Global Compact Critics

Congo plan is a dirty cocktail of climate destruction projects

2009-11-10T16:37:00.008+01:00

By Daniel Kessler.

Riddle me this. What do you get when you combine rainforest destruction, tar sands, and palm oil plantations in one project? You guessed it, an environmental nightmare. This perfect storm of climate disruption badness can all be found in oil company Eni's plans to develop tar sands and oil palm in the Congo Basin, one of the most biodiverse places on earth. This would be the first tar sands exploration in Africa and one of the largest palm oil plantations, which produce the oil used in thousands of household products from detergents to Pringles.

It's unfortunate that it's Eni that is championing this project. The company's CEO Paolo Scaroni recently urged the UN Leadership Forum in New York to take strong action on climate change. But while Scroni talks action, his company is investing in some of the worst projects for the climate.

Says Barbara Unmüssig, President of the Heinrich Böll Foundation: "With less than a month to go to the Copenhagen summit, Eni's projects undermine its green credentials. They also highlight the wider costs of promoting high-carbon, export-driven energy investments - especially in ecologically sensitive areas with poor governance."

The Congo, along with the Amazon and the Paradise forests of Indonesia, is a priority area for REDD funding. REDD is the name of the United Nation's framework for ending global deforestation, and funding it is one of the most contentious issues right now as we move toward Copenhagen.

Tar sands too are a major problem. Their development uses more energy than it produces, for a net energy loss. From BankTrack:

"Eni's tar sands exploration is taking place over a huge 1,790 KM2 area. The exact location of the oil palm plantation is unknown, but it will claim 70,000 hectares of 'unfarmed' land. Eni says neither project will take place on rainforest and areas of high biodiversity or involve resettlement of people. Yet privately, Eni estimates the tar sands zone comprises 50 to 70% rainforest and other highly environmentally sensitive areas. According to Congolese human rights activist Brice Mackosso (Justice and Peace Commission, Pointe-Noire): 'Local people, already suffering the impacts of oil development, have not been meaningfully consulted over the new projects. This violates Eni's own human rights and environmental policies'."

Source: Tree Hugger (10/11/2009).

Ban Ki-moon says UN cannot accurately assess impact of private sector partnerships

2009-11-09T13:28:00.006+01:00

On November 5, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon presented a report on UN partnerships with the private sector to the Economic and Financial Committee of the General Assembly. The report is Mr. Ban’s response to resolution A/RES/62/211, in which the General Assembly encouraged the UN system to "continue to develop, for those partnerships in which it participates, a common and systemic approach, which places greater emphasis on impact, transparency, accountability and sustainability […]".

In his report, Mr. Ban says that there are currently no standard criteria for screening and selecting candidates for partnerships with the UN. He stresses that the UN "would benefit from greater coherence concerning selection criteria, as well as better sharing of related information among entities". According to the secretary-general, the recently revised Guidelines on Cooperation between the United Nations and the Business Community (not available yet) provide a step forward, "for example by making the principles of the UN Global Compact a common minimum standard for companies looking to partner with the organization".

In practice, however, this approach will not change anything in the way the UN partners with the private sector. Becoming a participant in the Global Compact is a mere formality for companies that seek to engage in partnerships with the UN. In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) criticized the Global Compact for allowing tobacco companies to become a member of the Compact. If the principles of the Compact are used as a common minimum standard for partnering with the UN, the tobacco companies that participate in Global Compact will be able to partner with the WHO or any other UN organizations. Among the tobacco companies that participate in the UN Global Compact is Souza Cruz, a Brazilian subsidiary of British American Tobacco. As a matter of fact, the CEO of Souza Cruz signed a CEO statement on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though the Global Compact Office does not permit tobacco companies to make presentations at any of its global events or to use the Global Compact brand in any other way to raise their profile.

Besides the revised Guidelines on Cooperation between the UN and the Business Community, the secretary-general also referred to the new UN and Business website as an instrument that "promises to bring greater transparency and clarity to the vast partnership work undertaken at the United Nations". In his report the secretary-general acknowledges that there is a need to develop better impact assessment mechanisms for partnerships: "[…] the United Nations is still not in a position to accurately assess the impact and value added of its private sector partnerships. […] Systematic and rigorous impact assessments of partnerships may be unrealistic in the near future, however, the United Nations should further strengthen its emphasis on evidence-based decision-making, learning from evaluations and results-focused planning."

The report recommends that the criteria for differentiating between procurement relationships and partnerships be fully clarified. It also suggests "the creation of a special United Nations logo to be used in the context of UN-private sector partnerships". This will probably add to the confusion, since the Global Compact already has a special logo that can be used by its participants.

The Global Compact Office appears to be pleased with Mr. Ban’s report. It expects that the report will “contribute to a General Assembly resolution providing further support for the Global Compact's mandate”.

Mexico champions list of idle Global Compact members

2009-11-03T21:06:00.031+01:00

In August 2008, on the occasion of his first official visit to Mexico, United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon met with business participants of the Mexican Global Compact Network.

The 18 executives who met with Mr. Ban made a commitment to take the Network to "its next level of development and create a truly business-led, nationally owned, multi-stakeholder platform for corporate responsibility". In a Mexico Declaration presented during the meeting, participating companies pledged to position the Global Compact Mexico Network as a platform to:

- advance the UN Global Compact and the implementation of the ten universal principles throughout the Mexican business and social environment;
- strengthen the role of the Network in facilitating multi-stakeholder partnerships and collective action with other companies; and
- engage in advocacy and policy dialogues on global challenges, including climate change and the Millennium Development Goals.

At the time, the secretary-general commended the Mexican Network for its "focus on training sessions and developing materials, helping to ensure that Mexican signatories to the Compact 'walk the talk' and are equipped to act on their commitments to engage responsibly."

Now, more than a year after Mr. Ban's visit to Mexico, the Mexican Global Compact Network is among the most deficient local networks of the UN Global Compact. According to the Compact's database, 203 Mexican companies are currently listed as "inactive", which means that they have failed to submit a Communication on Progress (COP) to the Global Compact Office within three years of joining the Compact or that they have failed to submit a COP within two years of submitting their last COP. Additionally, 26 companies are listed as "non-communicating". There are only 76 active business participants in Mexico, which is about 25 percent of the total number of Mexican Global Compact members. This makes Mexico the country with the largest number of inactive Global Compact participants in the world.

