In August another UN body concluded a key phase in its work on corporate accountability and human rights. The Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted the "UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights." 9 The Norms make clear a range of legal obligations for companies, based on existing international human rights, labour and environmental standards. A coalition of NGOs, including Amnesty International, Christian Aid, and the Forum for Human Rights, said the norms "constitute an authoritative interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The Universal Declaration applies not only to states and individuals, but also to "organs of society", including businesses." 10

Section Paragraph H.16 of the agreement was of particular importance in suggesting that these Norms might take on a life outside of the filing cabinet: "Transnational corporations and other businesses enterprises shall be subject to periodic monitoring and verification by United Nations, other international and national mechanisms already in existence or yet to be created, regarding application of the Norms. This monitoring shall be transparent and independent and take into account input from stakeholders (including non governmental organizations) and as a result of complaints of violations of these Norms." 11

Other UN agencies, such as the International Labour Office, already have processes for hearing complaints about countries whose commitment to various conventions on social and environmental issues is challenged: processes which have proved to be of limited importance in influencing the practices of countries, or their corporations. The exact working of any complaints process will therefore be key. The Sub-Commission mandated further work on possible complaints mechanisms, but any action on establishing such mechanisms would be decided at the next Sub-Commission and the 61st session of the main Commission on Human Rights. Therefore, there remained the opportunity for opponents of the process to kill it, as well an opportunity for proponents to promote understanding of the Norms, and their potential role.

In the World Review of JCC 8 12 the divided reaction of the business community to these developments was chronicled - some supportive, some not. One year on and there was little evidence that significant learning on this issue had occurred. Thomas Niles, president of the US Council for International Business, attacked the Norms on BBC's World Service radio. Part of his argument was the growth of voluntary initiatives such as the UN Global Compact. One of the main authors of the Norms, Professor David Weissbrodt, countered that "there are about 75,000 transnational corporations. Only 1,000 of them have joined the Global Compact. So what about the other 74,000?" 13

Some members of the Advisory Council to the UN Global Compact were concerned about how key participants might use the existence of the Compact to undermine other processes within the UN that could contribute towards corporate accountability. 14 In response to the adoption of the Norms, the Executive Head of the Compact, Georg Kell issued the following, fairly neutral statement, on this complex and rather difficult question. "The Global Compact is meant to complement and not substitute regulation. Regulatory authority lies entirely with governments and governments will have to make decisions on the Norms as adopted by the Sub-Commission of Human Rights. From the perspective of the Global Compact, we always welcome efforts that help to clarify complex human rights questions and that foster practical changes." 15

However, with no specific proposal for a binding agreement between governments, nor direct mechanisms of enforcement over corporations, the assumption that the Norms are "regulatory" could be questioned. "I wouldn't call these norms anything like "compulsory,"" argued Weissbrodt, as "they rely on existing law, and they apply those laws to companies... and then their "binding-ness" comes principally from the existing law, not just from the fact that we've restated it in one document that makes it easier for you to understand." 16

Kell's statement that the Sub-Commission's work is ultimately decided by Governments is important, in as much as all the UN's work is so decided, including that of the Global Compact itself, via General Assembly authority over the Secretary General. Given a context where some corporate participants in the Compact were lobbying to stop the progress of the Norms, some might ask whether the Compact office would take a similarly neutral view of any companies that worked with other UN agencies but lobbied their governments to curtail the Compact's activities? Such action would probably be considered counter to demonstrating support for the UN, something required of companies under the guidelines for partnerships. 17 Why should those guidelines not apply to companies in the Compact? Such difficult policy questions, and the associated accountability challenges that arise from increased UN-business collaboration were not explored by the Secretary General's report on this topic to the General Assembly during September. 18 However, the importance of this topic suggests it is one that will return.

Reporting on the human rights Norms, the Guardian argued that "what is really necessary between now and March, when the full 53-nation UN human rights commission meets to consider the norms for approval, is evidence of a political will by world governments to hold businesses to account." 19 Corporate lobbying would be key. Whether enough companies would embrace the form of "radical corporate citizenship," described by the co-author of this review in the chapter Civil Regulation, 20 and support greater intergovernmental cooperation towards level playing fields for social and environmental performance, was still to be seen.