NGO LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL ON GLOBAL COMPACT

An international coalition of development, environment and human rights non-governmental groups have denounced the Global Compact between the United Nations system and global corporations, and the UN guidelines for cooperation between the UN and the corporations, and have asked the UN Secretary-General to re-evaluate the partnership.

Geneva, 28 July 2000 (TWN) -- The following is the text of the letter addressed to Mr. Kofi Annan, with copies to heads of UN agencies associated with the move—the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Director-General of the ILO, the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, the head of the UN Development Programme and Executive Director of UNICEF.

“On July 20^th, a number of us wrote asking you to re-assess the Global Compact and to join us in a ‘Citizens Compact.’ We are writing again today to express our shock upon learning the identities of the corporate partners for the Global Compact and our disappointment in the Guidelines for Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Business Community.

In the July 20^th letter, we expressed concern that the UN is endorsing a specific vision of corporate-led globalization that is opposed by many sectors of civil society. We also suggested that the purely voluntary nature of the Global Compact may distract from the need for a legal framework to hold corporations accountable internationally.

We wrote to you as individuals who care deeply about the United Nations and on behalf of organizations that have worked for years to strengthen and support it.

Now, after reviewing the July 17^th Guidelines and the initial list of companies joining the Global Compact, we believe that the Global Compact and related partnerships threaten the mission and integrity of the United Nations.

Some of the companies in the partnership are simply inappropriate for partnerships with the United Nations.

Nike, one of the Global Compact partners and an international symbol of sweatshops and corporate greed, is the target of one of the most active global campaigns for corporate accountability. The company has made announcements of changes to its behaviour only after enormous public pressure.  It has also aggressively opposed the only union and human rights-group supported independent monitoring program—the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC).  CEO Phil Knight withdrew a $30 million donation to the University of Oregon after the University joined the WRC.  Nike also cut its multimillion dollar contracts with the University of Michigan and Brown University after they joined the WRC.  Nike became a sweatshop poster child not just through complicity in labour abuses but through active searching for countries with non-union labour, low wages, and low environmental standards for its manufacturing operations. This has made Nike a leader in the ‘race to the bottom’ -a trend that epitomizes the negative tendencies of corporate-led globalization.

Shell is a corporation with a history of complicity in human rights abuses, most infamously in Nigeria. Its operations there are also notorious for environmental contamination and double standards. Shell has adopted sophisticated rhetoric about its social responsibilities, but it has not shown understanding, let alone remorse, about its own role. For example, on its website, Shell posts a photograph of a pro-Ogoni rally, without acknowledging that the Ogoni people’s protests have been against Shell itself.

BP Amoco is another company with sophisticated rhetoric on environmental and social issues. But their actions do not measure up.  CEO John Browne admits that climate change is a problem for any oil company, yet his company continues to search for oil and gas even in remote and pristine regions, while investments in renewable energy are a pittance compared with the size of the corporation and its investments in ongoing fossil fuel exploration and production.

Rio Tinto Plc is a British mining corporation which has created so many environment, human rights, and development problems that a global network of trade unions, indigenous peoples, church groups, communities and activists has emerged to fight its abuses. For instance, the company stands accused of complicity in or direct violations of environmental, labour and human rights in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Namibia, Madagascar, the United States and Australia, among others.

Novartis is engaged in an aggressive public relations and regulatory battle to force consumers and farmers to accept genetically engineered food, without full testing for potential harms and without full access to information. The behaviour of Novartis in the area of genetically engineered foods is diametrically opposed to the precautionary principle, one of the principles of the Global Compact.

These are but a few of the corporate endorsers of the Global Compact whose historical and current core activities run counter to the spirit and the letter of the Compact itself.

The Guidelines on Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Business Community which you issued on July 20^th raise a further, related set of issues. These guidelines state that ‘business entities that are complicit in human rights abuses... are not eligible for partnership.’ The inclusion of Shell in the Global Compact violates those guidelines.

The Guidelines also state that a “business entity may be authorized to use the name and emblem” of the United Nations. As the United Nations Development Programme has noted, when a company uses the UN logo, “a mutual image transfer inevitably takes place.”  It is dismaying to contemplate such an image transfer between Nike, Shell, or Rio Tinto and the UN. The UN logo and the Nike swoosh do not belong together.

The Guidelines state that the use of the UN name may only be used when the “principal purpose is to show support for the purposes and activities of the UN...” This guideline does not take into account the modern practice of branding, by which a corporation sells its image as much as its manufactured products. Nike, one of the Global Compact partners, is a pioneer of modern branding. It is obvious that the use of the UN name and logo by corporations will be not only for short term profit but for the long term business goal of positive brand image. The UN must not become complicit in the positive branding of corporations that violate UN principles.

Given that there is no provision for monitoring a corporation’s record in abiding by UN principles, the Guidelines’ modalities for partnerships are quite susceptible to abuse. For example, a company with widespread labour or environmental violations may be able to join with the UN in a relatively minor cooperative project, and gain all the benefits of association with the UN without any responsibilities. The UN would have no way to determine whether the company, on balance, is contributing to UN goals or preventing their realization.

In short, Mr. Secretary General, the Global Compact partnership and the Guidelines for Cooperation do not ‘ensure the integrity and independence’ of the United Nations. They allow business entities with poor records to ‘bluewash’ their image by wrapping themselves in the flag of the United Nations. They favour corporate-driven globalization rather than the environment, human health, local communities, workers, farmers, women and the poor.

Again, we urge you to re-assess the Global Compact and its partners. We urge you to re-evaluate your overall approach to UN - corporate partnerships. The mission and integrity of the United Nations are at stake.”

The signatories are: Upendra Baxi, Professor of Law, University of Warrick, UK and former Vice Chancellor University of Delhi (India);Roberto Bissio, Third World Institute (Uruguay); John Cavanagh, Director Institute for Policy Studies (USA); Susan George, Director Transnational Institute (The Netherlands); Joshua Karliner, Executive Director Transnational Resource & Action Center (USA); David Korten, President, The People-Centred Development Forum (USA); Miloon Kothari, Coordinator, International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and Investment (India); Smitu Kothari, President, International Group for Grassroots Initiatives (India); Jerry Mander, International Forum on Globalization (USA), Remi Parmentier, Director, Political Unit of Greenpeace International (The Netherlands); Atila Roque, Programme Coordinator, Brazilian Institute of Economic and Social Analysis (Brazil); Elisabeth Sterken, National Director, INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America; Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Executive Director, Tebtebba Foundation (The Philippines); Etienne Vernet, Food and Agriculture Campaigner, Ecoropa (France); Rob Weissman, Co-director Essential Action (USA).