Corporate Partnerships at the United Nations Up In Blue.pdfSupport the Code of Conduct on...

Corporate Partnersh ips atthe Uni ted Nat ions

Pub l i shed byTRAC–Transnat iona l Resource & Act ion Center

www.corpwatch .org September 2000

T a n g l e d U p I n B l u e :Corporate Partnerships at the United Nations

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s :Executive Summary ........................................................1

Introduction......................................................................2

Four Fatal Flaws of the Global Compact ........................3

Global Compact Corporate Partners ................................4

Other Partnerships............................................................6

The UN’s Guidelines ......................................................7

UN-Corporate Partnerships chart ....................................8

A Brief History ................................................................9

Ideology and Politics of Corporate Partnerships ..........10

Toward a Corporate-Free United Nations......................11

Appendix A: The Global Compact ................................12

Appendix B: Citizens Compact ....................................13

Partial list of groups endorsing the Citizens Compact ..14

Endnotes ........................................................................15

Published by TRAC–The Transnational Resource & Action Center September 2000.

Tangled Up In Blue

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

• Secretary General Kofi Annan has encouraged all UN agencies to form partnerships with the pri-vate sector. The centerpiece of this initiative is his Global Compact, launched with the agenciesfor environment (UNEP), labor (ILO) and human rights (UNHCHR) in July, 2000.

• This report argues that corporate influence at the UN is already too great, and that new partner-ships are leading down a slippery slope toward the partial privatization and commercialization ofthe UN system itself.

• The Secretary General’s office and UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, and UNESCOare partnering with corporations known for human, labor and environmental rights violations.

• The Global Compact and its cousin partnerships at other UN agencies threaten the mission andintegrity of the United Nations.

The G loba l CompactThe Global Compact has four major problems:

1. Wrong Companies: The Secretary General hasshown poor judgment by allowing known humanrights, labor and environmental violators to join.

2. Wrong Relationship: Clearly the UN must haveinteractions with corporations, as when they procuregoods and services or to hold them accountable, but itshould not aspire to “partnership.”

3. Wrong Image: The UN’s positive image is vulner-able to being sullied by corporate criminals, whilecompanies get a chance to “bluewash” their image bywrapping themselves in the flag of the UnitedNations.

4. No Monitoring or Enforcement: Companies thatsign-up get to declare their allegiance to UN princi-ples without making a commitment to follow them.

The New Gu ide l i nes • The new guidelines for UN cooperation with cor-porations state that companies that violate humanrights “are not eligible for partnership.”

• Mr. Annan violated the guidelines just a few daysafter they were published by inviting Shell to jointhe Global Compact and its envisaged partnerships.

• The UN claims that it lacks the capacity to monitorcorporations’ activities. This creates a Catch-22situation. Without monitoring capacity the UN willnot be able to determine, under its guidelines, if acorporation is complicit in human rights violations.

• The Guidelines also provide for the limitedcorporate use of the UN logo. This presents apotential marketing bonanza for companies likeNike.

3

Toward a Corpora te Free UNIf the Global Compact and other corporate partnerships represent the low-road, then there are four keysteps that can be taken to build a high-road.

1. Support the Code of Conduct on transnational corporations and human rights being drafted by theUN Subcomission on Human Rights.

2. Support UN-brokered multilateral environmental and health agreements which can reign in abusivecorporate behavior on a global scale.

3. Pressure the US government to pay the UN the money it owes with no strings attached.

4. Support and promote The Citizens Compact, which calls for a legally binding framework forcorporate behavior.

Tangled Up In Blue 4

As we move into a new millennium, “We ThePeoples” of the United Nations are asking amomentous question: Will corporations rule the

world or will they be subordinated by governments andcivil society to the universal values of human rights,labor rights and environmental rights?

Or, to ask it another way, do the Nike swoosh andthe UN olive branch emblem belong together? AreMcDonald’s and Disney companies that represent uni-versal educational and cultural values? Do giant oilcompanies like Shell, BP and Chevron hold the keys tosustainable development?

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan thinks theanswers might be yes, and he is leading a major effortto form partnerships between the United Nations andthe business community. The “business community,” inthis case, does not mean the small and medium sizedcompanies that still maintain some loyalty to the localcommunity. It is made up of the giant transnationalcorporations—companies that have deepened theirenormous power through the process of economicglobalization. Many of them have been targets ofprotest in Seattle, Washington D.C., Bangkok, anddozens of other cities.

Mr. Annan has said that “in a world of commonchallenges, the UN and business are finding commonground” and that “confrontation has been replaced bycooperation and joint ventures.”1 The SecretaryGeneral has encouraged all UN agencies to form part-nerships with the private sector. These are some of the

same UN agencies which NGOs and citizen movementsrespect for their dedication to UN values. They includethose dealing with the environment (UNEP), labor stan-dards (ILO), refugees (OHCHR), sustainable humandevelopment (UNDP), children (UNICEF), publichealth (WHO), industrialization (UNIDO), and science,education and culture (UNESCO) (see chart p. 8).

Mr. Annan has personally spearheaded the highestprofile of these partnerships, the Global Compact. OnJuly 26th, eighteen months after he floated the conceptin Davos, Switzerland, Mr. Annan appeared with repre-sentatives of some fifty corporations and a handful ofnon-governmental partners to officially launch theCompact in New York.