At least Mr. Ban's visit to Mexico in 2008 seems to have offered a great photo opportunity for the executives who committed to the ill-fated Mexico Declaration.

© Photo by UN Photo / Evan Schneider.

Global Compact and OECD intensify collaboration

2009-10-28T17:53:00.017+01:00

The UN Global Compact and the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have recently begun to enhance their collaborative efforts, particularly in countries that have both Global Compact Local Networks and National Contact Points (NCPs) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Following its participation in the 2009 Annual Meeting of the National Contact Points, the UN Global Compact asked its Local Network Focal Points in countries that adhere to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to actively explore collaborative opportunities with NCPs. Additionally, Focal Points were encouraged to seek advice and guidance from NCPs, particularly regarding follow-up procedures for OECD Guidelines implementation.

In an exchange of letters between Georg Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, and Manfred Schekulin, chair of the OECD Investment Committee, a mutual interest in closer cooperation was indicated. Following a letter from Mr. Kell in September 2009, Mr. Schekulin agreed that intensifying linkages between Global Compact Local Networks and NCPs was a desirable goal and suggested that "possibilities for achieving this should be further explored". Mr. Schekulin additionally invited the UN Global Compact to consult in the ongoing process of updating the OECD Guidelines.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises embody what OECD governments have agreed are the basic components of responsible corporate conduct. They cover a range of issues such as labor and human rights, the environment, bribery and corruption and information disclosure. Though voluntary for companies, governments that have endorsed the Guidelines are essentially conveying that they expect multinational corporations to follow these principles and standards of good conduct in their operations worldwide. Thirty OECD member states have adhered to the Guidelines, along with 12 non-member countries. Civil society organizations can submit a "specific instance" (complaint) about alleged breaches of the Guidelines to a government's NCP.

In the first week of November further collaboration between the OECD and the Global Compact will occur through the First Asia Pacific Trade and Investment Week in Bangkok, hosted by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). This will include a meeting of Global Compact Local Networks led by Marinus Sikkel, in charge of UNESCAP's regional support hub for the UN Global Compact and former OECD Investment Committee Chair. Also that week, the OECD-UNESCAP Conference on Corporate Responsibility will be held, with discussion focused on synergies between these two international corporate responsibility instruments and the upcoming updating of the OECD Guidelines.

© Photo by hastingsgraham.

John Ruggie: "Global Compact is a safe point of entry"

2009-10-25T18:16:00.009+01:00

On October 22, John Ruggie, special representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, participated in a press briefing at the UN headquarters in New York. He briefed correspondents on his report proposing a framework for business and human rights, which he presented to the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) of the General Assembly.

Matthew Lee from Inner City Press asked him several questions about the UN Global Compact. Mr. Ruggie, who is known as one of the main architects of the Compact, provided Mr. Lee with some answers. Among other things, Mr. Ruggie said that, for many companies and governments in the developing world, the Compact is a "safe point of entry" into the world of corporate social responsibility.

Here is a transcript of some of Mr. Ruggie’s statements:

"The Global Compact is what it is. It was intended as a learning mechanism, as a learning forum, where companies can get used to the idea of corporate social responsibility. I think it has done that particularly well in developing countries. […] I am not sure whether the people who lead the Global Compact would agree with this description, but my sense is that for a lot of companies and a lot of governments in the developing world this is a safe point of entry into the global CSR world. And, you know, it does that. It does that, from what I can judge, reasonably well. There is a whole bunch of other things that it doesn’t do. It was not intended to police ever, to begin with." (click here for video, RealPlayer required)

Mr. Ruggie acknowledged that there are companies that claim to be good corporate citizens just because they are members of the Global Compact. He believes this is a case of non sequitur. The fact that a company participates in the Compact does not mean it adheres to all relevant international laws. According to Mr. Ruggie, companies that use this argument do damage to the Global Compact.

© Photo by UN Photo / Evan Schneider.

Russian companies remain aloof from the Global Compact

2009-10-16T11:47:00.025+02:00

On October 7 the Global Compact Office announced that over a thousand companies have been delisted since 2008 for not communicating on progress. Business participants are excluded from the initiative if they fail to submit communications on progress (COP) to the Global Compact Office. A company must submit a COP to the public Global Compact database within one year of joining the Global Compact. Consecutive failures to submit a COP leads to the delisting of the company.

Some local networks have lost many members. In the Philippines there are now only eight active business participants. A couple of years ago, the Compact had more than 150 participants in the Philippines. In 2006, UNDP received funds from the Swiss government to finance a project to develop the Philippine Local Network. After the conclusion of this project, participation in the local network dwindled.

The local network in the largest country in the world is another example. The Global Compact was launched in Russia in 2002. In April 2008 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon attended the (re)launch of the Global Compact Network in Russia. In spite of Mr. Ban's charm offensive, Russian companies could not work up enthusiasm for the initiative. Currently there are only 13 active business participants in the whole of the Russian Federation.

Many local networks in Africa seem to experience the same problem. There are only two active business participants in Côte d'Ivoire. In 2007, the local network in this country had 28 members. Only 14 companies in Nigeria, where the Compact was launched in 2006, participate actively in the initiative. The total number of participating companies in the most populous country of Africa is 23, which means that about 40 percent of the business participants in Nigeria do not report on progress.

Although many companies have been excluded from the Compact, the number of participants is still growing. Every month around a hundred new businesses join the initiative. The total of active business participants currently stands at about 4.200.

While delisted companies are removed entirely from the Global Compact's public database, the initiative allows companies to return to active status. To officially rejoin the Global Compact companies must provide a new commitment from the chief executive officer addressed to the UN Secretary-General and submit a COP to the public database.

© Photo by anita bp.

Activists send questions to John Ruggie about the Global Compact

2009-10-06T17:04:00.013+02:00

A network of activists and civil society organizations called Enlazando Alternativas has published a report that contains several interesting questions to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, John Ruggie. The report provides an overview of human rights violations committed by European companies and discusses the role of European institutions in the creation of a legal framework that "allows transnational corporations to act with impunity". The authors of the report have specific questions about the role the UN Global Compact plays in the area of business and human rights:

- "What is the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations’ position on the proposal elaborated by the Rapporteur on Human Rights, Martin Scheinin, and the Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, on the creation of a tribunal to judge transnational corporations? Do you believe that the economic and political fortress and the legal institutional framework that protect the interests of transnational corporations (the WTO and its Dispute Settlement System, the ICSID, regional and bilateral trade and investment agreements...) require a system of control that is far stronger than the one established by the Global Compact – that is, an international ad hoc tribunal?"
- "Why is the Global Compact the main reference for controlling transnational corporations within the UN framework?"

