The CORE coalition of UK development, human rights and environmental NGOs provides high level policy and advocacy coordination to tackle the fundamental corporate accountability gap which enables UK companies to commit wrongful acts abroad without adequate sanctions or reparations.

We are looking for a dynamic co-ordinator who can provide policy and campaign leadership, and effective coordination of civil society responses to corporate accountability issues.

If you have a strong personal commitment to social justice and believe that companies should be accountable for their impacts on human rights and the environment, if you can think strategically and have a track record of influencing policy-makers, then this post could be for you. You will need to work on your own initiative, reporting to a Board comprising of five leading UK NGOs. You will also need to have experience of building effective relationships with a range of organisations across sectors, and an understanding of the sensitivities of working in coalition. Experience of fundraising from Trusts would be an advantage.

For more information, including a job description and person specification, can be found here.

As this post is UK-based, non EC nationals will require current and valid permission to work in the UK.

To Apply: please send a CV together with a covering letter demonstrating your suitability for the post to info@corporate-responsibility.org to reach us no later than 9am on 19 January 2012.

The report, Simply Put, published by the CORE Coalition, contains expert analysis of how the current legal framework is failing and what changes need to be made to the existing social and environmental corporate reporting regime.  Through smart and straightforward amendments, the report identifies how existing legal requirements could be simplified and streamlined to take the guesswork out of corporate compliance [1].

Corporate reporting legislation is the subject of intense debate and legal amendment.  The Coalition Government committed to reform reporting law last year, and made additional commitments in this year’s budget [2].  However the details are currently unclear, following several consultations on this issue from two different Government Departments and the EU [3].

Lisa Nandy, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Corporate Responsibility said of the report:

“The UK’s existing legal framework for corporate non-financial reporting has been criticised by a number of independent experts, and its failings noted in the Government’s own recent review of the provisions in The Companies Act….  The Government has recently committed to reform social and environmental reporting requirements, and this report is a timely contribution to outlining the kind of reforms required to deliver a ‘UK PLC’ legal framework that is fit for purpose..”

Most companies, their stakeholders and governments agree that company narrative reporting is useful. Since 2007, medium and large UK companies have been required to produce an annual ‘Business Review’ which contains this information. However, current UK reporting standards focuses too much on flexibility for companies, at the expense of the high quality reporting needed by investors for risk management and to meet stakeholder needs. The lack of clear consistent standards about how and what companies should measure, analyse and report on also creates inefficiencies for companies themselves.

Hannah Ellis, Coordinator of The CORE Coalition said:

“The UK’s current legal regime is unhelpfully vague on narrative reporting obligations. CORE’s research highlights how through some relatively straightforward amendment to existing rules – the guess work currently required by companies could be effectively removed.”

The report comes at a time when there is growing recognition of the need for businesses to communicate effectively about their activities, given their influence over the environment, communities, supply chains and human rights.  

Anne Lindsay, CAFOD Lead Private Sector Analyst added:

“This month in Geneva, governments will be deciding on the recommendations of the UN Special Representative on business and human rights and discussing how to make sure his work delivers results.  The CORE report offers practical ideas to ensure that UK companies think about what they are doing to respect human rights in their operations overseas, by evaluating and reporting on any significant risks and impacts.” 

Contact:

Hannah Ellis, Coordinator The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition 0207 566 1601 or (m) 07952 876 929

Lisa Nandy MP, Chair All Party Parliamentary Group on International Corporate Responsibility 0207 219 7188 or (m) 07896 668 601

Anne Lindsay, CAFOD Lead Analyst – Private Sector 0207095 5423 or (m) 07789652112

Notes

[1] The report Simply Put is written by Jennifer Zerk and produced by The CORE Coalition.  It is available for download at http://corporate-responsibility.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Simply-Put.pdf and copies of the report are available on request from info@corporate-responsibility.org

[2] The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, (May 2010),
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/coalition-documents p10. 

Budget Document The Plan for Growth
http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf

[3] For an overview of these developments see Legal Commitments, Consultations & U-Turns produced in March 2011 by CORE
http://corporate-responsibility.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/reporting_timeline.pdf

Following two recent Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) consultations, a current consultation on GHG Emissions, is being carried out by The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs  (DEFRA)  http://www.defra.gov..uk/consult/2011/05/11/ghg-emissions/

At a European Level, The Single Market Act adopted by The European Commission on 14th April 2011 states that the Commission will present a new proposal on social and environmental reporting legislation (p.15). 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/docs/20110413-communication_en.pdf#page=2

The report focuses on the impact of the new provision, s.172, which specifies directors should have regard to environmental and social issues in their decision making.

Hannah Ellis, co author of the report, said:

“There has been much international attention relating to the potential significance of these new directors’ duties for those negatively impacted by the operations of UK companies.  This report makes it clear that although the new duties do provide useful clarity, the fuss made by corporate lawyers around their ramifications was mostly hot air. The Government must recognise the weaknesses of the existing legal framework.  A useful first step would be to  implement its commitment – as stated in the coalition agreement – to improve corporate accountability, and ensure UK companies stop breaching human rights and harming the environment.’

A copy of the report “Directors, Human Rights & The Companies Act: Is the new law any different?” is available for free download here

Contact:

Hannah Ellis, CORE Coordinator  +44 (0) 207 566 1601 or 07952 876 929

Ruling places BP in breach of its loan agreements, say campaigners

A BP-led consortium is breaking international rules governing the human rights responsibilities of multinational companies in its operations on the controversial Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the UK Government ruled today.[1]Environment and human rights groups, which had filed an official complaint against BP eight years ago, say the ruling puts the oil multinational in breach of its loan agreements — including a multi-million pound loan backed by UK taxpayers.

Villagers living along BP’s flagship oil pipeline have struggled to hold the companies accountable for alleged human rights abuses associated with its development. The pipeline brings up to one million barrels of oil a day from the Caspian Sea, across Azerbaijan and Georgia, to Turkey from where supertankers ship it to Europe.[2]

The ruling follows the Complaint[3] lodged under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises[4] by six groups[5] in April 2003. The UK Government backed the pipeline in 2004 through its Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD).[6]  The ruling states that BP failed to investigate and respond to complaints from local people of intimidation by state security forces in Turkey guarding the pipeline. Local human rights defender Ferhat Kaya, for instance, has reported that he was detained and tortured by the paramilitary police for insisting on fair compensation.[7] Villagers allege that they are routinely interrogated when they raise concerns over the pipeline.

The pipeline passes through an area of north-east Turkey with a substantial Kurdish minority who have been subject to state repression for decades. Since the pipeline’s inception over a decade ago, human rights campaigners in Turkey and the UK have highlighted the risk of local people, particularly Kurdish minorities, being intimidated by state security forces. Today’s ruling has found that, despite widespread awareness of this “heightened risk intimidation”, BP failed adequately to respond to or investigate allegations of abuse that were brought to its attention.

The Complaint argued that such intimidation deterred local people from participating in BP’s consultations about the pipeline’s route and compensation negotiations for loss of land and livelihoods.

BP has consistently promoted the BTC pipeline as “world class” in its approach to human rights. According to its legally-binding commitment to comply with the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (an international code of conduct for multinationals operating in the energy sector),[8] BP is obliged to “consult regularly” with local communities about the impacts of pipeline security arrangements and should record and report credible allegations of abuse by security forces to the authorities.

The UK Government has now found that BP breached its undertaking and failed to adhere to the Voluntary Principles in the north-east region of Turkey by not responding adequately to allegations of intimidation and not investigating them.

The ruling sets a major precedent. In future, to comply with these corporate social responsibility guidelines, multinationals will have to take into account the human rights context in which they operate, including the risk of intimidation, when designing and implementing corporate grievance mechanisms. Such mechanisms need to be robust enough that people can report intimidation without fearing further reprisals.

Given BP’s legally-binding commitment to ensure that the BTC project complies with the OECD Guidelines,[9] today’s ruling from the UK government potentially places the company in breach of its contracts with the major international financial institutions (IFIs) that backed the project with taxpayers’ money in 2004. In addition to the UK’s export credit agency, these include the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and other European and US export credit agencies.[10]

The failure of BP to adhere to the OECD Guidelines and the Voluntary Principles, as required under the BTC project agreements, also raises major concerns over the due diligence undertaken by the IFIs before supporting the pipeline.

Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House says:

“Public funders knew about the intimidation, but failed to check whether BP had adequate procedures in place to address and remedy it. They ploughed ahead with the project anyway for political reasons. Western governments appear to have been willing to sacrifice the human rights of those living along its route in order to grab the Caspian’s oil for the West.”

Rachel Bernu of Kurdish Human Rights Project says:

“It has taken eight years for the claims of villagers facing repression in this isolated area of Turkey to be recognised.  We hope this ruling marks a turning point for the governments and companies involved so that villagers receive just compensation and human rights are not only respected but also promoted through investment in future.”

James Marriott of Platform says:

“This ruling shows that BP’s pipeline allowed and enabled repression of local communities. Yet EU governments and companies continue to push for new pipelines to suck oil and gas westwards from distant places of extraction. BTC stands as a warning that these planned ‘energy corridors’ risk becoming ‘corridors of militarisation and human rights abuse’.”

Craig Bennett of Friends of the Earth says:

“Using taxpayers’ money to support this pipeline at the expense of people’s human rights and the planet is a stain on the UK’s reputation.  The pipeline would not have been built without public funding. Government ministers must now come clean about what action they will take against BP for breaching its loan agreement. The only way to stop this cycle of exploitation is to wean us all off our fossil fuel dependency by investing in the safe, clean and ethical technologies of the future.”

Commenting on the ruling, Nick Dearden of Jubilee Debt Campaign says:

“This long-awaited ruling underlines the need for urgent changes in the UK’s export credits system. Empowering British companies to violate the national laws of other countries goes against the most basic form of social and environmental responsibility. Without effective safeguards, projects like BP’s one are bound to happen again.” 

Peter Frankental of Amnesty International UK adds:

“The UK Government’s condemnation of BP for breaching internationally recognised human rights standards on the BTC pipeline begs the question of why taxpayers’ money, in the form of export credit guarantees, was used to fund such a project in the first place. If such support had been withheld until BP had addressed the human rights context of their pipeline project, then these violations might never have occurred. It is time the UK’s Export Credits Guarantee Department was reformed to prevent this from ever happening again.”

The ruling gives BP three months to review and report on what it can do to strengthen its procedures to address these failings.

ENDS

For more information and press enquiries, please contact:  enquiries@thecornerhouse.org.uk

Rachel Bernu, Kurdish Human Rights Project      Tel: +44 (0)20 7405 3835 

James Marriott or Mika Minio-Paluello, Platform    Tel: +44 (0)1634 713 050

Neil Verlander, Friends of the Earth Tel: +44 (0)20 7566 1649

Nick Dearden, Jubilee Debt Campaign Mobile: +44 (0)7932 335 464

Paul Eagle, Amnesty International UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7033 1578

NOTES

1.  March 2011: UK NCP Final Statement – Complaint against BP

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/sites/thecornerhouse.org.uk/files/BTC%20Revised%20Final%20Statement%20-%20embargoed%20until%208%20March-1.pdf

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/low-carbon-business-opportunities/sustainable-development/corporate-responsibility/uk-ncp-oecd-guidelines/cases

2. The 1,760 kilometre-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline runs from the offshore oil fields near Baku in Azerbaijan through Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. A consortium of oil companies, led by British oil multinational BP, built the pipeline from May 2003 onwards, completing it in 2006, although negotiations and preparations had started back in the late 1990s.

