A new global coalition is mobilizing to hold international corporations accountable, through criminal sanctions if necessary, for harm done to local communities by abusive practices whether in poor countries or elsewhere.
Human rights NGOs and legal groups are also looking into the role of law and lawyers in tax avoidance, and its impacts on human rights. These were among notable trends at a 2000-delegate conference on the principles in Geneva this week.
The coalition is forming around a 2011 agreement called the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights, which is not mandatory and contains no sanctions but contains much good sense. It also reflects a general public distaste in democracies against corporations that ride roughshod over local communities or workers to save money.
The goals are to work with companies to prevent and protect people against corporate abuse, respect their human rights and provide legal and other remedies in cases of abuse.
John Ruggie, the UN diplomat who proposed the principles, insisted that the international community no longer regards the sovereignty of national laws as a legitimate shield behind which egregious human rights violations can take place with impunity. “Surely the same must be true of the corporate form.”
No company is likely to get away again with a disaster on the staggering scale of the 1984 Bhopal gas leak, which marks its 29th anniversary this week. At the time, Union Carbide of America quickly divested Union Carbide India and was itself sold to Dow Chemical.
Dow continues to fight tooth and nail against any responsibility for the leak’s ongoing impacts, which are still huge because 350 tons of toxic waste remain on the abandoned factory site. It may finally have to strike a deal under pressure from civil society groups, including Amnesty International, to help the clean-up.
In June 2013 a US court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Bhopal survivors saying that the parent company was not legally responsible for Union Carbide India’s failure to contain the toxic waste. Undeterred, Amnesty is now trying to get Union Carbide to respond to an outstanding summons by an Indian court to answer charges related to the disaster.
British foreign secretary William Hague welcomed the UN guidelines and his country is an early adopter of national guidelines based on them. He said responsible action by the private sector on human rights is good for business and communities. “It helps create jobs, customers and a sense of fairness; it contributes to a market’s sustainability and therefore its potential to generate long-term growth.”
At the Geneva conference, British diplomat Claire Filshie concurred that the “devil is in the details” but human rights go hand in hand with trade, industry and entrepreneurship.
A UN report said tremendous challenges face advocates working to hold companies accountable for human rights abuses, and victims seeking effective remedies. But wind is gathering in the sails.
“Multinational companies, the largest of which have revenues exceeding the gross domestic products of countries such as Sweden, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, operate easily across national borders. By contrast, people who suffer abuses at the hands of companies frequently struggle to access judicial remedies, allowing companies involved in abuses to operate with impunity”, it pointed out.
The unusual government-business-civil society cooperation emerging around the UN principles in just two years may help to reduce space for that impunity.
Some results are already visible. In April 2013, India’s Supreme Court upheld a ban on mining by Vedanta, a multinational, until it satisfies 12 tribal village councils that voted against it in special hearings held by the court.
Tata, which is probably India’s most respected company and owns Britain’s Jaguar and Land Rover brands, suffered debacle in 2008 when its factory to build Nano cars ran into opposition from local villagers backed by civil society groups and district politicians. It had to move nearly 1000 miles to another State.
In November 2013, it prudently presented an elaborate plan to address concerns about impacts on environment and the livelihoods of about 25 local fishing communities before starting on an electricity factory, which it calls the Ultra Mega Power Plant.