... well, it's still only 59. But we got an email from Mary Robinson (former Prime Minister of Ireland, and currently the head of the Ethical Globalization Initiative)and Chris Avery (Director, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre) asking for our ideas about how the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2008 might be marked.
We couldn't resist but to suggest that the 60th Anniversary should be the year of transparency. How can things start to change if we don't even have a good understanding of what is happening, the cause and effects, and the roles and responsibilities?
Worldwide, the human rights agenda has reached a cross-roads. Stakeholders agree that human rights are a core necessity – but the roles and responsibilities of governments, business, and civil society towards achieving these goals remain less defined.
At the global level, Professor John G. Ruggie was appointed Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business & Human Rights in 2005. Under this mandate, extending until 2008, Professor Ruggie is convening a multi-stakeholder process for the UN-High Commissioner for Human Rights to draw out the current “state of play” on stakeholder responsibilities on human rights. This process will result in a set of recommendations on the roles different groups play towards achieving human rights.
The GRI’s own multi-stakeholder approach is part of the current global dialogue on human rights and will make a contribution to the greater understanding by business, civil society and governments about expectations, roles, and responsibilities.
Human rights disclosures in the G3 Guidelines will need to evolve in step with these changing expectations. We are just starting with the process to evolve the indicators, so if you want to get involved, please do!
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Globalization’s offspring: a race to the top or the bottom?
In last week’s Economist an interesting lead article ran: “Globalization’s offspring: How the new multinationals are remaking the old.” The rise of Brazilian, Indian, Chinese, and Russian (BRIC) companies as global powerhouses is happening fast and furious. Here in
Many are worried that the multinationals in emerging markets run lower cost enterprises because, in part, they turn a blind eye to social and environmental conditions, and this results in competitive advantage. But the author of this article claimed that the evidence is overwhelmingly opposite to this assumption due to the fact that price alone does not make a successful multinational – quality is equally as important.
The Economist claimed that in terms of ethics, companies seem to “harmonize up, not down” – meaning there is evidence that BRIC companies do indeed spread better working practices and environmental conditions in their home countries, and also adopt local norms when expanding into Western markets. Thus, the gap in sustainability performance seems to be on track to narrow.
In terms of transparency about performance, we are beginning to see a growth curve in reporting from companies in BRIC nations - most seem to be keen to show their international customers, competitors, clients, and potential business partners that they have earned a license to operate in their home communities and that regardless of slack national laws on human rights and environment these companies meet higher standards.
What is your experience?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Standards: Internationally binding, locally disconnected
Building on last week's discussion on the reinforcing and synergistic relationship between the GRI Guidelines and the major international conventions, I want to turn my eye today towards what this means for the local practitioner trying to make sense of it all.
Some months ago I was in Australia giving a GRI Guidelines orientation session to a group of people in charge of, or involved in, reporting in their companies and public agencies. When we got to the labor section of the Guidelines indicator LA2 stumped them.
LA2: Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements.
One participant asked "Why is this indicator in the Guidelines when no law exists on collective bargaining?" Another participant was concerned that their company might look bad in the public realm if they answered "zero" but were not able to explain that they were not legally required to offer collective bargaining to their workforce.
Our senior labor visitor last week explained that all ILO member countries vote to accept or decline the convention at the international level, and that Australia had long ago done that for the collective bargaining convention. The country is then required to alert its parliament (or equivilent law making body) to the existence of the convention, but the country is in no way bound to ratifying it and hence making it bindng in their jurisdiction. In the case of collective bargaining the ILO convention is not the basis of law in Australia, a different approach to industrial relations is taken. Thus, when an Australian company looks to the GRI Guidelines on labor issues, there is a disconnect between the international convention and the reality of the laws applicable to the company.
There are two positives associated with this:
-There is enough flexibility in the GRI reporting framework that a company can report on what it is doing to uphold the law where it differs from international conventions
-The presence of the indicator may help inspire best practice towards international standards, and going "beyond compliance."
Have you experienced a disconnect between the major international connections and the local laws in your region? On what issues?
Some months ago I was in Australia giving a GRI Guidelines orientation session to a group of people in charge of, or involved in, reporting in their companies and public agencies. When we got to the labor section of the Guidelines indicator LA2 stumped them.
LA2: Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements.
One participant asked "Why is this indicator in the Guidelines when no law exists on collective bargaining?" Another participant was concerned that their company might look bad in the public realm if they answered "zero" but were not able to explain that they were not legally required to offer collective bargaining to their workforce.
Our senior labor visitor last week explained that all ILO member countries vote to accept or decline the convention at the international level, and that Australia had long ago done that for the collective bargaining convention. The country is then required to alert its parliament (or equivilent law making body) to the existence of the convention, but the country is in no way bound to ratifying it and hence making it bindng in their jurisdiction. In the case of collective bargaining the ILO convention is not the basis of law in Australia, a different approach to industrial relations is taken. Thus, when an Australian company looks to the GRI Guidelines on labor issues, there is a disconnect between the international convention and the reality of the laws applicable to the company.
There are two positives associated with this:
-There is enough flexibility in the GRI reporting framework that a company can report on what it is doing to uphold the law where it differs from international conventions
-The presence of the indicator may help inspire best practice towards international standards, and going "beyond compliance."
Have you experienced a disconnect between the major international connections and the local laws in your region? On what issues?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Standards: The relationship between binding and non-binding
One of the characteristics that make the GRI Guidelines universally applicable is that they find their roots in the major international conventions and agreements that form the basis for national and international laws on most environmental and social issues.
During the consensus-seeking process that is used to build the Guidelines often the labor community will typically advocate that the Core Conventions of the ILO be taken as the reference point for performance indicators on work-related issues (the 8 conventions are: 029 Forced Labour 1930; 087 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize 1948; 098 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining 1949; 100 Equal remuneration 1951; 105 Abolition of Forced Labour 1957; 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation 1958; 138 Minimum Age Convention 1973; 182 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour 1999.) Similarly, the environmentalists will also advocate for the peformance indicators to take the major conventions such as the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention as reference points.
GRI is not the only organization that tries to create non-binding standards based on the major international binding conventions. As examples, look at the ILO Tripartite Agreement on Multi-National Enterprises, and the OECD Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises. These are different from GRI's Guidelines as they outline expectations for management and behavior, not reporting, but they are similar to GRI in that they try to bring the conventions to life for companies trying to operate with a committment to sustainability.
I had always wondered whether or not the labour community in particular viewed the GRI Reporting Guidelines as something that reinforced or undermined these conventions - and I got my answer yesterday.
We were lucky to have a senior leader from the Netherlands labor movement come and spend a few hours with our staff. He has spent a lifetime at the interface between workers, employers, and internatinal standard negotiations, and is indeed active in GRI processes. He said that since the relevant labor and social indicators contained in the GRI Guidelines do reference the 8 Core Conventions, this helps to reinforce a single, common, globally accepted standard for treatment of workers, and is therefore reinforcing.
Visit me again on Friday to find out how I think a committment to referencing the major international conventions affects companies ability to report on their performance using GRI's Guidelines.
During the consensus-seeking process that is used to build the Guidelines often the labor community will typically advocate that the Core Conventions of the ILO be taken as the reference point for performance indicators on work-related issues (the 8 conventions are: 029 Forced Labour 1930; 087 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize 1948; 098 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining 1949; 100 Equal remuneration 1951; 105 Abolition of Forced Labour 1957; 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation 1958; 138 Minimum Age Convention 1973; 182 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour 1999.) Similarly, the environmentalists will also advocate for the peformance indicators to take the major conventions such as the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention as reference points.
GRI is not the only organization that tries to create non-binding standards based on the major international binding conventions. As examples, look at the ILO Tripartite Agreement on Multi-National Enterprises, and the OECD Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises. These are different from GRI's Guidelines as they outline expectations for management and behavior, not reporting, but they are similar to GRI in that they try to bring the conventions to life for companies trying to operate with a committment to sustainability.
I had always wondered whether or not the labour community in particular viewed the GRI Reporting Guidelines as something that reinforced or undermined these conventions - and I got my answer yesterday.
We were lucky to have a senior leader from the Netherlands labor movement come and spend a few hours with our staff. He has spent a lifetime at the interface between workers, employers, and internatinal standard negotiations, and is indeed active in GRI processes. He said that since the relevant labor and social indicators contained in the GRI Guidelines do reference the 8 Core Conventions, this helps to reinforce a single, common, globally accepted standard for treatment of workers, and is therefore reinforcing.
Visit me again on Friday to find out how I think a committment to referencing the major international conventions affects companies ability to report on their performance using GRI's Guidelines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
