ECCHR - Transnational Corporations and Human Rights

ECCHR : Herewith the link to the Berlin Conference I attended in October 2008. I sat on the employment workshop, however, the event covered the unregulated multi-national layer in relation to human rights, ie parent / subsidiary issues and how to avoid national law. There is a need to look at this layer of law at the international level. (Also, several of the Speakers have books available).

The "Inhumane Working Conditions and other Labor Rights Violations" workshop I attended, covered child labour in employability, the future of trade unionism, disappearing workers, corporate corruption in Latin America, the inability to determine whether child labour was used in the manufacturing process and at which point in distribution from natural source to manufacture to market.

ECCHR Conference Berlin October 2008 - available download conference report and statement (click here)

I subsequently attended an Edinburgh Lecture 2008-2009 "China Connections" at which Lindsey Hilsum, reporter with Channel 4, UK, and Natascha Gentz, Duncan Hewitt, Ma Jianguoothers were on the panel in relation to China. This lecture was exceptionally informative and notified that in relation to the story that surfaced in 2008 about the Baby Food and the deaths of Chinese babies, the story had not broke in China but in New Zealand via, I believe, a parent/subsidiary set-up, thereby enabling the story to surface globally and China to release the story over time.

Article by Jim Yardley 15/09/08 - The New York Times: "Chinese Baby Formula Scandal Widens as 2nd Death Is Announced" (click here)

This to me showed that it is possible to ensure good corporate practices and governance and that it is in everyone's best interests to illuminate rather than attempt to cover up. This is especially so, given our world no longer exists in isolation, the world wide web having a significant impact.

This has recently been seen in the UK via the attempted gagging of an MP in relation to a story in Africa and the inability of the legal profession or judiciary to prevent the story surfacing and identifying the MP in question - contrary to the Bill of Rights Act 1689 - "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" : Bill of Rights Act 1689 (click here)

Article by Noam Cohen 18/10/09 - New York Times: "Twitter and a Newspaper Untie a Gag Order" (click here)

The Outcome:

Article by David Leigh 21/09/09 - The Guardian: "Investigative teamwork pays off over Trafigura scoop" (click here)

Article by Avril Ormsby, Reuters 21/09/09 - The Independent: "Trafigura to settle for £28m over toxic waste dumping" (click here)

I anticipate this is going to be more of the norm, it might therefore be pertinent for parent companies to ensure that their global operations via subsidiaries are engaged in human rights and endeavouring to make adjustments where appropriate in order to avoid the impact of international human rights and the currently largely unregulated multi-national layer of global corporate activities. This may be pertinent for the following reason, if the parent or subsidiary already exists in a country adhering to human rights, even loosely, your subsidiary or your parent could be your downfall, it will have a significant impact on your shareholders and dividends and all they want is profit, but it is possible to have profit and good employee relations too: requires objectivity. Perhaps the Corporate psychopath hijacking your organisation subjectively will become extinct over time. Workers want wages and good conditions - shareholders want profit and dividends. Lenders want minimal risk for return plus stability in the market. The law is meant to assist IN GOOD FAITH ... not abuse in bad faith. This looks like the way forward = progress.