Distribution Network
Content
The UK has formally established the parameters of its corporate
social responsibilities. EP considers the implications for companies
Although the UK government has been acknowledged as a world leader in some areas of corporate responsibility over the past five years, it has been rather less successful at defining exactly what it wants to do on CSR and how this will be achieved.
That gap, however, was largely filled last month when the CSR minister Nigel Griffiths unveiled the final version of the government’s International Corporate Social Responsibility Framework, a six-page document that is the first serious attempt by any administration to outline where its responsibilities end and the private sector’s begin.
The framework sets out a future in which the UK government assists companies at home and abroad to align their business activities more closely with certain of its domestic and foreign policy priorities: human rights, poverty eradication, environmental protection and reducing corruption. At the same time it seeks to encourage companies to promote responsible business practice on the international stage.
Much of the framework consists of goals already announced by ministers. Its value, however, lies in the insight gained into government thinking. For the first time, ‘the overall objectives, priorities, and main lines of the UK government’s approach’ are brought together in one place. This, ministers hope, will help to ensure government policies are applied more consistently across departments, clarify what is expected of UK business and ‘contribute to the policy debate and development of more effective action at the international level’.
At the heart of the framework is a desire for government to act as enabler and not enforcer. The door is left ajar for ‘intelligent regulation and fiscal arrangements’, which it says should always be a matter for discussion, but in general the government’s role is to provide an ‘enabling environment’ for responsible business practice.
Accentuating the positive is a constant theme: in other words, more carrot and less stick. It will provide ‘incentives and technical assistance’ for companies to ‘make a difference on the ground’ rather than penalize transgressors – although no detail is given on what these incentives might be.
In return for this light touch approach – one that will not be to the liking of some NGOs – the government wants companies to be more proactive. Specifically, the framework says that while the government will use embassies and consulates to promote responsible business practice around the world, ministers will expect companies to do more to influence the general conditions in which they operate – not least through ‘engagement with host governments on action to identify and tackle obstacles to compliance with national legal requirements’.
The government says that it will not back any further proliferation of codes and initiatives, instead doing all it can to encourage mergers and rationalizations of such codes ‘rather than ... creating new processes or institutions’. The government wants companies to start aligning their programmes more closely with foreign policy objectives. Poverty reduction is cited as an example, and the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals receive a specific mention, as do the UN’s Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations with regard to human rights, on which the government still hopes to keep consultation alive.
Fanny Calder, associate fellow of the Sustainable Development Programme at the Chatham House think-tank in London, told EP the framework is a valuable marker, even if unlikely to satisfy all interested parties. ‘The focus on measuring impacts is a new departure and indicates that the government wants to take a rigorous look at what British business and key international initiatives are actually delivering on the ground,’ she says. ‘The commitment to explore the potential for increasing incentives for businesses ... is also very interesting, and could lead to significant policy changes further down the road.’
Some of the value of the framework, then, lies more in what it presages than in what it will deliver in the short term. But ministers clearly still want to be seen as leading business rather than simply as followers. Given that they have recently been accused of losing momentum in this area, in particular by failing to curb bribery and corrupt practices with legislative measures, this policy statement at least is a yardstick against which to measure future action.
social responsibilities. EP considers the implications for companies
Although the UK government has been acknowledged as a world leader in some areas of corporate responsibility over the past five years, it has been rather less successful at defining exactly what it wants to do on CSR and how this will be achieved.
That gap, however, was largely filled last month when the CSR minister Nigel Griffiths unveiled the final version of the government’s International Corporate Social Responsibility Framework, a six-page document that is the first serious attempt by any administration to outline where its responsibilities end and the private sector’s begin.
The framework sets out a future in which the UK government assists companies at home and abroad to align their business activities more closely with certain of its domestic and foreign policy priorities: human rights, poverty eradication, environmental protection and reducing corruption. At the same time it seeks to encourage companies to promote responsible business practice on the international stage.
Much of the framework consists of goals already announced by ministers. Its value, however, lies in the insight gained into government thinking. For the first time, ‘the overall objectives, priorities, and main lines of the UK government’s approach’ are brought together in one place. This, ministers hope, will help to ensure government policies are applied more consistently across departments, clarify what is expected of UK business and ‘contribute to the policy debate and development of more effective action at the international level’.
At the heart of the framework is a desire for government to act as enabler and not enforcer. The door is left ajar for ‘intelligent regulation and fiscal arrangements’, which it says should always be a matter for discussion, but in general the government’s role is to provide an ‘enabling environment’ for responsible business practice.
Accentuating the positive is a constant theme: in other words, more carrot and less stick. It will provide ‘incentives and technical assistance’ for companies to ‘make a difference on the ground’ rather than penalize transgressors – although no detail is given on what these incentives might be.
In return for this light touch approach – one that will not be to the liking of some NGOs – the government wants companies to be more proactive. Specifically, the framework says that while the government will use embassies and consulates to promote responsible business practice around the world, ministers will expect companies to do more to influence the general conditions in which they operate – not least through ‘engagement with host governments on action to identify and tackle obstacles to compliance with national legal requirements’.
The government says that it will not back any further proliferation of codes and initiatives, instead doing all it can to encourage mergers and rationalizations of such codes ‘rather than ... creating new processes or institutions’. The government wants companies to start aligning their programmes more closely with foreign policy objectives. Poverty reduction is cited as an example, and the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals receive a specific mention, as do the UN’s Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations with regard to human rights, on which the government still hopes to keep consultation alive.
Fanny Calder, associate fellow of the Sustainable Development Programme at the Chatham House think-tank in London, told EP the framework is a valuable marker, even if unlikely to satisfy all interested parties. ‘The focus on measuring impacts is a new departure and indicates that the government wants to take a rigorous look at what British business and key international initiatives are actually delivering on the ground,’ she says. ‘The commitment to explore the potential for increasing incentives for businesses ... is also very interesting, and could lead to significant policy changes further down the road.’
Some of the value of the framework, then, lies more in what it presages than in what it will deliver in the short term. But ministers clearly still want to be seen as leading business rather than simply as followers. Given that they have recently been accused of losing momentum in this area, in particular by failing to curb bribery and corrupt practices with legislative measures, this policy statement at least is a yardstick against which to measure future action.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No