THE Sydney 2000 Olympics has been over for a while. The arguments over body suits, Chinese medicine and transvestites at the closing 4remony are probably all but forgotten.

But one issue that looks set to linger on concerns corporate responsibiity for the environment and workers.

Even before the Olympics began, two of the sponsors, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s, were criticised by Greenpeace for using polluting chemicals in their refrigeration equipment.

Coca-Cola eventually agreed that it would replace its refrigeration systems with eco-friendly models.

But the two are not the only targets of criticism from eco-protagonists and human-rights crusaders.

In 1997, Nike hit international headlines when it was alleged that the company used child labour and sweatshops in the manufacture of its clothing and shoes.

And earlier this year, a group of 10 human-rights and labour-rights organisations sent it a report stating that recent meetings with Nike’s employees had led them to believe "that labour abuses are the norm in your suppliers’ factories".

The criticisms included inadequate wages, dangerous working conditions, aggressive anti-union activity and the violent punishment of workers.

Although Nike disputes these claims, such controversy raises questions about the extent to which multinational companies are sometimes guilty of double standards.

In other words, a company may act responsibly in a country where laws apply while behaving quite differently elsewhere.

A statement submitted to the United Nations by a non-governmental organisation, the Taskforce on Business and Industry, explained corporate accountability as ensuring that a company’s products and operations are in the interests of society and are not harmfiul.

It said corporate accountability is especially relevant with increasing globalisation and the unique position of international corporations as, in many cases, they are legally accountable to no one.

In Singapore, the Environment Ministry (ENV) ensures that all representatives of foreign companies are subject to the same laws as Singapore firms,

"In Singapore, the ENV enforces comprehensive laws to protect the environment. Our laws are applicable to any company operating in Singapore,’ said an ENV spokesman.

"But our laws are not applicable to other countries. Singapore companies will have to abide by the laws of the countries where they operate."

The ENV also contributes to global dialogue on environmental issues, and promotes sustainable development actively through programmes such as training in environmental management systems.

However, where no such laws or awareness exist, the responsibility falls on the transnational companies.

Governments importing goods from such countries have also been criticised for placing priority on cheap supplies and ignoring human-rights abuses or environmental damage.

Citing an example, the president of United States activist group Public Citizen, Ms Joan Claybrook, said:

"When American businesses look to China, they see dollar signs. They ignore the misery brought by China’s continued human rights violations and inhumane treatment of workers.

"The China trade vote was a case study of the corrosive effect money can have on political processes."

The taskforce report also suggested that instead of taking the lead themselves, governments, all too often, pass on the responsibility of corporate accountability to corporate investors and financial institutions.

But as these are also accountable for profit to their shareholders, it argued that corporate investment activities are often subsidised by non-monetary "external costs" paid for by the poor, the unemployed, the ignorant, local communities and the earth at large.

As members of a society protected by labour and health laws, it is easy to forget how privileged we are.

Yet if we do, we also risk forgetting that as consumers and voters, we can influence governments and commuities to monitor, and even hold liable, companies which ignore the social and environmental consequences of their behaviour.

-By Sara Vincent

Source : The Straits Times, Oct 28, 2000

Back to Archive Page

Recycling Point Dot Com

(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved