The Congo is rich in gold, diamonds, cobalt, copper and coltan, which is used in mobile phones. The report notes that trade in these resources has helped fuel the four-year civil war in which more than two million people have died.

Significantly, the report called for the UN Security Council to introduce specific sanctions against named individuals and companies it claimed were involved, including travel bans, freezing personal assets and barring enterprises and individuals from "receiving funding or establishing partnerships or other commercial relations with international financial institutions", or IFIs, such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It also listed 85 companies the panel considered to be in breach of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the voluntary code supported by many governments and business associations as the most appropriate way to police transnational business. 9

The report called for a body to be established to monitor any further exploitation of the DRC's resources, which can report back to 'National Contact Points' - the first port of call for any complaint through the OECD Guidelines procedure - in the home countries of the companies on the list. The OECD code allows for both 'naming and shaming' of companies in breach of the principles, and a theoretical 'monitoring' by the host country of the businesses' compliance with the code. 10

Amongst the 85 companies listed in the report are Africa's largest steel producer, Iscor Ltd, Germany's Bayer AG, four Belgian diamond firms and the Belgian Groupe George Forrest mining group, British-based De Beers, Anglo American and Barclays Bank, Chemie Pharmacie Holland and the Dutch-based ING Bank, Canada's First Quantum Minerals and the US mining firm Cabot.

By the turn of the year, most of these companies were refuting the allegations. Barclays - one of the two largest banking groups in sub-Saharan Africa - responded to the report with bemusement: "We have not been given any details of why we are included and have asked the UN for an explanation," said a Barclays spokeswoman. 11 The Belgian Groupe George Forrest mining group also responded with a statement: "the experts have intentionally committed very serious negligences, causing at an international level the devastation of the commercial reputation of the Forrest Group and endangering its economical survival." 12

Nevertheless, the allegations were taken seriously by some, and in November, investigators in Brussels searched the offices of the Belgian affiliate of Dutch bank ING, which the UN report accused of money laundering. 13 As well as beginning criminal investigations, the Belgian government launched a parliamentary inquiry into the role of Belgian businesses in the DRC.

If the Security Council adopts the recommendations of the report, it may establish a reporting regime under the authority of the UN, which would meet some of the demands from activists calling for binding rules to govern corporations, for example at the recent Earth Summit (see World Review, JCC 7).

How the UN will relate to the OECD guidelines and associated complaints processes, through National Contact Points, will be carefully watched by those interested in the effectiveness of voluntary measures like the OECD code, and the willingness of international bodies like the UN to redress the costs of any corporate malpractice.

At a meeting in December of the OECD Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (CIME) - the body which oversees the Guidelines - members of the committee took the view that unless complaints are formally filed with National Contact Points they will not have any legitimate right to act in the matter. According to the UK-based group Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) - which attended some of the discussions informally - CIME members "took the line that the UN Panel had exceeded its power in reaching the conclusion that the companies listed in the report had breached the Guidelines." Therefore, it is up to individual groups in each 'host' country of companies named in the report to begin formal complaints (those countries including the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Canada and the United States). That international organisations can not raise complaints directly to the OECD, at the international level - and that the OECD cannot mobilise itself when reports of breaches to its Guidelines arise from a body with the authority of the UN - will disappoint many who hope the Guidelines will be more than words.

In order to make complaints through National Contact Points the groups will need to generate their own evidence. The UN report contains various omissions, going into considerable detail about the perceived wrongdoings of some companies (like First Quantum) but offering very little by way of evidence about others (like Anglo American). "Nothing in this report was put in without being corroborated, being cross-examined, having documents, having testimonies to prove it" Mahmoud Kassem, Chairman of the Panel told journalists at a UN briefing. "We are not asking for punishment, we are asking [corporations]- questioning them - to change their policy. When they have business in areas of conflict such as the Great Lakes region, and in particular the DRC, they have to act with full transparency and to stick to the guidelines of the OECD." 14

Very few complaints have been raised in the three years since the reformed Guidelines have been in operation. According to RAID, the US National Contact Point has sat on all complaints while it "assesses their admissibility." The UK contact point has allowed a well-documented complaint against a leading mining company to gather dust for more than a year. In the view of RAID:

"NGOs are left in the dark about what stage their complaint has reached. Inevitably the lack of feedback strengthens the impression that the procedures are there to protect the interests of companies rather than to promote the welfare and rights of the workforce or the communities in which the companies operate. It adds grist to the mill of those who believe that multinational corporations have greater influence over the [OECD's complaints] proceedings than NGOs or trade unions and undermines the core principle of 'equality of arms', which is the hallmark of a bona fide complaints mechanism." 15

The OECD is believed to have referred the matter back to the UN Security Council by letter, offering "help and clarification."

contents © jem bendell, 2002. site design by tim concannon. hosting by futureconsiderations.com.