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.

31st October and 1st November

With participation from civil servants, parliamentarians, business and the NGO community, this two-day conference will examine the following key questions:

• How can UK Policy greater meet the protection needs of human rights defenders and communities working in this area?
• How can international advocacy strengthen national and regional jurisprudence?
• How can UK ensure maximum efficacy of the UN Business and Human Rights Framework?
• How can EU countries better use the EU Guidelines for Protection of human rights defenders?
• How can UK ensure more effective redress and remedy systems for victims of human rights violations by non-state actors?
• Should the Government adopt more statutory measures to ensure that UK companies do not commit human rights violations in light of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination findings?
• How can the UK improve consistency across government departments on this issue?

For more information please contact Louise Haigh on haighl@parliament.uk

The APPG exists to raise awareness on issues surrounding business, human rights and the environment amongst UK Parliamentarians and provide a forum for debate on responsibility of companies that operate across national boundaries.  In their letter, the signatories including Liberal Democrat MP Martin Horwood and Labour MP Jon Cruddas said:

“We believe that improving transparency in the extractive industries is essential in order to tackle corruption and stimulate sustainable development in resource rich developing countries.

We therefore welcome provision 1504 in the US Dodd- Frank Act that requires all companies engaged in oil, gas and mining activities to report country- and project- specific payments to governments, and commend the European Commission for working to bring forward EU regulations to build on this historical development.”

They then went on to ask that in developing the proposals, the Commissioner ensured that Europe’s rule is at least as strong as the US Dodd-Frank Act.  For example, that the UK law includes project-by-project reporting  and ensures the data is published online in an easily searchable and comparable format.  These provisions are extremely important.  Without project-by-project reporting, for example, local communities will remain in the dark about the value of assets in their region promoting mistrust, suspicion and even conflict.

The Commission is expected to come back with its proposals in October of this year and the UK Government has expressed support.

The APPG is a supporting member of the Publish What You Pay Coalition.

These proposals, contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill currently before Parliament, reform the ‘no win/no fee’ regime in a bid to ‘level out the playing field’ between claimants and defendants.

I can think of few other cases where the playing field is currently more imbalanced than between powerful multi-national corporations and victims of human rights violations, often in the developing world.

In a recent case, brought in the UK courts against the British mining firm Monterrico, allegations were made that the company had been complicit in the torture of Peruvians who objected to the damage wrought by the company’s activities on their community and environment.

Very few remedies exist for victims; there are limited options to hold British companies to account when they have committed even the most grievous wrongdoings abroad.

One of the few options that does exist, which is itself unsatisfactory, is to pursue a company like Monterrico on a ‘no win/no fee’ basis.

Because they are British companies, claims can be taken against them in the British Courts even though the harm was done abroad. Often these are complex cases, involving hundreds of claimants, and costing millions of pounds to bring to court. Few lawyers are willing to take them on due to the difficulties obtaining sufficient proof and the levels of work involved even in the initial investigation stages. In order to compensate lawyers for the level of risk and to encourage them to take on cases that aren’t guaranteed to be successful, lawyers can bill the losing company for a ’success fee’ on top of their costs if they win the case. There are safeguards to stop this getting out of hand. It has to be approved by the courts and the bill is scrutinised by judges, line by line, to determine whether it is fair.

But Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wants to remove this option for victims. His reforms to the ‘no win/no fee’ arrangement will abolish the recoverability of the success fee from losing defendants, meaning that if lawyers are to profit from a case, they must take it out of the victims’ damages.

In these types of cases the situation is even worse. Because of a recent EU Regulation, damages for victims overseas must be awarded at the local market rate, so even though the costs for pursuing Monterrico were incurred in the UK, the damages are based on rates in countries like Peru where the harm was done.

In one of the most famous cases to date, victims of the British oil company Trafigura were awarded £1000 each. The idea of taking a cut out of £1,000 awarded to a victim of torture or to someone who has lost their home and livelihood is not one that lawyers who are prepared to take on this kind of case would contemplate.

