Corporate signatories to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human
Rights will now have to report annually on their progress against them,
and will face disciplinary action if they have underperformed.
The principles were established in 2000 by the US government, and have
formal support from the governments of the Netherlands, Norway and the
UK. Among the 16 corporate signatories are Anglo American, BHP
Billiton, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation, Newmont, and
Statoil. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam are among the non-governmental
organization (NGO) participants.
The new regime was agreed last month at an annual plenary of
signatories in Washington DC after a period of concerted pressure from
NGOs concerned that the seven-year-old principles, which guide
companies on how to maintain the safety and security of their
operations without breaching human rights, are losing their way.
Amnesty International, a supporter of the principles, has raised
concerns about Chevron and Shell ‘regarding their efforts to implement
the principles in their operations’, and earlier this year warned
the principles were at ‘a critical crossroads’.
In particular, NGOs have felt that while some signatories are making
determined efforts to comply with the principles, others appear to be
doing very little. The situation mirrors that of the United Nations
Global Compact, which introduced ‘integrity measures’ in 2005 following
similar pressure from NGOs and some companies (EP8, issue 6).
The Washington DC meeting decided that all signatories to the Voluntary
Principles must now meet a set of criteria that require them, among
other things, to ‘communicate publicly’ at least once a year on efforts
to implement the principles, file an annual progress report and respond
promptly to ‘reasonable requests for information from other
participants’. Any organization that fails to fulfil any of these
requirements will automatically be suspended.
If fellow participants feel a company is failing to make proper efforts
to implement the principles, they can be referred to a steering
committee that will report to the annual plenary, which will then vote
on what action to take. Penalties include expulsion.
Benedetta Lacey, manager of Amnesty International UK’s business and
human rights programme, said NGOs were pleased overall with the tighter
disciplinary procedures, but added: ‘the key test now is whether
companies are ready to commit to annual reporting and implementation of
the principles on the ground.’
There may still be issues to address. A new report from the twentyfifty
consultancy, commissioned by principles signatory BP, says there are
‘serious methodological issues’ about assessing performance against the
principles, since this often entails ‘the measuring of negatives’ such
as the absence of a human rights violation. It also warns that NGOs are
undermining the principles through a lack of commitment.
