LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Bluesky Bluesky RSS RSS

The vexed question of whether the United Nations should develop a set
of binding ‘norms’ for the behaviour of multinational corporations has
been passed to a man who is a firm proponent of corporate
responsibility.

John Ruggie, a Harvard professor who was one of the main architects of
the UN Global Compact, has been appointed as special UN representative
to examine human rights and transnational corporations during the next
two years. His job is to try to come up with a way forward or,
alternatively, declare the norms unworkable.

A subcommission of the UN Commission on Human Rights drew up draft
Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other
Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights two years ago.
However, the UNCHR has since backtracked in the face of opposition from
business groups and the US government.

Now that he has been appointed, Ruggie is to present initial views and
recommendations to the UNCHR at its 62nd session next year. He will
deliver a final report in 2007.

Ruggie, who was a UN assistant secretary-general from 1997 to 2001, has
long been a supporter of CSR. In March 2004 he told a conference he was
unhappy with the ‘imbalanced system of global rule-making’ by which
corporations benefit from international trade rules but have to meet
few environmental and social obligations in return.

‘Rules that favour global market expansion have become more robust and
enforceable … but rules intended to promote equally valid social
concerns, be they labour standards, human rights … or poverty
reduction, have not kept pace,’ he said.

Sir Geoffrey Chandler, founder of the Amnesty International business
group, said Ruggie had been given an enormously important task, and
should take a bold line with his recommendations. ‘It is no
exaggeration to say that he has been entrusted with a task whose
outcome could influence the future of capitalism,’ he said.

‘He will be the focus of intense and conflicting lobbying, and the
temptation to fudge the outcome will be great. To do so would be a
disaster.’