The Enlazando Alternativas network argues that the mandate of the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights does not pay sufficient attention to those directly affected by the impacts of the activities of multinational corporations. The report of the network was prepared for a UN consultation on operationalizing the framework for business and human rights presented by John Ruggie. This consultation, which is being held in Geneva, ends today.

© Photo by UN Photo / Jean-Marc Ferre.

Coalition maintains demand to exclude Bayer from the Global Compact

2009-10-01T16:54:00.005+02:00

In a letter of complaint sent to the UN Global compact Office on June 16, the Coalition against Bayer Dangers (CBG), an international network based in Germany, urged the Global Compact to exclude Bayer as a participant. The coalition said that Bayer seriously violates the principles and the Integrity Measures of the Compact. The complaint is based on the aftermath of a fatal explosion at Bayer's US facilities in Institute, West Virginia, in 2008. According to a US Congress investigation, faulty safety systems, significant shortcomings with the emergency procedures and a lack of employee training led to the catastrophe.

On May 12 2009, at Bayer's annual general meeting, Chairman Werner Wenning commented on the accident and said that "Air measurements at the site perimeter showed no evidence of an elevated concentration of hazardous substances in the environment". Mr. Wenning also referred to a comparison made by the Coalition against Bayer Dangers with the Bhopal accident: "any comparison between our modern facility and the one in Bhopal nearly 30 years ago is completely absurd". Mr. Wenning added that the production process in the plants is under constant monitoring of their experts and of the U.S. authorities.

The Global Compact Office responded to the letter of complaint and asked whether the Coalition wanted to raise the matter under the Compact's Integrity Measures. In its response, the Global Compact Office said: "We do not make any judgment about the truth of the allegations made beyond an initial determination that it falls within the scope of the topics covered by the Global Compact's principles. […] the Integrity Measures are not intended to affect, pre-empt or supplant other regulatory or legal procedures or proceedings in any jurisdiction. The role of the Global Compact Office is generally limited to encouraging dialogue between person(s) / organization(s) raising matters and companies. In most situations, the Global Compact Office anticipates that issues will be resolved through dialogue without further involvement of the Global Compact Office."

In a letter sent to the Compact Office in August 2009, Wolfgang Große Entrup, senior vice president of Bayer AG, said that "Unlike with most non-governmental organizations, a constructive dialogue with the local activist group 'Coalition Against Bayer Dangers' [...] has never been possible". In his letter, Mr. Entrup referred to a hearing directed by a sub-committee of the US Congress, which took place in April 2009. The hearing was a result of Bayer being publicly criticized for overly restricting public access to their information. Bayer claimed this issue involves differences in the interpretation of so-called SSI (Security Sensitive Information) provisions.

In a reply dated on the 25th of August, CBG insisted that Bayer's statements are not consistent. CBG refers to a report of the US house Committee which, they argued, contradicts Bayer's statements: "Documents obtained by the committee raise serious questions about the vulnerabilities of Bayer's inventory of methyl isocyanate (MIC) during the 2008 explosion and about MIC monitoring systems that were out of service at the time of the explosion." In a response to that letter, Bayer claimed that it had initiated the process of improving safety and communication in emergencies. Mr. Entrup said that Bayer has a budget of $25 million to invest in further enhancing operational safety at the Institute site. In its second letter to the Global Compact Office, Bayer also said that it will reduce methyl isocyanate (MIC) storage by 80 percent.

Nonetheless, CBG maintains its demand to exclude Bayer from the UN Global Compact due to its "violations of the Compact’s principles in the aftermath of the Institute explosion".

Global Compact Board rejects complaint and commends CNPC for actively "supporting sustainable development" in Sudan

2009-09-09T11:05:00.009+02:00

The Global Compact Office has released the final report of the most recent meeting of the Global Compact Board, held on 24 July at UN Headquarters in New York. According to the report, the Board decided to maintain PetroChina as a participant in the Compact, in spite of a complaint supported by over 80 civil society organizations including human rights, corporate accountability, and religious groups from 25 countries, as well as government officials and actor Mia Farrow. They believe that PetroChina is complicit in human rights abuses in Sudan and have requested that the company use its influence to ask the Sudanese Government to pursue specific actions linked to peace building.

The Vice Chair of the Board, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, said that CNPC, PetroChina's parent company, "has been active in supporting sustainable development in the country [Sudan] and engaged in the newly formed and embryonic Local Network, although not itself a Global Compact signatory." The Board also took note that CNPC "had engaged in Global Compact learning and dialogue activities on conflict sensitive business practices."

The report of the Global Compact Board meeting explains that "the Board agreed that the operation of a company in a weakly governed or repressive environment would not be sole grounds for removal from the initiative and that the Global Compact, as a learning platform, cannot require a company to engage in advocacy with a government. Given this, and the fact that the matter did not involve a Global Compact participant, the Board unanimously agreed that the matter had been handled appropriately by the Global Compact Office and was not suitable for further action." It was also noted that CNPC "has been willing and prepared to engage in learning and dialogue activities on conflict-sensitive business practices and that positive efforts are being made through the Global Compact Local Network to embed good business practices in Sudan, which is all that could be expected in the situation."

The complaint against PetroChina was sent to the Global Compact Office in January 2009. The complainants asked the Compact to use its good offices to influence PetroChina to engage with the government of Sudan on behalf of the Darfuri people. In the months following the submission of the complaint, PetroChina never contacted the complainants nor did it offer any explanation about its activities in Sudan.

Documents negate allegations against Global Compact Board member

2009-08-11T23:04:00.007+02:00

The Business and Human Rights Resource Center has published several letters and a certificate provided by Global Compact Board member Guillermo Carey, in response to allegations raised by a reporter of the Chilean newspaper La Nación. The author of the article in La Nación said that she had documents alleging that Mr. Carey was involved in the events that led to the kidnapping and assassination of Commander-in-Chief General René Schneider in 1970.

The four letters posted on the website of the Business and Human Rights Resource Center disassociate Mr. Carey from the allegations and support his current work on human rights issues. Mr. Carey also provided a certificate issued by a military court in 1993, which states that he was never brought to trial in the case over General Schneider’s assassination.