Map: http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/pics/agt_map.jpg

Its construction and financing provoked major concerns regarding its social, environmental, development and human rights impacts.

 - Local people who protested were allegedly threatened by consortium and national government officials.

- Before and during construction, the pipeline violated more than 170 World Bank and European safeguards.

- Poverty alleviation benefits are questionable and the potential for exacerbating social divides high.

- The Host Government Agreements between the consortium and the countries supercede all national laws (except the national constitution) and effectively exempt the pipeline from any improvements in environmental and human rights legislation.

For more information, see:

Baku Ceyhan Campaign:

http://www.baku.org.uk

Platform:

http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=5&parent=66&link=Y&gp=3

The Corner House:

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resources/results/taxonomy:87

Some Common Concerns:

http://www.baku.org.uk/some_common_concerns.htm

KHRP: http://www.khrp.org/component/search/?searchword=baku&ordering=&searchphrase=all

 3. Complaint: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/sites/thecornerhouse.org.uk/files/BTC%20Complaint%2029.4.03.pdf

 For other documents and a timeline of the 8-year process, see:  ttp://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/revised-final-statement-complaint-under-oecd-guidelines-multinational-enterprises

4. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises provide recommendations for “good corporate behaviour” in the areas of employment and industrial relations; environment; combating bribery; consumer interests; competition; and taxation. Multinational enterprises operating in or from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states are expected to adhere to them.   http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

5. Friends of the Earth (England and Wales) Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) The Corner House Baku Ceyhan Campaign Platform Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP)

The OECD Guidelines were revised in 2000, giving NGOs the right to submit complaints against OECD-based companies. Complaints are submitted to the relevant country’s National Contact Point (NCP) – a government office established to promote adherence to the Guidelines.

In the UK, the NCP is a civil servant based within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (formerly the Department for Trade and Industry).  http://www.bis.gov.uk/nationalcontactpoint

 From 2007 onwards, the groups were represented by solicitors Leigh Day & Co: http://www.leighday.co.uk/our-expertise/human-rights

6. The Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) uses taxpayers money to help UK exporters, primarily large corporations, involved in ‘high risk’

projects or areas of the world by providing insurance, loans, guarantees and credits. The majority of its support in recent years has gone to companies working in the arms, aerospace and fossil fuel-related industries.

For more information, see: www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/dodgydeals

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resources/results/taxonomy:63

In February 2004, ECGD issued £81,703,893 ($106 million) in guarantees to the BTC project, the largest guarantee issued in the 2003-04 financial year, even though public interest groups had provided the Department with detailed evidence documenting the project’s failure to date to comply with the ECGD’s stated policies on environment, development and human rights.

7. Trial Observation Report of Ferhat Kaya, September 2004 http://www.khrp.org/khrp-news/human-rights-documents/doc_details/41-report-on-the-trial-of-ferhat-kaya-trial-observation-report.html

Ferhat Kaya has lodged a complaint at the European Court of Human Rights to hold Turkey to account for its treatment of him so as to prevent future abuses.

See also reports of the Fact-Finding Missions conducted by the groups annually from 2002-2005 to areas in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey along the route of the BTC pipeline, particularly that to Turkey in 2005:

Turkey 2005: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/sites/thecornerhouse.org.uk/files/FFM05turkey.pdf

Fact-Finding Missions: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/fact-finding-missions-baku-tbilisi-ceyhan-oil-pipeline

8. Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/voluntary_principles_english.pdf

In response to this Complaint, in May 2003, the BTC Consortium and the governments of the three countries through whose territory the pipeline passes (Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey) issued a legally-binding undertaking to ensure that the project complied with the OECD Guidelines and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.

See “Joint Statement on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Project”, 16 May 2003,  http://subsites.bp.com/caspian/Joint%20Statement.pdf

9. In a statement to the UK Parliament on 12 January 2005, Lord Sainsbury, then Under Secretary for Trade and industry, stated: “BTC Co is contractually committed to complying with the guidelines”.

See: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2005/jan/12/baku-tbilisi-ceyhan-pipeline-project

10. Some 70 per cent of the estimated US$4 billion costs of developing the BTC pipeline was financed and subsidised by public money or public institutions. The bulk of the public money was in the form of loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) of $250 million and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) of $250 million.

Export credit agency (ECA) guarantees for the pipeline included:

Japan’s JBIC $580 million
USA’s Ex-Im  $160million
Japan’s NEXI $120 million
UK ECGD      $106 million
France’s COFACE   $100 million
Germany’s Hermes $ 85 million
Italy’s SACE            $ 50 million

The US Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC) provided an additional $142 million in political risk insurance.The NCP’s Revised Final Statement would appear to put the company in breach of its legally-binding undertakings to these funders.

See: The Corner House, Kurdish Human Rights Project and PLATFORM , “Implications of the UK National Contact Point’s March 2011 Final Statement on the BTC Specific Instance”, 9 March 2011, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/sites/thecornerhouse.org.uk/files/Implications%20of%20NCP%20Final%20Statement%20BP_0.pdf

Following the Department for Justice consultation on Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals to reform of civil litigation funding and costs, CORE and a distinguished number of dignitaries including Kate Allen, Jeremy P Carver CBE, Professor Sir Nigel Rodley and others have written to Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly.  The letter raises concerns regarding the implications these proposals will have on the ability of victims of harm committed by UK multinational corporations to have access to justice.  A copy of the letter can be downloaded here

Noting the findings of CORE’s analysis of the Business Review, CORE believes this review offers a great opportunity to improve the existing reporting framework.  

CORE’s evidence to the consultation is available here

* p.10, The Coalition: our programme for government 
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/409088/pfg_coalition.pdf

Although the Companies Act makes business reviews mandatory⁽¹⁾, initial analysis of FTSE100 company reviews shows:

• 8% have no clearly identifiable business review⁽²⁾, leading to confusion for shareholders and stakeholders alike.
• 17% made no reference to environmental issues⁽³⁾, despite wide acceptance that climate change is a business risk.
• 8% completely failed to include any social issues⁽⁴⁾ in their business review; 14% failed to include any social issues other than labour.

And of the FTSE100 company accounts reviewed, AstraZeneca, Friends Provident, Hammerson, HSBC and Thomson Reuters were deemed to be the worst performers in terms of the level of non-financial information reported.

These high level findings, by report author and leading social accounts auditor Professor Adrian Henriques, of Middlesex University, show that compliance with the Companies Act is far from comprehensive, with many companies not acting in the spirit of the reporting requirement.

Professor Henriques said: “The reporting of non-financial information in business reviews was surprisingly inadequate. Not a single company mentioned adaptation to climate change. And extractive companies were silent on known areas of human rights risk, such as security around facilities.”

The results also indicate there is a significant lack of clarity in what companies are legally required to report. This is despite Lord Goldsmith’s comment that the new directors provisions were designed to “… make what is expected of directors clearer and to make the law more accessible to them and to others”.

The Companies Act (2006) requires all large, publicly-listed companies to produce a business review to help inform shareholders how directors have performed their new statutory duty to promote the success of the company, having regard to a range of environmental and social factors, as well as on their supply chain impacts.

But now, more than two years after the first annual reporting cycle of the new requirements, the Government has not put in place adequate monitoring of this legislation.

Hannah Ellis, Coordinator of CORE said: “The results of this analysis clearly indicate why the law should be reformed. Much greater clarity and consistency is needed on the way companies should report on their environmental and social impacts.  The Government should ensure these requirements are fairer.

“The law should be reformed to ensure directors, whether they be of private or public companies, all report using one standard, so what they are doing is comparable – and that it is clear to all who are interested,  how the company has (or hasn’t) minimised, managed and mitigated their environmental and social impacts.”

Fiona Gooch, Traidcraft senior policy advisor, added: “As one of the earliest companies producing audited social accounts Traidcraft has benefitted substantially from the insights gained as a result of preparing comprehensive social reports. Based on this experience we advocate strongly that companies produce accounts of their social, economic and environmental impacts.

Footnotes

“The responsibility to ensure business reviews meet stakeholder demands falls on both the Government to make the requirements clearer and on the companies to report comprehensively. The Government’s review of this embryonic legislation is critical and must result in changes that ensure The Companies Act ultimately does what it was intended to do.”

(1) Section 417 of The Companies Act specifies the need for large public companies to produce a Business Review and Section 172 of The Act requires directors to have regard to environmental and social issues in order to promote the success of the company.

(2) Companies without an identifiable Business Review were: Balfour Beatty, BP, Carnival, Legal & General, Randgold, Smith & Nephew, Vodafone and WPP. Vodafone and BP are anomalous: while they did not have identifiable Business Reviews, Professor Adrian Henriques gave them (and the others) the benefit of the doubt and looked at the information in their Annual Reports more widely. Judged by the information which is available throughout their Annual Reports, those companies are among the best reporters. This contradiction supports the finding that the whole area is very confusing.

(3) Companies which did not include environmental issues in their business review are: Amlin, AstraZeneca, BAE, Compass, F&C, Friends Provident, Home Retail, HSBC, Old Mutual, Petrofac, Serco, Shire, Standard Life and Thomson Reuters.

(4) Companies which did not include social issues in their business review are: 3i, AstraZeneca, Friends Provident, Hammerson, HSBC, Reed Elsevier and Thomson Reuters

Notes to editors

1. “The Reporting of Non-Financial Information in Annual Reports by the FTSE100” by Professor Adrian Henriques of Middlesex University, is available for download here
2. For further information contact Hannah Ellis +44 (0) 207 566 1601 (direct) +44 (0) 7952 876 929
3. Available for interview: report author Professor Adrian Henriques, Traidcraft senior policy advisor Fiona Gooch, CORE co-ordinator Hannah Ellis.
4. The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition works to make changes in UK company law to minimise companies negative impacts on people and the environment and to maximise companies’ contribution to sustainable societies.  CORE represents over 130 civil society groups including Amnesty International UK, Traidcraft, Friends of the Earth and Action Aid.

“The Joint Committee for Human Rights was damming of the Government’s failure to address corporate wrongdoing overseas. The Government has in no way answered the JCHR’s criticisms and instead has signaled business as usual for companies whose concern for profit is put way ahead of the interests of the communities and environment in which they operate.”

She continued…

“Only by offering coherent guidance to companies and allowing proper access to redress for overseas victims of corporate abuse will this problem be resolved. By failing to take the JCHR’s criticisms seriously, the government has lost an opportunity to make Britain a global leader on corporate responsibility.”

The Enquiry, commissioned in spring 2009, involved a major review of human rights impacts of UK companies.  It concluded that UK companies operating overseas often have no incentive to prevent their operations from leading to human rights abuses, leaving them open to risks such as litigation or damaging public campaigns. This is often the case in developing countries where enforcement of human rights standards is less stringent than in the UK. The Committee also found that the UK Government’s current approach to business and human rights is incoherent and letting business down by failing to provide enough guidance to companies on how to avoid abusing human rights.

The CORE Coalition believes the Government’s response to the Enquiry today has been disappointing.  Although the Government acknowledge, in their response, that there is a need for greater clarity for companies on the distinction between respecting human rights and acts of general philanthropy, they fail to commit to taking any concrete action to improve accountability mechanisms that would ensure human rights standards are respected by UK companies, such as through the introduction of a UK Commission for Business, Human Rights & The Environment.

