Distribution Network
Content
A row between Anglo American and War on Want over human rights accusations has again raised the thorny issue of the accountability of non-governmental organizations.
The world’s second largest mining company has attacked what it calls ‘serious errors of fact’ in the War on Want document Anglo American: the alternative report that alleges the company espouses responsible business practice internationally while being associated with human rights abuses in Botswana, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Philippines and South Africa.
The 12-page document is the fifth in War on Want’s series of alternative reports that seek ‘to compare and contrast rhetoric ... with the reality of companies’ actual practices’. However, Anglo American claims large parts of the study are ‘inaccurate or disingenuous’ and that War on Want made no effort to contact the company ‘to check whether any of what it was asserting was actually true’. Most source material quoted in the report is from newspapers or reports by other NGOs.
In a detailed rebuttal, the company describes War on Want’s behaviour as being ‘hardly that of an organization which claims to believe in human rights, accountability and justice’.
It also rejects the suggestion that in Colombia in 2004 one of its companies, El Cerrejon, was involved in the storming by paramilitaries of a village of indigenous Wayuu people ‘who had refused to make way for El Cerrejon’s railway to run through their land’.
It calls this ‘arrant nonsense’ because the railway was built more than 20 years ago and the villagers ‘were not in dispute with the company about this or any other matter’. Anglo American says El Cerrejon provided aid and protection to the villagers in the aftermath of the attack, ‘which local sources have clearly linked to drug-related issues’.
Among other rebuttals, it dismisses as ‘hearsay’ a suggestion that trade unionists ‘who have stood up against AngloGold Ashanti’s mining operations in Colombia’ have been murdered by military units assigned to protect the company.
It says AngloGold Ashanti is conducting only exploration in Colombia and has no mining operations there, that the company was ‘not even active’ in the area where the trade unionists worked, and that there is ‘absolutely no causal link’ between the deaths and AngloGold Ashanti’s operations.
Anglo American concludes that it is ‘unfortunate that War on Want seemingly has an interest in ideological confrontation rather than engagement, and in pursuing its political objectives without much apparent concern for accuracy or truth’.
The company has offered to meet the organization to discuss its concerns. War on Want told EP it was happy to meet Anglo American but stood by its report.
Accusations by companies that NGOs are being irresponsible when it comes to making allegations about, or demands upon, businesses have become more common over the past two years, since many companies have made efforts to improve their social and environmental performance. The retailer Argos recently took on several pressure groups by refusing to sign up to 12 NGO-created ‘golden rules’ on the ethical sourcing of diamonds, claiming the rules were impractical (EP9, issue 4, p5).
The world’s second largest mining company has attacked what it calls ‘serious errors of fact’ in the War on Want document Anglo American: the alternative report that alleges the company espouses responsible business practice internationally while being associated with human rights abuses in Botswana, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Philippines and South Africa.
The 12-page document is the fifth in War on Want’s series of alternative reports that seek ‘to compare and contrast rhetoric ... with the reality of companies’ actual practices’. However, Anglo American claims large parts of the study are ‘inaccurate or disingenuous’ and that War on Want made no effort to contact the company ‘to check whether any of what it was asserting was actually true’. Most source material quoted in the report is from newspapers or reports by other NGOs.
In a detailed rebuttal, the company describes War on Want’s behaviour as being ‘hardly that of an organization which claims to believe in human rights, accountability and justice’.
It also rejects the suggestion that in Colombia in 2004 one of its companies, El Cerrejon, was involved in the storming by paramilitaries of a village of indigenous Wayuu people ‘who had refused to make way for El Cerrejon’s railway to run through their land’.
It calls this ‘arrant nonsense’ because the railway was built more than 20 years ago and the villagers ‘were not in dispute with the company about this or any other matter’. Anglo American says El Cerrejon provided aid and protection to the villagers in the aftermath of the attack, ‘which local sources have clearly linked to drug-related issues’.
Among other rebuttals, it dismisses as ‘hearsay’ a suggestion that trade unionists ‘who have stood up against AngloGold Ashanti’s mining operations in Colombia’ have been murdered by military units assigned to protect the company.
It says AngloGold Ashanti is conducting only exploration in Colombia and has no mining operations there, that the company was ‘not even active’ in the area where the trade unionists worked, and that there is ‘absolutely no causal link’ between the deaths and AngloGold Ashanti’s operations.
Anglo American concludes that it is ‘unfortunate that War on Want seemingly has an interest in ideological confrontation rather than engagement, and in pursuing its political objectives without much apparent concern for accuracy or truth’.
The company has offered to meet the organization to discuss its concerns. War on Want told EP it was happy to meet Anglo American but stood by its report.
Accusations by companies that NGOs are being irresponsible when it comes to making allegations about, or demands upon, businesses have become more common over the past two years, since many companies have made efforts to improve their social and environmental performance. The retailer Argos recently took on several pressure groups by refusing to sign up to 12 NGO-created ‘golden rules’ on the ethical sourcing of diamonds, claiming the rules were impractical (EP9, issue 4, p5).
Super Featured
No
Featured
No