In one of the letters, the director of Revista El Periodista, Francisco Martorell, explains that in 2003 his magazine published a long list of people linked to the military regime and that Mr. Carey's name was included in that list by mistake. El Periodista later clarified that Mr. Carey should not have been on the list and apologized. According to Mr. Martorell, Mr. Carey has played a key role in working with indigenous communities and in social issues. "I hereby witness, based on our journalistic and research work, that Mr. Carey plays an appropriate role to the position he holds and that the attacks against him are petty and with a clear purpose. Moreover, as we certainly know, he is now leading an initiative in order the Chilean Courts of Law recognize their responsibility regarding the human rights abuses that occurred between 1973 and 1990 during Augusto Pinochet’s government", says Mr. Martorell.

© Photo by the Merry Monk.

Plans to build UN Global Compact Center at polluted shipyard in San Francisco

2009-08-03T11:01:00.029+02:00

San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsom and the UN Global Compact are eying a former naval shipyard contaminated by radiation, heavy metals and other industrial toxins as the future site of a new green technology complex and climate change think tank. The proposal would turn a section of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, one of the most polluted places in the nation according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), into a "UN Global Compact Center". The center would likely include "a clean tech business incubator, offices of the UN Global Compact, and a retreat / conference center to facilitate the exchange of sustainability best practices and other innovations related to combating global warming". At a press conference organized by the mayor of San Francisco, the deputy director of the UN Global Compact Office said that the center would also host the offices of the Caring for Climate initiative and the CEO Water Mandate.

The City of San Francisco hopes to start the construction of the center in 2011 and to open its doors in 2012. But the project faces many hurdles before it can be realized, including the completion of a complex environmental cleanup, the approval of the city's Board of Supervisors and finding investors. The U.S. Navy, EPA and state regulators have been working to clean up toxins from the site since the early 1990s and have spent more than $500 million so far. Once finished, the land would be transferred to the city. "Our current schedule is that the land will be ready to transfer to the city of San Francisco in the middle of 2012", said Mark Ripperda, EPA's project manager for the site. "Timelines can always be changed, but that schedule is pretty solid." That makes the city's planned 2012 opening unlikely, but officials said the Navy could allow some construction to start before regulators finish their work.

The parcel of land the UN Global Compact center would occupy would have more than two million square feet of commercial space in a campus-like setting, with views across the bay and to downtown San Francisco. The site would feature a conference center, UN office buildings and have an estimated cost of at least $20 million.

According to the Associated Press, the idea that the shipyard would finally be cleaned up led some members of the Hunters Point-Bayview community to greet the proposal with open arms. "Environmental justice entails not just having the shipyard cleaned up, but also revitalizing to create jobs and parks and affordable housing", Veronica Hunnicutt, chair of the mayor's Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee, said in a statement.

However, not everyone is convinced that building a UN Global Compact Center at Hunters Point Shipyard is a good idea. Francisco Da Costa, a San Francisco-based environmental activist, believes that the U.S. Navy must be held accountable for polluting the shipyard and that it must first clean up the entire area. In a comment on the Mother Jones website, Eric Brooks, a representative of the San Francisco Green Party, said: "This center will be more like a destructive gentrifying 'Olympic Village' than a 'green' center. Note that the United Nations 'Global Compact' is not [...] even an entity of the United Nations, but is in fact a private corporate greenwashing enterprise."

This is a video of the press conference organized by the mayor of San Francisco to announce the plans for the UN Global Compact Center:

© Illustration by the City and County of San Francisco.

Who said what in July 2009

2009-08-01T13:45:00.010+02:00

“The integrity of the Compact is another paramount concern. I rely on the [Global Compact] Board for guidance about ensuring the accountability of participant engagement. The Compact is voluntary in nature, providing a forum for learning and dialogue to advance United Nations goals. It was never meant to be a sanction-based initiative, which I understand might be a disappointment to some. I trust you will work together to ensure that the accountability of the Compact is consistent with its mandate and resources.” - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a message to the Global Compact Board.

“In registering a formal complaint against PetroChina with the Global Compact, these civil society groups miss the Compact's main contextural / philosophic foundation: that becoming the best corporate citizen an organization can be is a Process... and that this process - to be effective - must permit organizations to be ‘less than perfect’ at the beginning of their journey to optimal corporate citizenship behavior.” - Steve Brant, independent researcher, theorist and speaker, in a comment on the complaint against CNPC / PetroChina.

“[…] with regard to established human rights bodies and initiatives such as the Global Compact, current corporate conduct demonstrates it is time to grow some teeth.” - Tabasum van Til, in an article about the complaint against CNPC / PetroChina and the double-faced nature of China’s state owned enterprises.

“As explained, we feel very strongly that Annex A [of the ISO 26000 standard] should not contain a reference to the Global Compact. But since our request for removal of the Global Compact reference from this annex has repeatedly been misconstrued as a general disapproval of ISO 26000, we wanted to emphasize that this is simply not the case.” - Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, in a letter to the secretary-general of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

“Impressive as this start is, the Global Compact has significant shortcomings that threaten its future. […] Unless the quality of participants is placed above quantity, the Compact will ultimately fail to instill the norms embedded in its ten principles in the world market in any meaningful sense.” - Professor emeritus Robert W. Nason, in an article published in the Journal of Macromarketing.

“In light of your last e-mail to me, which indicates that you have no intention of abiding my request to stop using the Global Compact name inappropriately and undermining the initiative in India, we are left with no option but to remove your entity's name from our list of participants. This is effective immediately.” - Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, notifies Suresh Pramar that his organization, the Global Gandhian Trusteeship and Corporate Responsibility Foundation, is no longer a participant in the Global Compact.

© Photo by Dick Verton.

Chilean newspaper raises allegations against Global Compact Board member

2009-07-27T02:14:00.002+02:00

On July 12, the Chilean newspaper La Nación published an article about Global Compact Board member Guillermo Carey. Mr. Carey is also a senior partner at law firm Carey & Allende Abogados, which is among the fifteen corporate law firms from around the world selected to participate in a UN-led mapping project to identify whether and how national corporate law principles and practices currently foster corporate cultures respectful of human rights.

The author of the article in La Nación, Mariela Vallejos, says that she has documents alleging that Mr. Carey was involved in the events that led to the kidnapping and assassination of Commander-in-Chief General René Schneider in 1970. After the 1970 Chilean presidential election, a plot to kidnap General Schneider was developed. Eliminating General Schneider became a key prerequisite for a military coup, because he opposed any intervention by the armed forces to block Salvador Allende's constitutional election. After repeated attempts, General Schneider was assassinated on October 22, 1970.

