University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Multinational corporations and corporate social responsibility: how history, non-governmental organizations and international groups are changing business

(USC Thesis Other)

Multinational corporations and corporate social responsibility: how history, non-governmental organizations and international groups are changing business

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: HOW HISTORY, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL GROUPS ARE CHANGING BUSINESS by Victoria Brenda Rangel A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS) May 2007 Copyright 2007 Victoria Brenda Rangel Table of Contents Abstract iii Preface iv Introduction: Why Africa? 1 Chapter 1: The History of Non-Governmental Organizations 3 and the Rise of the Multinational Corporation as a World Power Chapter 2: Business and Responsibility in the Developing World: 19 A Look at Africa The Role of Business during Apartheid 19 Blood Diamonds in Sierra Leone 42 Chapter 3: Why Corporate Responsibility? 54 Conclusion 66 Bibliography 68 ii Abstract In an increasingly globalized, “flatter” world, multi-national corporations are currently operating in some of the poorest countries in the world. Focusing on American-based multinational corporations in African countries, this paper examines how businesses can best interact with non-governmental organizations and other influencing bodies to successfully adapt to a changing world. It will explore how public relations affects this delicate, evolving relationship, specifically in the form of corporate social responsibility, and how the success of such a relationship can influence the perceptions and ultimately the business practices of multinational corporations. Finally, it will consider what ethical responsibilities—if any— multinational corporations have toward not only their shareholders and consumers, but to all stakeholders, especially those who belong to the populations of the countries in which they operate. iii Preface It could be anywhere in Africa. On a pothole-marked dirt road in Nairobi, Kenya, you are driving in a dusty jeep alongside hundreds of shacks made out of rusted tin and splintered wood. Outside are the so-called slums that house the majority of Kenya’s poverty-stricken population. It could be Kibera, the largest slum on the entire continent of Africa, or it could be Khayelitsha, a township outside of Cape Town, South Africa. There is a strange disconnect with this scene, a true clash of cultures. Passing countless of these slums, where the occupants have no access to running water, no indoor plumbing, and no proper electricity, you spy soft- drinks and cell phones advertised on prominent billboards overhead. Coca-Cola. Virgin Mobile. Recognizable to the average American, but somehow, within this scene, they seem to take on an entirely different meaning. Isn’t Coca-Cola supposed to represent something cool, clean and refreshing? Doesn’t owning the latest cell phone mean that one is hip, connected to a global world, privileged with the latest advances in technology? When did these brands, these corporations, begin to be associated with the blurry-eyed, toothless man sitting on the ground, or the woman grilling chunks of lard-dripping meat, or the child standing half-clothed outside a one-room house made of corrugated metal and pieced-together cardboard? iv 1 Introduction According to the United Nations, “The African continent remains by and large the most marginalized in the world economy, with over half of the population living under US$1 a day per person.” 1 The only continent known by its name rather than the individual countries within it, Africa is often lumped together as an amalgamation of overwhelming problems: famine, poverty, war, AIDS, disease, refugees, human rights abuses—the list seems endless. Today’s media is on the frontline, with camera crews capturing graphic images of the stricken faces that have come to represent a continent. Such stories seem to perk the “infotainment” interest of the American public, conforming nicely to the melodramatic mold that is coming to define some American journalism. The “American angle” that many African interest stories have had lately has also been beneficial in generating more awareness, especially when Madonna or Angelina Jolie adopt African children, or an American politician or celebrity like Barack Obama tours Kenya. In this regard, an interest in Africa has become fashionable. In a world where George Clooney (among other countless celebrities), rock stars and MTV all encourage the masses to “Rock for Darfur,” everyone is becoming increasingly aware and more interested in what is going on the world’s poorest continent. More substantially, the development of Africa remains a top priority of the United Nations, with current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently re- 1 “Development in Africa.” UNCTAD: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. February 22, 2007. <http://www.unctad.org/Templates/StartPage.asp?intItemID=2871&lang=1>. 2 affirming this position, remarking that “Africa’s development, Africa’s challenges and Africa’s issues” are by far of utmost concern, and that “development must be the key approach to all three pillars because the absence of development will lead to lack of security.” 2 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also made Africa one of their top interests. As NGOs often emerge to benefit countries that are struggling or on the verge of establishing democracies, Africa is the poster child for charitable causes. At the same time that the plight of Africa is becoming more mainstream, anti- globalization and anti-Americanism is also gaining popularity, so much so that figures such as Jose Bove, the French farmer and “anti-McDonalds crusader,” have become more of a well-known joke or accepted symbol of our times, rather than the red warning flag that they should symbolize. Regardless of this trend, this paper will attempt to theorize on how multinational corporations that do business in some of the most impoverished countries in the world can best interact with non-governmental organizations and other influencing bodies to successfully adapt to a changing world, and how the success of such a relationship can influence the business practices and ultimately the perceptions of multinational corporations. 2 “United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.uneca.org/>. 3 The History of Non-Governmental Organizations and the Rise of the Multinational Corporation as a World Power “It came to this, that by hook or crook, money must be had to fight Russia, or to steal rubies in Burmah; and so it has to be got by poisoning the Chinese, and then we thanked God that we were not as other nations.” –Sir Wilfred Lawson, British Polititian, on the opium trade, 1886 3 Nongovernmental organizations may not be the shareholders in a typical corporation, but they are definitely stakeholders that cannot be ignored. According to the World Bank, NGOs are “private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development.” 4 A deeper look into the history of NGOs shows that such groups have played a vital role in changing government policy and public opinion on social, economical and political levels over the last 200 years, especially where business and international affairs are concerned. It is interesting to note that NGOs and multinational corporations both came into existence at relatively the same point in history, and, as such, exhibit a fascinatingly intertwined relationship. Nongovernmental organizations have their roots with such US and European groups as the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society in 1839, the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863, and the Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade in 1874. Steve R. Ratner cites the slave trade as 3 Brown, J.B. “Politics of the Poppy: The Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, 1874- 1916.” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Jul., 1973), pp. 97-111. 4 “Non-Governmental Organizations Research Guide.” Duke University NGO Library. February 22, 2007. <http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm>. 4 one of the worst examples of the abuse of human rights by private enterprise. Yet it is also an example of one of the earliest occurrences of human rights laws directly affecting business via the influence of early NGOs. In the end, the abolitionists were able to “…convince governments to conclude a series of treaties that allowed states to seize vessels and required them to punish slave traders. Thus the first true example of international human rights law was a response to commercially oriented violations of rights.” 5 The concept of changing unethical business practices was also the cause of human-rights oriented legislation later on: a sort of predecessor to today’s human rights laws, labor rights came into being in the early 1900s. When the United Nations was formed in 1945, nongovernmental organizations were given consultative status and were largely responsible for bringing human rights issues to the forefront of the UN’s initial and subsequent agenda. Today, the World Bank groups NGOs into two main categories: operational NGOs, which work to put into operation development-related projects; and advocacy NGOs, which support or defend a definite cause via attempting to change governmental policy. By the most basic definition, an NGO is any non-profit organization that is independent from the government. NGOs usually depend on volunteers and charitable funding and usually promote altruistic ideals. With the countless NGOs that exist throughout the world today, it’s hard to imagine that in 1948, there were just under fifty recognized NGOs. But the telecommunications revolution soon altered that by changing the strategies that NGOs use to promote 5 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 465 5 their messages. “Instead of holding marches or hanging banners off buildings, NGO members now use computers and cell phones to launch global public-relations blitzes that can force issues to the top of policymakers ‘to do’ lists.” 6 In 1997, NGOs proved their might as well as the power of a fantastic international, grassroots public relations campaign, when they successfully completed a Nobel Prize-winning effort to ban landmines. Using the internet, faxes, emails, newsletters and all forms of modern communication, including comic books, more than 300 NGOs banded together and pushed forth an international treaty to ban landmines, which won the support of 122 nations in a little over two years. With this campaign, led by the NGO the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, nongovernmental organizations showed the world their power as well as their obvious understanding of the way in which a successful public relations campaign can literally change history. Indeed, as Allen L. Hamond of the World Resources Institute recently argued, “…the combination of global media, new technologies, and altruistic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) may soon empower the have-nots of the world, bring them ‘simple justice’ by creating a ‘radical transparency’ in which ‘no contentious action would go unnoticed and unpublicized.’” 7 The focus of NGOs has also changed since their founding. In recent years, private corporations have become such enormous economic powers that they are beginning to be thought of as having the same amount of power, if not more power, 6 Simmons, P. J. “Learning to Live with NGOs.” Foreign Policy, No. 112. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 82-96. 7 Bob, Clifford “Globalization at Work: Merchants of Morality.” Foreign Policy, No. 129. (Mar. - Apr., 2002), pp. 36-45. 6 as nations. World history has also played a role in this: as traditional world powers have fragmented, corporations have assumed more stature and might. Private corporations began to be considered more of an influencer of international law around the time of the First World War, just as the principle of self-determination began to become popular. The years after World War II also saw the end of colonialism, which likewise had a major impact on business. Also at this time, the concept of holding businesses accountable on the world stage for human rights abuses also came into effect, starting with the international trials of the owners of German businesses for crimes against humanity. “The overall effect of the decolonization period with respect to corporate-host state relations was thus to emphasize the rights of states and the duties of TNEs.” 8 On the same note, the 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of Community Based Organizations (CBOs), local organizations that developed in a response to the lack of governments in developing nations to “ensure basic needs for the poor.” 9 This same historically turbulent period saw NGOs beginning to play a big role in boosting awareness of environmental and population issues, especially with the increase of oil extraction from foreign countries. These rising groups were legitimate bodies that could monitor the world powers that multinationals were becoming by attempting to hold them accountable for their actions or lack of action. Eventually, environmentalists were among the 8 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 457 9 Kamat, Sangeeta. “NGOs and the New Democracy: The False Saviors of International Devleopment.” Harvard International Review. Vol. 35 (1) (Spring 2003). 7 first who were able to create international laws that directly affected businesses by punishing polluting corporations directly. This concept has lasted into modern times. Business seems to control the world, and, as such, the focus of NGOs has shifted from attacking corrupt governments to attacking corrupt businesses. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have become global actors. The actions of MNCs influence national and international policy, or are influenced by it, as has been the case on several occasions. For example, in the 1970s, the UN established “New International Economic Order” through resolutions that addressed trade, development, human rights, international law, and economic equality. In other instances, the United Nations has placed economic sanctions on states that have directly impacted business, such as those against South Africa during apartheid or against Iraqi oil during the first Gulf War. Further more, in the 1970s and 1980s, NGOs, watch groups and interested consumers helped organize countless disinvestment campaigns aimed at corporations that were doing business in apartheid South Africa. Today’s definition of a multinational corporation (also known as multinational enterprise, transnational corporation, or multinational organization) is, in its most basic definition, a corporation that operates in more than one country. According to the 1993 World Investment Report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, there were roughly 40,000 MNCs in the world by 1990, a figure that increased to 63,000 by January 2006. Some of the most powerful are American-based. In a 2004 UNCTAD ranking of the world’s most economically 8 powerful multinational corporations, three out of the top five were US based—with General Electric ranking number one, followed by Ford Motor and General Motor in third and fourth place respectively. 10 MNCs such as these control about one quarter of the world’s assets and a quarter of the United States economy. A popular way of understanding how much impact and influence such corporations have is to rank countries by Gross Domestic Product along with corporations using gross sales. In such a ranking, in 1999, General Motors, (gross sales of $176.6 billion), Walmart (gross sales $166.8 billion), Exxon Mobil (gross sales $163.9 billion), Ford Motor (gross sales $162.6 billion) and Daimler Chrysler (gross sales $160 billion) ranked 38-42 on the list, above such countries as Hong Kong (number 43 at $158.2 billion), Portugal (number 44 at $151.4 billion), and Greece (number 45 at $149.2 billion). These rankings are sometimes disputed, as they compare two different categorical indicators, GDP and gross sales, yet they give a startling example of just how economically powerful multinational corporations are compared to states. This threat of power is also felt by states themselves, especially developing nations, who remain wary about the influence that such corporations possess and the way in which it almost seems to chip away at the state’s own power. For example, “…as firms have become more international, they have also become ever more independent of government control. Many of the largest TNEs have 10 “Annex table A.I.11. The world’s top 100 non-financial TNCs, ranked by foreign assets, 2004.” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. February 21, 2007. <http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/wir2006top100_en.pdf> 9 headquarters in one state, shareholders in others, and operations worldwide.” 11 Based on economics, the actions of a corporation seem to have global ramifications. Whereas a battle against multi-national corporations was once headed by political leftists and Marxist supporters, today’s battles are raised by non-political organizations and well-known NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. As Steven R. Ratner writes, “. . . these groups do not seek to delegitimatize capitalism or corporate economic power itself, but have criticized certain corporate behavior for impinging on clearly accepted norms of human rights law based on widely ratified treaties and customary international law.” 12 Globalization, of course, has also contributed to this shift in focus. A smaller, flatter, world means that national businesses can expand by ‘going global’ and investing in developing countries, while the internet and other forms of to-the-second communication make this feasible. At the same time, modern forms of communication have also brought world-wide public attention to the poverty and sub-standard living conditions of the majority of the people in the developing world, and subsequently, have caused many to object to corporations expanding in this manner. Yet history seems to be in favor of MNCs. The end of the Cold war marked a transition for developing countries: they could no longer depend on aid from communist or non-communist countries on 11 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 463 12 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 443- 545. 10 which they had been surviving, and thus, in today’s world, have had to become more open to private investments for survival. Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund seem to be on the side of multinational corporations by requiring such states to be more open to foreign investors. By their very nature, developing nations lack the ability to regulate these new investments, which places them in a precarious position: they do not want to discourage new business, but at the same time, they do not have the resources to ensure or monitor human rights or ethical business practices. Some states even go so far as to change their existing laws to make it easier for corporations to do business in their area, and often even refuse to acknowledge any law-breaking that goes on. In some cases, repressive governments actually depend on businesses to fund them in a variety of ways, whether it is through the actual production of materials for their repressive activities or simply by providing income so that the government can stay financially afloat. The newly found position of power in which multinationals now reside has not gone unnoticed by NGOs. Fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch added “Corporations and Human Rights” to its special issues and campaigns. Released as a part of the 1999 World Report, the introduction stated, “In 1998, the debate on the relationship between corporate conduct and human rights evolved from questioning whether corporations should respect human rights to a recognition that corporations must implement credible human rights policies and practices and ensure compliance to 11 these standards.” 13 Within that same report, a number of American-based multinational corporations were directly accused of corrupt business practices, including Exxon, which was sited for taking part in building the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline, as well as for complicity in alleged corruption, environmental harm and human rights abuses. According to the International Finance Corporation, while globalization has made business more productive, efficient and profitable, one-sixth of the world’s population still remains in deep poverty. The economic power that MNCs posses has made some see their dispersion around the world as a kind of economic imperialism. At a recent World Economic Forum meeting, protesters shared this opinion with signs that read, “Our resistance is as global as your oppression.” 14 Yet the feeling that the United States has a less than perfect human rights record when it comes to corporations abroad is not only voiced by angry activists. In 1947, the United Nations created the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). Since its creation in 1947, the United States has been a member of the UNHRC, a position in which re-election for membership comes up every three years. Yet in 2001, the US was actually voted out of their seat in one of three Western representative vacancies by the members of the Economic and Social Council. This 13 “Special Campaigns and Issues: Corporations and Human Rights.” Human Rights Watch: World Report 1999. February 21, 2007. <http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/corporations.html> 14 Lodge, George C. and Craig Wilson, “Multinational Corporations: A Key to Global Poverty Reduction.” YaleGlobal Online, January 2, 2006. Feb. 22, 2007. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6657> 12 meant, much to the disappointment, anger and embarrassment of the United States, that countries such as Cuba, Libya and Sudan were members of the commission, while the United States was not. What does this signify? Most likely, this indicates that the United States is no longer a shoe-in as a decision maker on important human rights resolutions, which in itself, says much about the way that the US and its human rights record is viewed by the UN and abroad. Anti-Americanism is not something that can be taken lightly, especially when the United States is being perceived as the leader in globalization. Although anti- globalization and anti-Americanism are fashionable, such sentiments also are serious and even dangerous. “Anti-Americanism is a growing trend that, unless checked, is certain to have wide-ranging and long-term negative effects on US business endeavors, to say nothing of the damage to our reputation as a people, our future economic competitiveness, and the threat to our national security.” 15 In recent years, activist groups have expressed themselves by using existing mass media to present a negative image of corporations via “culture jamming.” According to the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement, “Culture jamming is an intriguing form of political communication that has emerged in response to the commercial isolation of public life. Practitioners of culture jamming argue that culture, politics, and social values have been bent by saturated commercial environments, from corporate logos on sports facilities, to television content designed solely to deliver targeted audiences to producers and sponsors…Culture jamming presents a variety of interesting communication strategies that play with the branded images and icons of 15 Business for Diplomatic Action. February 20, 2007. <http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ > 13 consumer culture to make consumers aware of surrounding problems and diverse cultural experiences that warrant their attention.” 16 Activists who participate in culture jamming do so by turning the original marketing and advertising of a business into a sort of pop-art that represents what they feel is a contrast between the image that a corporation presents and the actualities of a corporation’s actions. One of the most active groups that create such publicity stunts is the Billboard Liberation Front. Founded in 1977, the BLF is “fueled by a single passion: the timely improvement of outdoor advertising. From the humble kiosk insert to the mighty freeway mega-sign, our experienced operatives possess both the technical skills and the creative vision to execute world-class media campaigns.” 17 Campaigns have included targeting such prominent businesses and brands as Banana Republic, McDonald’s, Merril Lynch, Forbes Magazine, Apple Computer, Levi’s, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, ExxonMobil, and dozens more. Largely using billboards and other forms of advertising, the BLF has ironically promoted anti-corporate messages by using the very means that corporations use to get their own messaging out to their stakeholders. Similar to this is a group called the Ad Busters, a culture jamming organization which describes itself as “a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age.” 18 Their message is clear: “Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a 16 “Culture Jamming.” Center for Communication & Civic Engagement. February 22, 2007. <http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm > 17 Billboard Liberation Front. February 20, 2007. <http://www.billboardliberation.com/aboutus.html> 18 Adbusters. February 20, 2007. <http://www.adbusters.org/home/> 14 major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century.” 19 Capitalizing on popular anti-Americanism, this group also promotes anti-corporate messaging, selling such products as a “Corporate US Flag,” that features corporate logos instead of stars, urging buyers to “declare your independence from corporate rule by unfurling this iconic symbol of Brand America.” Only two of many such culture jamming organizations, these groups represent a different kind of “watch group,” as they capitalize on popular culture, culture clash, and counter culture and use publicity- gaining public relations methods to attract members and channel messages. Unlike NGOs, such activist groups do not work to revolutionize business via official policy changes, but rather work to create and perpetuate negative images of corporations. As one member of Ad Busters writes, “Fifty years ago, a bunch of fired-up visionary writers and documentary filmmakers shocked us into realizing that our natural environment was dying, and this realization launched a wave of environmental activism that changed the world. Now the time has come for a generation of culture jammers and creatives to shock us with the realization that we are also dying mentally and culturally, and thus to launch another movement to change the world.” 20 Should multinationals be worried about the rise of NGOs and other activist groups? What about the power that such groups seem to be gaining? Common perceptions of MNCs link corporations with the other overbearing powers of the world: oppressive governments, international financial institutions, public relations and globalization. Yet groups that target multinational corporations are quite beyond the simplistic slur of merely labeling them as “evil.” By now, most people are 19 Adbusters. February 20, 2007. <http://www.adbusters.org/home/> 20 Adbusters. February 20, 2007. <http://www.adbusters.org/home/> 15 connected in some way to an MNC, whether they are the consumer, the laborer, or the employer, and perhaps this is the reason that MNCs remain such an obvious target. Clifford Bob points out, “In recent years, multinational corporations and international financial institutions have repeatedly served as stand-ins for obscure or recalcitrant local enemies. Even when a movement itself is little known, it can project an effective (if sometimes misleading) snapshot of its claims by identifying itself as the anti-McDonald’s movement, the anti-Nike movement, or the anti-Unocal movement. Blaming a villain accessible in the developed world also forges strong links between distant social movements and the ‘service station on the block,’ thus inspiring international solidarity.” 21 Today, many activist groups enlist sophisticated campaigns with the aim of affect the bottom line of a corporation. Other groups take a more practical approach, and attempt to work with corporations to bring about change and influence policy. The latter type of organization, rather than the culture jammers or the groups that employ massive public relations stunts, seems the most important group with which businesses need to interact and cooperate. According to P.J. Simmons, “NGOs affect national governments, multilateral institutions, and national and multinational corporations in four ways: setting agendas, negotiating outcomes, conferring legitimacy, and implementing solutions.” 22 Indeed, larger NGOs employ effective public relations strategies that garner visible results. Building strong relationships based on grass-roots associations, enlisting field-based experts, rallying public support and forcefully 21 Bob, Clifford “Globalization at Work: Merchants of Morality.” Foreign Policy, No. 129. (Mar. - Apr., 2002), pp. 36-45. 22 Simmons, P. J. “Learning to Live with NGOs.” Foreign Policy, No. 112. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 82- 96. 16 lobbying the government has resulted in numerous successful campaigns. NGOs that have lobbied various governments have been successful at getting governments to challenge private entities. Such successful campaigns have resulted in the European Parliament asking the European Commission to develop guidelines for companies operating around the world, the US government endorsing a voluntary code of conduct in the apparel industry (known as the Fair Labor Association Workplace Code of Conduct), the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission holding businesses accountable for actions during Apartheid and the creation of the United Nations Human Rights Commission Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which deals directly with corporations. NGOs are also often able to adapt quickly as situations changes, as well as manage within small budgets. Most importantly, nongovernmental organizations realize the power of the media. It is common today for many groups run sophisticated media training sessions such as The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization in the Hague, which puts on sessions that include role playing, mock media interviews and lectures on how to be media savvy. Other strategies include promoting specific programs, such as providing housing or clean water, as well as mobilizing the public via grassroots, low-budget campaigns, publicity stunts and high profile spokespersons. Corporations have responded to the growing influence that NGOs maintain in ways that have been less than successful. Such negative responses include denying NGO accusations, retaliating with massive public relations campaigns executed by 17 heavy hitting PR agencies, eschewing obvious ethical responsibilities or implementing half-hearted voluntary codes of conduct. One group especially critical of the public relations campaigns of multinational corporations is the Center for Media and Democracy, an American media research group which publishes a quarterly newsletter called PR Watch. The group aims to “combat manipulative and misleading PR practices” and does so by “blowing the lid off today's multi-billion dollar propaganda-for-hire industry, naming names and revealing how public relations wizards concoct and spin the news, organize phony 'grassroots' front groups, spy on citizens, and conspire with lobbyists and politicians to thwart democracy. We expose the hidden activities of secretive, little-known mega-firms such as Hill & Knowlton, Burson-Marsteller, and Ketchum PR--the ‘invisible men’ who control our political debates and public opinion, twisting reality and protecting the powerful from scrutiny.” 23 On the other end of the spectrum is the conservative think tank NGO Watch, a group which monitors NGOs, often giving a negative analysis of such groups. NGO Watch argues that nongovernmental organizations play a large role in implementing their own agendas and have gained governmental influence that goes largely unchecked. Like PR Watch and similar groups, NGO Watch calls for greater transparency and accountability, only this time, from NGOs. The group raises a number of prevalent issues about the relationship between multinationals and nongovernmental organizations: 23 “PR Watch.” Center for Media and Democracy. February 22, 2007. <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/prwatch.html>. 18 “Corporations who have resisted NGO campaigns have met with devastating consequences. Many corporations now work to pre-empt NGO activism with aggressive Corporate Social Responsibility efforts and broad engagement and support for NGOs. Do corporations see this dialogue as a necessary price to pay to protect its brand from attacks? Are there best practices in the way corporations enter into dialogue with NGOs? Are corporate-NGO relations transparent to the shareholder or of benefit to the public?” 24 In any case, the accusations and requests for change brought about by NGOs bring to light a valid question: Do multinational corporations truly have ethical responsibilities? The following case studies examine the role that business has played in two African countries where nongovernmental organizations have been actively attempting to change what they feel are gross human rights violations that must be amended. 24 “Corporate/NGO Relations.” NGO Watch. February 22, 2007. <http://www.ngowatch.org/corporate.php> 19 Business and Responsibility in the Developing World: A Look at Africa “There is a symbiotic relationship between the military dictatorship and the multinational companies who grease the palms of those who rule…they are assassins in foreign lands. They drill and they kill in Nigeria.”—from Assassins in Foreign Lands, A CorpWatch Radio Interview with Human Rights Activist Oronto Douglas 25 The Role of Business during Apartheid In 1997, the African National Congress submitted a statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission regarding the role of business during and after apartheid. It read, “The historically privileged business community, which still today owns and controls the vast bulk of the wealth of our country, needs, we believe, to acknowledge that discrimination and oppression played a pivotal role in determining current patterns of ownership and control . . . The ANC believes that the business community must acknowledge the role of past discrimination and oppression in shaping present patterns of ownership and control of the economy as well as the extreme distortion in the distribution of skills and expertise that now prevail. We believe, too, that the business community must acknowledge both its own role in creating some of these conditions and its extensive collaboration with a system involved in gross violations of human rights.” 26 In this statement, the ANC expressed what many still believe today: business was partially and intentionally responsible for the continuation of apartheid. Indeed, it seems apparent that some of the business practices enforced in the years leading up to apartheid and the early years of apartheid were directly related to the racially motivated laws that were enacted during that era. Some argue that apartheid laws 25 “Nigeria and Oil,” Global Issues. February 1, 2007. <http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp> 26 “African National Congress Submission to Special Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearing on The Role of Business.” February 21, 2007. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/misc/trcbus.html 20 benefited white-owned businesses directly and were thus supported by and controlled by the business community, especially the laws that secured cheap sources of labor from blacks. Still others argue that the apartheid was arbitrarily forced upon business and it actually ended up being detrimental. Regardless of these theories, it is obvious that apartheid had a serious and lasting impact on the way that business was conducted in South Africa, so much so that much of business today is a reaction to those very practices. As corporations continue to become a part of a global society, the question of international corporate social responsibility is becoming more of an issue. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls upon all organs of society, whether civic groups, corporations, or governments, to protect and promote human rights,” points out Susan Ariel Aaronson. “United Nations Secretary Kofi Annan has argued that corporations have a social responsibility and moral duty to use the power of markets to make globalization a positive force for all. At the February, 2002, meeting of the World Economic Forum, he argued that business leaders must take the lead in developing actions ‘that translate into concrete results for the downtrodden, exploited, and excluded.’” 27 In recent years, over 400 companies have signed the UN Global Compact, a document based on several similar rules in international law that requires corporations to make certain that they do not participate in any form of human rights abuses. Many other corporations have made 27 Aaronson, Susan Ariel. “Courting international business: what are the human rights obligations of global capitalism?” The International Economy, Spring 2003. February 22, 2007. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2633/is_2_17/ai_100545309> 21 definite efforts to prove their human rights responsibilities publicly by joining a growing list of companies that make ensuring human rights for their employees a priority of their business. They are listed on the web at www.business- humanrights.org. A direct response to the public’s interest in spreading and enforcing the idea of global human rights has been that many of the biggest and most well-known American-owned international corporations have been the focus of court cases involving their alleged human rights abuses in foreign countries. Within the past few years, companies like Exxon Mobil, Del Monte and Coca-Cola have been sued by labor groups for offences ranging from torture, using military force against workers, and even using death squads to intimidate employees. Despite the shocking nature of many of these accusations, many cases have been dismissed, as laws regarding international business practices are few and ambiguous. However, the negative publicity that such corporations have gained and continue to endure has put many of these corporations—and those not yet attacked—into crisis mode. Such cases have brought to light the need for more laws to govern whether or not corporations should uphold western laws in the foreign countries in which they operate. “Foreign investment has diplomatic as well as economic objectives. Investors bring much-needed funds and they disperse their home countries' values, norms, and priorities worldwide. In Africa and Central America in particular, multinational companies are often the largest single economic entity operating within a country. That economic clout often brings political clout, but it also brings responsibility to ensure that economic growth yields economic and social opportunities. That responsibility is especially important 22 today, when globalization is so contentious and when terrorism threatens to make many countries more insular and less tolerant.” 28 From a public relations perspective, these high-profile cases have forced companies to recognize the importance of a corporate social responsibility to the areas in which they operate, a realization that has not always existed, as was the case during apartheid. Today, corporations cannot go along with corrupt governments without paying a price. Business is inextricably linked with government and social policy. Taking a look at the corporate roots of apartheid, one can see how this is so. Even before the National Party officially began to enforce apartheid in 1948, racially discriminatory business practices were already in effect since the time of European colonization. “As whites first established diamond mines in the 1860s and gold mines in the 1880s, towns were segregated to assure maximum control of workers both in the mines and in their compounds. Industrialization began in earnest during the 1920s as large mining corporations began investing in factories that grew dependent upon cheap Black labor.” 29 It was actually the mining industry that appealed to the government to have many of the discriminatory labor laws put into place. “The importance of this system to the mining houses was explained by an official of the Chamber of Mines to the 1944 Lansdowne Commission as 28 “Perceptions and Definitions of Social Responsibility.” February 22, 2007. <http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:A0MxbWq54dsJ:inni.pacinst.org/inni/corporate_social_respon sibility/standards_definitions.pdf+business+practices+during+apartheid&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd= 16> 29 “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> 23 follows: ‘It is clearly to the advantage of the mines that native laborers should be encouraged to return to their homes after the completion of the ordinary period of service. The maintenance of the system under which the mines are able to obtain unskilled labor at a rate less than ordinarily paid in industry depends on this, for otherwise the subsidiary means of subsistence would disappear and the laborers would tend to become a permanent resident upon the Witwatersrand with increased requirements.’” 30 Apartheid regulations also played a major role in shaping industrial labor unions after World War I. While black and communist groups formed unions that were anti-apartheid in an attempt to eliminate racist policies that governed business—the leader being the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) formed in the 1950s—the government responded by forming and supporting pro- apartheid unions that promoted such workplace practices. Members of SACTU were also arrested by the government for supposed “political agitation.” This set the standard of trade unions being racially based, though the government did not actually officially recognize any black labor unions until 1979. Yet this recognition was only in response to the government’s wish to gain more control over labor, specifically black labor. Other apartheid laws were more directly related to business and promoting the control of business by the white minority. For example, Pass Laws were enforced beginning in 1948 to benefit the mining industry by ensuring them cheap sources of black labor. “S. Jennings, a President of the Chamber of Mines at the end of the last century, described the pass laws, ‘…a most excellent law... which should 30 “African National Congress Submission to Special Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearing on The Role of Business.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/misc/trcbus.html> 24 enable us to have complete control over the Kaffirs.’” 31 Yet another law was the Masters and Servants Law which made it a criminal offence for a black person to break an employee contract with a white employer, though the same did not apply if a white employer broke a work contract with a black employee. Opposition to black labor unions was made clearer with the 1953 Native Labor (Settlement of Disputes) Act by making membership to unions by a black person illegal. It was noted during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings that this law did not receive much opposition from businesses as many felt that union membership would give more power to the Africans. In other examples, the Influx Control regulations directly benefited the white agricultural industry by keeping the wages of black workers low and the Group Areas laws directly barred those few black owned businesses from setting up shop in the central business districts in order to, among other reasons, eliminate competition. These laws and other similar ones that directly discriminated against black Africans were not opposed by the business community despite their racially motivated nature. In fact, many businesses cooperated with the apartheid government and actively supported them, especially the laws that banned black labor unions and kept black wages low and thus ensured a constant and cheap source of labor. In this respect, it is obvious that apartheid practices actually benefited white 31 “African National Congress Submission to Special Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearing on The Role of Business.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/misc/trcbus.html> 25 owned businesses. One critic of apartheid and the businesses that cooperated with that government wrote in the 1980s, “US corporations continue to operate in South Africa because it is profitable. Apartheid makes it very profitable. These corporations pay millions of dollars in taxes which pay for the police, prisons, weapons, and armaments that maintain the apartheid system. They sell the government its armored personnel carriers, its computers and communications technologies. Westinghouse has sold South Africa several licenses for the manufacture of nuclear power facilities. And every US industrial facility is integrated into the civil defense plans of the South African government. That is, General Motors cooperates in working out plans for securing its plants in the case of civil unrest. This includes arranging for and paying for the police and security forces necessary. More importantly it includes turning over its facilities for military production at the direction of the South African government.” 32 Other businesses were even more closely tied; the corporations Sanlam, Rembrandt and Volkskas had close ties to the National Party, Sanlam being established by the founder of the National Party in the Cape. Because of this, many have argued that there is a relationship between capitalism and the racism that defined apartheid. During the hearings on the role of business to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Ann Bernstein, head of the Center for Development and Enterprise, remarked “…corporations are not institutions established for moral purposes. They are functional institutions created to perform an economic task (production of goods and services and so on). This is their primary purpose. They are not institutions designed to promote some or other form of morality in the world. Other institutions exist to fulfill these purposes. This does not of course absolve individuals within companies from moral choices, but that is a different matter.” 33 32 “On ‘Constructive Engagement’ in South Africa.” February 22, 2007 <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V105/N47/parson.47o.html> 33 “Human Rights and Business: The Apartheid Experience.” Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. February 22, 2007. 26 Some believe that business had no place in changing the morally corrupt apartheid government, they simply had to put up with the laws that were in place. This may be one theory of business, or even an indirect means of rationalizing apartheid. Yet in many cases, corporations in South Africa during the apartheid era went further than merely ignoring the social injustices and participating in the established laws and regulations by enforcing business practices that went beyond those laws. For example, though laws existed that ensured cheap black labor in round-about ways (like banning black labor unions and enforcing migrant labor), there were no specific apartheid laws that prohibited businesses from paying black workers more than minimum wage or even the same wages as white workers. Yet many companies did just that. Other corporations and businesses did not even hire black workers, such as General Motors, which was operating in the country for fifty years before any black or colored person was hired. 34 As such, business contributed to “the creation of the highly skewed distribution of income, wealth and opportunity that we are forced to grapple with today.” 35 In another case, Cape PLC, a British asbestos mining company in South Africa, knowingly operated mines where blacks worked with asbestos levels 20 times higher than those permitted in the United Kingdom until the latter years of the 1980s. <http://www.novartisfoundation.com/en/articles/human/symposium_human_rights/speeches/speech_k ollapen.htm> 34 “On ‘Constructive Engagement’ in South Africa.” February 22, 2007 <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V105/N47/parson.47o.html> 35 “African National Congress Submission to Special Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearing on The Role of Business.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/misc/trcbus.html> 27 There is also little indication that corporations went against apartheid principles. “‘Business carried out the economic mandate of apartheid,’ the Black Management Forum, a professional association told the Truth Commission. ‘It succeeded. The culture within business during the apartheid period was amazingly and powerfully common with respect to the ÔBantu. The story of the Baas and the Bantu reverberates with painful recurrence from corporat[ion] to corporat[ion].’” 36 Though it is true that the bottom line in business is profit, keeping black wages low was the personal choice of each business, and this action can thus be seen as direct support of apartheid theories and as an aid in the continuation of such racially discriminatory practices. In a more direct link, Armscor, which later merged with the Armaments Board, was directly responsible for supplying military equipment that was used by the apartheid government on South African citizens. Other businesses that were not directly involved in military production nevertheless purchased arms for their own use and “protection,” which usually meant using arms against black employees and citizens. As mentioned before, there were also some business leaders that openly supported and approved of the apartheid government and saw no reason for change. “Harry Oppenheimer, for example, according to his approved biographer, ‘never subscribed to the view that apartheid was morally wrong.’ In his view it was at root ‘an honest attempt to cope with overwhelming racial problems.’ In the same light his successor Gavin Relly was not in favor of one-man one- vote for South Africa because ‘that would simply be a formula for unadulterated chaos at this point in time in our history.’ Anton Rupert, the leading Afrikaner businessman agreed, ‘After many African countries 36 “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> 28 became free they got dictatorships like Amin’s. We have to find a solution that won’t end up giving us one-man one-vote.’ And so business through structures such as the South Africa Foundation (supported by Anglo American and the Rembrandt Group) actively sought to plead South Africa’s case at the international level arguing for understanding of the apartheid state, urging the international community to see the ‘other side’.” 37 Shell Oil stands as another multinational corporation with a horrendous record of crimes during apartheid. Rather than leave South Africa after protests from those around the world against apartheid, Shell formed the Coalition for Southern Africa (COSA), which was, according to SourceWatch, “a front group created by the PR firm of Pagan International to help Shell Oil counter a boycott against its business dealings in apartheid South Africa in 1987.” According to the PR watch group, “Pagan International developed a plan, code-named the ‘Neptune Strategy,’ which became an embarrassment to Shell when a copy was leaked to the press in 1987. Instead of divesting its South African holdings, the Neptune Strategy advised Shell to ‘develop a task force’ of South Africans, church leaders, US activists and executives to issue a statement about the company’s role in helping South Africa prepare for life after apartheid and to develop ‘post-apartheid plans’ that ‘will ensure the continuation and growth of the Shell companies in the United States and South Africa.’” 38 Though COSA was supposed to consist of members of the black clergy and business community in the United States, with the purpose of developing educational and vocational training programs, as well as business ties to black American business 37 “Human Rights and Business: The Apartheid Experience.” Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. February 22, 2007. <http://www.novartisfoundation.com/en/articles/human/symposium_human_rights/speeches/speech_k ollapen.htm> 38 “The Coalition for South Africa.” Source Watch: A Project of the Center for Media and Democracy. February 22, 2007. <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coalition_for_Southern_Africa> 29 owners, a leader of the 1987 Shell boycott, Donna Katzin, claimed that the group was actually formed in order to “divide and weaken the position of the religious community with regard to South Africa” by recruiting and promoting members of the black religious community that were against Shell divestment. Still other white-owned businesses in South Africa benefited from apartheid in an indirect way when other corporations gave in to public and personal protests against the apartheid government by leaving the country. From the 1960s to the 1980s, many multinational corporations decided to close their South African branches and sell them at an extremely low price to South African subsidiaries. Afrikaners even had their own version of affirmative action that made it so Afrikaners advanced to better positions over other English-speaking whites, thus ensuring that “Afrikaner-based conglomerates were the most direct beneficiaries of the apartheid state.” 39 The actions of corporations and multinational corporations during the Apartheid years in South Africa did not go unchecked on the world stage. During the very public Truth and Reconciliation Commission, businesses were called upon to explain their role during apartheid. Some maintained the fact that they were powerless to act against the regime because of the very nature of business. “‘The positive response by the business community to the relative political stability of the 1960s should not be viewed as support for the apartheid system,’ stated the South African Chamber of Business’s Raymond Parsons, ‘but rather as evidence that 39 “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> 30 business is generally risk-averse, and that a stable and effective political system are prerequisites for business and investor confidence.’” 40 Though one can ponder over how Parsons can refer to the apartheid system “stable” when so much of the world boycotted South African products during apartheid, other corporations were slightly more apologetic about what they did or failed to do, apologizing for passively and apathetically going along with the system and not publicly speaking out against apartheid. Most affirmed that they had not supported apartheid for at least the last couple of decades if not longer. Others maintained that apartheid was actually detrimental to business. They pointed to raised costs, an uneducated and unskilled workforce and other results of apartheid that negatively affected them. “Restrictions on Black residency in, and right to travel to, urban areas, aspects of petty apartheid (including separate office amenities) that had become symbols of racism, prohibitions on Black home ownership and access to mortgage credit, the illegal status of African entrepreneurs in townships and most other areas, inadequate African basic education and vocational training and other policies made the Black workforce less productive and more expensive, and burdened the national economy.” 41 Critics, however, point out that this still was not enough to make them fight against the apartheid system. Those who apologized at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, critics believe, merely acquiesced to such professions and apologies only outwardly and superficially. In the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “‘It would be wonderful to have someone here saying, ‘We did this and we did that, and 40 “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> 41 “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> 31 we want to rub some oil on the wounds, here is $2 million for the President’s Fund.’” 42 Despite the seemingly endless ramifications that apartheid had on business, some believe that the immoral business practices carried out during that time period and the global protest they caused had little effect on profits. “While relative success was achieved at the sporting, cultural level and political level, things were considerably different at the economic level. The 1960s and 1970s were phenomenal growth years for South Africa and investors. Between 1960 and 1974 the average rate of return for US investors ranged between 16.3 and 20.6 percent while elsewhere in the world US investments returned between 10 and 11.4 percent . . . Return on investment and appeasing shareholders carried the day and notwithstanding extensive publicity about the horrors and inequities of apartheid no great inroads were made in convincing business about the turpitude of doing business with apartheid South Africa.” 43 Countries that economically supported South Africa through exports and imports during apartheid were Britain, the United States and Japan, who were collectively responsible for fifty percent of South African exports, while West Germany, Belgium, France and Italy were responsible for twenty five percent. These percentages increased from the 1960s to the 1980s. One argument for continuing to do business in South Africa was that it was still a developing country, and that complete withdrawal from it would only further it from joining other developed nations. This is a theory that still exists today in regards to the question of whether 42 “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> 43 “Human Rights and Business: The Apartheid Experience.” Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. February 22, 2007. <http://www.novartisfoundation.com/en/articles/human/symposium_human_rights/speeches/speech_k ollapen.htm> 32 or not MNCs should continue to operate in countries with lower human rights standards than the West. In some cases, it seems that multinational corporations actually benefit the developing country in which they operate. “Companies invest overseas in the hopes of increasing their return (accounting for risks and the costs of transfer), improving their productivity, or gaining access to new markets or technology. There is no evidence that firms deliberately seek locations with inhumane governance to lower their costs. Moreover, a growing number of fares understand that their future growth will occur in the developing world, given the aging of populations in Europe, Japan, and North America. They recognize that creating conditions conducive to social and environmental progress will help them gain greater market access and stability.” 44 Others argue that closing the South African branches of multinational corporations or divesting from South African companies did not produce the desired effect of negatively affecting business. According to former Boston University Chancellor Emeritus John Silber, “…when the students were protesting the South African situation, I met with them, and they said BU must divest in General Motors and IBM. And I said, ‘Why should we do that? Is it immoral to own that stock?’ Absolutely immoral to own it. And I said, ‘So then, we're supposed to sell it to somebody? We can't divest unless we sell it to somebody. And if we burn the stock, that just helps General Motors, because it reduces the amount of stock outstanding, so that can’t be right. If we sell it to somebody, we have just gotten rid of our guilt in order to impose guilt on somebody else…once a stock issue has been made, the corporation doesn't care whether you sell it, burn it, or anything else, because they've already got all the money they're ever going to get from that stock. So they don't care.’” 45 44 Aaronson, Susan Ariel. “Courting international business: what are the human rights obligations of global capitalism?” The International Economy, Spring 2003. February 22, 2007. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2633/is_2_17/ai_100545309> 45 Sedgwick, John. “The Lion in Winter.” Boston Magazine. (Nov. 2005). February 22, 2007. <http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/the_lion_in_winter_2 > 33 Indeed, as mentioned before, when western owned corporations closed their South African offices, they often sold them to deeply discounted prices that actually ended up benefiting white business owners and the apartheid system. Looking at the relationship between business and apartheid from a different point of view, it can also be argued that different business practices, that is, anti- apartheid business practices, would not have made for a swifter end of the system. “Apartheid as such was instituted in South Africa after World War II and was modeled on the US Jim Crow system. When Jim Crow was the legal system here, US corporations were as discriminatory as ever and paid poverty wages to those blacks which they did hire. Jim Crow, as a legally sanctioned system of segregation, was later abolished in the United States, not as a result of US corporations setting a good example, but as a result of popular movements.” 46 In theory it seems that organizations that offered better wages to black workers would probably have gone out of business if all their competitors were able to produce the same product at a lower price by relying on lower waged black labor. Even if such a fictitious company had launched a massive public relations campaign to promote the fact that it was offering higher wages for Africans, it is possible that their product would still not have sold as much as the competitor, and thus would have forced them out of business. Finally, even when laws are in place to protect employees against discrimination, they are not always obeyed by employers: “Defacto segregation and discrimination have persisted in US corporations in the United States even after they 46 “On ‘Constructive Engagement’ in South Africa.” February 22, 2007 <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V105/N47/parson.47o.html> 34 had been outlawed. Numerous court battles and labor strikes and negotiations have been fought to challenge these US company practices.” 47 A. F. M. Maniruzzaman, Professor of International Law and International Business Law at the University of Portsmouth, UK, likewise argues that corporate social responsibility cannot exist without the government to support it and enforce it. “It is not only corporate accountability for human rights but also corporate partnership with the host state in the protection of human rights that is the pressing need of our time . . . Although over the past ten years or so, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has blossomed as an idea at the persistent persuasion of the global civil society and has moved up to the corporate agenda, it has not effectively addressed the issue so far. Due to the lack of a solid legal framework in this respect, CSR merely operates as a glossy public relations agenda and a tool for manipulation of corporate image.” 48 The failed “Neptune Strategy” of Shell Oil seems to fit this example of manipulation and dishonesty. Despite the aforementioned examples which support the theory that business was not negatively affected by apartheid, in several cases, it is apparent that those who cooperated and benefited from segregationist and discriminatory practices remain haunted by their past, and those who made some effort to fight against apartheid are remembered for their actions. For example, though General Motors was criticized for its racially motivated hiring practices in the early years of apartheid, GM later became known for the Sullivan Principles. Created by a black 47 “On ‘Constructive Engagement’ in South Africa.” February 22, 2007 <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V105/N47/parson.47o.html> 48 Maniruzzaman, A F M. “Global Business and Human Rights.” (April 5, 2006). February 22, 2007. <http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Maniruzzaman-Global-Business-and-Human-Rights-5-April- 2006.doc> 35 man who worked at an American GM factory, the Sullivan Principles lobbied South African corporations to participate in non-segregationist work practices, equal employment opportunities, increase black management at their facilities, and generally improve the lives of their workers outside the workplace. South African corporations were asked to sign a set of six principles that would hold them responsible for adhering to equal workplace opportunities and better human rights practices. Though they had the best of intentions, the Sullivan Principles failed in that less than half of the American owned companies in South Africa signed the principles, and half of those who signed failed to meet the criteria or never followed through with reviews. Despite this, the ANC still recognizes that GM had attempted to fight against apartheid, which has been quite beneficial for the corporation. According to ANC Today: The Online Voice of the African National Congress, “The decisions taken by Barclays Bank and General Motors constitute an inspiring and unequivocal vote of confidence in democratic South Africa. This is particularly significant given that both these major corporations had, during the years of extreme apartheid repression, disinvested from our country . . . they deliberately chose to contribute to the defeat of the apartheid system by imposing economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Those among our people and movement who were engaged in struggle . . . will not have forgotten the impetus their actions gave to the global effort to end a crime against humanity. Today, these patriots and the rest of our people have a task to form a new partnership with these and other corporations, and with the peoples of the world at whose behest they acted, to respond to the new task to give birth to a new and humane South African and African society.” 49 On the same note, those corporations that did not make the effort to fight the corrupt South African government are still remembered today as heartless and 49 “ANC Today: Online voice of the African National Congress.” Volume 5, No. 19 (May 13-15, 2005). February 22, 2007. <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2005/at19.htm> 36 corrupt profiteers. Oil companies have been named as apartheid conspirators; IBM and ICL have also been named because they provided the computer programs that created the government issued passbooks. Though the former president of Boston University pointed out the flaws in divestment, it is impossible to ignore the worldwide publicity and negative image that it brought upon those corporations involved. At universities across America during those years, students were advised not to do business in any way with South Africa. One student advised, “No student should buy anything from, or sell anything to, or do any business with an individual or corporation that does not impose first level sanctions on South Africa. This, by itself, would not be effective, unless a statement is made to the company or individual upon which the student imposes sanctions. It is not enough to refuse to buy Coca-Cola products. One must send a letter to the Coca-Cola Co. every time one does not drink Coke because they do business in South Africa. One should not work for any of the companies that do business with South Africa either. Again, this by itself would not be effective. So one should interview with these companies anyway, and if offered a position then refuse to accept it, telling the company that one is not accepting the position because of the company's ties in South Africa. One should not drink Coke or Pepsi, or buy personal computers from IBM or Hewlett-Packard, or cars from Ford or General Motors, or purchase gas from Exxon, Shell, Chevron, or Texaco. One should refuse to buy textbooks published by John Wiley & Sons, or buy anything at Sears. One should give up one's American Express or Citibank Visa/Mastercard credit cards. If sick, one should not use medicines produced by Shering-Plough or Pfizer. As I said, each time any of these decisions is made, one should write a letter to the company explaining that one is refusing to buy its products because of the company's doing business in South Africa.” 50 Because of the university student orientation of divestment, the campaign was also incredibly effective in spreading the word and it gained increased public recognition and momentum. Universities across America divested from South 50 “Non-violent methods best way to end Apartheid.” February 22, 2007. <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V110/N19/cano.19o.html> 37 Africa and led the way for businesses and citizens to do the same. In 1986, the University of California divested $3 billion in stock holdings and was formally recognized by Nelson Mandela as helping to end apartheid. “The divestment campaign sent a strong message to the Apartheid regime, telling them that they had lost financial institutional support, along with the political and moral support of the international community. Between 1977 and October 1985, 55 universities and colleges across the US had partially or fully divested from South Africa. Thirty of those divested between April and October of 1985 due to protest actions.” 51 The university protests also helped cause the American government to take action. This was a switch from earlier years, when the American political objective was to promote capitalism over Soviet communism in South Africa, and thus, in some ways, support the apartheid government. Though the United States remained one of South Africa’s number one trading partners throughout apartheid, they forced an arms embargo in 1964, refused to recognized several black homelands that gained “independence” in the 70s and 80s and supported the International Monetary Fund’s 1983 Gramm Amendment that refused support to any governments that enforced apartheid. In 1985, the Export Administration Amendment Act imposed an embargo on US exports to South African military and police. By the 1980s, South African businesses faced international pressure. “Foreign banks calling in loans and refusing access to credit facilities, the boycott campaigns and international solidarity all contributed to the vulnerability of Pretoria. At the same time South African 51 “Frequently Asked Questions about the UC Divestment Campaign.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.ucdivest.org/trifold.doc> 38 businessmen became more critical. They met with the ANC in exile, with leaders of industry in Western Europe and began to openly declare that apartheid was ‘totally contrary to the ideal of free enterprise.;” 52 In 1986, the US imposed further economic sanctions against South Africa with the United States Comprehensive Anti-apartheid Act (CAAA), though some argued that this would be disadvantageous to the very people they were trying to help. The CAAA, “. . . established an elaborate sanctions structure prohibiting future investments, bank loans, and some forms of trade with South Africa. More than 200 of the 280 United States companies in South Africa sold all, or part of, their operations there, and many of those remaining adhered to business principles intended to ameliorate the effects of apartheid. The CAAA called on the United States president to report to Congress each year on the state of apartheid in South Africa, in order to assess the need for further legislation. In 1987 the Intelligence Authorization Act prohibited intelligence sharing between the two countries. By 1990, twenty-seven state governments, ninety cities, and twenty-four counties had also imposed sanctions against South Africa or divestment measures on their own citizens' South African holdings.” 53 Finally, the US also supported Namibian independence from South Africa which directly led to its independence in 1990. Today, multinational corporations are still being held accountable for their actions during apartheid. Under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) in the United States, and similar laws in other countries, class actions suits for crimes against humanity have been lodged against companies like Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, 52 “Human Rights and Business: The Apartheid Experience.” Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. February 22, 2007. <http://www.novartisfoundation.com/en/articles/human/symposium_human_rights/speeches/speech_k ollapen.htm> 53 “South Africa: Relations with Non-African States.” February 22, 2007. <http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/south-africa/south-africa124.html> 39 Exxon Mobil, Caltex Petroleum, Fluor Corporation, Ford, General Motors, Hewlett Packard and IBM in the United States; German-based Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, DaimlerChrysler, and Rheinmetall; Credit Suisse and UBS in Switzerland; Barclays Bank, British Petroleum and Fujitsu ICL in Britain; Total- Fina-Elf from France and Royal Dutch Shell from the Netherlands. 54 The non-profit organizations Jubilee South Africa’s Apartheid Debt and Reparations Campaign and Khulumani Support Group have been the main groups behind the lawsuits; others involved include Ed Fagen, a lawyer who is best known for his work against banks and corporations that profited from stolen property during the Holocaust. “Ntombi Mosikare, who works for the Khulumani Support Group, a South African organization that is a lead plaintiff and represents apartheid victims, said, ‘Those that helped the apartheid government do its dirty work should be made to pay.’” 55 The message to multinational corporations has been loud and clear. Though some still argue that such lawsuits will have the opposite effect and actually be detrimental to those developing countries by making corporations fear doing business in those areas, the outcome of the lawsuits will serve as an example of how corporations will or will not be held accountable for their actions in foreign countries. “Calling companies to court to account for their human rights performance can have a positive effect for the global economy. These cases have brought much-needed attention to the human rights responsibilities of global business. 54 “Western firms to be sued for ‘aiding’ Apartheid.” Foreign Direct Investment Magazine. (December 2002.) February 22, 2007. <http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/197/Western_firms_to_be_sued_for_%91aidin g%92_apartheid.html> 55 Friedman, John S., “Paying for Apartheid.” The Nation. (June 2, 2003) February 22, 2007. <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/friedman> 40 But they are not an effective means of improving human rights performance in the developing world. Moreover, corporations can be important allies in improving the rule of law in the developing world. But the fear of litigation may make alliances between the business world and human rights groups more difficult.” 