There were a number of other international regulatory developments in the first half of 2003. A legally binding protocol to the Aarhas Convention was agreed, which required that signatory states ensure companies report annually on their releases (into the environment) and transfers (to other companies) of certain pollutants. 16 This came on the back of a raft of national legislation requiring corporate disclosure of environmental information. In a review of laws related to corporate citizenship, Halina Ward found that "mandatory legislation on various aspects of business transparency is emerging around the world." 17

Earlier in the year a coalition of US nongovernmental organisations joined together to try and extend legislation on the transparency of US companies operating abroad. The International Right to Know (IRTK) Campaign includes the union federation AFL-CIO, Amnesty International USA, Earth Rights International, Global Exchange, Oxfam America, and the Sierra Club. Their proposal aims to extend the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986. The legislation established a US Toxic Release Inventory, which required companies in the US to register information on their use, storage and release of toxic substances. This had a beneficial impact in reducing emissions by US companies over subsequent years. However, the legislation only applied to activities in the US, an irony given that the legislation was in part a response to the Indian chemical factory disaster in Bhopal in 1984 that killed thousands. The 200 groups backing the IRTK campaign argued that the US should extend its right to know laws geographically to cover US activities abroad, and qualitatively, to also cover important non-environmental issues.

The IRTK campaign's first report presents a series of case studies of corporate malpractice. The McDonald's case study alleges the use of child labor in China to produce its Happy Meal toys, the Nike case study focuses on labour rights in Indonesia, and the Unocal case study discussed human rights abuses in Myanmar. However, the report also suggests some positive benefits of corporate disclosure - not only to communities. Arguments presented under sub-titles such as "companies as good ambassadors," "faith in US companies," "US leadership," and "support for US companies," suggests that the IRTK would benefit business. That a business case can be made for legal innovations on corporate accountability, is intriguing and requires further investigation. 18

It would be wrong to think transparency legislation is a panacea. First, legislation such as that proposed by IRTK would not necessarily improve accountability and performance unless other activities were subsequent on the basis of the information. Although IRTK highlighted the case of Bhopal as reason for their proposals, it is debatable whether such legislation would have had an effect on the management practices of Union Carbide that led to a catastrophic accident (not a regular emission). Perhaps the Bhopal community would have wanted the plant closed down if they knew what was stored there, but then this would have depended on many economic, political and legal factors. Extending the jurisdiction of courts abroad also raises some questions, which we discuss below.

Although often posed in opposition to voluntary corporate responsibility measures, regulation innovations may actually lead to their uptake. For example, in 2002 the Johannesburg Stock Exchange became the first in the world to recommend that publicly listed companies report to the standards developed by the Global Reporting Initiative. The recommendation took effect by virtue of the JSE's adoption of the code proposed in the King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa.

Rather than campaigning for new laws, some NGOs focused on testing existing accountability mechanisms. At the end of April, Friends of the Earth Netherlands (FoE-NL) and environmental organisations in seven other countries filed an official complaint with the OECD against the British oil company BP and other companies that were involved in the construction of an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey. They argued that the companies were violating the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and demanded that construction activities be postponed until these guidelines have been met. 19 The groups were not that hopeful of success, due to prior experience of the OECD guidelines, as discussed in JCC 9. 20 However, they decided to test it further, and also launched a booklet on how to use the OECD complaints system, so that others might do the same. 21 The Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) also produced a handbook on using the guidelines. 22