> On one hand, anti-statist rhetoric against the "nation-state." On
> the other hand, statist rhetoric for "global citizenship" & "a
social
> wage and guaranteed income for all." No state = no citizenship, no
> social wage, no guaranteed income. Hardt & Negri have to come to
> terms with the state.
>
> Yoshie
==========
[Meanwhile, the corporations have their own ideas on deconstructing
citizenship; note the last sentence]
Published on Thursday, June 14, 2001 by the Inter Press Service
Corporate Codes of Conduct Deemed Insufficient
by Danielle Knight
WASHINGTON - Companies worldwide have signed on to voluntary codes of
conduct in a bid to mitigate globalization's harmful aspects.
Activists and executives agree the firms are falling short but
disagree on the reasons and remedies.
No scheme that relies solely on corporations themselves will
successfully rein in corporate power, human rights and environmental
groups say. Rather, governments must step in and enforce legally
binding regulations on labor, environmental, and other protections.
''A new approach is needed,'' says Pieter van der Gaag, executive
director of the Northern Alliance for Sustainability, a
Netherlands-based coalition of European and US groups. ''The gap
between words and actions still seems to be large."
US environmentalists, for example, are lobbying to have domestic
environmental regulations extended to cover US firms' overseas
operations. They also want legislation that would hold companies' feet
to the fire and punish them for violations. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, a
Democrat from Georgia, is promoting a Corporate Code of Conduct Act
that would withhold government incentives from companies found in
violation of the voluntary standards to which they subscribe.
The International Chamber of Commerce counts more than forty codes of
conduct designed to govern the activities of global corporations.
These include the Global Sullivan Principles, the UN Global Compact,
the Global Reporting Initiative, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines on Multinational
Enterprises.
Virtually none of these efforts include mechanisms to hold companies
accountable when they fail to comply, critics say. Even some
corporations complain the codes can be vague and confusing.
Thomas Delfgaauw, vice president of Shell International Ltd's
sustainable development program, says the oil company supports many
codes but wonders if it is time to stop developing even more voluntary
mechanisms. ''How does business deal with this plethora of codes?'' he
asks.
Compounding the problem, ''all these codes are mainly words when the
government spends money on projects that directly contradict the
guidelines,'' says van der Gaag.
The wealthy nations' Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, for example, in 1976 became one of the first official
bodies to pass voluntary corporate guidelines on labor, the
environment, corruption and human rights. The guidelines have been
periodically updated and stand apart from most others because they
include arrangements to investigate and punish violators.
Nevertheless, some OECD governments themselves have underwritten
projects targeted by critics as environmentally and politically
damaging - China's Three Gorges Dam, for example - through state
export credit and investment insurance agencies.
In January 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan challenged business
leaders to enact nine core principles enshrined in the UN Global
Compact, including labor and environmental protections.
Many large companies responded, among them Procter & Gamble and
DaimlerChrysler. Critics, however, say there is no assurance that the
companies uphold the compact's principles. Indeed, some go so far as
to suggest the effort mainly benefits the companies, whose reputations
gain sparkle from association with the UN logo.
''The list of corporations involved in the Global Compact reads like a
who's who of environmental culprits,'' says Joshua Karliner, executive
director of the Transnational Resource and Action Center, a
California-based non-governmental organization.
Global Compact partners include Shell, which stands accused of
reckless pollution and collusion with military dictators in Nigeria,
and BP Amoco, assailed for drilling for oil in the Arctic.
Activists say imposing national laws on the companies' operations
overseas could prevent such conduct by US firms. Polls conducted in
recent years show growing public support for the idea. But for
executives, the prospect amounts to a legal and regulatory can of
worms being opened - with costly consequences and the risk that
companies will be held liable for the misdeeds of outside suppliers
and contractors.
''God help us if individual governments take different regulatory
action regarding global corporate responsibility,'' says Shell
International's Delfgaauw. ''That is the worst possible nightmare that
can happen to a multinational company.''
