish information on their compliance with such codes. Only a very few participate in independent reporting or auditing systems.    One survey last year showed that only about 40 large companies have explicitly incorporated human rights into their corporate policy. Several studies have shown that, in many cases, at the board level, interest in human rights and social issues is low.    In the present economic climate, some companies are talking about CSR and human rights as unnecessary or threatening profits. Too many companies still actively lobby to undermine initiatives or policies that could make a difference to the human rights situation. Too many of them still refuse to speak to governments on human rights abuse, arguing that seeking to influence governments is a political act going beyond their mandate, but they are quite happy to lobby vigorously on corporate tax reduction or tariff protection.    Those who do adopt voluntary codes often find themselves subject to scrutiny that other less scrupulous companies avoid, creating a sense of unfairness and an uneven field for competition. While some voluntary initiatives and self-regulation are useful and we will support them and participate in them, human rights are too important to be left entirely to the marketplace.    In the absence of a clear agreement on a legal bottom-line, some companies have tended to pick-and-choose on human rights. If the commitments are to be meaningful, there must be some system of enforcing accountability. That is why Amnesty International has decided also to champion legal accountability mechanisms, based on international human rights law.    We believe that the best approach is to strengthen domestic legal systems. We do not take a position in favour of particular economic models, but we do maintain that the full protection of rights requires governments to put in place frameworks of law and regulation. Without a global "bottom line", which is enforceable against all sizeable companies, self-regulation will remain contested.    Furthermore, leaving the debate in the realm of voluntary commitments has, in practice, too often let governments off the hook. Governments have clear obligations to uphold human rights. Voluntary mechanisms on human rights and the private sector, by leaving out the role of law, play into the hands of governments who flout these obligations.    For companies that want to take accountability seriously, our message is: accountability does not only mean well-produced and sleek social and environmental reports. It does not mean a staff of well-meaning individuals who engage the NGOs and share the concerns of the less fortunate. It does not mean a strategy to counter crises, lawsuits or boycotts.    It means mainstreaming human rights, labour rights and environmental concerns throughout the operations. A legal framework would support, not supplant, such efforts.    If CSR is not to be a PR exercise, then companies cannot look at human rights just a luxury for good times to be supported when the economy is good - or an optional extra for the good boys and girls. Human rights are there for all people for all times. Companies, as responsible members of society, must uphold that principle under the rule of law, as do governments. That is the expectation not just of NGOs, but of a great many people.    [Adapted from a speech by Irene Khan, Secretary General, Amnesty International, at the Novartis Conference, Basle, 27 November 2003] Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item