As a main source, Ms. Vallejos cites the memoirs of Admiral José Toribio Merino, who was part of Pinochet's military junta. According to his memoirs, Mr. Carey hosted one or more meetings at his house with those involved in the plot to kidnap General Schneider. La Nación alleges that Mr. Carey fled to Argentina on the day of the assassination. A few days later, the Chilean police transmitted an international warrant for the arrest of Mr. Carey to Interpol.

Mr. Carey vehemently denies all allegations made by La Nación. Ms. Vallejos mentions in her article that his name was not included in the case against the suspects of kidnapping and killing General Schneider. Ms. Vallejos interviewed Mr. Carey and sent him her article before La Nación published it. According to Mr. Carey, his enemies have tried to implicate him because he had earlier been the attorney for the leader of the group that organized the plot.

Ms. Vallejos also raises questions about the selection procedure for Global Compact Board members. The purpose of the Board, which is chaired by the UN Secretary General or in his absence a Vice-Chair, is to provide strategic advice for the initiative as a whole, making recommendations to the Global Compact Office, participants and other stakeholders. The members of the Board act in a personal, honorary and unpaid capacity. La Nación discovered that Mr. Carey was recommended in 2006 by a representative of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Chile.

According to Matthias Stausberg of the Global Compact Office – who was interviewed by Ms. Vallejos – board members are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on recommendations made by a nominations committee. Nominations are normally vetted by the local networks of the Compact. When Mr. Carey was appointed as a Board member, the nominations committee did not exist yet. The article in La Nación seems to suggest that Mr. Carey was nominated because of his friendship with the UNDP representative in Chile. Ms. Vallejos interviewed this UNDP representative and he told her that he did not know why Mr. Carey was elected as a Board member. Mr. Carey himself told Ms. Vallejos that he also wondered why he was appointed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Mr. Carey is not the first Global Compact Board member who faces criticism for things he might have done in the past. In March this year, the UN Secretary-General appointed a South Korean businessman who was convicted of accounting fraud in 2003. He had his three-year sentence for fraud suspended in 2004 and was pardoned in 2008, when the South Korean government announced sweeping pardons for some of the country's most powerful businessmen.

© Photo by Julio Pinar.

Ban Ki-moon: integrity of the Global Compact is a "paramount concern"

2009-07-25T19:11:00.009+02:00

At the beginning of the Global Compact Board meeting on July 24, a message of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was delivered by his Deputy Chef de Cabinet, Kim Won-soo.

In his message, Mr. Ban said that he regretted that he could not participate in the meeting. He welcomed the newly appointed Board members and said that the Global Compact can play a key role in finding solutions for the global economic crisis and other challenges, "by helping to restore confidence in the private sector and facilitating the transition to a low-carbon economy".

The UN Secretary-General also said that the integrity of the Compact is a "paramount concern" and that he relies on the Board "for guidance about ensuring the accountability of participant engagement". Moreover, he said: "The Compact is voluntary in nature, providing a forum for learning and dialogue to advance United Nations goals. It was never meant to be a sanction-based initiative, which I understand might be a disappointment to some. I trust [the members of the Board] will work together to ensure that the accountability of the Compact is consistent with its mandate and resources."

One of the most important points on the agenda of the Board was a complaint against CNPC / PetroChina. In February this year, over 80 civil society organizations submitted an open letter to the Compact in support of a formal complaint against PetroChina, a Global Compact participant. The civil society groups allege that CNPC, PetroChina's parent company, is a major financer of the Sudanese government and that it indirectly supports the Sudan regime that is responsible for the human rights crisis in Darfur.

© Photo by UN Photo / Evan Schneider.

The Janus Head: the double-faced nature of China’s state owned enterprises

2009-07-23T17:06:00.017+02:00

By Tabasum van Til LL.M.*

The lack of transparency in corporate structure of PetroChina and CNPC causes great difficulties in establishing responsibility and accountability for human rights abuses.

In the light of the complaint against PetroChina, which will be discussed at the Global Compact Board meeting on July 24, 2009, it is important to understand the intricate nature of China's state owned enterprises (SOEs). In the communications between the group of civil organizations that filed the complaint and the Global Compact Board it has been questioned whether PetroChina and its parent company CNPC are separate corporate entities. This fundamental question needs to be answered before any responsibility or accountability for misconduct can be established.

The centerpiece in China’s economic reforms has been the separation of State ownership and governance. Although in 2005 a separate legal personality has been granted to Chinese SOEs, behind the scenes strings are still attached (See Human Rights, Chinese Business, p. 54-55). Due to their public-private dichotomy, SOEs can either be used in governmental or in private commercial activities. Since resources are a matter of national interest, the enterprises in the extractive sector are state-controlled. It is therefore likely to assume a highly involved participation by the Chinese government in privatized SOEs or private enterprises. This influence can be deducted from the practice of corporate policies, indirect funding, the appointment of board members, supervisor or management and the prerogative of Communist Party members on key positions. All these indications might add up to the conclusion of the State being the owner of an enterprise.

This leads us to another hurdle, the lifting of the "corporate veil": China needs to establish a separate legal personality, through the partition of parent and subsidiary shares. In the case of PetroChina, a subsidiary of CNPC, this partition is questionable. The distinction is interesting when it comes to liability. The possibility of direct liability of CNPC is an option due to the ascertaining of the lack of due care through the control over PetroChina's policies on and corporate conduct. An indirect joint liability of CNPC and PetroChina can be established on the base of the use of common officers (CEOs). Even though PetroChina is a legally independent enterprise on paper, the possibility of joint action in human rights violations with the Sudanese government remains, in spite of CNPC's defense that only CNPC, which is not a participant in the Global Compact, is operating in Sudan. It can therefore be questioned to what extent a key enterprise such as PetroChina is operating independently, without an indirect connection to a State actor such as an SOE (CNPC) or the Chinese government by means of a State organ (SASAC).

Corporate power obliges. It is in the hands of the parent company CNPC to provide for transparency regarding its corporate structure. It is up to PetroChina to make amends as a mature and worthy member of the Global Compact, in the light of the Communication on Progress Policy. Moreover, the company should provide for information on corporate ownership, its objective, the nexus with its parent and governmental financial and policy aid and in addition to allow independent performance audits. It is up to the People’s Republic to wisely monitor its state agents and other business actors, at the least in the light of pure corporate governance, national CSR standards, and agreed upon international treaties. (See chapter 3 of Human Rights, Chinese Business). The lack of transparency of the corporate structure of both PetroChina and CNPC needs to be edified by the Chinese government as CNPC's largest stakeholder and therefore owner of PetroChina. In the light of China’s current improvements on CSR and corporate governance this is not an intrusive request. China’s on the whole non-responsive attitude is cumbersome and in the long run not beneficial to its private sector. As a potential leading nation here to stay, China should clearly define its goals as to what level of state responsibility it is willing and necessary to live up to.

However, with regard to established human rights bodies and initiatives such as the Global Compact, current corporate conduct demonstrates it is time to grow some teeth. For that reason, understanding the limited means and scope of the Global Compact and bearing in mind the delicate nature of consultations with different stakeholders, it is of importance not to let this opportunity to steer the course of abusive companies slip through its fingers. It should be possible as mature and equal players in the same international arena to come to an understanding, however delicate the matter might be. Any outcome of the Global Compact Board meeting might lead to a ripple effect: in case this current complaint is acknowledged, chances are that allegations against other oil companies will follow and misconduct and complicity will be rightly addressed. If however this complaint will insufficiently be dealt with, chances are the abuse will unfetteredly remain. It should no longer be tolerated to partake in window-dressing by supporting CSR initiatives while conducting business activities otherwise. Chinese state owned enterprises, however double-natured, should show their real face.

* This article is based on Ms. Tabasum van Til's master's thesis Human rights, Chinese business: how China's state-owned enterprises fit into international human rights law. The thesis is available here.

Global Compact and ISO clear the air

2009-07-19T22:09:00.014+02:00

The Global Compact Office has issued a note to emphasize that its request to remove the reference to the Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard should not be interpreted as a general disapproval of the standard. Last week, the Office released part of an exchange of letters between Georg Kell, the Compact's executive director, and Rob Steele, secretary-general of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

In a letter dated 16 July, Mr. Kell explained that his request for removal of the reference to the Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard had repeatedly been "misconstrued as a general disapproval of ISO 26000". "This is simply not the case", Mr. Kell said. The conciliatory tone of the letter contrasts sharply with that of the letter sent to ISO about a month ago, in which the Office complained about the decision of the ISO 26000 Working Group to not include references to "the world’s foremost social responsibility initiative" in the text of the standard.

In a reply to Mr. Kell's last letter, ISO's secretary-general appeared to welcome the change in tone. Mr. Steele expressed his organization's appreciation for the Global Compact's support and contribution to the development of ISO 26000, particularly through the work of its local networks. "I am pleased that, on the whole, you view that there is substantial consistency and complementarity between the current draft of the ISO 26000 and the Global Compact ten principles," Mr. Steele wrote.

© Photo by AKY.

Global Compact expels Indian critic

2009-07-15T11:12:00.021+02:00

We have reported several times about the conflict between the Global Compact Society in India and Suresh Pramar, ex-joint secretary of the Society. Last week it escalated. Georg Kell, the executive director of the Global Compact Office, decided to remove Mr. Pramar’s organization, the Global Gandhian Trusteeship and Corporate Responsibility Foundation, from the list of participants in the Compact.

Mr. Pramar keeps a website and a discussion group, which are both called "Hamara Global Compact". He has repeatedly made accusations of abuse of power against Dr. Uddesh Kohli, the coordinator of the Focal Point for the Global Compact in India. In March and May 2009, the Global Compact Society in India sent two letters to Mr. Pramar to counter the accusations. In its last letter to Mr. Pramar, the Society enclosed a list of "facts relating to issues and statements" made by Mr. Pramar. According to the Society, Mr. Pramar should refrain from designating himself as the joint secretary of the Society, because his term as "honorary joint secretary" was not renewed after June 2008. Moreover, the secretary of the Society stated that the allegations constituted "an ill-informed attempt" to "vilify a noble initiative" largely due to Mr. Pramar's personal motivations. This did not stop Mr. Pramar from accusing the Society of irregularities.

On June 29, Mr. Kell urged Mr. Pramar to immediately "cease and desist [the] use of the Global Compact name". In an e-mail to Mr. Pramar, Mr. Kell said: "If you do not stop using our name in this way creating confusion and undermining the Global Compact in India, we will be forced to take further action. Possible actions may include revoking your participant status, requesting assistance of the relevant Global Compact governmental authorities and/or instituting legal proceedings."

A few days later, Mr. Pramar sent a lengthy reply to Mr. Kell, in which he stated that he had not used the logo of the Global Compact and that he had never claimed to be a spokesman of the Global Compact. "Your threat to revoke the membership status of the Global Gandhian Trusteeship Foundation is not going to give us sleepless nights", Mr. Pramar said in his e-mail to Mr. Kell. On July 7, Mr. Kell notified Mr. Pramar that his organization was no longer a participant in the Global Compact: "In light of your last e-mail to me, which indicates that you have no intention of abiding my request to stop using the Global Compact name inappropriately and undermining the initiative in India, we are left with no option but to remove your entity's name from our list of participants. This is effective immediately."

© Photo by Taara.

Professor emeritus: Global Compact has significant shortcomings that threaten its future

2009-07-08T09:15:00.009+02:00

In an article published in the Journal of Macromarketing, professor emeritus Robert W. Nason examines the UN Global Compact to understand its impact on and its potential for addressing the dysfunctions of modern-day globalization. He seeks to address the question whether the Compact has or can provide some of the preconditions necessary in the global factor and product and service marketplace. After a description of the Compact, he presents arguments for and against the Compact, reviews evidence from three empirical studies and discusses external drivers affecting success. Mr. Nason also makes an assessment of the current state and potential of the Compact.

He concludes the following:

"During the past seven years, the UN Global Compact has become the largest voluntary corporate-citizenship initiative attempting to elevate and to level the norms of corporate behavior in world markets. Impressive as this start is, the Global Compact has significant shortcomings that threaten its future. Its strategy of having a low bar for admission to drive numbers of participants, along with weak, vague, and toothless requirements of performance, undercut the Compact’s future potential in two ways. First, actions by current participants have not seriously addressed the issues represented by the Compact’s ten principles beyond what they would have done without it. Second, participants do not represent the commitment and actions of innovators and early adopters necessary to gain respect from the vast majority of international companies, thereby driving the global adoption of the Compact norms. Unless the quality of participants is placed above quantity, the Compact will ultimately fail to instill the norms imbedded in its ten principles in the world market in any meaningful sense."

