The Draft Principles were discussed at the United Nations in July, with little fanfare. The discussions were lightly attended by governments who, we were told, would show-up if and when the principles progressed further. However, even at that stage the discussions about the principles illustrated the differences in thinking amongst the business community on the need for global social and environmental rules for business.

The draft principles attempt to turn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) into something more directly related to business. They cover issues such as the rights of workers, the right of people to security, the need for companies to respect national sovereignty and local communities, and to observe obligations with regard to both consumer and environmental protection. In his capacity as Deputy Chair of the FTSE4Good Advisory Committee, Dr. Craig Mackenzie wrote to Professor Weissbrodt, who helped draft the principles. "Following meetings with various human rights experts it has become apparent that the Draft Universal Human Rights Guidelines for Companies is the most useful interpretation of what human rights mean for business available." The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), which works with dozens of transnational companies and has helped to publish documents on human rights and business, such as Human Rights - is it any of your business? and Business and Human Rights - a Geography of Corporate Risk, also supported the UN initiative. They issued a statement saying they "wholeheartedly welcome the... Principles... which go further than any of the existing codes and guidelines in defining human rights responsibilities of the private sector." Moreover they asserted that "The Draft Principles are the most authoritative and comprehensive set of guidelines to date which make the UDHR applicable to companies." 25

However, the self-professed "most representative global business organizations" - the International Organisation of Employers' (IOE) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) - disagreed with FTSE4Good and the IBLF. "The IOE and ICC are still firmly of the view that further development of binding Human Rights Principles does not constitute a positive contribution to the current growth of voluntary corporate social initiatives and should not proceed" they noted in a formal contribution to the sub-commission. 26

Part of there argument was that "to be effective and relevant to a company's specific circumstances, business principles and responsibilities should be developed and implemented by the companies themselves." This might be news to some of their members who are involved in the Global Compact, where the principles are set by the UN, and a range other initiatives such as the Forest Stewarship Council, Social Accountability International and the Ethical Trading Initiative, where non-governmental organisations have taken the lead in setting standards.

Comparing the process to that behind the International Labour Organisation's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises the ICC said it was concerned that the process was not as inclusive, so that the principles "lack essential business input." This contrasted with the IBLF statement that "the inclusive, cross-sector consultation process... has ensured that as many representative voices as possible have been taken into account."

Whereas the IBLF thought "the Draft Principles are complementary to the UN Global Compact and could very usefully build upon the human rights components of that initiative," the ICC communication used the existence of the Global Compact to suggest that this process was unnecessary. Moreover, the ICC claimed it indicated "confusion within the UN" which therefore "weakens its credibility just at the time when it is trying, more than ever, to engage with the business community." Presuming that the UN might be concerned about being perceived as credible to the ICC is, of course, questionable. More concerning to them might be how some members of the Global Compact might use its existence to undermine other initiatives within the UN system.

Perhaps in the context of the ICC's intervention, the President of the Novartis Foundation, Klaus Leisinger, stated at the sub-commission that "with all due respect for others' opinions: Compliance with the Human Rights Principles and Responsibilities as those we have before us is not only feasible, it is also a question of leadership for triple bottom line entrepreneurial success. And leadership occurs never on the position of the lowest common denominator." 27

Therefore we might question Lord Holme's retort to criticism of the ICC by Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth, where he said "far from disagreeing with (the...) call for greater corporate accountability, the ICC... represents businesses that are, in general, strongly in favour of improved reporting and appropriate regulation." 28 Once again it appears that business urgently needs to have more open dialogue and innovative thinking on global governance issues. Events in Europe at the time suggested that consultants in the corporate citizenship field were not yet prepared to help.

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