The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) moved more strategically into the arena of corporate citizenship in September, with the publication of its 2003 World Investment Report. 7 Previously, UNCTAD had analysed the state-of-play in its 1999 report, but refrained from making any major recommendations on the nature and promotion of corporate citizenship. In the 2003 report, UNCTAD made two key contributions. It suggested first, that corporate citizenship explore the economic impact of companies, and second, that international investment agreements might be one mechanism for promoting or ensuring improved corporate practices.

UNCTAD noted that most corporate citizenship initiatives address "social and environmental issues, leaving economic development issues out of their scope. Indeed, there has been a notable lack of debate on issues pertaining directly to the economic development interests of developing countries." They suggested that the dominance of issues such as human, environmental and labour rights could be the result of the interests of developed countries, as well as "the emergence of influential civil society interest groups that challenge companies to engage in a dialogue on their policies and performances and the fact that globally agreed standards on these issues exist." However, UNCTAD argued the limited attention given to the economic impacts of companies is curious for at least two reasons. First, as the main impact of companies is economic- they are business entities. Second, this impact has increased with the expansion of FDI, particularly for developing countries. Difficulties arise as there is no single model for, or understanding of, successful development. Nor is there a single internationally agreed instrument from which one could derive specific development obligations, although progress is being made on this regard within the context of economic and social rights, at the UN's High Commission for Human Rights.

UNCTAD suggested that the term corporate citizenship be distinguished from "the concept of "corporate social responsibility" in that it addresses economic aspects more explicitly." They argued that this economic dimension will mean we consider how corporate citizens "pay greater attention to contributing to public revenues, creating and upgrading linkages with local enterprises, creating employment opportunities, raising skill levels and transferring technology." The question of corporate responsibility and accountability for paying taxes was discussed in a previous review, and UNCTAD stress this point, with Transnational Corporations "expected to abide by the spirit of a country's tax law and to meet their tax obligations in good faith-and not purposely shift revenues through abusive transfer pricing to deny the governments of taxes on income originating in their territories."

UNCTAD also stresses the importance of compliance with national laws, and playing a constructive role in public policy debates. For example, companies could "seek to influence home country governments to open their markets more for imports from developing countries. They can help create a business-enabling environment by actively participating in public-private fora on improving investment conditions in a given country. And they can also serve on advisory panels to national governments and regional bodies." This alludes to the political bottom line of business, discussed in the World Review of JCC 9. 8 Given the track record of many companies political influence over home and host countries, this is a major issue ones understanding of corporate citizenship. Yet calls for positive engagement on political-economic issues also raises complex questions around democratic accountability. UNCTAD's 1999 World Investment Report discussed concerns over the accountability of the trend setters in corporate responsibility initiatives, yet the proposals in the 2003 report might lead to more concern in this regard.

The second strategic contribution from UNCTAD in the 2003 report was their assessment of how international investment agreements might contribute to enhancing good corporate practices, a novel thought given that such treaties normally focus on government conduct, not that of corporations. Amongst the approaches and instruments they considered were linking voluntary standards to investment agreements, perhaps making them legally binding. For example, the Joint Declaration in the Chile-EU Agreement reminds us that the TNCs of these countries "of their recommendation to observe the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, wherever they operate". The legal and practical importance of such text is questionable, however.

Another suggestion appears more interesting, particularly as a strategy for future negotiations on bilateral, regional or even multi-lateral investment agreements. This is that investment agreements establish obligations on corporations to abide by certain standards if they wish to enjoy the rights accorded by that agreement. Such standards could include compliance with domestic laws, perhaps even home country laws or international standards. This could become particularly relevant in any dispute settlement procedure, where a company would need to have been conducting their operations in full accordance with the law and other relevant standards if they were to seek any recompense by making a complaint against a country. Perhaps, a country could even revoke the licence to operate of a foreign investor, if it was in breach of obligations as outlined in an investment agreement. On one hand this would go a small way towards addressing the concern that investment and trade agreements give corporations rights without concurrent duties, and accountability. On the other hand, objections could be brought that such governmental power over foreign investors would counter the drive towards equal treatment for domestic and foreign companies. In response, we might rekindle the debate about governments having the right to revoke the charters of domestic companies as well as those of foreign subsidiaries in their country. UNCTAD did not explore such issues, suggesting that by inclusion in an investment agreement, any obligation on foreign companies "would need to be applied in a manner consistent with the protection standards (such as non-discrimination, fair and equitable treatment) granted in the same agreement."

In summary, UNCTAD notes that investment agreements should not be expected to set out comprehensive rules for business activities, or substitute specific international agreements or voluntary efforts. However, they are the instruments that focus on the investment process, which necessarily involved corporations. "In a time when the societal implications of corporate actions are receiving more attention and scrutiny, good corporate citizenship-especially when it combines the interests of host countries and firms-deserves a careful examination in future" international investment agreements.

The lack of progress on the Doha Agenda at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) conference in Cancun, in September, meant that investment issues were prevented from being included in further negotiations. The developing countries had effectively argued that without rich member states delivering on their promises from the previous ministerial conference, there was no reason for them to agree on new issues with questionable developmental benefits. Given the increasing use of previously agreed, as well as newly negotiated, bilateral treaties relating to investment, there remained an important need for a multilateral forum to address the implications for sustainable development and corporate responsibility. Whether member states of the United Nations would give UNCTAD such a mandate was still to be seen.