In October 2008, Antonio Vives, consulting professor at Stanford University, also argued that the Global Compact should go for quality instead of quantity. He said: "[…] For the Global Compact to add value, it must become a more exclusive club, one that implies a 'membership fee', that is, one that demands responsible conduct from all its members. […] Perhaps there are too many members for a club like the one proposed, which admits anyone, and therefore devalues its membership."

Professor Nason’s article is available here.

© Photo by nerv.easy.

ISO gently responds to terse letter from Global Compact

2009-07-02T12:25:00.006+02:00

The secretary-general of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has responded to a letter from the Global Compact Office. In the letter, the executive director of the Office requested ISO to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard – an international standard that provides guidance on social responsibility.

In his reply to the Global Compact Office, ISO's secretary-general Robert Steele says that he views as "unfortunate" that the Office wishes there not be any mention of the Compact in the ISO 26000 standard. According to Mr. Steele, the current draft of the standard is "at least consistent with the ten universal principles" of the Compact. He also states that the Global Compact Office has been involved in different levels of the working group that is drafting the standard, and that the Office has "indeed been able to contribute and indicate [its] perspectives on the evolution of this ISO standard."

In 2006, the Office signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ISO related to the development of the ISO 26000 standard. The purpose of this MoU was to encourage cooperation and mutual support between ISO and the Global Compact Office. Specifically, both parties agreed to collaborate extensively on the development, promotion and support of the ISO 26000 standard. In an explanatory note published in November 2006, the executive director of the Office said that the outcome of the ISO 26000 process as a minimum should be consistent with and complement the ten principles of the UN Global Compact.

As Mr. Steele correctly states in his letter, the current version of ISO 26000 is consistent with the principles of the Compact. However, it is clear that the Global Compact expected to feature as a main character in the new ISO 26000 standard.

© Photo by Fred.

Who said what in June 2009

2009-06-30T12:33:00.009+02:00

"We are disappointed that neither in the body of the standard nor in the annex is there any recognition of the world's foremost social responsibility initiative, and have concluded that the current reference to the UN Global Compact does not provide the UNGC with the prominence it deserves." - Georg Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, requesting ISO to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard.

"A fundamental flaw with the UN Global Compact voluntary approach is that Communications on Progress by Nestlé and other companies are not subject to verification. Nestlé's misleading submissions are published on the UN Global Compact website and have even been launched at events with the Global Compact Office so bringing the initiative as a whole into disrepute. We are using Integrity Measures to call on the Global Compact Office to act to try to salvage its own credibility by removing Nestlé from its list of participating companies. Nestlé uses the UN Global Compact to cover up its malpractice so that abuses can continue." - Mike Brady, campaigns and networking coordinator at Baby Milk Action, urging the Global Compact Office to delist Nestlé.

"Bayer has a long history of giving profits precedence over human rights and a sound environment. We have documented hundreds of cases when Bayer's products or factories have harmed people or the environment. Bayer's participation in the Global Compact is detrimental to the reputation of the program and its participants". - Axel Koehler-Schnura, board member of the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, in a press release about the complaint letter that was sent to the Global Compact Office.

"The Global Compact has been praised for engaging a diverse mix of companies and other stakeholders from all regions in learning and capacity building efforts, including in the area of human rights. But it has been criticized for not adequately monitoring participant performance and for potentially allowing corporations to gain public relations benefits for associating with the United Nations while maintaining questionable business practices." - Scott Jerbi, senior adviser with Realizing Rights, in an article in Human Rights Quarterly.

© Photo by Fundillo.

Global Compact wants to be removed from ISO 26000 standard

2009-06-25T12:40:00.010+02:00

The Global Compact Office has requested the Secretary-General of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard – an international standard that provides guidance on social responsibility. In a recent letter to ISO, the executive director of the Global Compact Office states that it is "disappointed that neither in the body of the standard nor in the annex is there any recognition of the world's foremost social responsibility initiative". The Office believes that "the current reference to the UN Global Compact does not provide the UNGC with the prominence it deserves".

In 2006, the Global Compact Office signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ISO related to the development of the ISO 26000 standard. The purpose of this MoU was to encourage cooperation and mutual support between ISO and the Global Compact Office. Specifically, both parties agreed to collaborate extensively on the development, promotion and support of the ISO 26000 standard. In an explanatory note published in November 2006, the executive director of the Global Compact Office said that the outcome of the ISO 26000 process as a minimum should be consistent with and complement the ten principles of the UN Global Compact.

Although the current version of ISO 26000 is indeed consistent with the principles of the Compact, it seems that the Global Compact Office would have expected to receive more credit from the ISO 26000 working group, which consists of 435 experts from over 90 countries.

Over 900 employees complain about CNPC

2009-06-19T13:56:00.008+02:00

The employees of the Kazakh company AktobeMunaiGas have sent a letter of complaint to the president of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Hu Jintao. AktobeMunaiGas is a subsidiary of China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). In the letter, over 900 employees of AktobeMunaiGas ask the president of China to take appropriate measures to address the violation of "international norms". According to the letter, AktobeMunaiGas has been involved in several breaches of Kazakh law, such as violations of environmental laws, labor laws, tax laws, rules regarding the use of natural resources, and violations of norms and rules concerning the rights of shareholders.

In June 1997, CNPC acquired a 60.3 percent stake in AktobeMunaiGas, the fourth-largest oil company in Kazakhstan. CNPC now owns 85.42 percent of the shares of AktobeMunaiGas.

Another important subsidiary of CNPC, PetroChina, has been accused of complicity in human rights violations in Sudan. In January 2009, over 80 civil society organizations submitted an open letter to the UN Global Compact in support of a formal complaint against PetroChina. PetroChina is Sudan's largest oil industry partner and has financial links to the regime perpetuating the six-year humanitarian crisis in Darfur which many consider to be genocide. The complaint against PetroChina will be discussed by the Global Compact Board on July 24.

Shell Nigeria case may temper Big Oil policies

2009-06-19T10:22:00.005+02:00

By Rebekah Kebede.

