2002 was the year that stories about corporate responsibility escaped from environment and society newspaper columns and landed squarely on the frontpages. CEOs went from heros to zeros, as corporate governance debacles spread from Enron and Worldcom to other US companies and then to other parts of the world. In Europe, where people had said "this will never happen here", share values of Vivendi and Marconi collapsed under the same accusations of false accounting, misguided 'visonary' leadership and creative mismanagement as their American cousins. The implications of these scandals were discussed in the World Reviews of the Journal of Corporate Citizenship (see 'Enron's New Clothes' and 'Greed Inc or Greed Ltd').

The new interest in corporate responsibility was limited to a set of old issues. Honesty and legality, rather than broader notions of managerial responsibility were considered. This was illustrated by George Bush, who as Mallen Baker noted, "discovered corporate responsibility post-Enron, and oversaw the creation of legislation in the US to require higher standards of corporate governance, whilst missing many of the essential messages businesses have already embraced within the corporate social responsibility movement." It was too soon to say whether the broader agenda would be supported from the fallout of these corporate scandals, but some suggested it might open the door to a new corporate culture (see 'Moral Bankruptcy Assured (MBA)').

The US Government responded to pressure for new legislation to address accountancy oversight and corporate governance. Elsewhere, the pressure for new legislation was somewhat different, focusing on the wider responsibilities of corporations. The European Commission produced its thinking on the topic, signalling that it had accepted the argument that corporate responsibility to society, rather than just shareholders, needed to be based on voluntary action (see 'Consulting Caution'). However, France brought forward legislation to require social and environmental reporting. Australia changed its pension laws, so trustees would have to disclose their social and environmental considerations. In the UK, campaigners drafted a bill for compulsory reporting, although the government did not move on the matter (see 'Compulsory Reporting').

These initiatives indicated a change in mood amongst some professionals involved in corporate responsibility: and a re-consideration of the role of government in promoting it. Some corporate leaders began calling on government to do more to create incentives for sustainable enterprise. They were joined by a number of NGOs and think-tanks, who called for governments to move beyond market fundamentalism and become involved in creating a framework for sustainable business (See 'Neo-Regulation').

This debate was fuelled by a growing unease with limited evidence of a financial case for companies behaving responsibly. In 2002, so-called sin stocks like tobacco and alcohol grew, while many indexes of more responsible companies slumped. The reality was that political changes continued to shape the business environment. War talk and military spending in the US boosted related stocks there, while the election of the Greens in Germany boosted environmental stocks there. Thus 2002 reminded many of how political and social factors affect business priorities and performance – including activist campaigns and government regulation, two issues that feature prominently in this annual review (see 'Sin Stocks Rock').

Debates about the role of government were compounded by the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Ten years on from the historic Rio summit, which created global agreements on climate change and biodiversity, the WSSD was held in Johannesburg. What surprised many in the international community was how voluntary agreements between business, government and civil society displaced binding agreements as the main show. Over 200 of these 'Type 2' voluntary agreements were announced, many of them re-branded existing initiatives, marking the establishment of partnership as a key concept on the international policy agenda (see 'Johannesburgled').

This resulted in a backlash, and as time passed it appeared that WSSD marked a key staging post in a new movement for corporate accountability. NGOs from around the world began called for an international convention to guarantee greater corporate accountability, to the consternation of some business leaders, not others (see 'Convention-al Warfare'). This gave greater importance to the ongoing negotiations at the United Nations High Commission of Human Rights (UNHCHR) on drafting "Human Rights Principles and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises" (See 'A Future Treaty'). The progress of this in 2003, and business reaction, will be key.

One aspect of the campaign proposals for a new treaty was a mechanism for more judicial procedures against corporate malpractice. This was in light of the inability of courts in some 'developing' countries to deliver substantive justice for victims of corporate misdemeanours. For example, although Nicaraguan workers, who were poisoned by a pesticide, won a verdict against US companies, there was little chance of them receiving the damages payments from companies with no assets in Nicaragua (see 'Locating Justice'). That substantive justice may only be located in the countries where sued corporations have assets, made the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) in the US particularly important, and a number of cases progressed during 2002 (see 'Litigation Nation').

Given the importance of ATCA, the International Chamber of Commerce began a lobbing campaign to have it reformed (see 'Locating Justice'). The ICC had also lobbied against the UNHCHR process, described above. Regressive lobbying from certain trade associations created rumbles within the community of corporate responsibility professionals and campaigners. These rumbles that were set to explode in 2003, as NGOs geared-up to place the political activities of corporations and their associations firmly on the top of the agenda of corporate responsibility (see 'The Political Bottom Line').

It also appeared that 2003 would witness a broader scaling-up of the corporate responsibility debate from the micro-level of individual corporate practice to the macro-level of the corporate sector's role in international development. In 2002 tensions remained over the role of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in helping or hindering sustainable development. Southern Hemisphere countries continued to decry Northern protectionism - especially over issues like the United States' vetoing of a deal on drug patents, which directly responded to pressure from corporations (see 'The Political bottom line'). The new director of the World Trade Organisation's call for a code of conduct for corporate lobbying of trade delegations was therefore likely to be discussed once again in 2003 (see 'Sustainable Positions').

The development charity Oxfam focused on unfair trading, which it suggested was perpetuated by large corporations for their own interests. They launched a report about the crisis in coffee prices, calling for all stakeholders to support moves to make the trade more beneficial for poor producers in the 'developing' world. If the coffee campaign progresses in 2003, we could see the beginning of wider engagement between the corporations and questions about the structure of trading relations in the global economy (See 'Stinker Drinkers').

2002 saw the United Nations increasing its engagement with the corporate sector. This occurred under the framework of the UN Global Compact, but also through direct partnerships between certain UN agencies and companies. These new partnerships grew both praise and scorn, and 2003 looked certain to witness more of a debate about the way the UN should or should not engage with corporations (see 'Too Close for Comfort' and 'A McFudge').

Certain elements of the UN were not restrained in criticising certain corporate practices. A UN report on mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) accused corporations of exploiting the African country's mineral wealth in tandem with criminals. The UN said the companies involved had breached the OECD's code on multinational enterprises, although the OECD replied that it would have to decide this matter, and would only look into it if its official complaints process was called upon. Consequently 2003 looked set to bear witness to the effectiveness, or not, of voluntary measures like the OECD code, and the willingness of international bodies like the UN to redress the costs of corporate malpractice (See 'Rumbles from the Jungle').

The emergent profession of 'social auditing' continued to grow in 2002, but with it did criticism of its practice and potential. Reports suggested that commercial auditors and business-led initiatives were not delivering real change for workers around the world. The solution, some suggested, would come from involving the intended beneficiaries more closely in the agenda-setting and delivery of ethical trading initiatives (see 'UnWRAPping Monitoring').

The criticism of social auditing paralleled a growing concern that people from certain sectors of society had limited access to the emergent practice of corporate responsibility. For example, principles of sustainable finance developed by a British NGO were considered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as applicable globally, even though they did not integrate lessons from the rapidly expanding Islamic finance sector (see 'Unsustainable Worldviews?').

The need to pluralise cultural perspectives on corporate responsibility is a challenge for all involved, including the authors of this review. We have sought to offer a review of trends in the global operating environment of business. Nevertheless, we do this from a western vantage point, even if seeking to draw upon non-western cultures. It is something that we will continue to work on in future quarterly World Reviews of the Journal of Corporate Citizenship. (link to the JCC).