Corpobligation action: TNCs should pressure suppliers, but should not abandon them

• China Labour Watch released a detailed report about the labour abuses of 8 Chinese toy companies.

• Should there be a recall of the products? Or compensation to workers?

• Ironically, Mattel recalled millions of products because of the potential of lead paint to harm children in the United States; yet, in cases where workers have certainly been harmed, the odds of a human rights related recall are low. But what about a human rights return action by consumers?

• The report provides excellent recommendations including: do not abandon supplier factories, but rather commit to them and be resolute in making sure that violations are corrected. Not only take responsibility for their suppliers’ legal infractions, but go a step further and strive to actively improve its workers’ lives.

• Spelling note: labor (USA) labour (Rest of english world).

• How does this relate to corporate obligation? Labour conditions are possibly the area where corporations can take the largest role, especially, when they are prompted by NGOs like China Labor Watch.

• Question: When will human rights abuse of workers be as important as potential harm to children?

Corpobligation: Governments contribute funding to universities, should they vet appointments by partisan terms? Have funding realities destroyed academic independence?

• Not wanting to be pedantic, of course academic independence has been undermined by financial realities: universities sign exclusive agreements with Coke, drug companies name buildings, professors have to seek their own research funding from companies and the government.

• UBC was seeking to hire a Vice-President of External and Community Relations: “Former Tory MP John Reynolds was asked whether the appointment of Liberal MP Stephen Owen as vice president would be a “problem” for the university.”

• Link Article in the Globe and Mail

• Where does corporate obligation come in? Universities have obligations to at the least ensure academic independence. It is a little frightening to see universities spending funds on lobbying.

• Isn't UBC just acting like any rational actor? Perhaps, the mistake was to get caught? See related

Corpobligation: Universities losing face?

• How should universities screen donations?

• “Naming a noteworthy building or a street after an individual is one of the most visible ways society can recognize outstanding achievements that contribute to the public good. Institutions like hospitals and universities make similar gestures when they name wings or programs after individuals whose career dedication or financial contributions leave a legacy that benefits future generations.”

• “...have we really come to the point where even a university’s good name is up for sale at the right price like some “rebranded” hockey arena?”

• See Marc Spooner's article, “Universities losing face: Sign of the times?”

• Where does corporate obligation come in? Universities are often faced with the opportunity to receive “donations” from corporations, which seek to bolster their brand and invest in basic research and training for their future employees.

• Question: When should universities take or refuse a donation? Is any money too dirty? See related

CO: Indonesia has passed legislation making CSR mandatory for resource firms, now it has to figure out what that actually means

• The Jakarta Post reported the passage of the legislation on July 21, 2007

  • Article 74 of the law provides that a company that operates in any business field related to natural resources is required to institute social and environmental responsibility programs, and that sanctions will be imposed on non-compliant firms

• Article 74 is obviously vague but it shows the government's intention to enforce CSR despite corporate objections. At a minimum, Art. 74 seems to require that companies put in place programs that fulfill social and environmental responsibilities. If the government adopted a reasonableness standard, the minimum standard could be based on best practices and comparative standards from other countries.

• See the reaction of the Wall Street Journal and the surprising acceptance by Indonesia business groups below

• The question is what is Canada waiting for before it actually adopts the CSR Roundtables Recommendations?

CO: Should Europe send athletes to Beijing in 2008 if China is still committing human rights abuses? If governments do not take action, can corporations get off the hook?

• Corpobligation and a practical risk calculation might lead corporations to avoid doing business in China without, at least tacit, government support in their home countries.
• But what happens if the World shows up in Beijing? What happens to corporate investments?
• This is a worthwhile debate to have
• Take action: support Olympic sponsors OR sign a human rights petition

CO: Municipalities like Ottawa are subsidizing water efficiency in residential areas, businesses should follow the trend.

• Free kits combined with kit delivery within certain areas should speed adoption
• All of the incentives are in the right place: save money on water costs, save water and the environment, no additional costs to the consumer (except perhaps for the inconvenience of waiting for the kitchen sink to fill...)
• Corporations with a strong sense of corpobligation could see this as an opportunity for change, which will appeal to newly aware consumers.

• The City of Ottawa kit contains:

  • One low-flow showerhead
  • Bag test to determine showerhead flow rate (prior to installation)
  • One energy efficient kitchen aerator
  • Two energy efficient bathroom aerators
  • One Toilet Tank Bank