A key international mechanism for overseeing company behaviour on
issues such as human rights, bribery and information disclosure is set
to be revised.
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises have suffered
sustained criticism for procedural and other failings since their
adoption in 1976. Last revised in 2000, they needed to be looked at
again, Manfred Schekulin, chair of the OECD Investment Committee, told
a conference in Brussels last month.
‘This issue will be on the agenda next year,’ he said. The guidelines
had ‘never been so much in the limelight’, he said in an allusion to a
recent reference to them by the G8 group of leading industrial
countries (see page six).
Schekulin singled out consumer interests as an area to be bolstered.
‘The role of the consumer is not reflected adequately in the
guidelines, and only as something that has to be protected, as an
object of CSR.
But consumers are the ultimate stakeholders of companies … through
their buying decisions.’ This opens up the prospect of consumer groups
becoming greater users of the guidelines. Sune Skadegard Thorsen, of
the Danish section of the International Commission of Jurists, said:
‘If extended to cover consumer rights, [the guidelines] would offer a
degree of protection to consumers in developing countries.’
Schekulin said it had taken time for the National Contact Points (NCP),
which handle complaints against companies under the guidelines, to
‘recognize their role as mediators, and enhancements were now needed’.
Funding of the NCPs also had to be looked at, as most are run on a
shoestring. Margaret Sutherland, responsible for the UK NCP, said it
consists of three officials who together work the equivalent of one
full-time post. An Australasian NCP told EP that the guidelines took up
‘about one per cent of my time’.
Insufficient capacity helps to explain the procedural shortcomings.
Gareth Llewellyn of National Grid Transco, which has been the subject
of a complaint in Zambia, said: ‘The first time we knew of the
complaint was when we received it. This led us to conclude that there
were more political motives than real concerns’ – one fax having come
from the office of a competitor. Moreover, the objective of the
proceedings was obscure. ‘We needed closure, but the process did not
lead to this. It is not clear whether the guidelines’ remit is to hold
companies to account or to improve social and environmental standards
overseas.’
see also editorial
