Distribution Network
Content
Corporate signatories to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human
Rights will now have to report annually on their progress against them,
and will face disciplinary action if they have underperformed.
The principles were established in 2000 by the US government, and have formal support from the governments of the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. Among the 16 corporate signatories are Anglo American, BHP Billiton, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation, Newmont, and Statoil. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam are among the non-governmental organization (NGO) participants.
The new regime was agreed last month at an annual plenary of signatories in Washington DC after a period of concerted pressure from NGOs concerned that the seven-year-old principles, which guide companies on how to maintain the safety and security of their operations without breaching human rights, are losing their way. Amnesty International, a supporter of the principles, has raised concerns about Chevron and Shell ‘regarding their efforts to implement the principles in their operations’, and earlier this year warned the principles were at ‘a critical crossroads’.
In particular, NGOs have felt that while some signatories are making determined efforts to comply with the principles, others appear to be doing very little. The situation mirrors that of the United Nations Global Compact, which introduced ‘integrity measures’ in 2005 following similar pressure from NGOs and some companies (EP8, issue 6).
The Washington DC meeting decided that all signatories to the Voluntary Principles must now meet a set of criteria that require them, among other things, to ‘communicate publicly’ at least once a year on efforts to implement the principles, file an annual progress report and respond promptly to ‘reasonable requests for information from other participants’. Any organization that fails to fulfil any of these requirements will automatically be suspended.
If fellow participants feel a company is failing to make proper efforts to implement the principles, they can be referred to a steering committee that will report to the annual plenary, which will then vote on what action to take. Penalties include expulsion.
Benedetta Lacey, manager of Amnesty International UK’s business and human rights programme, said NGOs were pleased overall with the tighter disciplinary procedures, but added: ‘the key test now is whether companies are ready to commit to annual reporting and implementation of the principles on the ground.’
There may still be issues to address. A new report from the twentyfifty consultancy, commissioned by principles signatory BP, says there are ‘serious methodological issues’ about assessing performance against the principles, since this often entails ‘the measuring of negatives’ such as the absence of a human rights violation. It also warns that NGOs are undermining the principles through a lack of commitment.
The principles were established in 2000 by the US government, and have formal support from the governments of the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. Among the 16 corporate signatories are Anglo American, BHP Billiton, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation, Newmont, and Statoil. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam are among the non-governmental organization (NGO) participants.
The new regime was agreed last month at an annual plenary of signatories in Washington DC after a period of concerted pressure from NGOs concerned that the seven-year-old principles, which guide companies on how to maintain the safety and security of their operations without breaching human rights, are losing their way. Amnesty International, a supporter of the principles, has raised concerns about Chevron and Shell ‘regarding their efforts to implement the principles in their operations’, and earlier this year warned the principles were at ‘a critical crossroads’.
In particular, NGOs have felt that while some signatories are making determined efforts to comply with the principles, others appear to be doing very little. The situation mirrors that of the United Nations Global Compact, which introduced ‘integrity measures’ in 2005 following similar pressure from NGOs and some companies (EP8, issue 6).
The Washington DC meeting decided that all signatories to the Voluntary Principles must now meet a set of criteria that require them, among other things, to ‘communicate publicly’ at least once a year on efforts to implement the principles, file an annual progress report and respond promptly to ‘reasonable requests for information from other participants’. Any organization that fails to fulfil any of these requirements will automatically be suspended.
If fellow participants feel a company is failing to make proper efforts to implement the principles, they can be referred to a steering committee that will report to the annual plenary, which will then vote on what action to take. Penalties include expulsion.
Benedetta Lacey, manager of Amnesty International UK’s business and human rights programme, said NGOs were pleased overall with the tighter disciplinary procedures, but added: ‘the key test now is whether companies are ready to commit to annual reporting and implementation of the principles on the ground.’
There may still be issues to address. A new report from the twentyfifty consultancy, commissioned by principles signatory BP, says there are ‘serious methodological issues’ about assessing performance against the principles, since this often entails ‘the measuring of negatives’ such as the absence of a human rights violation. It also warns that NGOs are undermining the principles through a lack of commitment.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No