It was an important step towards establishing an ethical, international framework for business which will help to stop multinational companies putting profits before people across the world. The significance of this should not be underestimated. It marked the first time in the 65-year history of the UN that member states have unanimously endorsed a set of principles they themselves had not negotiated.
The commitment of the UN is reflected by strong feeling in Parliament – across the political spectrum – that, in the wake of the financial crisis, it is not merely desirable but a necessity for business and finance to be transparent and accountable. The same ethical obligations that apply to states and individuals must also apply to business. In 2008, an under-regulated banking system brought the world economy to its knees and the most vulnerable in society are paying the price. Corporations may operate across borders, but we simply cannot allow them to operate above the law.
That’s why the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Corporate Responsibility last week hosted a meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State Mike Posner, who leads on human rights, democracy and labour for Barack Obama’s administration. He told a packed room in Parliament that business and human rights will be the most important human rights issue of the 21st century. He is right. The power of multinationals now far outstrips many of the states within which they operate. In 2010, Wal-Mart’s revenue was an astonishing $414 billion – hence its ranking as the 26th largest economy in the world, just behind Norway.
It gives multinationals a power that outstrips individual states, predicted more than 150 years ago in The Communist Manifesto. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.” Without international action to prevent human rights abuses, promote respect for human rights and provide remedies for victims, abuse will continue. This is especially the case now, as many companies operate in developing countries where conflict and risk is high. Companies are present in conflict zones where human rights are not always respected by states themselves. The difficulty of operating to high ethical standards in conflict zones should not be underestimated. It requires a concerted, united response from business, states and international organisations, but this is possible.
Despite often-valid reasons for operating in conflict zones, intentionally or not, companies have acted in ways that have directly or indirectly supported abuse. The Egyptian government, for example, made demands on mobile phone operators to suspend services during the recent uprising and transmit inflammatory messages over their networks. Campaigners argue telecommunications companies operating in Egypt could have taken a series of steps to delay executing those instructions and raise human rights concerns. Vodafone, one of the companies involved, has since apologised and said that its competitors were doing the same. The importance given to this issue by the UN is only a first step. The British Government must lead the way in protecting the most vulnerable and promoting the best – not the worst – of British business to the world.
In its proud internationalist tradition, pressure to act must come from the Labour Party. As individuals, businesses and legislators, we have a shared interest and responsibility to stand up for some of the most voiceless communities in the world.
