Big Ideas on Corporate Accountability and Global Sustainability By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman Sometimes, it is important to think big. In an era where corporations trample across the globe with minimal restraint, and citizen movements around the world are on their heels, it is natural -- and necessary -- for those trying to check corporate power to think defensively and, when they do reflect on affirmative proposals, incrementally. But it is important not to be overly constrained by the existing balance of forces. If they are to engage, energize and mobilize large numbers of people, citizen movements need to be animated by positive visions, as well. And while there is a role for utopian outlines in suggesting what society could be, even more important are concrete medium-term proposals that suggest attainable aspirations and purposeful direction. One would not ordinarily look to the U.S. Congress for such ideas, but two members of the U.S. House of Representatives have stepped forward to offer sweeping proposals to regulate U.S.-based multinational corporations' global operations and to reorient the global economy to the pursuit of sustainable development, not corporate greed. Representative Cynthia McKinney, D-Georgia, has introduced the Corporate Code of Conduct Act (H.R. 4596, at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106m53AT4>) and Representative Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has introduced the Global Sustainable Development Resolution (H.Res 479, at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106mO2BRH>). "It is time we reclaim the global economy for the people who make it work," insists McKinney, "and stop pandering to corporate interests who build their empires on the backs of the innocent." "Corporate globalization is forcing men and women around the world to run a destructive race to the bottom -- a competition in which workers, communities and entire countries are forced to cut wages, environmental protections, and social programs to attract footloose capital," says Sanders. To address these ills, McKinney's bill would require all U.S.-based corporations with more than 20 employees abroad to enact a code of conduct. Significantly, the code also would apply to the companies' subsidiaries, subcontractors, affiliates, joint ventures, partners, or licensees -- meaning companies like Nike would not be able to disdain responsibility for the practices of their subcontractors. The code would establish a floor for corporate behavior, requiring companies in their overseas operations to: * pay a living wage and ban specific practices, such as mandatory overtime for workers under 18, pregnancy testing and retaliation against whistleblowers; * respect identified international labor standards (including the right to organize, minimum wage guarantees and protections for occupational safety and health); * adhere to both international environmental standards and U.S. federal environmental laws and regulations; * provide public documentation of where they are doing business directly or through subsidiaries or contractors, and extensive information on employment and environmental practices. The bill would enforce the code of conduct through two mechanisms. First, the U.S. government would give preference to complying corporations in contracts and in export assistance. The bill would include certification and reporting requirements for companies, and would also establish an investigative process, open to citizen initiation, to determine compliance. Second, victims of violations of the bill -- including non-U.S. citizens -- would be empowered to sue U.S. companies in U.S. courts. The Sanders resolution covers more territory than the McKinney bill. It too includes a corporate code of conduct, to be negotiated internationally, that contains many of the principles included in the McKinney bill. But the heart of the Sanders resolution addresses the institutions regulating international commerce. One of the key mechanisms for developing its proposals is the creation of U.S. and United Nations Commissions on the Global Economy. The U.S. commission would hold town meetings and open hearings around the country to investigate the effect of globalization on the workers, industry and environment of the United States. The UN panel would both encourage other nations to hold their own series of town meetings and would initiate a global North-South dialogue aiming for negotiation of an international agreement for global sustainable development. The provisions that the Sanders resolution seeks to have enacted through global negotiation or U.S. mandate include: * a tax on international currency transactions, designed to stem financial volatility; * creation of a global investment fund, to heighten demand and meet pressing needs in developing countries; * cancellation of the debts of the poorest countries, with no structural adjustment conditions (the package of Contract with America-style deregulatiory conditions) attached; * a remaking of the World Bank, so that it ends support for destructive megaprojects and instead supports development of poor countries' renewable energy capacity and food security; * a shrinking of the International Monetary Fund; and * trade agreements that "remove labor and environmental rights and conditions and social protections as factors of competition, such as by international agreements to avoid competitive cuts in the social safety nets" and guarantee "the right of nations and localities to plan for local economic development objectives such as raising employment levels, enhancing employment opportunities for targeted populations, raising wage levels in specific industries, dignified work and healthy communities." Neither the McKinney bill nor the Sanders resolution will be enacted any time soon. "This Congress is too beholden to corporate money to challenge its corporate masters," explains Sanders. Only stronger grassroots movements offer the prospect of changing Congress's primary allegiance. The importance of initiatives like McKinney's and Sanders' is that, by offering concrete proposals of steps to a better future, they can help generate and develop those movements. Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. Mokhiber and Weissman are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999, http://www.corporatepredators.org) (c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman _______________________________________________ Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text: subscribe Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at <http://www.corporatepredators.org>. Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to comment on the columns, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
