Distribution Network
Content
EP talks to former president of
Ireland Mary Robinson about the role companies can play in galvanizing
governments and society into action on key global issues
There are few globally recognized 'big-shots' in the world of corporate social responsibility. Mary Robinson is one of them - and her involvement continues to deepen.
The former president of Ireland and ex-United Nations high commissioner for human rights has her finger in a number of CSR pies these days, not least as chair of the Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, which has decided to extend its life by three years (see page one), but also as executive director of The Ethical Globalization Initiative, which she set up in 1992 to bring together businesses, civil society and governments to improve human rights and tackle issues such as HIV/Aids.
Now based in New York, Robinson is also on an advisory board of the Clinton Global Initiative working on anti-poverty programmes that involve business (see page eight). This linkage between business, poverty reduction and human rights is crucial to Robinson. 'Extreme poverty to me is the greatest denial of the exercise of human rights,' she says. 'You don't vote, you don't participate in any political activity, your views aren't listened to, you have no food, you have no shelter, your children are dying of preventable diseases - you don't even have the right to clean water.' This is what Robinson means when she talks of 'the integrity of human rights - it's not just civil and political rights, it also includes economic, social and cultural rights - the right to food, to education, to health.'
These views, coupled with her stature as a political figure, have made Robinson one of the most influential advocates of corporate responsibility on the world stage - not just in CSR forums but in wider spheres too. What, then, might we expect Robinson to be arguing over the next few years?
Her chief theme, it appears, will be that big business needs to lead from the front. She believes that on a range of issues, from human rights to HIV and Aids, the involvement of companies has the ability to galvanize civil society and governments into action.
Robinson is critical of corporate inaction in some areas. But she does not view the record of non-governmental organizations and governments through rose-tinted spectacles either. During her time at the UN, she says she became deeply frustrated at the lack of political will to advance labour standards and equal opportunities. As someone who has worked for years with NGOs, she is under no illusion that they always deliver what they promise. Her 24-year-old son works with NGOs on HIV/Aids in South Africa, and she reports that he has been 'dismayed by the level of corruption in the NGO world'. Her feeling is that corporations must now set the standard on behaviour and pull others up with them.
That's why Robinson is such a keen advocate of attempts to agree binding UN 'norms' on the behaviour of multinationals - and is distressed at the generally hostile business response to this.
'The antipathy to the norms has surprised and depressed me,' she told EP. 'It's in the interests of businesses to have standards of rule and law, and by helping to bring about better standards internationally they'll make their companies more secure in countries where there have been problems.'
Apart from creating better conditions for themselves, Robinson argues, 'if companies start to take issues such as human rights seriously, then that will have a knock-on effect on governments and civil society'. She is concerned that the UN Global Compact is not much of a challenge for many companies, but feels more multinationals need to get behind the initiative - if only because of the message this would send to developing countries.
'It's been good to see the take-up of the Compact in countries such as Brazil and India,' she says. 'I think there's no doubt that the Compact is more useful for companies in developing countries because it's an entry point for them on CSR, but it's very foolish of those large multinationals - and they are mainly from the US - that don't take the Compact seriously. A major multinational with a good reputation would not have to change its behaviour significantly in order to sign up to the Compact; the bar is very low. But if they continue to ignore the Compact then why should other companies take it seriously? Apart from anything, it has the potential to level the playing field by raising standards across the world, which is something multinationals always talk about.'
There are few globally recognized 'big-shots' in the world of corporate social responsibility. Mary Robinson is one of them - and her involvement continues to deepen.
The former president of Ireland and ex-United Nations high commissioner for human rights has her finger in a number of CSR pies these days, not least as chair of the Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, which has decided to extend its life by three years (see page one), but also as executive director of The Ethical Globalization Initiative, which she set up in 1992 to bring together businesses, civil society and governments to improve human rights and tackle issues such as HIV/Aids.
Now based in New York, Robinson is also on an advisory board of the Clinton Global Initiative working on anti-poverty programmes that involve business (see page eight). This linkage between business, poverty reduction and human rights is crucial to Robinson. 'Extreme poverty to me is the greatest denial of the exercise of human rights,' she says. 'You don't vote, you don't participate in any political activity, your views aren't listened to, you have no food, you have no shelter, your children are dying of preventable diseases - you don't even have the right to clean water.' This is what Robinson means when she talks of 'the integrity of human rights - it's not just civil and political rights, it also includes economic, social and cultural rights - the right to food, to education, to health.'
These views, coupled with her stature as a political figure, have made Robinson one of the most influential advocates of corporate responsibility on the world stage - not just in CSR forums but in wider spheres too. What, then, might we expect Robinson to be arguing over the next few years?
Her chief theme, it appears, will be that big business needs to lead from the front. She believes that on a range of issues, from human rights to HIV and Aids, the involvement of companies has the ability to galvanize civil society and governments into action.
Robinson is critical of corporate inaction in some areas. But she does not view the record of non-governmental organizations and governments through rose-tinted spectacles either. During her time at the UN, she says she became deeply frustrated at the lack of political will to advance labour standards and equal opportunities. As someone who has worked for years with NGOs, she is under no illusion that they always deliver what they promise. Her 24-year-old son works with NGOs on HIV/Aids in South Africa, and she reports that he has been 'dismayed by the level of corruption in the NGO world'. Her feeling is that corporations must now set the standard on behaviour and pull others up with them.
That's why Robinson is such a keen advocate of attempts to agree binding UN 'norms' on the behaviour of multinationals - and is distressed at the generally hostile business response to this.
'The antipathy to the norms has surprised and depressed me,' she told EP. 'It's in the interests of businesses to have standards of rule and law, and by helping to bring about better standards internationally they'll make their companies more secure in countries where there have been problems.'
Apart from creating better conditions for themselves, Robinson argues, 'if companies start to take issues such as human rights seriously, then that will have a knock-on effect on governments and civil society'. She is concerned that the UN Global Compact is not much of a challenge for many companies, but feels more multinationals need to get behind the initiative - if only because of the message this would send to developing countries.
'It's been good to see the take-up of the Compact in countries such as Brazil and India,' she says. 'I think there's no doubt that the Compact is more useful for companies in developing countries because it's an entry point for them on CSR, but it's very foolish of those large multinationals - and they are mainly from the US - that don't take the Compact seriously. A major multinational with a good reputation would not have to change its behaviour significantly in order to sign up to the Compact; the bar is very low. But if they continue to ignore the Compact then why should other companies take it seriously? Apart from anything, it has the potential to level the playing field by raising standards across the world, which is something multinationals always talk about.'
Super Featured
No
Featured
No