56 Nevertheless, these cases have brought corporate social responsibility to top- of-mind awareness in the minds of corporate leaders, and made those who have a dirty record of apartheid activities fear seemingly inevitable exposure. “Nothing rankles corporations, especially American corporations, more than the threat of large tort cases. Many executives claim that engagement with oppressive governments is the most effective way to improve social and environmental conditions in those countries.” 57 The views expressed by Ann Bernstein—that business exists outside the social and moral sphere—simply do not exist realistically. According to Susan Ariel Aaronson, “While it is not being suggested that business become the leaders in human rights discourse, the growing sense is that business must and can embrace the ethos underpinning the human rights debate and be able to make a contribution to advancing the human rights agenda without losing sight of the rationale and the core objective of business.” In South Africa today, businesses revolve around the ever present ghost of apartheid, going so far as to enforce a system of affirmative action that unfortunately borders on reverse discrimination. The ideas behind such practices, however, are based on enforcing human rights for all, especially within the 56 Aaronson, Susan Ariel. “Courting international business: what are the human rights obligations of global capitalism?” The International Economy, Spring 2003. February 22, 2007. 57 Aaronson, Susan Ariel. “Courting international business: what are the human rights obligations of global capitalism?” The International Economy, Spring 2003. February 22, 2007. 41 business world. Corporate social responsibility is a number one priority, so much so that he first black South African Anglican Bishop of Pretoria, Bishop Jo Seoka, created an organization called the Bench Marks Foundation for Corporate Social Responsibility. Launched in 2001 by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “The Bench Marks Foundation is committed to providing leadership and advocacy on ethical and social issues related to the performance of corporations in South Africa.” 58 Labor unions for all are whole-heartedly promoted and supported by the ANC. And those corporations that supported apartheid are slowly being held accountable, while those who fought it are being recognized. The argument that business was powerless to affect change during apartheid is obviously flawed. Perhaps if the same awareness of corporate social responsibility that exists within the business world today had existed during the early apartheid years, the end of apartheid would have come sooner. Has anything changed since apartheid South Africa? A look at modern issues in Africa and the corporations alleged to be aiding or abetting will examine if business practices have changed and if so, how they have done so. 58 “Interfaith Council on Corporate Responsibility.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.iccr.org/publications/examiner_pastarticles/examiner_sa.php> 42 Blood Diamonds in Sierra Leone Until recently, the plight of Sierra Leone was not on the average person’s radar. An impoverished country with a population of about 5.3 million and a life expectancy average of between 39 and 42 years, Sierra Leone lies at the bottom of the 177 countries on the UN Human Development Index, meaning that on a scale that measures standard of living, education, literacy, life expectancy, child welfare and general well-being, Sierra Leone ranks the lowest. Most citizens lack electricity and indoor plumbing. Though the gruesome civil war that engulfed the country for more than a decade ended in 2002, it left 50,000 dead and many of the survivors with missing limbs, a tell-tale sign that they had encountered rebels whose trademark was to cut off the hands or legs of those who stood in their way. Yet, the Republic of Sierra Leone, a West African country bordering Guinea and Liberia, has made countless headlines recently due to Hollywood’s recent interest in publicizing the concept of “blood diamonds,” or “conflict diamonds,” which are diamonds that have been used by rebels to financially support civil war or armed conflict. What keeps this country precariously afloat yet also contributes to its history of violence and seemingly endless cycle of poverty are the diamonds that often end up as the adornments on the unsuspecting Western citizen. A look deeper into the diamond industry in Sierra Leone shows that conflict diamonds have ended up in international markets. So what part does American business play in this affair? The most consistently high quality diamonds are found in Sierra Leone, with an average carat value higher than those found any where else on the globe. 43 According to the Diamond Industry Annual Review on Sierra Leone, published in 2005 by the Canadian-based Diamonds and Human Security Project, the country produced 75,000 to 1 million carats of diamonds in 2006. Thus, as one of the poorest countries in the world, Sierra Leone paradoxically exports $180 million worth of diamonds each year. This figure would be far higher if there was not a smuggling problem; it is estimated that fifty per cent of diamonds are actually smuggled out or smuggled in from Liberia or other countries. Allegedly, the diamond market is regulated and controlled in an open, governmentally managed market. Mining sites are supposedly regulated, with the size of the site and number of miners supervised by the government, which requires licenses, inspections and other forms of regulation. Yet, according to official NGO reports, this is not entirely the case. “…large parts of the industry are informal and are, for all practical purposes, monopolized by a relatively small group of people who dictate the price of rough diamonds, reap most of the economic rewards and exploit those in the production chain below them. The reasons can be found in the lack of market knowledge among diggers and miners, limited access to capital, corruption and the ineffective application of corrective policies.” 59 At the end of the civil war, Sierra Leone held a Truth and Reconciliation Commission modeled after South Africa’s own TRC. The final 2004 report centered largely on the role the diamond industry played during the war, concluding that “The exploitation of the diamonds was not the cause of the conflict in Sierra Leone, rather 59 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 4. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > 44 it was an element that fuelled the conflict.” 60 Indeed, although many misinterpret this finding to state that diamonds were the cause of the conflict, most experts— including the UN Security Council, the United States government and countless NGOs—agree that diamonds were the financial fuel to the Revolutionary United Front’s (RUF) war effort. “…the financial role that diamonds came to play, and the fact that RUF’s chief foreign backers, who were crucial to the existence and continuing effectiveness of the RUF, were motivated by a lust for power, and by a need for the cash that diamonds could provide…For the RUF, diamonds became a convenient resource, and in the end became a principal motivator for many of their fighters, leaders and their primary foreign backer, Liberian President Charles Taylor.” 61 Ironically, the Sierra Leone government also used diamond generated income to fuel its war effort as well and also to run the government at that time. Undeniably, the country depends on the diamond industry to survive. The majority of the country’s citizens work in the diamond sector -- unless they are sustenance farmers -- and the country’s foreign exchange is based on diamonds. Though the civil war conflict is over and the term ‘blood diamond’ may no longer be applicable, ‘poverty diamond’ certainly seems to be the new type of mineral that is being mined. Most miners are “artisanal,” meaning they are unskilled laborers who use hand-held tools such as shovels and sieves. They have no formal contracts and no workers rights. Between 120,000 and 150,000 diamond miners fall into this 60 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 9. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > 61 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 9. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > 45 category. Working six days a week from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, they are given one 30- minute lunch break which sometimes includes a cup or two of rice. A 2003 study on three plots and 89 diggers by the Peace Diamond Alliance (PDA) found that the average miner made between $1.24 and $1.26 per day, far less than the minimum wage of Sierra Leone, which stands at $40 a day. Yet in some cases, there is no set method of payment. Instead, one’s everyday survival depends on a gamble: “The Sierra Leone diamond economy can be thought of as a ‘casino economy’ for many of the people who work in it. This is particularly true for diggers and license holders. Most are gambling to find a large diamond…both diggers and license holders refer to the money they earn as ‘winnings’ rather than salaries or profits, and the diggers appear to prefer a system of payment in which they receive little or no wages, but share in the value of the diamonds they mine.” 62 Other systems of payment are equally or more risky. The ‘Casino System’ pays between US 39-59 cents, as well as two cups of rice at lunch time, and a 30 per cent share of the value of whatever is earned in their specific plot, though often the gang leader may randomly choose which workers get a slice of the 30 per cent share. The ‘Pay Per Win System’ involves negotiating a price for a found diamond, which is often difficult since few know how to value the stones or even a legitimate market price. (Indeed, when one worker was asked his knowledge of the stones he sought so desperately, he replied, “I only know they are valuable.” 63 ) Those who are part of the ‘Daily Wage’ system earn around $2 per day, plus lunchtime rice, and receive no commission on what they find. Finally, the ‘Pile System,’ also a bit of a gamble, 62 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 5. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > 63 Walt, Vivienne. “Diamonds aren’t forever.” Fortune. (Dec. 7, 2006). February 20, 2007. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/11/8395442/index.htm > 46 includes piles of dirt and possible diamond containing gravel being split up into piles, with any diamonds found in each pile belonging to the person who found them. Sometimes a combination of methods is used. In any case, a miner’s life is difficult, dangerous, and exploitative. Women and children also work in mines; mines that are less accessible for monitoring by the Mines Monitoring Officers (MMOs) are more likely to employ children, with children as young as six working in the mines. An estimated 10,000 children work in the Sierra Leone diamond mines as artisanal miners; though the NGO World Vision brought this to light in 2002, there appear to be no efforts to change this. “These are children who are being used by their parents, other relatives and greedy crew bosses purely for their own selfish gains. They are clearly not in the mines of their own volition…This is clearly an act of child abuse bordering on exploitation.” 64 Nevertheless, despite the perils and poverty associated with diamonds, there are few employment alternatives, and, even if there were, few would take them, as diamonds still lure many in with the possibility of unimaginable wealth. A recent Fortune Magazine interview with Sahr Amara, an 18-year-old miner in Sierra Leone, expressed the mindset of most miners: “If I find a big diamond, I can afford to go to school, I can learn, and then I can help my family and even my village…It’s not easy…I think it depends on God.” 65 Labor laws aside, diamond mining also generates an overabundance of environmental problems. There have been no environmental reclamation efforts for 64 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 8. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > 65 Walt, Vivienne. “Diamonds aren’t forever.” Fortune. (Dec. 7, 2006). February 20, 2007. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/11/8395442/index.htm > 47 any of the 80,000 to 120,000 hectares of land that have been mined during the past several decades, and any attempt to do so has been met with near violence. The effects of mining have caused substantial rainforest deforestation, the migration of animals that were once abundant, such as leopards, lions, and elephants, as well as the disappearance of fish from the rivers where pollutants and explosives are used in mining activities. Some species have even become extinct. At the same time, other areas that were once suited for farming have become useless, with no efforts in sight to re-establish them, while areas of water, such as wells and bore holes, have become full of toxic pollutants. Environmental laws have been passed and subsequently ignored. So who benefits from this situation? In the 2003 Annual Report by the Government Gold and Diamond Office (GDD), five of the forty-three licensed exporters were labeled as foreign nationals, with these five foreign nationals accounting for 74 per cent of all official diamond exports, valued at $56.2 million. According to a 2006 report issued by NGOs Amnesty International and Global Witness, the United States accounts for more than half of global diamond jewelry sales, and is the largest consumer market for diamond jewelry, with retail sales of $33.7 billion in 2005. That same year, $900 million worth of rough diamonds were imported from places such as South Africa, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Guinea and Namibia, while $15 billion worth of cut and polished diamonds were imported from countries such as Israel, India and Belgium. 48 The United States is one of 45 countries that have adopted the Kimberley Process, a way of mining diamonds that mandates that all rough diamonds entering or leaving a country do so via a sealed container, along with a certificate of origin. The Clean Diamond Trade Act, implemented by US Customs and Protection, is meant to ensure that no conflict diamonds enter the United States market. Yet according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), conflict diamonds are still entering the US due to poor research, lack of regular inspections and little or no regulation of the Kimberley Process Authority, a group that issues rough diamond certificates and is managed by US diamond trade groups. The diamond industry’s response to the growing concern over conflict diamonds is, at best, a weak and superficial attempt with no substance behind it. While groups such as The World Diamond Council, Jewelers of America, the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, and the New York Diamond Dealers Club have claimed to allegedly begun monitoring the industry by imposing self-regulation and educating the public, beyond a few narrowly distributed pamphlets, few substantial efforts have been made. According to a secret investigation by Global Witness in 2004, most retail diamond stores in the United States have no policy or self-regulation in place regarding conflict diamonds. As it stands, the United States is in its usual leadership position within the industry, yet appears to be going through the motions rather than truly implementing ethical business reforms. This, of course, has been met with heavy criticism: “Instead of focusing on solving the problem, the diamond industry has launched an 49 aggressive public relations campaign vastly overstating the progress made and falsely claiming that conflict diamonds are not a significant problem.” 66 This is a problem that the industry cannot ignore for much longer. According to Alex Yearsley of Global Witness, “Despite the tragedies that blood diamonds have caused, neither governments nor the diamond industry is doing enough to stop them. Consumers have the power to effect industry-wide changes simply by demanding that their diamonds are clean.” 67 Indeed, NGOs such as Amnesty International and Global Witness are hastening consumer reaction to the unethical business practices that abound within the diamond industry. For example, on Valentines Day of 2006, both groups launched a joint public relations campaign that included distributing a consumer’s guide on conflict diamonds in order to educate shoppers on the questions they should ask when buying jewelry so as to ensure that they are not buying conflict diamonds. Questions on the materials included, “Can I see a copy of your company’s policy on conflict diamonds? Can you show me a written guarantee from your diamond suppliers that states your diamonds are conflict free?” 68 Informing consumers that their diamonds may not represent the same happiness for others as it does for them surely deters many from buying the gems. According to Amnesty International UK Diamonds Campaigner Nick Dearden, “People buying gifts for 66 “The US Diamond Sector.” February 20, 2007. <http://s3.amazonaws.com/3b59dcdf1c4552f8d85a16a4808a3b38-default/TheUSDiamondSector.pdf> 67 “UK: Blood Diamonds - New call on industry to clean up diamond trade.” Amnesty International United Kingdom. February 20, 2007. <http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17234> 68 “UK: Blood Diamonds - New call on industry to clean up diamond trade.” Amnesty International United Kingdom. February 20, 2007. <http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17234> 50 their loved ones do not want them associated with the suffering of others. It will be consumer demand again that forces the industry to clean up.” 69 With the publicity of the Leonardo DiCaprio film “Blood Diamond,” the diamond industry has been met with even more criticism. The film, which takes place during the Sierra Leone civil war and includes the realities of diamond smuggling and forced labor by rebel groups, was highly publicized by Warner Bros. during the months before it premiered. During the war years, as much as 15% of diamonds were controlled by rebel forces, and though the civil war is now over, with fewer than 0.2% of diamonds that enter the international market today known to be conflict diamonds, few consumers know the difference. “Many in the industry fear that as the end credits roll, moviegoers might glance down at their diamond rings and wonder under what circumstances the gems were dug. Unlike oil prospecting or coal mining—essentials for modern life—those questions could roil an industry whose lifeblood is ephemeral.” 