Clarke maintains that the system as it stands has attracted litigation from other countries to the UK. This is a strange argument when you consider that the firms against which litigation has been pursued are British firms; it is only right that they should be held to account by the British Courts.

And since the no win/no fee system was introduced; only nine such cases have been brought in the UK. In the case of Trafigura, in which 100,000 Ivory Coast residents were affected by the dumping of toxic waste, only 30,000 victims received compensation; as far as I’m aware, lawyers are not falling over themselves to represent the other 70,000.

It cannot be right to rebalance the system so far in favour of powerful, multinational companies that victims of human rights and environmental abuse are denied justice altogether. Yet victims are not the only losers. By removing this limited right to remedy, the government is sending a strong signal to the business community that those who heed the social and environmental impacts of their operations will have a competitive disadvantage against those that don’t. To coin an over-used phrase, we will see a race to the bottom in terms of corporate responsibility and accountability at precisely the time when standards have to rise.

First Published on Huffington Post UK

The APPG on International Corporate Responsibility will host its second AGM at the House of Commons on Tuesday 8th November 2011.

The AGM will elect its officers for 2011/2012 and set the agenda for the coming year of the APPG’s work.  It will then discuss the recently adopted OECD Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises: what they mean for British business, how they could be improved, and what is needed from the UK Government to implement them effectively.

The APPG will be joined by representatives from the UK Government, including the National Contact Point (NCP) for the Guidelines, from business and from the external steering board of the NCP, representative of NGOs, Parliamentarians and the Trade Union movement.

If you would like to attend please email haighl@parliament.uk.

You can find information on the UK NCP Annual Report to the OECD for 2010-11 at the link below:

But, as a former Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary, Jack Straw above all people should pause to consider the dangers of legislating too quickly to deal with one problem, and in the process exacerbating another, incredibly serious one, concerning matters – quite literally – of life and death.

With the soaring value of precious metals, timber and other commodities, and cut-throat competition across the world, more and more stories of human rights abuses are emerging from developing countries related to the presence of British-owned multinationals. It is not unusual to hear about the local police or army colluding with private company security forces when trying to deal with local opposition to mining.

The Catholic aid agency CAFOD specialises in providing support for rural people affected by these abuses. Often, they cannot find justice in their own countries and their only option is to pursue redress in the UK courts for misdeeds committed against them by British multinationals.

The Government’s new Legal Aid Bill seeks to prevent law firms using ‘no win-no fee’ arrangements to claim large success fees from defendants. It also caps the legal costs at a level below the compensation awarded, to deter law firms from running up huge legal bills in pursuit of relatively small claims. The ban on ‘referral fees’ obtained by Jack Straw will add another layer to these curbs.

However, the very same provisions will also pull the rug from under specialist law firms pursuing cases of human rights abuse committed by UK multinationals. Because of the cost and complexity of gathering evidence in these cases and the fact that the courts can only award compensation to foreign victims based on what they could reasonably expect to win in their own country, the legal costs will usually exceed the likely level of compensation. Abolishing the success fee that firms can claim will further reduce the economic viability of pursuing these cases.

In the case of foreign nationals bringing human rights cases, no legal aid is paid, so these provisions will do nothing to help the taxpayer.

This is no abstract problem. In 2005, dozens of poor Peruvian farmers protesting against the construction of the Rio Blanco mine by UK-owned Monterrico Metals said that they found themselves variously beaten, threatened, hooded, held captive, shot, sexually assaulted and threatened with rape by Peruvian police.

After the farmers failed to find justice in Peru, UK law firm Leigh Day took up their case, and the allegations of torture were due to be heard in the High Court next month. While not admitting liability, Monterrico agreed to an out-of-court settlement. Without the prospect of a success fee, and legal costs fixed below the level of compensation, the case could never have been pursued by Leigh Day, and the farmers would never have received compensation.

If the bill is adopted in its current form, it will become simply too expensive for UK lawyers to defend poor people against human rights abuses committed by British multinationals abroad. And unfortunately, if an unscrupulous company knows that the prospect of court action is limited, the deterrents that often curb their behaviour overseas will disappear.

CAFOD is calling for two vital amendments. First, human rights cases should be exempt from the abolition of the success fee. If found guilty of human rights abuses, a company should have to pay both the claimants’ lawyers’ normal fees and success fees. That recognises the enormous financial risk human rights’ legal teams take on in these kinds of cases. Second, if found guilty of human rights abuses, a company should pay all costs deemed necessary by the human rights’ legal team to prepare a credible base of evidence for the court case. Those costs should not be capped below the level of the compensation payments, and none of the costs should come out of the compensation paid to victims.

There are hundreds of poor people who cannot get justice in their own countries and look to the UK courts as their last resort. We cannot turn our back on them, and in doing so, turn a blind eye to the abuses committed by British multinationals. I hope that Jack Straw and other backbench MPs on all sides will persuade the Government to think again.

First published on the Cafod blog.

There has rightly been great criticism of the impact on the poorest people in society but one specific, overlooked area of concern is the impact the proposed legislation will have on holding British-based multi-nationals to account when they commit human rights and environmental abuses abroad.

Already, there are alarmingly few mechanisms to hold businesses accountable when they operate across national borders and while we should promote the best of British business abroad, we should also ensure that business activities, particularly in the developing world, do not fuel or cause conflict and harm.

Take the activities of Trafigura, an oil trading company, which was found guilty of repeatedly dumping toxic waste on the Ivory Coast. On one occasion the company was directly responsible for the illnesses of over 100,000 people.

Very few options are available for victims of these crimes who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in such a situation. They are often too ill, poor and intimidated to take action, even if the laws and framework in the country allowed it.

The most viable option, albeit a risky, costly and often lengthy one, is to pursue civil litigation against the company in Britain. With the help of a progressive law firm and an insurance company, 30,000 of the victims filed a class action against Trafigura. The case was settled out of court and Trafigura paid out $152 million.

This was only possible through the ‘no win, no fee’ model. The costs of bringing the case to court, evidence gathering, representing 30,000 impoverished Ivorians and over 50 lawyers working on the case, were tens of millions, all borne initially by the lawyers and insurers.

Under the present system, if companies like Trafigura lose their case, they pay the legal costs, plus an additional success fee determined by the courts to cover the lawyers for the significant risk they have undertaken in bringing the case. This seems reasonable. After all, the ‘no win, no fee’ system was introduced in the 1990s because legal aid had been cut. The cost is not borne by the taxpayer but by the losing party.

Without a success fee, lawyers have neither the incentive to take on costly, risky and resource-intensive cases, nor do they have the resources to invest in doing so. In many cases lawyers have to fund their investigations for years before the case goes to court without any guarantee they will recoup their costs.

The Bill will stop successful lawyers recovering a success fee from defendants and allow lawyers to take a fee of up to 10% from victims’ compensation. This is neither right, nor fair. Compensation, by literal and legal definition, should replace the loss a victim has incurred; this money should be theirs and not susceptible to a hefty lawyers’ fee.

This point however, is almost moot, as such cases will simply not be brought in future. With no success fee to fund new cases and, thanks to other changes lawyers potentially unable to recover even their costs, they will not be able to afford to bring them.

There are over 70,000 people who have suffered serious harm that remain uncompensated in the Ivory Coast. No lawyer, under the current system, is prepared to represent them. The likelihood of lawyers doing so in future is almost inconceivable.

You can take action here: http://action.amnesty.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1194&ea.campaign.id=11587

First Published on www.liberalconspiracy.org

The significance of this should not be underestimated. It marked the first time in the 65 year history of the UN that member states have unanimously endorsed a set of principles they themselves had not negotiated.

The commitment of the UN is reflected by strong feeling in Parliament, right across the political spectrum, that in the wake of the financial crisis it is not merely desirable but a necessity for business and finance to be transparent and accountable. The same ethical obligations that apply to states and individuals must also apply to business. In 2008, an under-regulated banking system brought the world economy to its knees and the most vulnerable in society are paying the price. Corporations may operate across borders, but we simply cannot allow them to operate above the law.

That’s why my colleagues and I have established an All Party Parliamentary Group for International Corporate Responsibility which last week hosted a meeting with the US Assistant Secretary of State, Mike Posner, who leads on human rights, democracy and labour for the Obama administration. He told a packed room in Parliament that business and human rights will be the most important human rights issue of the 21^st century. He is right. The power of multinationals now far outstrips many of the states within which they operate. In 2010 Walmart’s revenue was an astonishing $414 billion, hence its ranking as the 26^th largest economy in the world, just behind Norway.

It gives multinationals a power that outstrips individual states, predicted over 150 years ago in the Communist Manifesto. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.”  Without international action to prevent human rights abuses, promote respect for human rights and provide remedy for victims, abuse will continue.

This is especially the case now, as many companies operate in developing countries where conflict and risk is high. From North Africa and the Middle East to Colombia and the DRC, companies are present in conflict zones where human rights are not always respected by states themselves. The difficulty of operating to high ethical standards in conflict zones should not be underestimated and requires a concerted, united response from business, states and international organisations, but it is possible.

Despite often valid reasons for operating in conflict zones, intentionally or not, companies from a range of industry sectors have acted in a manner that has directly or indirectly supported abuse. The Egyptian Government, for example, made demands on mobile phone operators to suspend services during the recent uprising and transmit inflammatory messages over their networks. Campaigners argue telecommunications companies operating in Egypt could have taken a series of steps to delay executing those instructions and raise human rights concerns. Vodafone, one of the companies involved, has since apologised and said that its competitors were doing the same.

It is clear that the importance given to this issue by the UN is only a first step. The British Government must lead the way in protecting the most vulnerable and promoting the best – not the worst – of British business to the world. In its proud internationalist tradition, pressure to act must come from the Labour movement. As individuals, businesses and legislators we have a shared interest, as well as a shared responsibility to take action and stand up for some of the most voiceless communities across the world.

The APPG hosted a fringe at the 2011 Compass Conference on building a good society on the subject of UK companies in conflict.

The meeting was hosted by Lisa Nandy MP and joined by speakers: Andy Whitmore from the London Mining Network and Dr Peter Davis, Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute.

The meeting discussed the impact of business on human rights and the environment when British companies operate in conflict zones.  Many UK companies operate in countries where conflict means the  rule of law is often not enforced and the session explored what the Government should be doing in relation to UK companies operating in countries in conflict.

The meeting was held just days after the UN voted unanimously on the new Guiding Principles on business and human rights, which achieved consensus on the corporate duty to respect human rights.

The event was hosted by chair of the APPG Lisa Nandy and speakers included US Assistant Secretary of State Mike Posner and Junior Minister at the Foreign Office, Henry Bellingham MP.

Mike Posner has worked relentlessly on business and human rights issues in the US and was instrumental in delivering the Frank-Dodd Act in 2010.  He spoke passionately about the need to both support business in respecting human rights and hold it to account when it commits violations of human and environmental rights.

Henry Bellingham is the Minister responsible for conflict prevention, the UN and FCO relations with British business.  He spoke in support of the Guiding Principles and of the UK Government’s firm commitment to upholding them, as well as operating cross-departmentally to ensure the Government’s approach is as joined-up as possible.

The event was attended by civil servants, Parliamentarians and a varied mix of representatives from the NGO and business communities.

The APPG is committed to providing a forum for debate and holding government to account on the implementation of the new Guiding Principles on business and human rights.