NEW YORK, June 18 (Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell's cash payment of $15.5 million -- roughly four hours of its 2008 profits -- to settle a human rights case in Nigeria may not be enough to change Big Oil's policies in the developing world.

A better incentive may be a desire to avoid the high legal costs and the bad publicity from the 13-year case accusing Shell of abuses in the Niger Delta region.

The suit involved incidents including the 1995 hangings of author and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other protesters by Nigeria's then-military government.

Shell admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. But experts said Big Oil will note the lengthy legal feud that kept international spotlight trained on the oil major as an alleged accomplice in human rights abuses.

Oil companies have a long track record of being accused of human rights and environmental abuses in developing nations like Nigeria, Sudan, Ecuador, Peru and others.

"Many times the most important things about (these claims) is to keep alive the case and keep it focused before the public and before the courts," said Peter Rosenblum, a professor in human rights law at Columbia University in New York.

The case, settled before it was to go to trial at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, was brought by victims' families and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

Shell insists the charges were untrue and says the evidence would have supported this. It called the settlement a "humanitarian" gesture.

Chevron Corp was accused of similar violations in Nigeria, but was cleared by a San Francisco court. A case currently being brought against Occidental Petroleum for its operations in Peru alleges that the company's oil production damaged the health of nearby communities.

TOKEN GESTURE

Shell's critics said the settlement is a token gesture amounting to about half a percent of Shell's record $31.4 billion profit in 2008.

Rosenblum said legal fees and public relations costs for the 13-year case probably far exceeded the settlement sum and Shell likely wanted to end the "beating" its reputation took in connection with the accusations.

After the suit was launched, Shell increased involvement in development activities in the Niger Delta, including partnering with local non-profits and providing micro-credit loans, experts said.

Shell also signed on to the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary set of standards on human rights, environmental standards, labor and anti-corruption.

Other companies have taken similar steps in response to human rights and environmental scandals.

Talisman Energy Inc sold its interests in Sudan's largest oil field in 2003 after a suit accused it of giving the government resources to fuel the protracted civil war.

Talisman's chief executive has since said it will not operate in regions where it does not have the support of the local community. Prior to the accusations, the company had already adopted the UN Global Compact, and funded schools, hospitals and other social programs in southern Sudan.

"Given the recent number of high-profile lawsuits targeting the oil industry, it's highly likely that the companies will not only pay attention to the public relations implications but also, indeed, continue to adopt practices that meet international standards for human rights and environmental protection," said Matthew Chen, a researcher at the Baker Institute at Rice University.

Among oil giants, BP Plc and Total SA are participants in the Global Compact, although Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp are not. (Additional reporting by Jeff Jones in Calgary and Braden Reddall in San Francisco; Editing by Matthew Robinson and David Gregorio).

Source: Guardian.co.uk (18/6/2009) / © Photo by Metropole 21.

International campaign calls on the Global Compact to expel Nestlé

2009-06-18T18:00:00.012+02:00

It must be a busy time for the Global Compact Office in New York. In the last three days, the Office has received at least two complaints. The first complaint, against Bayer, was sent on Tuesday. Yesterday a group called Nestlé Critics submitted a report in which it urges the Global Compact Office to delist Nestlé. The campaigners argue that the company commits systematic abuses and that it brings the Compact "into disrepute".

Nestlé Critics allege that Nestlé's Communications on Progress are misleading and that the company uses its participation in the Compact to divert criticism so that abuses of human rights and environmental standards can continue. According to the campaigners, Nestlé has three months to respond to the allegations in the report under the terms of the Compact's Integrity Measures.

The concerns raised by Nestlé Critics include:

- Aggressive marketing of baby milks and foods and undermining of breastfeeding;
- Trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;
- Failure to act on child labor and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;
- Exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;
- Environmental degradation, particularly of water resources.

Mike Brady, campaigns and networking coordinator at Baby Milk Action, is very critical of Nestlé's participation in the Global Compact: "a fundamental flaw with the UN Global Compact voluntary approach is that Communications on Progress by Nestlé and other companies are not subject to verification. Nestlé's misleading submissions are published on the UN Global Compact website and have even been launched at events with the Global Compact Office so bringing the initiative as a whole into disrepute. We are using Integrity Measures to call on the Global Compact Office to act to try to salvage its own credibility by removing Nestlé from its list of participating companies. Nestlé uses the UN Global Compact to cover up its malpractice so that abuses can continue."

Contributors to the report include the International Labor Rights Fund, trade unionists from the Philippines, Corporate Accountability International and Baby Milk Action.

The report / complaint is available here.

© Photo by David Boyle.

Activists urge UN Global Compact to exclude Bayer

2009-06-16T11:43:00.015+02:00

The Coalition against Bayer Dangers, an international network based in Germany, has urged the United Nations to exclude Bayer from the UN Global Compact. In a letter of complaint sent earlier today to the executive director of the Global Compact, the group said that Bayer seriously violates the principles and the integrity measures of the Compact.

In a press release, Axel Koehler-Schnura, board member of the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, said: "Bayer has a long history of giving profits precedence over human rights and a sound environment. We have documented hundreds of cases when Bayer's products or factories have harmed people or the environment. Bayer's participation in the Global Compact is detrimental to the reputation of the program and its participants". The Coalition has been monitoring Bayer for over 30 years and is working on a broad range of issues such as emissions of Bayer plants, hazards caused by Bayer products, and accidents in Bayer plants.

The complaint is based on the aftermath of a fatal explosion at Bayer's US facilities in Institute, West Virginia, in 2008. According to a US Congress investigation, faulty safety systems, significant shortcomings with the emergency procedures and a lack of employee training led to the catastrophe. The region narrowly escaped a catastrophe that could have surpassed the 1984 Bhopal disaster. The investigation found that "Evidence obtained by the committee demonstrates that Bayer engaged in a campaign of secrecy by withholding critical information from local, county and state emergency responders; by restricting the use of information provided to federal investigators; by undermining news outlets and citizen groups concerned about the dangers posed by Bayer's activities; and by providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."

According to Philipp Mimkes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers, "These findings prove that Bayer systematically violates various principles of the Global Compact, such as principle 7 (Precautionary environmental protection), Principle 8 (Specific commitment to environmental protection) and Principle 9 (Diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies). Bayer's policies do not comply with the Compact's principles on the environment and thereby are harmful to the credibility of the program. We therefore urge the UN to exclude Bayer from the Global Compact."

The letter of complaint is available here.

© Photo by US House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce.