With human rights scandals tainting the operations of extractive resource operations around the world, seven major oil and mining companies recently signed a code of conduct pledging that their security operations will meet minimal human rights standards. A number of governments, human rights and media organizations were quick to praise the initiative as an "important step." But before we applaud too vigorously, we should evaluate whether voluntary codes such as this one are truly a step in the right direction.

True, it is high time transnational corporations publicly acknowledge that human rights violations are part of their drilling, pipeline, mining, and other extractive resource projects, and we appreciate this recognition. However, these voluntary standards fall far short of what we should demand from corporations claiming to engage in responsible business practices. We need mandatory requirements-laws, not voluntary codes-that force ALL transnational corporations to protect the human rights of citizens in their host countries.

Texaco, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, Conoco, Freeport McMoRan, and Rio Tinto agreed, in a pledge signed with the British and U.S. governments, to try to ensure that security forces, either their own or those contracted with local governments, to respect the human rights of local citizens. Specifically, the corporations promise to encourage private and police security forces to comply with the rule of law. This includes insisting that security forces use minimum necessary force, not hire known human rights violators, and respect local people's right to demonstrate and collectively bargain.

It sounds good. Unfortunately, it sounds better than it is.

First, the standards are purely voluntary. There is no mechanism for their enforcement, and no remedy for their infraction. No government will monitor these corporations' compliance, and a failure to comply will subject them to the court of public opinion, and no other court. And that's assuming the public learns of any infractions.

Second, these standards are "soft," at best. Companies will "attempt to ensure" that security guards don't have records as abusers; they "should" report human rights abuses to the local government and "urge" investigations. Trying to ensure that peoples' human rights are protected in the course of these projects is insufficient; making sure they're protected is what we should demand.

And third, these voluntary standards don't cover all corporations-only those that choose to sign on. Granted, one can imagine corporations from extractive industries rushing to sign this code of conduct, but not necessarily because they're committed to human rights protection. By signing the voluntary code, corporations may be seeking to fend off a tougher challenge: legislation that requires them to behave responsibly. International Right to Know legislation, for example, requiring corporations to disclose information about their human rights, environmental, and labor practices abroad, exposes corporations to real scrutiny.

Transnational corporations that extract resources for a living claim that they don't have the luxury of only doing business with "good" governments. They have to go where the resources are, they say, and it so happens that resources co-exist alongside repressive regimes and brutal military forces in some cases. In their arguments to defend their business practices, many corporations imply that activists and indigenous peoples are naive if they think resource extraction can occur without violence.

It is the transnational corporations that are naive if they think people will be fooled by voluntary codes of conduct. Indigenous groups and NGOs, working in partnership, have learned a hard lesson: assurances are not enough. Responsible corporate behavior requires public scrutiny, which in turn requires transparency. We must demand laws, not voluntary standards, that require corporations in extractive industries to make their human rights, environmental, and labor practices visible to citizens. Once we can see what's happening, we can demand accountability.

And so, perhaps the most important question about this code of conduct is this: Does it take us gradually toward transparency, in the form of binding legislation, or is it more likely to delay such legislation? Here is a simple test to determine whether the companies that have signed this code of conduct are sincere about their intentions: Would they support an International Right to Know Law that would require the same steps these companies have agreed to take voluntarily? Over the next few weeks, EarthRights International and our coalition partners will be asking the seven companies that have signed the code of conduct for their position on an International Right To Know Law.

The results will be published here. Stay tuned.