The power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment
Donate to ERI enews.gif


Alliance for a Corporate-Free UN PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 20 February 2006

The Alliance for a Corporate-Free UN is a global network of human rights, environmental and development groups working to address undue corporate influence in the United Nations, and to support UN initiatives to hold corporations accountable on issues of human rights, labor rights and the environment. EarthRights International serves as the Alliance Secretariat.

Platform

The members of the Alliance believe in a United Nations which:

  • holds commercial rules subservient to human rights, labor and environmental principles
  • avoids excessive and undue corporate influence
  • holds corporations accountable in a legal framework
  • maintains integrity of international social and environmental agreements
  • receives adequate funding from governments

Activities

The Alliance has three main activities:

  • Monitoring and exposing corporate partnerships and undue corporate influence at the UN.
  • Taking action to pressure the UN to avoid such partnerships and influence.
  • Promoting and supporting UN-related measures to hold corporations accountable.

Steering Committee

Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Analysis (Brazil)
Corporate Europe Observatory (the Netherlands)
Council on International and Public Affairs (U.S.)
EarthRights International - Secretariat
Focus on the Global South (Thailand)
Institute for Policy Studies (U.S.)
International Baby Food Action Network (Switzerland/International)
International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and Investment (India)
Tebtebba Foundation, Inc. (the Philippines)
Third World Institute (Uruguay)
Third World Network (Malaysia)
Women’s Environment and Development Organization (U.S.)

Rationale

Do the Nike swoosh and the UN olive branch emblem belong together? Are McDonald's and Disney companies that represent universal educational and cultural values? Do giant oil companies like Shell, BP and Chevron hold the keys to sustainable development?

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan thinks the answers might be yes, and he is leading a major effort to form partnerships between the United Nations and the business community. The "business community," in this case is made up of the giant transnational corporations--companies that have increased their power through the process of economic globalization and come under fire for their unjust labor and environmental records.

Annan has encouraged all UN agencies to form these business partnerships, including some of those most respected for their dedication to UN values, like Unicef, the International Labor Organization and the United Nations Development Programme. The Secretary General has personally spearheaded the highest profile corporate collaboration, the Global Compact. At the launch of the Global Compact in July 2000, Annan shared the podium with CEOs of companies like Nike, Shell and Rio Tinto.

What Is Wrong With The Partnerships?

A partnership should be entered between parties that share the same goals. Global corporations do not share the same goals as the United Nations. Therefore, we believe that "partnership" is the wrong relationship between the UN and business.

In some cases, the UN is forming partnerships known human rights violators, or despoilers of the environment. It is not appropriate for the UN to form partnerships with companies like Nike and Shell, companies that violate human rights norms and exploit the worst dynamics of corporate globalization.

In the case of the Global Compact, dozens of corporations, many known for their poor social and environmental records, have agreed to follow nine human rights, labor rights and environmental principles. But there is no monitoring of corporate adherence to these principles and no enforcement.

The UN should not be picking sides in the active debate over corporate globalization. Allowing the International Chamber of Commerce and its large members to dominate the UN's approach to business means that the UN has effectively endorsed the current dominant version of globalization. The UN should not endorse the WTO vision of corporate globalization, but rather be a counterbalance to it.

As supporters of the United Nations, we are concerned that corporate partnership programs at the UN will compromise the UN's image, values and integrity.

 
Features

On July 28, 2003, President Bush signed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. That law states that "no article may be imported into the United States that is produced, mined, manufactured, grown, or assembled in Burma." This means that no teak may be legally imported into the United States directly from Burma, and that the companies listed on these webpages, including Kingsley-Bate, East Teak Trading Company, and Country Casual will have stopped importing teak from Burma, in order to comply with the law.

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.

RSS | About Us | Privacy Policy | © 2000-2006 EarthRights International | Design by CEDC