Amnesty International Australia

"Companies cannot escape responsibility or be silent witness to widespread human rights violations. Human rights are not a luxury for good times - they must be respected and upheld at all times and under all circumstances, by all actors, state or corporate," says Amnesty International Secretary General, Irene Khan.

What is the United Nations Global Compact?

This is an international initiative that brings together non-government organisations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Action Aid, U.N agencies, major companies, labour and civil society. The purpose of the initiative is to address concerns such as environment, human rights and transparency in the context of globalisation.

The UN Global Compact began in 1999 (official launch in July 2000) and challenges corporations to adhere to 10 principles. Those relating to human rights are:

• Principle One: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights within their sphere of influence; and
• Principle Two: Make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuse.

A synopsis and descriptions of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights are provided in the Compact to show the origins of these two principles.

Rather than being a code of conduct, the Compact is a framework centered firmly in the sphere of universal rights and obligations. The Global Compact is not a policing, enforcing or measurement body for the behaviors and actions of companies. To be most effective the Compact needs public accountability, transparency, companies to recognise the importance of adhering to the principles and for labour and civil society to push for the meaningful adoption of the principles; through action, share holdings, purchase or media power. Companies join the Compact voluntarily and are expected to produce 'progress reports' of how their operations compare to the principles laid out. The Global Compact outlines that if a parent company joins, it is assumed that any subsidiary companies have also joined. An interesting point in the case of Yahoo! whose parent company attempted to divert attention to Yahoo! Hong Kong in the case of imprisoned internet user Shi Tao.

There are now more than 3,800 participants in the Global Compact, including over 2,900 businesses in 100 countries.

What is an MSI?

A further key component of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). These relate to particular industries and bring experts in that field, governments, NGOs and corporations in the particular industry together in a round table environment. In January 2007 Amnesty International joined the MSI relating to human rights and the internet. Companies involved in this MSI include Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! and there is much discussion about operations and human rights abuses in China. The operations of multinational companies in Australia for example, can be very different from their operations in China.

There is some concern amongst commentators that the Global Compact and many MSI's lack enforceability. Keith Slack of Oxfam, America provides some business world suggestions to tackle this. Slack ascribes to the belief that a company's irresponsible actions in the realm of society and environment equates to financial loss for that company. Slack presents the idea that there should be a definite link between a company's access to markets and capital and their environmental and social actions. This would involve large consumers such as public institutions, universities etc. adopting legally binding contracts with their suppliers. For example, if the international supplier is complicit in a human rights abuse, their contract with that University is terminated. Slack is not suggesting that this is simple but he does believe there should be some onus on the consumer. He makes a similar case for banks, suggesting that a link from provision of capital to responsible behaviour would go along way to reshaping corporations human rights and environmental activities.

In the case of China, we see a Government that does not appear to be relaxing the level of internet censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression or information. This system of censorship is assisted by Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! each of whom behave differently in China than to markets such as Australia or the United Kingdom. These international bodies aim for a universal approach to business operations as they relate to human rights.

Some commentators, such as Adam Greene claim that NGOs over-estimate the power of multinational corporations to make change. I am not debating that fair state regulations and just legislation are desirable mechanisms by which to address the actions of companies. However, Greene's comments appear to absolve company's of their responsibilities. We see companies such as Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google operating very differently in one country to the next. Clearly the company has an understanding of how to behave in which country. Having discrepancies seemingly ignores the notion of equality and the UDHR tenet that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".

This analysis is not suggesting that corporations be a substitute for civil stability. Rather, the hope and vision is for corporations adhere to universal, indivisible principles of human rights and act as the highest possible benchmark for civil society in terms of the example set in respecting human rights.

We will keep you posted on developments in this area, outcomes of meetings, public statements and reaction by companies involved and certainly give you updates on our current China cases which cross over from human rights abuse and corporate world involvement.