70 The image of the diamond industry is thus essential to its survival. In response to this negative image perpetrated by both the movie, media coverage of the war and NGO reports on the diamond trade, the World Diamond Council launched a $16 million public relations campaign in an attempt to counter the negative images of the diamond industry. This attempt failed by most accounts. Almost half a year in advance to “Blood Diamond” entering theaters, full-page ads 69 “UK: Blood Diamonds - New call on industry to clean up diamond trade.” Amnesty International United Kingdom. February 20, 2007. <http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17234> 70 Walt, Vivienne. “Diamonds aren’t forever.” Fortune. (Dec. 7, 2006). February 20, 2007. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/11/8395442/index.htm > 51 were taken out in major newspapers around the world attesting to the authenticity of diamonds that enter western countries. The council also created websites, such as diamondfacts.org, that detailed the Kimberley Process, as well as other positive highlights about the diamond industry; they also distributed informational packets to diamond retailers. The power of celebrity was also brought forth as a PR tool. The Diamond Information center, a US public relations branch of the Diamond Trading Company, hired hip-hop producer Russell Simmons to tour Botswana and South Africa and serve as a spokesperson to defend the diamond trade. But similar to the other public relations efforts aimed at countering the film in the months leading up to its release, the Simmons tour was deemed as an over-the-top, PR stunt that symbolized a fearful, guilty industry. The fact that so much money was spent on this campaign made many question why the industry would go to such great lengths if it truly was as clean, regulated and ethical as it claimed. The Daily Mail went so far as to label Simons as a “public relations puppet,” which induced the rapper to respond with an open letter in The New York Post defending his actions, as well as claiming that the diamond industry was a positive force in Africa. 71 Attempting to cover up the scheme, the Diamond Information Center responded to this subsequent PR nightmare by claiming that Simmon’s trip was not meant to coincide with the public relations campaign against “Blood Diamond,” and that the trip was private and separate from the entire campaign. 71 Aspan, Maria. “A Hip-Hop Mogul is the Diamond’s New Best Friend.” The New York Times. December 18, 2006. 52 Other members of the diamond industry have taken a different and far more successful approach to dealing with the reality of conflict diamonds and the negative image that they generate. The most obvious step toward eliminating conflict diamonds was when the diamond industry joined with the United Nations to create the Kimberley Process, which forces internal industry monitoring and trading only within member countries. But what about the issue of poverty diamonds? How can billions of dollars worth of diamonds come out of Sierra Leone and other diamond- mining West African countries, yet the majority of the people who live in such countries have no electricity or running water? Some within the diamond industry have chosen a forward thinking exercise in corporate responsibility in an attempt to tackle the crippling poverty associated with diamond mining countries. Similar to what Starbucks started with working within a Fair Trade association, the Rapaport Group believes that consumers will pay extra to know that their diamonds are mined in areas where human rights standards are in place, including decent wages and safe working conditions. “Our idea...is that Tiffany is going to wake up one morning and see that Cartier is selling fair-trade jewelry and say, ‘Oh, my God, we need to do that.’ They will change, not from an ethical point of view, but from greed.” 72 Similarly, De Beers recently cooperated with two NGOs to found the Diamond Development Initiative, which provides miners with financial lessons, trains them on safety issues and also teaches sustainable farming methods as an alternative to working in the mines. 72 Walt, Vivienne. “Diamonds aren’t forever.” Fortune. (Dec. 7, 2006). February 20, 2007. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/11/8395442/index.htm > 53 In any case, the fate of Sierra Leone and other diamond producing countries is in the hands of the United States and other foreign investors. In an interview for the 2005 Annual Review…President Kabah remarked, “‘A primary focus…is to attract bigger mining companies, which means foreign investment.’” 73 Without the cooperation of multinational corporations with governmental forces, both national and international and NGOs and watch groups, as well as the decision of diamond industry leaders to make socially responsible decisions, none will benefit. “Clearly, Sierra Leone requires the investment that such companies can bring in order to develop the diamond deposits buried deep in kimberlite pipes. A transparent and constructive engagement on all sides will go a long way to ensuring that Sierra Leone’s diamonds are properly developed…All those who mine, and who benefit from mining, have a legal as well as an ethical responsibility to restore the land to its original use.” 74 As for now, many diamonds are still lack certification and enter the US market, and public relations efforts to counter any negative images of the industry have only served to enhance it; meanwhile, the miners of Sierra Leone remain poverty stricken, and the western consumer remains wary. 73 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 1. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > . 74 “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 9. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > 54 Why Corporate Responsibility? “In investment, America must be presented as the facilitator, not the patron. In the realm of charity, as the partner and not the philanthropist. In business endeavors, as the courier of progress, and not the preachers of westernization.” – Karim Nour, DDB Cairo 75 By examining the role that business has played in Africa, whether it is in Apartheid era South Africa or diamond-riddled Sierra Leone, it is obvious that multinational corporations play some sort of role in the countries in which they reside. Yet what role is it? Do corporations have an obligation or responsibility to the community in which they invest? If so, where do we draw the line? And where does active corporate social responsibility come into play? The case for or against multinational corporations implementing corporate social responsibility, and whether such implementation is necessary or beneficial, is met with passionate arguments from both sides. There are trends within the international business community that give support to the growing idea that businesses should play a larger role in combating human rights abuses, contributing to communities and implementing corporate social responsibility mainly for the reason of combating negative perceptions. One such group is Business for Diplomatic Action, an organization which describes itself as a “private-sector task force,” whose mission is to “enlist the US business community in actions to improve the standing of America in the world with the goal of once again, seeing America 75 “Business for Social Responsibility.” February 17, 2007. <http://www.bsr.org/> 55 admired as a global leader and respected as a courier of progress and prosperity for all people.” 76 Launched in November 2006, the group works with the media, communications, marketing, public relations and political leaders in an effort to change the negative perceptions of the United States and multinational corporations. It sees business as a means to create positive changes through actions rather than massive cover-up schemes, and openly confronts anti-Americanism from a business perspective. “This effort is not about ads or selling—it’s about sensitizing Americans to the extent of anti-Americanism today and its implications, transforming American attitudes and behaviors as necessary, building on the many positive perceptions of America that still exist, and building new bridges of cooperation, respect, and mutual understanding across cultures and borders through business-led initiatives.” 77 Business for Diplomatic Action serves as an example of those who realize the role that American-based corporations have in the rest of the world, and how it is the duty of MNCs to act not as isolated entities, but rather as representatives of their country. The group stresses actions rather than publicity or advertising efforts, as well as cooperation between international governmental bodies. A similar group is Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), “a global organization that helps member companies achieve success in ways that respect ethical values, people, communities and the environment.” 78 Founded in 1992, BSR is a nonprofit business association that encourages corporate social responsibility and 76 Business for Diplomatic Action. February 20, 2007. <http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ > 77 Business for Diplomatic Action. February 20, 2007. <http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ > 78 “Business for Social Responsibility.” February 17, 2007. <http://www.bsr.org/> 56 addresses the newly realized demands from stakeholders for transparency and accountability. Yet BSR also brings to light a major problem with the concept of corporate social responsibility: is the concept of CSR merely a meaningless public relations front to conceal the true evils of exploitative multinational corporations? The group has already come up against criticism by the non-profit watch group CommonDreams.org. In a feature story dated in 2005, Common Dreams alleged that while Business for Social Responsibility was, at its founding, an association of small businesses who wanted to “counter the voices of the giant multinationals” via public policy, the group has since been “hijacked” by giant multinationals, such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer, General Electric, and Coca-Cola, spewing MNC favorable propaganda. 79 The main criticism stems from the fact that BSR is calling for internal regulation rather than cooperation with international governing bodies, the latter which many believe creates a much more transparent, successful and result- generating atmosphere. The UN Global Compact has also been met with both positive and negative reviews. Proposed by UN Secretary General Kofi Anan at the 1999 World Economic Forum, it is an international initiative that aims to bring companies together with UN agencies, labor and civil society to support universal environmental and social principles and other CSR principles. Further, it works to advance ten universal principles of human rights, labor, the environment and anti- 79 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1103-32.htm 57 corruption, and also addresses the concept of being held complicit in human rights abuses. With the support of the UN behind it and 2,200 corporate members worldwide, it would seem a major trend toward implementing actions that eventually which change the negative perceptions of multinational corporations. Indeed, the international PR firm, Ketchum, has been a member since 2001, and has voluntarily chosen to adhere to the Global Compact’s initiatives. Pro-bono projects with which Ketchum has collaborated with the UN include offering in-depth analysis for a 2002 project called: “Good News & Bad: The Media, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development.” 80 Ketchum has also published articles relating to how PR and corporate social responsibility mesh, and has also made countless worldwide speeches and presentations regarding the issue of CSR. Unfortunately, the Global Compact has also been met with criticism, mainly that the United Nations has merely stooped to the level of multinational corporations and capitalistic ruthlessness. “…this initiative is experienced as a betrayal by the United Nations of its own long-promulgated values—whether in the eyes of individuals or of the many nongovernmental organizations which have actively or passively supported the UN over many decades.” 81 Thus it seems that businesses are in a classic catch-22: though some corporations may make efforts to change business practices, these efforts are often seen by NGOs and other stakeholders to be false 80 “Ketchum: Ketchum and the United Nations Global Compact.” February 17 2007. <http://www.ketchum.com/DisplayWebPage/0,1943,3310,00.html > 81 “‘Globalization: the UN’s ‘Safe Haven’ for the World’s Marginalized—the Global Compact with Multinational Corporations as the UN’s ‘Final Solution.’” laetus in praesens. (March 6, 2001). February 17, 2007. 58 efforts. It appears that the only way to combat this negative perception is through action and transparency: corporations that merely saturate the media with highly- funded public relations campaigns launched by PR agency goliaths, defending actions rather than promoting and proclaiming positive changes, only serve to perpetuate the situation. The same can almost be said for the push for self- monitoring over governmental regulation. It seems as though internal regulation is both a response to pressures from stakeholders as well as an oftentimes deceptive method of avoiding true regulation from an outside body. Such voluntary codes of business conduct may at first seem like the long-awaited response to consumer or shareholder pressures, addressing such hard-hitting issues as child labor, living wages, and environmental practices. Other results of self-regulation include certifying that products are authentic, such as the Kimberley Process certification or even marking “Fair Trade” on a product. Some corporate codes have made a positive difference in corporations: “Inclusion of a larger set of human rights commitments within corporate codes of conduct could have a positive impact on corporate behavior. Many corporations are now ensuring that their internal decision making processes, including their relations with contractors, reflect the commitments undertaken in their codes.” 82 But if self-monitoring is put into place with little or no regulation, no transparency, uneven implementation and produces no results, than the perception that MNCs only make half-hearted, publicity-generating efforts with no substance will continue to act as a roadblock for all. “…the voluntary nature of 82 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 532 59 corporate codes of conduct creates the clear potential for some TNEs to treat them as purely a public relations exercise, leading human rights NGOs to downplay their effectiveness.” 83 Thus a few “bad apples” can ruin the genuine efforts of a few good MNCs. Another point to consider regarding the lack of structure or results in self- regulation, is that the law may soon have to step in, as has been the case elsewhere in the world. The Treaty Establishing the European Community contains laws that address corporate responsibility; likewise, many cases in the European Court of Justice have decided that corporations have more than just legal business responsibilities—they also have human rights responsibilities. Of course, the United States has similar laws. But what makes the European Community laws different is that they extend over national borders: regardless of individual state laws, this set of international laws overrides them. It seems that governments are slowly realizing that there are a set of duties and responsibilities that corporations should be held accountable for no matter where in the world they are located. The Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1977) “…urges corporations to cooperate with governmental development policies, to cooperate with governmental development policies, to adopt a hiring policy favorable to local nationals, to look out for the employee’s health and safety, and to 83 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 532 60 recognize the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.” 84 These tenants are obviously not upheld by all countries, which is where much of the debate concerning American-based corporations stems. Yet, if the possibility of placing such international laws is already being discussed, it seems obvious that the general belief is that, regardless of a country permitting certain human rights violations, US based corporations have some sort of a responsibility toward that community. If environmental laws, labor laws, anti-corruption laws, and economic sanctions have already been placed upon corporations, how far away can corporate social responsibility laws be? It seems the only questions that remain are by what methods will such laws be enforced and how soon will they be instated. Still others make the push for implementing CSR as more a matter of ethical responsibility than a chance to create a more positive image. One of the questions at hand is whether or not corporations can or should be held accountable for human rights abuses by operating or investing in a country that allows them. O.E. Udofia links modern capitalism—namely via multinational corporations—with the colonialism and imperialism of the 19th and 20 th centuries: “. . . Today, industrialists and bankers cannot constitute the leading capitalist groups in industrial capitalism. The ‘giant monopolistic corporations’ are at the head of capitalism in Africa. These actions and existence of these corporations constitute today’s imperialism in Africa. Their size, complex structure, and multiplicity of interests are what made up the corporate existence of the 20 th century imperialism. The corporate giants (multinational corporations) dominate means of production in Africa, they 84 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 487 61 sustain transfer of income for their own benefits and at their own discretion.” 85 As touched upon before, in many developing countries, corporations have more control over the area in which they operate than the actual government does. Because of this power, many would argue that multinationals have an automatic obligation to ensure good business practices and basic human rights to the citizens of that area. “MNCs have the unmatched power and competence to reduce global poverty. Increasingly, world opinion, as well as the inclinations of their own managers and staff, urges MNCs to use that power more effectively.” 86 Today’s clashes between multinational corporations and NGOs represent a shift in ideology. Whereas, during the beginnings of the human rights movements, the belief was that it was the state’s duty to ensure human rights, now, the general ideology is that corporations must also be held accountable. Multinationals are also not able to get away with arguing that they do not take a direct role in perpetuating human rights abuses in the foreign countries in which they operate. Companies inadvertently abuse human rights through doing business with corrupt governments. Merely operating in a country where blatant human rights abuses are being undertaken—such as during the Sierra Leone civil war, where surely it was apparent that the RUF had control over much of the diamond mines—is a form of complicity and thus guilt. Steven R. Ratner argues, 85 Udofia, O. E. “Imperialism in Africa: A Case of Multinational Corporations.” Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Mar., 1984), pp. 353-368. p 354 86 Lodge, George C. and Craig Wilson, “Multinational Corporations: A Key to Global Poverty Reduction.” YaleGlobal Online, January 2, 2006. Feb. 22, 2007. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6657> 62 “One could go much further than the existing norms of international law for deriving corporate duties—for instance, by working from a moral starting point that a corporation has a duty not to invest at all in a repressive society, or a duty to ensure that it does not in any way benefit from the government’s lax human rights policy.” 87 Some might even take this a step further and argue that, because of the power that multinational corporations hold, they have a duty to not only take pre-emptive actions, but also to encourage and educate the public on their duties. In a series of arguments presented by Harvard Professor George C. Lodge and International Finance Corporation economist Craig Wilson, the case was made for multinational corporations having contributed to the lessening of global poverty, with the potential for MNCs to continue to make similar positive changes: “MNC involvement is crucial to poverty reduction for two reasons: First, the reduction of poverty depends on the growth of business, especially small, domestic businesses. And increasingly for a local business to flourish it must have access to the world: to markets, credit, and technology, all facilitated by MNCs. The second reason is less obvious and more controversial: Poverty reduction requires systemic change, and MNCs are the world’s most efficient and sustainable engines of change. They provide political leverage with local governments; they offer opportunity for people who are convinced there is none; they motivate the young to learn and organize to gain power; they build roads and hospitals and other infrastructure. MNCs in developing countries are often the first choice for private sector jobs by young people, who are attracted by the higher salaries and the learning opportunities. And wise governments get the private sector to do as much spending on infrastructure as possible in order to protect their own treasuries.” 88 87 Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 504 88 Lodge, George C. and Craig Wilson, “Multinational Corporations: A Key to Global Poverty Reduction.” YaleGlobal Online, January 2, 2006. Feb. 22, 2007. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6657> 63 Does all this seeming altruism affect the bottom line? In most cases, the answer is yes. “Anti-Americanism is bad for business. The costs associated with rising anti-American sentiment are exponential. From security and economic costs to an erosion in our ability to engender trust around the world and recruit the best and brightest, the US stands to lose its competitive edge if steps are not made toward reversing the negativity associated with America.” 89 Those that believe in the benefits of corporate social responsibility point to such actions as improving financial performance, enhancing brand image, increasing sales, attracting quality employees and reducing long-term costs. “A decade ago, corporate social responsibility (CSR) was a trendy idea promoted by quirky entrepreneurial companies like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. Now, more than 50 percent of the Global 250 corporations issue corporate responsibility reports, and the public expects visible CSR initiatives from businesses of all sizes. Many companies use CSR as a way to burnish their image, generate brand equity, and increase employee loyalty. Corporate critics and "socially responsible investors" have developed CSR measures to promote wide-ranging policies, including labor rights and curbs on global warming.” 90 Practically speaking, there must be a balance created between business interests and human rights interests, keeping in mind that the goal of business is to maintain a profit. Yet this balance must be determined by each business individually. “In truth, there is no business case for CSR. Any more than there is a business case for innovation. Or for marketing. Or for outsourcing. Each of these processes describes a range of possible activities – and any one of those 89 Business for Diplomatic Action. February 20, 2007. <http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ > 90 “Corporate/NGO Relations.” NGO Watch. February 22, 2007. <http://www.ngowatch.org/event4.php > 64 activities may be beneficial or detrimental to the business. It all depends on the judgment in selection of which actions to take, and the skill and energy applied to achieving results.” 91 Looking from strictly a brand identity point-of-view, corporate social responsibility makes sense: If a corporation creates a positive brand image for the products that it sells, why not create a positive brand image about itself? Likewise, if a specific product that a company produced was receiving an incredible amount of negative reviews and bad press, wouldn’t the company launch a vicious media campaign to try to eradicate those negative images? A prominent voice in the case against corporate social responsibility is Elaine Sternberg, author, lecturer and Research Fellow at the Center for Business and Professional Ethics at the University of Leeds, as well as a member of the Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Often supported by groups like NGO Watch and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, she argues, “By giving a hazily defined class of ‘stakeholders’ a say over corporate decisions, CSR would deprive owners of their property rights. Business ethics is about conduction business ethically, not about pursuing goals extraneous to the company’s mission.” 92 Yet Sternberg’s argument seems mightily based on the flawed argument that CSR gives away money that would otherwise be given back to shareholders. It also considers shareholders as the only stakeholder in any given corporation, pushing aside the countless others that are affected by a corporation that also have an important and 91 Baker, Mallen. “So what’s the business ase for corporate social responsibility?” Business Respect, No. 101. (August 13, 2006). February 18, 2007. <http://mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=1724> 92 “Speaking in Tongues” NGO Watch. February 22, 2007. <http://www.ngowatch.org/> 65 influential relationship with that corporation. Corporations that see shareholders as their only valuable stakeholder are not aware of the vulnerability that such a mindset creates. “…the idea of deriving legitimacy, or acceptability, from competing to satisfy consumer desires in an open market becomes unreliable when the sum of consumer desires fails to meet community needs - clean air, pure water, and the reduction of poverty. Thoughtful managers recognize the value of heeding community needs, yet encounter another legitimacy problem. The definition and attainment of a community’s needs are supposed to be the job of government. But many governments, especially in the poor world, fail to meet expectations. As a result of this governance failure, MNCs often find themselves playing the role of government…” 93 Corporations, by their very nature, are expected by many to make positive contributions to society. If a corporation is seen to have as much power or more than the government, then they must act accordingly. What would happen if the majority of citizen’s in a country felt that they were not being supported the way that they should by their own government? A corporation that realizes that it has the unasked- for role of providing support to the surrounding community when a government cannot is one step ahead of the game. Whether they like it or not, this is the reality of today’s world, and corporations will either take the lead and gain positive results from accepting this responsibility, or, later down the road in history, be lawfully forced to engage in such activities. In any case, NGOs are not going to go away, nor do they seem likely to lose their interest in monitoring corporations. 92 Lodge, George C. and Craig Wilson, “Multinational Corporations: A Key to Global Poverty Reduction.” YaleGlobal Online, January 2, 2006. Feb. 22, 2007. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6657> 66 Conclusion That non governmental organizations and multinational corporations both experienced a rise to power at a similar point in history marked the beginning of a long and oftentimes tense relationship. But it is in the interest of both to begin a new era of cooperation and mutual understanding that will and must be beneficial to all. Obviously, this is a somewhat daunting task. But if MNCs wish to continue successfully expanding their operations within developing nations –the very areas where NGOs and activists thrive, this cooperation and understanding must emerge. The past is not on the side of the corporation. Looking at merely two African countries, South Africa and Sierra Leone, the business record is appalling. Such a record has assured that the reputation of MNCs teeters on the edge between that of a powerful and frightening monolith and that of an imperialistic oppressor and heartless human rights abuser. This reputation and past history also has slowed the honest and forward thinking efforts of the few MNCs and other business oriented groups that have recognized the need for change and have made efforts to shift business into the realm of responsibility via ensuring human rights and implementing corporate social responsibility. Headway has been made, but there is a long road ahead, filled with opposition from both disbelieving and untrusting NGOs and activist groups as well as those on the corporate side who believe that CSR is unnecessary, const-inducing and ineffective. History and common sense reveal that businesses, especially multinational corporations which have such incredible amounts of power, do have an ethical, 67 logical responsibility in today’s world. How soon this responsibility will be truly realized largely depends on effective and meaningful public relations efforts. If corporations do not begin to behave responsibly and engage in honest corporate social responsibility programs, it seems only a matter of tie before ethical responsibilities become legally and internationally enforced. Today’s consumer is demanding more and more frequently and ardently that corporations pick up the reigns of responsibility. The question is: which corporations will be smart enough to do so before the horse whip is pulled out. 68 Works Cited/Works Consulted Aaronson, Susan Ariel. “Courting international business: what are the human rights obligations of global capitalism?” The International Economy, Spring 2003. February 22, 2007. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2633/is_2_17/ai_100545309> Adbusters. February 20, 2007. <http://www.adbusters.org/home/> “African National Congress Submission to Special Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearing on The Role of Business.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/misc/trcbus.html> “ANC Today: Online voice of the African National Congress.” Volume 5, No. 19 (May 13-15, 2005). February 22, 2007. <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2005/at19.htm> “Annex table A.I.11. The world’s top 100 non-financial TNCs, ranked by foreign assets, 2004.” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. February 21, 2007. <http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/wir2006top100_en.pdf> Aspan, Maria. “A Hip-Hop Mogul is the Diamond’s New Best Friend.” The New York Times. December 18, 2006. Baker, Mallen. “So what’s the business ase for corporate social responsibility?” Business Respect, No. 101. (August 13, 2006). February 18, 2007. <http://mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=1724> Billboard Liberation Front. February 20, 2007. <http://www.billboardliberation.com/aboutus.html> Bob, Clifford “Globalization at Work: Merchants of Morality.” Foreign Policy, No. 129. (Mar. - Apr., 2002), pp. 36-45. Brown, J.B. “Politics of the Poppy: The Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, 1874-1916.” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Jul., 1973), pp. 97-111. Business for Diplomatic Action. February 20, 2007. <http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/ > 69 Business for Social Responsibility.” February 17, 2007. <http://www.bsr.org/> “Corporate/NGO Relations.” NGO Watch. February 22, 2007. <http://www.ngowatch.org/event4.php > “Culture Jamming.” Center for Communication & Civic Engagement. February 22, 2007. <http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm > “Diamond Industry Annual Review: Sierra Leone 2005.” p 4. February 20, 2007. <http://www.pacweb.org/e/pdf/sierraleone_e.pdf > “Frequently Asked Questions about the UC Divestment Campaign.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.ucdivest.org/trifold.doc> Friedman, John S., “Paying for Apartheid.” The Nation. (June 2, 2003) February 22, 2007. <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/friedman> “‘Globalization: the UN’s ‘Safe Haven’ for the World’s Marginalized—the Global Compact with Multinational Corporations as the UN’s ‘Final Solution.’” laetus in praesens. (March 6, 2001). February 17, 2007. G.M. Returns 10 Years After End of Apartheid http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/business/worldbusiness/30gmdelta.html?ex=13 90885200&en=08d69110377b9742&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND “Human Rights and Business: The Apartheid Experience.” Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. February 22, 2007. <http://www.novartisfoundation.com/en/articles/human/symposium_human_rights/s peeches/speech_kollapen.htm> “Interfaith Council on Corporate Responsibility.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.iccr.org/publications/examiner_pastarticles/examiner_sa.php> Kamat, Sangeeta. “NGOs and the New Democracy: The False Saviors of International Devleopment.” Harvard International Review. Vol. 35 (1) (Spring 2003). “Ketchum: Ketchum and the United Nations Global Compact.” February 17 2007. <http://www.ketchum.com/DisplayWebPage/0,1943,3310,00.html > 70 Lodge, George C. and Craig Wilson, “Multinational Corporations: A Key to Global Poverty Reduction.” YaleGlobal Online, January 2, 2006. Feb. 22, 2007. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6657> Maniruzzaman, A F M. “Global Business and Human Rights.” (April 5, 2006). February 22, 2007. <http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Maniruzzaman-Global- Business-and-Human-Rights-5-April-2006.doc> “Nigeria and Oil,” Global Issues. February 1, 2007. <http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp> “Non-Governmental Organizations Research Guide.” Duke University NGO Library. February 22, 2007. <http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.htm>. “Non-violent methods best way to end Apartheid.” February 22, 2007. <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V110/N19/cano.19o.html> “On ‘Constructive Engagement’ in South Africa.” February 22, 2007 <http://www- tech.mit.edu/V105/N47/parson.47o.html> “Perceptions and Definitions of Social Responsibility http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:A0MxbWq54dsJ:inni.pacinst.org/inni/corporat e_social_responsibility/standards_definitions.pdf+business+practices+during+aparth eid&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=16 “PR Watch.” Center for Media and Democracy. February 22, 2007. <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/prwatch.html>. Ratner, Steven R. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Dec., 2001). p 465 Sedgwick, John. “The Lion in Winter.” Boston Magazine. (Nov. 2005). February 22, 2007. <http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/the_lion_in_winter_2 > Simmons, P. J. “Learning to Live with NGOs.” Foreign Policy, No. 112. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 82-96. “South Africa: Relations with Non-African States.” February 22, 2007. <http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/south-africa/south- africa124.html> “Speaking in Tongues” NGO Watch. February 22, 2007. <http://www.ngowatch.org/> 71 “Special Campaigns and Issues: Corporations and Human Rights.” Human Rights Watch: World Report 1999. February 21, 2007. <http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/corporations.html> “The Coalition for South Africa.” Source Watch: A Project of the Center for Media and Democracy. February 22, 2007. <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coalition_for_Southern_Africa> “The US Diamond Sector.” February 20, 2007. <http://s3.amazonaws.com/3b59dcdf1c4552f8d85a16a4808a3b38- default/TheUSDiamondSector.pdf> “Truth Time for Corporate South Africa?” Multinational Monitor. Volume 19, No. 4. (April 1998). February 22, 2007. <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1998/98april/economics.html> “Udofia, O. E. “Imperialism in Africa: A Case of Multinational Corporations.” Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Mar., 1984), pp. 353-368. p 354 “UK: Blood Diamonds - New call on industry to clean up diamond trade.” Amnesty International United Kingdom. February 20, 2007. <http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17234> “United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.” February 22, 2007. <http://www.uneca.org/>. Walt, Vivienne. “Diamonds aren’t forever.” Fortune. (Dec. 7, 2006). February 20, 2007. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/11/8395442/ind ex.htm > “Western firms to be sued for ‘aiding’ Apartheid.” Foreign Direct Investment Magazine. (December 2002.) February 22, 2007. <http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/197/Western_firms_to_be_sue d_for_%91aiding%92_apartheid.html> “Wood, Steven G. and Brett G. Scharffs. “Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Private Corporations: An American Perspective.” The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50, Supplement: American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence: U. S. National Reports to the 16th International Congress of Comparative Law (Autumn, 2002), pp. 531-566

