Statement by Sir Geoffrey Chandler (former Chair, Amnesty International United Kingdom Business Group)
regarding the Draft Universal Human Rights Guidelines for Companies
To the Working Group on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations, United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Geneva
31 July 2001
For the last 10 years I have been Chair of the Amnesty International Business Group in the UK. Our objective is to persuade companies to support and protect human rights throughout their operations. In this we have had some success in my own country. But in general the corporate world has yet to be persuaded that it has a responsibility for the whole spectrum of human rights.
The challenge we confront is to get companies to embrace in practice the full range of principles laid down by the international community in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is the challenge to which this initiative responds. I believe it one of the most important initiatives that the UN has currently under development. I feel privileged to play a part in this discussion and I pay tribute to the Sub-Commission for what it is doing.
It is one of the most important initiatives because the world has changed.
In the post-Communist world the influence of companies has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase. Whether we like it or not, this is the reality. Governments of both North and South seek the help of companies to create financial wealth and promote economic growth, seeing companies as the most effective instrument for this purpose. Indeed corporate activity should contribute to the foundations of economic rights. But it is not acceptable if at the same time companies damage other rights directly or indirectly or if they fail to use their legitimate influence for good.
If companies throughout their operations were to protect human rights they would be a vitally important vehicle for attaining our ends. They touch communities and individuals in a more continuous and intimate way than governments can.
The world is rightly asking that companies should be more accountable. And there is today a multiplicity of codes and guidelines reflecting this demand. But none touch the totality of what is required. What we need is a comprehensive and authoritative instrument for this purpose. It seems to me that only the UN can provide this. What we have before us today in these Guidelines is such an instrument - it is the logical extension of the Universal Declaration into corporate practice which would be complementary to the Secretary General's Global Compact.
I believe that we would all prefer to see these matters embodied in law or regulation so that they are imposed mandatorily. I hope and believe that this will ultimately come. But it will only come slowly, because to be effective, legislation has to be rooted in consensus. The need for action is urgent and if we want to make progress we have to deal with what is possible in the shorter term which will also help to pave the way for eventual legislation.
I believe we should therefore accept that of necessity the Guidelines will initially be voluntary. But we should not underestimate the moral pressure that this will impose, particularly if it has the authority of the UN behind it.
Moral pressure is an effective influence on the corporate world. It will have the backing of an increasingly aware and critical society. It will be central to the reputation of companies and reputation is vital to their success. It will be the necessary stepping stone to an even more binding legal framework.
Perhaps I should add that I was in the 1970s a Director of Shell International. I have never seen any inherent incompatibility or inconsistency between what I did then and what I do now. Both activities have social utility. Good companies and good non-governmental organisations are principled entities. But I recognised then, as I do now, that there are bad companies; I recognised that good companies can make mistakes and do damage if they lacked appropriate policies. Most importantly, I realised then, as now, that existing corporate principles do not adequately cover the full range of corporate responsibilities.
This is why I feel this initiative is of such importance.
May I therefore respectfully urge that
- the initiative has explicit UN backing
- that it is as soon as possible promulgated to relevant constituencies, particularly to companies
- that it is prefaced in a form and language which will effectively communicate to companies
May I also suggest that at future meetings representatives of companies are present. There are today a few people in companies leading the way. Their example to other companies will constitute an effective additional influence. It has also been our experience in the Amnesty Business Group that dialogue is a crucial element in bringing change about. People in companies are the same species as ourselves. They need to be persuaded face to face.
I hope that our proceedings will not be held up on a debate about transnationals and other companies. The activities of most successful companies today cross national boundaries. Smaller companies are frequently their suppliers and should be expected to follow similar principles.
There will of course be arguments over detail. But I hope that these will not obscure the fundamental principle that these Guidelines underpin: which is that corporate interest and actions should be subordinate to international values and that we should harness the huge and growing influence that companies have today for the benefit of human rights. This initiative, on which again I congratulate the Sub-Commission, is an important step towards this.
Forgive my talking so long. But what we have before us is vital, urgent, and, most importantly, will have practical impact in furthering our aims for human rights.