The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition – a group of NGOs, ethical businesses and trade unions – are calling on the Government to put in place a new UK Commission on Business, Human Rights and the Environment to oversee the conduct of British companies operating overseas.  This Commission would be mandated to ensure UK companies adhere to international human rights and environmental standards and have a duty to provide remedy to victims to whose rights have been violated.

Evidence submitted to the Committee by The CORE Coalition included the following examples of UK company abuses overseas:

• Bangladeshis paid far less than a living wage making clothes for Tesco, Asda and Primark.
• indigenous communities’ livelihoods threatened by mining giant Vedanta’s operations in India
• communities in the Niger Delta forced to endure Shell’s hazardous gas flaring despite a legal ban.

 Find out more about The JCHR enquiry here

Further Information:
Hannah Ellis, Coordinator, The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition
Tel: +44 (0) 207 566 1601
www.corporate-responsibility.org

The Committee Report and Governments Response is available here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt/jtrights.htm

CORE, Leigh Day & Co, The TUC, Amnesty International, Rights & Accountability in Development (RAID), One World Action, Global Witness and The Cornerhouse wrote to the European Commission , raising concerns regarding the UK Government’s position in relation to the European Court of Justice ruling in Owusu v Jackson.

The submission sent by these organisations can be downloaded here:

Submission from CORE and Others

CORE believe any reversal of the Owusu ruling would be a significant step back for corporate accountability.  This ruling has been essential in enabling justice to be carried out in relation to such cases such as those against Trafigura, BP (Colombia) and Monterrico (Peru); unimpeded by the enormous delay, aggravation, cost and aggravation experienced in the cases against eg Cape PLC (5 years spent on fnc, during which time 1000 claimants died).

Responding to the publication today (16 December) of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights’ long-awaited report on Business and Human Rights, The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition – a group of NGOs, ethical businesses and trade unions – called on the British Government to acknowledge the findings, and put in place a new Commission on Business, Human Rights and the Environment to oversee the conduct of British companies operating overseas.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights commissioned a major inquiry into the human rights impacts of UK companies in spring this year and has heard evidence from a range of individuals and organisations including the Trade Union Congress (TUC), the Confederation of British Industries (CBI), the UN Special Representative on Business & Human Rights, Professor John Ruggie, and CORE.

The Committee heard how UK companies operating overseas often have no incentive to prevent their operations from leading to human rights abuses, leaving them open to risks such as litigation or damaging public campaigns. This may especially be the case in developing countries where enforcement of human rights standards is less stringent than in the UK. The Committee also heard that the UK Government’s current approach to business and human rights is incoherent and letting business down by failing to provide enough guidance to companies on how to avoid abusing human rights.

The Committee’s final report acknowledged all of these concerns and encouraged the UK Government to explore the proposal for a Commission for Business, Human Rights and the Environment. It added that a number of multinationals operate to double standards when it comes to their policies at home and overseas. There was also an acknowledgment that current UK procedures for receiving complaints against companies – called National Contact Points – are “falling far short” of providing an effective remedy. It also said that implementing a human rights approach to business would have “no impact” on UK business competiveness.

Emily Armistead of the CORE Coalition said:

“This report brings real pressure on the government to address the harm done by British companies overseas. Even business leaders agree that companies’ obligation to respect human rights extends beyond the UK’s borders.

We now urge the Government to take the plunge and establish a Commission for Business, Human Rights and Environment. Thousands of CORE’s supporters will be pressing them to do so.”

Evidence submitted to the Committee by The CORE Coalition included the following examples of UK company abuses overseas:

• Bangladeshis paid far less than a living wage making clothes for Tesco, Asda and Primark.
• indigenous communities’ livelihoods threatened by mining giant Vedanta’s operations in India
• communities in the Niger Delta forced to endure Shell’s hazardous gas flaring despite a legal ban.

Find out more about The JCHR enquiry here