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In an increasingly globalized, "flatter" world, multi-national corporations are currently operating in some of the poorest countries in the world. Focusing on American-based multinational corporations in African countries, this paper examines how businesses can best interact with non-governmental organizations and other influencing bodies to successfully adapt to a changing world. It will explore how public relations affects this delicate, evolving relationship, specifically in the form of corporate social responsibility, and how the success of such a relationship can influence the perceptions and ultimately the business practices of multinational corporations. Finally, it will consider what ethical responsibilities -- if any -- multinational corporations have toward not only their shareholders and consumers, but to all stakeholders, especially those who belong to the populations of the countries in which they operate.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Surviving the "Made in China" stigma: challenges for Chinese multinational corporations

PDF

The implementation of corporate social responsibility initiatives as a strategy for post-crisis rebuilding and renewal

PDF

Social innovation: Crowdsourcing and the new face of corporate social responsibility

PDF

The effects of corporate social responsibility one employee engagement

PDF

Strategic ethics: a new theoretical paradigm and measurement rubric for corporate responsibility projects

PDF

Cultural, organizational, and communicational factors affecting the social marketing campaigns for a non-governmental organization to establish a successful presence in China

PDF

The evolution of the internal communications practice and its importance to the survival of organizations

PDF

The role of international PR firms in the use of CSR to achieve harmonious society in mainland China and Hong Kong

PDF

A study of social media practices and trends in the field of investor relations

PDF

Not being bad is not good enough: why companies need to be proactively doing good through CSR initiatives

PDF

Case study on Chinese heavy industry companies' community relations in U.S.: a comparison between corporate effort and media representation

PDF

Corporate social responsibility strategies, standards and consumer awareness in the jewelry industry: what does it mean to be socially responsible in the jewelry industry? A specific look into pr...

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

Asset Metadata

Creator Rangel, Victoria Brenda (author)

Core Title Multinational corporations and corporate social responsibility: how history, non-governmental organizations and international groups are changing business

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 04/11/2007

Defense Date 04/02/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag corporate social responsibility,international business,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Floto, Jennifer D. (committee chair), Cray, Edward (committee member), Swerling, Gerald (committee member)

Creator Email vrangel@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m374

Unique identifier UC1311321

Identifier etd-Rangel-20070411 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-322364 (legacy record id),usctheses-m374 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Rangel-20070411.pdf

Dmrecord 322364

Document Type Thesis

Rights Rangel, Victoria Brenda

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu