Missing Morals Multiply Human Suffering

Where is business? Asked Frene Ginwala, former speaker of Parliament, at the Business, Accountability and Human Rights Conference, which took place in Johannesburg on 16 and 17 January 2007.

Ginwala shared the platform with an A-list of panelists, in the opening session of this Foundation for Human Rights (FHR) event. Other panelists included the President of Realizing Rights, Mary Robinson, former Cabinet Minister, Kader Asmal, and European Union Ambassador, Lodewijk Briet.

The panel addressed the question of ethical globalization at this FHR conference, which on the whole, is examining business ethics within a human rights framework, an issue that is receiving growing attention in the global arena and one hopes, will start making inroads in corporate South Africa.

The conference was aimed at starting a constructive dialogue with corporate South Africa about human rights; however, the attendance of the intended target group was poor. Nevertheless, the event was well attended by other human rights stakeholders, including civil society and particularly the environmental lobby.

A key concern raised by the FHR is that South African companies trade throughout the African continent (and globally) within varying national frameworks where laws deal with human rights issues inconsistently. In some cases, the laws of a country engender human rights abuses that companies often turn a blind eye to and sometimes even take advantage of, as they pursue profit above all else.

The FHR cites several existing examples of human rights violations by companies in the international arena. For example, UNOCAL’s co-operation with the Burmese government as its business partner is inexcusable given that the company is aware that the repressive state is using torture and forced labour to clear land around the Yadana oil pipeline.

However, given apartheid’s legacy of enduring poverty and inequality, the point was made most poignantly in recalling the human rights violations of South Africa’s mining companies that assisted the South African government, under apartheid law, to create a discriminatory migrant labour system, which they unashamedly used to their advantage. Notwithstanding, the role of multinational companies, such as Barclays, that was a huge benefactor to the apartheid government and has refused to apologise to the South African people, argued a delegate from Earthlife Africa.

The so-called extractive industries continue to raise concerns today, both locally and internationally. This concern was raised by Asmal, who also singled out South Africa’s food and IT sectors, contending that they ride roughshod over the rights of people in other parts of Africa as they rampantly expand their business interests across the continent.

Need for a Set of Legally Binding Standards
The FHR argues that market forces are not enough to regulate the behaviour of companies. Contending that voluntary codes of conduct are insufficient to rein in rights violators, the FHR is calling for a set of global standards that are legally binding and will ensure that South Africa’s business expansion does not take place at the expense of human rights, both within our borders and extraterritorially.

Robinson, who presided as the United Nations (UN) Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002, shared her experience of the challenges of enforcing a global code. Naming the International Chamber of Commerce as one detractor, she contends that business was particularly hostile to the adoption of the UN’s Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights .

Still, she argued that there are some corporations, such as, the Body Shop and Hulette Packard, who see the benefits of incorporating a human rights approach and have taken on the norms and tested them in practice by developing human rights policy frameworks. The benefits to these companies have been enormous as the approach has been good for health and safety standards, has motivated employees and improved the companies’ relationships with the public in general.

Robinson is also a member of the UN Global Compact board, a global initiative that brings together various stakeholders, including business, to support universal environmental and social principles. According to Robinson, more than 3 000 companies belong to the compact with more than half from developing countries. While she acknowledges that the compact provides an important opportunity to influence business, Robinson does argues that it sets the bar too low. Echoing the sentiments of the FHR, she contends that corporations will only recognise human rights if there is a normative core that they are obliged to uphold.

But Asmal asserted that “law is congealed politics”, and argued that nation states only apply the law where there is political will. Similarly, Ginwala argued that human rights can be and are over-ridden by national interests.

A Role for NGOs?
Both Asmal and Ginwala responded to the issue of poor political will by calling for increased citizen pressure and civil society activism. Ginwala harked back to the glory days of civic activism in South Africa, which brought the apartheid government to its knees, arguing that this same spirit and levels of civic mobilization is needed to pressurize business to adopt ethical practice.
 
Asmal declared that NGOs must be assertive, professional and judicious. However, he argued further that, “NGOs must get their act together – they haven’t until now”.  All in all, while there was recognition that NGOs have a vital role to play in holding the business sector accountable, there were also questions about the sector’s capacity and its own accountability.

For example, both Ginwala and Asmal were critical of the Transparency International (TI) Index, arguing that it was a perception based index that placed too much emphasis on bribe takers. Asmal in particular, questioned TI’s ability to be objectively critical in light of the fact that it received funds from the American state.

FHR’s Future Focus
Responding to questions about what this conference meant for the future of FHR’s programming, Yasmin Sooka, Exectuive Director of the Foundation, argued that she could not provide concrete feedback immediately and that the organisation should have increased clarity about its future focus and direction by June 2007.

She did however argue that in doing an impact assessment of the FHR’s work, it became clear that the foundation had to start engaging with business more effectively around the issue of human rights accountability. She added that corporate accountability and accountability in general, are important issues for the European Union, a major partner of the FHR.

Sooka expressed concern at business’ reluctance to engage with human rights, saying that this stance is forcing the FHR to think “out of the box”, in finding channels for engagement with corporate South Africa. She also argued that it was important to find a way to leverage corporate funding for NGOs.

Sooka maintains that civil society has an important role to play in raising awareness about human rights and facilitating access to justice. However, she is troubled about the sustainability crisis facing civil society. FHR has a sizeable grassroots grantee base and Sooka raised concerns about this sector’s ability (particularly rural entities) to gain access to resources and information.

According to Sooka, it is important to invest in a human rights notion of development as rights are indivisible and promote participatory democracy.

– Fazila Farouk, Deputy Director, SANGONeT

Related Links
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights

{moscomment}