Just before the conference started, the charity Christian Aid said that business was "wielding its influence to water down plans for tighter regulation." They released documents, which suggested an early draft agenda called for a 'multi-lateral agreement' on rules to make business accountable, but this was soon diluted to 'a framework' and in the end only promised to 'promote' best practice. Some critics said it was proof that big business puts profit before the planet, while some business leaders said such rules would 'decrease investment' in the world's poorest areas. 18

As reported in JCC 7, Friends of the Earth (FoE) had been leading a campaign for the Summit to launch a process for negotiating a convention on corporate accountability. Their proposals would involve governments agreeing to make companies accountable to a range of other stakeholders, such as the communities they operate in. "At present," they said, "directors of publicly traded corporations have a duty to account to shareholders and maximise financial returns." By establishing director's legal accountabilities to other stakeholders, they hope they would be re-defining the nature of commerce. Part of this would involve directors being personally liable for any failings. Friends of the Earth even suggested the new International Criminal Court could try directors and corporations for environmental, social and human rights crimes.

The distaste of some business leaders for such international regulatory developments was mentioned in JCC 7. In the days before the Summit, Lord Holme re-emphasised his concern with those who criticise voluntary initiatives as a distraction to the need for improved regulation of corporations. "While some want to bind Gulliver hand and foot, so that he cannot move an inch, most want to ensure that he treads carefully - and that his giant footprint doesn't leave people squashed" he wrote in The Guardian. 19

Nevertheless, FoE were joined by a range of other groups, including Christian Aid, who made this a central emphasis in their lobbying agenda and were far more successful than was generally expected. South Africa championed the issue during the negotiations and drew the support of the G77, European Union and others, whereas the United States was opposed to making any substantial requirements of companies. In the end The Political Declaration stated that governments "agree that in pursuit of their legitimate activities... companies have a duty to contribute to the evolution of equitable and sustainable communities. We agree that there is a need for private sector corporations to enforce corporate accountability. This should take place within a transparent and stable regulatory environment."

The plan of implementation included a variety of paragraphs stating governments' aims to encourage or promote better corporate practice in relation to sustainable development. What forms such encouragement could take were not specified. However, paragraph 45 of this official document opened the possibility for negotiating new international legal mechanisms on corporate accountability. "[We will] actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on the Rio Principles" the document read, "including the full development and effective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures, international initiative and public-private partnerships, and appropriate national regulations, and support continuous improvement in corporate practices in all countries"(emphasis added). 20

This statement had originally read "existing intergovernmental agreements", however the word "existing" was dropped during negotiations. "The removal of the word "existing" is important because it seems to signal that the international community is no longer satisfied with the voluntary approach to corporate accountability. If this is the case there are clearly significant implications for business," noted Justin Alexander of investment management company Schroders. Aware of this, and after negotiations had concluded on this section, the US delegation tried to insert an interpretative note stating that this paragraph still referred only to existing agreements. This interpretative note was not allowed given that the section had already been agreed, but after the signing of the declaration and plan the following day, the US issued a press release that it considered the scope to be existing agreements. Therefore Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) said that paragraph 45 only "refers to existing agreements and is not a call for a new international regime." 21 However, despite BASD and the US government's own interpretations, the official implementation plan does not restrict itself to existing intergovernmental agreements.

The private sector was left flat-footed and increasingly divided on how to react to the new pressure for intergovernmental action. Commenting on the reaction of the business lobbyists, The Daily Summit website said "one gets the impression they're a little irritated that the issue won't quite die." 22 Despite the statements on the BASD website, and earlier comments from Lord Holme, the chair of BASD Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, told The Daily Summit he was not averse to an emphasis on the better regulation of corporations, and though the main effort toward regulating corporations should be at the national level, he accepted "there is a role for international agreements." However, he continued, "it's going to be a long battle putting these agreements together." The Daily Summit noted that whereas Sir Mark was fairly relaxed about the proposals adopted, other business leaders thought they opened up a "Pandora's Box." 23

What would be the logical next step in enacting this new and significant commitment from governments? First would be to review how existing intergovernmental agreements relate to corporations, the degree of compliance and ways of monitoring that compliance. Second could be the development of new international agreements. One such agreement was already being negotiated at the United Nations in the months preceding the Johannesburg Summit.

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