Many long-term supporters of the UN who caredeeply about the institution and the values it repre-sents, were not there. Many believe that the UN is theonly international organization with the potential toprovide some democratic control over corporations.The UN could be a counterbalance to the destructiveforce of the WTO and corporate globalization. But asan alliance of groups wrote to Mr. Annan in July, theGlobal Compact and its cousin partnerships at otherUN agencies “threaten the mission and integrity of theUnited Nations.” Corporate influence at the UN isalready too great, and the new partnerships are leadingdown a slippery slope toward privatization and com-mercialization of the UN system itself.

As an alternative to the Global Compact, an allianceof groups has invited the Secretary General to join a

“Citizens Compact” on the UN and cor-porations. (See appendix B) This alliancehas opposed the Global Compact, theUNDP’s Global SustainableDevelopment Facility and several otherpartnerships.

In early 1999, Kofi Annan warned of a“backlash” against the “global market.”2

The events of Seattle, Washington andelsewhere show that a backlash againstcorporate globalization is in full swing,and that citizens movements are deter-mined to overthrow corporate rule. Itwould be a tragedy if the UN alloweditself to become a target of the backlashby allying itself with corporate and com-mercial values. UN values of peace,democracy, human rights, labor, environ-ment and health are more popular-andmore globalized-than ever. The UN mustmaintain its unique dedication to thesevalues, as its Charter demands.

4

Do the Nike Swoosh and the UN Olive Branches Belong Together? UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan and Nike CEO Phil Knight think they might.

Reuters NewMedia, Inc.

I n t r o d u c t i o n


First…we would like to see companies who join theGlobal Compact make a public statement that they

will be open to independent monitoring…Secondly, ithas to be reported publicly…all the stakeholders are

entitled to have the information resulting from thatindependent monitoring. And thirdly…a sanctions

system has to be envisaged…so that companies whoviolate these principles cannot continue to benefit

from the partnership…We think that those three stepsare absolutely essential if this initiative is to be effec-

tive, credible and win the trust of human rightsorganizations.

Pierre Sane, Amnesty International, July 26, 2000.

The Global Compact consists ofnine principles, distilled from keyenvironmental, labor and human

rights agreements, that the SecretaryGeneral asks businesses to abide by.(See appendix A) Corporate participationis voluntary; there is no screeningprocess, nor is there monitoring orenforcement. The details of the otherUN-corporate partnerships differ, but themain idea is the same—to coax theresources of businesses to the aid of sustainabledevelopment. In some cases, for example WHO andUNICEF, part of the purpose of the partnerships is tobring needed funds into their efforts. In other cases,like the UNDP, UN agencies seem to aspire to be akind of broker or advisor for worthy projects that theprivate sector undertakes.

The Global Compact itself aims to gain a commit-ment from corporations to the nine principles and thento implement these principles in at least three ways.First, participating corporations have committed to pro-mote the Compact in their mission statements andannual reports. Second, these corporations will post“specific examples progress they have made, or lessonsthey have learned in putting the principles into prac-tice” on the Global Compact website. Civil Societypartners in the Compact such as Amnesty Internationaland International Confederation of Free Trade Unionswill then be invited to respond to these specific casestudies. Third, Global Compact corporations will par-ticipate in partnerships with the UN at both the policy

level and on the ground in developing countries “help-ing villagers link up to the Internet” etc.3

But the Global Compact and its cousin partnershipprograms have several major problems.

1. Wrong CompaniesThe Secretary General and various agency heads

have shown poor judgement by allowing knownhuman rights, labor and environmental violators tojoin in UN partnerships. Specific partners of theCompact include Nike, Shell, Rio Tinto, Novartis, BP,Aracruz, BASF, Daimler Chrysler, Bayer and DuPont.

Other UN agencies have shown similarly poorjudgement by choosing Chevron, McDonalds’s,Disney and Unocal as partners in their programs (seechart). In some cases, these choices are clearly inviolation of the UN’s own guidelines that “companieswhich violate human rights are not eligible for part-nership.”4 Other partner companies do not stand

accused of such violations, but many aregiants of industries like oil, chemicals andgenetic engineering, whose impacts oncommunities, workers and the globalenvironment are broadly opposed by citi-zen movements. In addition, theInternational Chamber of Commerce,which represents mainly large companies,has been the dominant force for the busi-ness side of the Global Compact. TheICC routinely lobbies to weaken interna-

tional agreements that would control their members’behavior—accords often brokered by the UN.

2. Wrong RelationshipPublic-private partnerships are common for specific

projects with specific goals. The UN’s use of the termis more general, but still one assumes that a partner-ship is entered only when the partners share the samegoals. The UN has not adequately explained why itmust partner with organizations that have completelydifferent goals from its own.

Although modern corporations acknowledge theexistence of “stakeholders” other than their share-holders, in practical and legal terms they are account-able only to the latter, while the UN is founded on acommitment to ethical principles and accountabilityto “We The Peoples.” Occasionally UN and corporateinterests coincide; at other times they conflict. AsUNICEF Director Carol Bellamy has said, “It is dan-gerous to assume that the goals of the private sectorare somehow synonymous with those of the United

F o u r F a t a lF l a w s o f t h e

G l o b a lC o m p a c t

The Global

Compactthreatens the

UN's mission

and integrity


Nations, because they most emphatically are not.”5

Obviously you cannot have a full partnership with anorganization of interests antithetical to your own. Youcannot simultaneously regulate and partner with thesame corporations. Clearly the UN must have interac-tions with corporations, as when they procure goodsand services or to hold them accountable, but itshould not aspire to “partnership” except with organi-zations that share its goals.6

3. Wrong ImageCorporations attempt to project certain values and

images. Disney hopes to represent family entertain-ment. McDonald’s advertises fast, friendly food. Nikeassociates itself with the joy of sports. Shell, Chevronand BP promote their own commitment to environ-mental stewardship.

Sometimes they inadvertently take on other associa-tions. To many, Nike also means sweatshops,McDonald’s represents unhealthy food and Ugly

Below is a partial list of some of the 50 GlobalCompact partners with the most egregious humanrights and environmental records.

Shell is a corporation with a history of environ-mental destruction and complicity in human rightsabuses, most infamously in Nigeria. Ken Saro-Wiwablamed his execution squarely on Shell. Its opera-tions there are also notorious for environmental con-tamination and double standards. Shell has adoptedsophisticated rhetoric about its social responsibilities,but it has not shown understanding, let alone remorse,about its own role. For example, on its website, Shellposts a photograph of a pro-Ogoni rally, withoutacknowledging that the Ogoni people’s protests havebeen against Shell itself.

BP Amoco is another company with sophisticatedrhetoric on environmental and social issues. But theiractions do not measure up. CEO John Browne admitsthat climate change is a problem for any oil company,yet his company continues to search for oil and gaseven in remote and pristine regions. Its investments inrenewable energy are a pittance compared with thesize of the corporation and its investments in ongoingfossil fuel exploration and production.

Nike, an international symbol of sweatshops andcorporate greed, is the target of one of the most activeglobal campaigns for corporate accountability. Thecompany has made announcements of changes to itsbehavior only after enormous public pressure. It hasalso aggressively opposed the only union and humanrights-group supported independent monitoring pro-gram—the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). CEOPhil Knight withdrew a $30 million donation to theUniversity of Oregon after the University joined theWRC. Nike also cut its multimillion dollar contractswith the University of Michigan and Brown

University after they joined the WRC. Nike became asweatshop poster child not just through complicity inlabor abuses but through active searching for coun-tries with non-union labor, low wages, and low envi-ronmental standards for its manufacturing operations.Nike is a leader in the “race to the bottom”—a trendthat epitomizes the negative tendencies of corporate-led globalization.

Rio Tinto Plc is a British mining corporationwhich has created so many environment, human rights,and development problems that a global network oftrade unions, indigenous peoples, church groups, com-munities and activists has emerged to fight its abuses.For instance, the company stands accused of complici-ty in or direct violations of environmental, labor andhuman rights in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea,Philippines, Namibia, Madagascar, the United Statesand Australia, among others.

Novartis is engaged in an aggressive public rela-tions and regulatory battle to force consumers andfarmers to accept genetically engineered agriculture,without full testing for potential harms and withoutfull access to information. The behavior of Novartisin the area of genetically engineered agriculture isdiametrically opposed to the precautionary principle,one of the principles of the Global Compact.

Other companies with damaging or controversialpractices in the Global Compact include AracruzCellulose, targeted by Brazilian activists, Aventis,one of the companies behind the $50 million per yearPR campaign to gain acceptance for transgenic foods,German chemical giants Bayer and BASF, DuPontof ozone depletion infamy, and DaimlerChrysler, theauto maker with the highest proportion of gas guz-zling SUV’s on the American market.

The Global Compact Corporate Partners


Americanism, Disney projects sweatshops and stereo-types, Shell is associated with human rights violationsand ecological destruction, and the oil industry as awhole is known for global warming, greed and abuseof power.

When the Secretary General of the United Nationsjoins the heads of such corporations on the podium,or when a UN agency joins such companies in a jointventure, a disturbing messsage is sent to the public.As the UNDP guidelines put it, when a UN agency“is engaged in a public relations activity within theframework of a corporate relationship, a mutualimage transfer inevitably takes place.”7

This is especially true in the era of corporate brand-ing. With the image transfer, the UN’s positive imageis vulnerable to being sullied by corporate criminals,while companies get a chance to “bluewash” theirimage by wrapping themselves in the flag of theUnited Nations.”8 When biotech leaders Novartis andAventis appear as part of the Global Compact, there isan impression that the UN has officially endorsed itsproducts—genetically engineered seeds and foods—despite the enormous controversy over the issue.

Behind the issue of image is the issue of values.The UN stands for peace, security, human rights,development, environment and health. These valuesmust remain clear of the commercial values of corpo-rations. Once the UN tarnishes its image with corpo-rate brands, the compromising of its values is morelikely to follow.

4. No Monitoring or EnforcementThe Global Compact has no monitoring or enforce-

ment mechanism. This means companies that sign upget to declare their allegiance to UN principles with-out making a commitment to follow them. The cor-porate partners have made it crystal clear that thisarrangement is a key prerequisite of their participa-tion. As Maria Livianos Cattui, the secretary-generalof the International Chamber of Commerce recentlyput it, “business would look askance at any sugges-tion involving external assessment of corporate per-formance, whether by special interest groups or byUN agencies. The Global Compact is a joint commit-ment to shared values, not a qualification to be met.It must not become a vehicle for governments to bur-den business with prescriptive regulations.”9

Given the ICC position, the Global Compact hassettled on the posting of so-called “best practices” bythe companies themselves on a UN website as astand-in for independent montoring. ParticipatingNGOs can scrutinize the claims, and companies canrebut the NGOs. Of course this could all be done—

and is constantly being done—without the UN. Theposting of best practices sounds suspiciously like theapproach of the World Business Council forSustainable Development and other groupings of self-selected corporate environmentalists and corporatehumanitarians who have produced volumes of casestudies on how business is doing good. This volun-tary, anecdotal approach leads mainly to “incipientand piecemeal progress,” as one UN report puts it.10

Meanwhile, Pierre Sane, head of AmnestyInternational, who appeared at the launch of theGlobal Compact, has already warned that only inde-pendent monitoring—with public reporting of thecompanies’ performance—along with strong enforce-ment mechanisms such as sanctions, would give theGlobal Compact credibility.11

Amnesty’s position reflects a broader sentimentamong many human rights, labor and environmentalgroups from around the world. For instance, theMillenium Forum, an event organized by the UN inMay 2000 to gain NGO input for the MilleniumAssembly, called for a legally binding framework for

The UN has shown poor judgment by partnering with viola-tors of human, labor and environmental rights. Ogoni peas-ant tends her crops just 30 meters from a Shell gas flare.

Photo: Project Underground

Tangled Up In Blue8

Partnership programs are proliferating in the UNsystem, often before guidelines can be put in place,and before the implications of the partnerships areunderstood.

UNHCR and Unocal CorporationFormer High Commissioner on Refugees Sadako

Ogata co-chaired two meetings of the BusinessHumanitarian Forum with John Imle, President ofUnocal, a company notorious for complicity inhuman rights violations in Burma. As a partner ofthe brutal Burmese military government in theYadana pipeline project, Unocal has benefited fromforced labor, forced relocations and other crimes car-ried out for security of the project. Two lawsuitsagainst Unocal alleging crimes against humanity arecurrently underway in federal courts.

Although this is not a full UN partnership program,the High Commissioner showed remarkable insensi-tivity by sharing the podium with the head of a com-pany that creates refugees in its business operations.The Business Humanitarian Forum was founded by aformer Vice President of Unocal, yet neither the HighCommissioner nor many of the other humanitarianorganizations in attendance seem concerned that itwill be used to promote a good image for a companywith such a bad reputation.34 Pro-democracy groups,including those working with Burmese refugees andpeople affected specifically by Unocal, were out-raged by UNHCR’s participation.

UNESCO and DisneyUNESCO has a number of partnerships with the

private sector, mainly in the form of licensing agree-ments which allow the use of UNESCO’s logo orlabel. UNESCO excludes companies that violatehuman rights, make or distribute, arms, tobacco oralcohol. Yet it allowed its name to grace the YouthMillennium Dreamer Awards, organized mainly byDisney and presented in Disneyland in Orlando,Florida last spring. Disney is known for use ofsweatshop labor in Haiti to make clothes with pic-tures of Mickey Mouse and other Disney characters.Disney movies are characterized by racial and sexualstereotypes, making the company a questionablechoice to sponsor Youth Awards.

UNDP and ChevronThe UNDP drew the ire of activists last year with

the proposed Global Sustainable DevelopmentFacility, developed under the previous AdministratorGus Speth. Mark Malloch-Brown, the new head ofUNDP has killed the project, but touts other partner-ships such as a BP Amoco fishing project in Angola(see Global Compact Partners for a brief overview ofBP Amoco) and a Chevron-sponsored business centerin Kazakhstan.35 Chevron has been a leading oppo-nent of the UN-brokered Climate Convention onglobal warming. The company is also responsiblefor numerous local environmental problems in placesas far flung as Nigeria, Texas, California andIndonesia. The company currently faces a lawsuitfor complicity in human rights violations in Nigeria.

UNICEFUNICEF has extensive interactions with corpora-

tions, and gets substantial income from the privatesector. Executive Director Carol Bellamy points outthat UNICEF is very careful to "constantly appraise"the companies it deals with, and its guidelinesexclude makers of products like infant formula andlandmines. However UNICEF and WHO are part ofUNAIDS, a partnership with five major pharmaceuti-cal companies, including (parent companies of) vio-lators of the WHO Code of Marketing of BreastmilkSubstitutes. According to the International BabyFood Action Network, UNICEF also has a partner-ship with Johnson & Johnson, a known Code viola-tor. The partnerships are so troubling that at leasttwo UNICEF officials recently resigned in protest.36

UNAIDS and the Pharmaceutical IndustryUNAIDS is sponsored by various UN agencies—

UNICEF, UNDP, WHO and others. It has a partner-ship with five pharmaceutical corporationsBoehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb,Hoffman-LaRoche, Glaxo Wellcom and Merck toaddress the AIDS crisis in Africa. These companiesare working with the UN to significantly lower thecosts of AIDS drugs there. However, a number ofAIDS groups charge that these companies’ intent—and collaterally the role of the UN—is to forestall theseizure of drug company patents (and the loss ofmarkets). Countries such as South Africa andThailand have passed "compulsory licensing" lawsthat allow for the seizure of AIDS drug patents in theinterest of reversing a massive human healthdisaster.37

O t h e r P a r t n e r s h i p s


regulating corporations with respect to human, laborand environmental rights.12

Stuck between NGO insistence and business resist-ance, the UN claims it has neither the capacity northe mandate to monitor or enforce compliance withthe Global Compact principles.

But it is not at all clear that the UN enjoys a man-date to develop the Global Compact either. In fact,references to the Global Compact were deleted froman official UN declaration at the Copenhagen Plus 5Social Summit when a significant bloc of developingcountry governments opposed its voluntary, non-bind-ing nature. As Roberto Bissio of the Third WorldInstitute in Uruguay explains it, “the developingcountries were clearly not sympathetic to theCompact, not for any desire to leave transnationalcorporations off the hook, but out of fear that such anarrangement might benefit them even more.”13

T h e U N ’ sG u i d e l i n e s

Business entities that are complicit in human rightsabuses, tolerate forced or compulsory labor or the

use of child labour...or that otherwise do not meet therelevant obligations or responsibilities by the United

Nations, are not eligible for partnership.

Guidelines [for] Cooperation Between the UnitedNations and the Business Community, July 17, 2000

The SecretaryGeneral’sGuidelines on

Cooperation Betweenthe United Nations andthe BusinessCommunity provide ageneral guide for howthe UN shouldincrease its coopera-tion with corporations“in a manner thatensures the integrityand independence” ofthe UN. The forms ofcooperation envisionedinclude advocacy,fundraising, policy dia-logue, humanitarianaid and development.Business partners must

demonstrate “responsible citizenship.” (For profitenterprises are not “citizens,” but the UN has accept-ed this usage.)

The guidelines state that companies that violatehuman rights “are not eligible for partnership.” This isan example of a guideline that most NGOs would sup-port. However, the UN claim that it lacks the capacityto monitor corporations’ activities creates a “Catch22” situation. How can the world body determine if acorporation is complicit in human rights violations ifit cannot monitor its activities? Maybe this is whyMr. Annan violated the guidelines just a few days afterthey were published by inviting Shell to join theGlobal Compact and its associated partnerships.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the guidelinesis the potential to use the UN olive branch emblem oncorporate funded projects or partnership projects.Companies may not use the logo to sell their prod-ucts. But hypothetically, we could see a clinic fundedby Rio Tinto, operated by WHO, with the Rio Tintoand UN logos side by side. For activists fighting RioTinto to save their own environment and health, thatwould be quite a slap in the face. For Rio Tinto itcould be a PR bonanza—for example, if it were topublicize this collaboration with the UN in a televi-sion commercial.

At the launch of the Global Compact, when askedif we might eventually see the Nike swoosh and theUN emblem side by side, a Nike representativerefused to answer. When asked the next day in aradio interview, she also evaded the question.14

When asked if we might eventually see the Nike swoosh and the UN emblem side by side, aNike representative refused to answer. Nike sweatshop in Vietnam.

Photo: Dara O’Rourke


Other UN Agency Guidelines

Encouraged by the SecretaryGeneral, many UN agencies havestarted their own private sector part-nership programs. Agencies have alsopromulgated guidelines for thesepartnerships, including guidelines forexcluding companies with badrecords. For example, UNICEF’sguidelines exclude landmine, tobaccoand infant formula manufacturers.15

The UNDP has guidelines emphasizing the need forassessment of companies to determine whether “theactivities or products of the corporation are compati-ble with UNDP image and ideals” and whether theyare “deemed to be ethically, socially or politicallycontroversial or of such a nature that involvementwith UNDP cannot be credibly justified to the generalpublic.” The guidelines mention “exploitative involve-ment in developing nations, illegal financial transac-tions, drug trafficking, producing or trading in arms,child labour, activities endangering the environment,poor and/or exploitative working conditions foremployees, poor gender policies, discriminatorybehaviour, etc.”16

WHO’s draft guidelines have beenthe subject of controversy amongtheir NGO partners. Health ActionInternational (HAI) and InternationalBaby Food Action Network (IBFAN),both of which work closely withWHO, wrote comprehensive andrather scathing critiques of the draftguidelines. They included specificobjections to provisions allowing sec-ondments of industry staff to theagency, and general questions about

the logic of entering partnerships with corporations.HAI wrote to Director General Gro Brundtlandobjecting to conflicts of interest between the “corepurpose of WHO-which is to serve the public interest-and the aim of pharmaceutical companies, which is tomaximize profits for their shareholders.”17 IBFANquestioned the logic behind the partnership ideal,pointing out that “caution and healthy distrust seem tobe the appropriate attitude for dealing with commer-cial enterprises, many of which are currently involvedin a big PR exercise to represent themselves as‘responsible corporate citizens’ which should beallowed to operate with a minimum of outside inter-ference or regulation.”18

P a r t i a l l i s t o f U N - C o r p o r a t e P a r t n e r s h i p sUN Agency Name of Partnership Companies involved StatusOffice of Global Compact Nike, Novartis, Shell Launched 1/99,Sec. General UNEP, ILO, OHCHR Rio Tinto, BP, DuPont, companies join July

DaimlerChrysler, ABB, ICC 2000

UNDP GSDF Rio Tinto, Novartis, AbandonedABB, Dow

UNDP Private Sector Chevron, BP Ongoing in Development Programmme Kazakhstan & Angola

UNDP NETAID Cisco Unclear

UNIDO Competitiveness through Fiat Started 12/98; -Public-Private Partnership operational for auto

industry in India

OHCR Business Humanitarian Forum Unocal Held two meetings

UNESCO licensing agreements Boucheron, Mitsubishi, NKK Ongoing

UNESCO Youth Millennium Disney & McDonalds Gave out awards 5/00Dreamer Awards

WHO Global Alliance for Placer Dome, Rio Tinto, others Not availableCommunity Health

WHO, UNICEF, UNAIDS Africa Partnership Boehringer Ingelheim, OngoingUNESCO, UNDP, etc. Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck

Hoffman-LaRoche, Glaxo Wellcom

UNOPS Business Advisory Council various Launched 5/00

Companies can"bluewash" their

image by wrapping

themselves in the

UN flag


The environment is not going to be saved by envi-ronmentalists. Environmentalists do not hold the

levers of economic power.

Maurice Strong, defending the central roletransnational corporations were playing in the 1992Earth Summit, of which he was Secretary General.

Over the last decade, there had been a shiftfrom secretive, undue influence by business atthe United Nations, to a pattern

of the UN inviting corporate influence.

In 1992, Secretary General BoutrosBoutros Ghali virtually eliminated theUN Center on TransnationalCorporations (CTC), which had beenset-up to help developing countriesmonitor and negotiate with large compa-nies. The downsized CTC, incorporatedinto a new division, re-oriented itselftoward helping match up corporationsand countries for foreign investments.This change had been an objective of the U.S. as wellas some of the UN’s most vocal critics, such as theHeritage Foundation.19

At the same time, Maurice Strong, the SecretaryGeneral of the UN Earth Summit, invited businessleaders to form a group to advise him on business’role in sustainable development. The BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development played aprominent role at the Summit, and along with theICC, eliminated references to transnational corpo-rations and emphasized the role of “self-regula-tion.” The ICC was pleased with the outcome ofthe Earth Summit, because “the possibility thatthe conference might be pushed to lay downdetailed guidelines for the operations of transna-tional corporations” did not materialize.20

Meanwhile, Mr. Strong created an “Eco-Fund”to help finance the UN event. The Eco-Fundfranchised rights to the Earth Summit logo to thelikes of ARCO, ICI, and Mitsubishi Group mem-ber Asahi Glass.21

In virtually every international environmentalnegotiation since the Earth Summit, business hasplayed an prominent and aggressive role.Corporate influence is rampant at negotiations ofU.N.-sponsored international treaties and conven-tions to protect the global environment such as theMontreal Protocol to Protect the Ozone Layer, the

Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Convention, theBiodiversity Convention and its Biosafety Protocol.In every one of these international meetings, corpo-rate lobbyists, their industry associations and publicrelations firms have aligned themselves with govern-ments resisting these treaties and have aggressivelyattempted to undermine other governments’ efforts toaddress pressing global environmental problems.22

Similarly, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco,and other tobacco companies worked for years toundermine WHO tobacco control intiatives. Thesecorporations’ own documents show that they viewed

WHO as one of their main enemiesand that they attempted to influenceWHO and other UN agencies, alongwith representatives of developingcountries, to resist tobacco controlefforts. The report states that “thetobacco companies’ activitiesslowed and undermined effectivetobacco control programs around theworld.”23

In addition to the corporate influ-ence at many specific negotiations

sponsored by the UN, business has maintained anoverall agenda of weakening the UN itself. Over thelast 10 years, its consistent position on matters underUN auspices such as environment and human rights,is that voluntary, toothless agreements are best.Meanwhile, when it comes to the WTO and othertrade negotiations, binding, enforceable rules favor-able to transnationals are deemed appropriate.

The biotechnology industry has actively lobbied against keyprovisions in the UN-brokered Biosafety Protocol. Protestersrally against genetically modified food near San Francisco, USA.

Photo: Scott Braley

Corporate influ-

ence has beenrampant at UN

negotiations to

protect health and

the environment

A B r i e fH i s t o r y


We cannot fail in this endeavor. Too much is atstake. Globalization and open markets are at stake.Ending world poverty is at stake. So too are human

decency and the future of the planet.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan speaking aboutthe Global Compact, July 2000.

The ideology behind the Global Compact is abelief in the benefits of open markets, whichare seen by high-ranking UN officials as “the

only remotely viable means of pulling billions of peo-ple out of the abject poverty in which they find them-selves.”24 The term “open markets” may sound entic-ing, but in the real world it often means the kind ofrules enforced by the WTO at the expense of develop-ing countries, farmers, consumers and the environ-ment. Peoples’ movements against corporate global-ization have very specifically targeted these rules andthe ideology behind them.

It is undeniable that many UN, corporate and gov-ernment officials believe that globalization is essen-tially beneficial and merely needs some tinkering. Asa Washington Post editorial on the Global Compacttermed it, globalization needs a “softener” to dull itsharsh edge, prevent a backlash, and improve the dis-tribution of benefits.25

But there are many who see globalization as essen-tially “the push by big companies and financial insti-tutions to have more power,” as Martin Khor, Directorof the Third World Network told the UN MilleniumForum last May. According to Khor and others, “wehave to fight the system of globalization we havetoday.”26 Even within the UN system, notably at the

UN Subcommission for the Promotion and Protectionof Human Rights, there has been recognition that theWTO, in particular, has been a “nightmare” for devel-oping countries and that the system of trade liberal-ization needs a major overhaul.27

In his 1999 speech to business leaders in Davos,Switzerland, Secretary General Annan warned of abacklash against globalization, saying that enactmentof human rights, labor rights and environmental prin-ciples are necessary to avoid threats “to the openglobal market, and especially the multilateral tradingregime.”28 Just ten months before Seattle, he wasprescient on the backlash. But, by declaring thatglobalization should be saved by putting a “humanface” on it, by saying that “social values” should be“advanced as part andparcel of the globaliza-tion process,”29 he hasallied himself with thecorporate agenda forglobalization at amoment when thisagenda is increasinglyunder question.

Clearly, theSecretary General’scorporate gambit is driven not by pure ideology butalso by realpolitik. He is seeking political supportfrom powerful corporations who already have anundue influence on the U.S. government. The UnitedStates still owes hundreds of millions of dollars inunpaid dues to the UN—money withheld by JesseHelms and other conservatives in the Senate (in partto pressure the UN to become more business friend-ly). By promising to “continue to make a strong casefor free trade and open global markets,” as part of theGlobal Compact, Mr. Annan has attempted to enlistcorporate bodies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerceto return the favor and pressure Congress to pay themoney it owes.30

But in attempting this deal, the Secretary Generalrisks losing political support, even in the U.S., fromthose who support only a corporate-free UnitedNations. Kofi Annan is no doubt sincere in his desireto improve the lot of the world’s poor. But when thehead of the United Nations offers support for the cor-porate definition of free trade and open markets, andallows these to be declared among the “shared values”of the international community, he threatens a betray-al of millions of people fighting for a more just inter-national economic order.

The UN could be

a counterbalance

to the WTO andcorporate

globalization

I d e o l o g y a n dP o l i t i c s o fC o r p o r a t e

P a r t n e r s h i p s

Mr. Annan has allied himself with the corporate globaliza-tion agenda at a moment when it is increasingly underquestion. Anti-WTO protest, Seattle, November 1999.

photo: Marc Beck


Multinationals are too important for their conductto be left to voluntary and self-generated standards.

UNDP Human Development Report 1999

If the Global Compact and other corporate partner-ships represent the low-road, then there are at leastfour key steps that can be taken to build a high-road.

1. Support the Sub-Commission on thePromotion and Protection of HumanRights

The Sub-Commission is composed of 26 independ-ent members, and is the main subsidiary body of theUN Commission on Human Rights. A recent reportfor the Sub-Commission, looking at globalizationthrough the prism of human rights, has called theWTO a “nightmare” for developing countries, andcalls for the trade body to be brought under the UN’spurview. In contrast to the Secretary General’s beliefthat the multilateral trade regime is the success storyof the century, the report calls for a “radical review ofthe whole system of trade liberalization.”’31

Furthermore, the Sub-Commission has a WorkingGroup on transnational corporations and humanrights. This Working Group decided at its 1999 ses-sion to draft a Code of Conduct on corporations andhuman rights. The Code was approved for furtherdevelopment at the August, 2000 meeting. The docu-ment made it clear that the Code might eventually beviewed as legally binding, and that provisions formonitoring and compliance would be integrated intothe Code.32

Unfortunately, the U.S. opposes this foray into thetopic of human rights and corporations, and hascalled on the UN to eliminate the Subcommissionentirely. The U.S. has backed proposals that woulddrastically curtail its capacity.33

Pro-UN activists should support and defend theimportant work of the Subcommission. The call forthe dissolution of the Subcommision must be resisted.

2. Support Binding InternationalEnvironmental and Public HealthAgreements

While corporations and their industry associationscontinue to lobby aggressively to weaken internation-al agreements, these are key mechanisms that can beused to hold transnational corporations accountableon a global scale.

Agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, theBiosafety Protocol and the Tobacco Convention arecreated and enforced by governments. But becausecorporations are at the root of the problems theyaddress, these agreements provide a framework forsubordinating these companies to universal valuessuch as environmental rights.

Pro-UN activists should work to roll back corporateefforts to unduly influence multilateral environmentaland health negotiations, while supporting bindingagreements to reign in abusive corporate behavior.

3. Insist on the payment of U.S. duesThe U.S. is a deadbeat donor to the United Nations.

It has explicitly, and at times implicitly, sought to useits financial leverage to further bring the UN under itssphere of influence. Of course, central to this sphereis the corporate globalization agenda, and its volun-tary, self-regulatory approach to issues of humanrights, labor rights and the environment, along with abinding approach to all things economic.

Pro-UN activists in the US should pressure theirgovernment to pay the UN the money it owes.Payment must not come with strings attached.

4. Support the Citizens CompactEndorsed by more than 70 human rights and envi-

ronmental groups from around the world, the CitizensCompact lays out a foundation for cooperationbetween the UN and non-business, non-governmentalgroups to work for the proper relationships betweenthe UN and business. The Citizens Compact empha-sizes the need for monitoring and the enforcement ofa legal framework for corporate behavior.

Pro-UN activists should support the CitizensCompact, as well as initiatives such as the MilleniumForum's call for a binding legal framework to controlcorporate activity.

T o w a r d aC o r p o r a t e -

F r e e U n i t e dN a t i o n s


The Principles

Human RightsThe Secretary-General asked world business to:

Principle 1: support and respect the protection of interna-tional human rights within their sphere of influence;

Principle 2: make sure their own corporations are not com-plicit in human rights abuses.

LabourThe Secretary-General asked world business to uphold:

Principle 3: freedom of association and the effective recog-nition of the right to collective bargaining;

Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and com-pulsory labour;

Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and

Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect ofemployment and occupation.

EnvironmentThe Secretary-General asked world business to:

Principle 7: support a precautionary approach to environ-mental challenges;

Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater envi-ronmental responsibility; and

Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion ofenvironmentally friendly technologies.

Labor and Civil Society Organizationsand Business Associations Supportingthe Global CompactLabor & Civil SocietyThe International Confederation of Free Trade UnionsAmnesty InternationalLawyers Committee for Human RightsHuman Rights WatchThe World Conservation UnionWorld Wide Fund for NatureWorld Resource InstituteInternational Institute for Environment and DevelopmentRegional International Networking Group

Business AssociationsInternational Chamber of CommerceInternational Organization fo EmployersWorld Business Council on Sustainable DevelopmentPrince of Wales Business Leaders ForumBusiness for Social Responsibility

Companies Supportingthe Global CompactABB Ltd. Sweden/SwitzerlandAluminum Bahrain BahrainAracruz Celulose SA BrazilAventis France/GermanyBayer Corporation GermanyBP Amoco Corporation United Kingdom/USABASF GermanyBritish Telecom United KingdomCharoen Phokpand Group ThailandConcord MexicoCredit Suisse Group SwitzerlandDupont USADaimlerChrysler Germany/USADeloitte Touche Tohmatsu France/United KingdomDeutsche Bank AG GermanyDeutsche Telekom AG GermanyEskom South AfricaEsquel Group Hong KongFrance Telecom FranceGerling Group GermanyOrganizacoes Globo BrazilGroup Suez Lyonnaise FranceInternational Service System DenmarkLM Ericsson SwedenMartina Berto Group ThailandMinas Buenaventura PeruNatura Cosmeticos BrazilNike Inc. USANorsk Hydro ASA NorwayNovartis SwitzerlandPearson plc. United KingdomPower Finance Corporation IndiaRio Tinto plc. United KingdomRoyal Dutch/Shell Group United Kingdom/NetherlandsSAP GermanySeri Sugar Mills Ltd. PakistanST Microelectronics FranceStatoil NorwayThe Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. India3 Suisses France FranceUBS AG SwitzerlandUnilever United Kingdom/NetherlandsVolvo Car Corporation Sweden/USAWebMD USA

For the UN’s perspective on the Global Compact, seehttp://www.unglobalcompact.org/

A p p e n d i x A

T h e G l o b a l C o m p a c t


C I T I Z E N S C O M P A C TO N T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S

A N D C O R P O R A T I O N SPREAMBLE

In January 1999, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called for a “Global Compact”between the UN and the business community. In that compact, he challenged business leaders toembrace and enact nine core principles derived from UN agreements on labor standards, human rightsand environmental protection. In exchange, he promised, the UN will support free trade and open mar-kets.

Citizen organizations and movements recognize that the private sector has enormous influence onhuman health, environment, development and human rights. Everyone shares the hope that economicwell-being will bring real human development and ecological security. Yet as UNICEF ExecutiveDirector Carol Bellamy has said, “It is dangerous to assume that the goals of the private sector aresomehow synonymous with those of the United Nations because they most emphatically are not.” Attimes corporations work at cross purposes to the wider realization of rights and responsibilitiesenshrined in United Nations covenants, declarations and agreements.

The growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of fundamentally undemocratic globalcorporations and other institutions of globalization with no accountability to governments or peoples isin direct conflict with the principles and aims of the United Nations to enhance human dignity and thecapacity for self-governance. As the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights puts it, the UN should notsupport institutions or corporations whose activities “create benefits for a small privileged minority atthe expense of an increasingly disenfranchised majority.”

Citizen organizations and movements support the mission and values of the United Nations. Theseobjectives must have primacy of place and must not be subordinated to commercial trade, investmentand finance rules. The UN, as an institution that prioritizes human rights, health, labor standards, sus-tainable development and ecological protection over commercial interests, must have the capacity toexercise its mandate.

Citizens organizations and movements recognize that declining financial support from governmentsto the UN and its specialized agencies make their job harder. The UN must adjust to these circum-stances; however it must do so while adhering to its Charter and its impartiality, and without compro-mising its commitment to its fundamental principles.

We propose a compact between the UN and civil society, regarding the UN’s relationship with theprivate sector. With this compact, we pledge our active support for a strengthening of the UnitedNations, financially and politically. Adherence to these nine principles will safeguard the image, mis-sion and credibility of the United Nations as it deals with the private sector.

A p p e n d i x B


THE PRINCIPLES

1. Multinational corporations are too important for their conduct to be left to voluntary and self-gen-erated standards. A legal framework, including monitoring, must be developed to govern theirbehavior on the world stage.

2. The United Nations will continue to develop tools to ensure universal values of environmental pro-tection and human rights, through such mechanisms as multilateral environmental and humanrights agreements, codes of marketing, and ILO conventions.

3. The United Nations recognizes the legitimate purpose of national and local legislation to protectecosytems, human health, labor standards, and human rights. The United Nations will assist civilsociety and governments in enacting and implementing such legislation.

4. The UN must find ways to ensure that other intergovernmental bodies, such as the IMF, WorldBank and WTO, do not depart from the principles and goals of the UN Charter.

5. United Nations agencies will advise and offer assistance to corporations wishing to understand andimprove their human rights and environmental behavior. Such assistance will not be considered a“partnership.”

6. The United Nations does not endorse or promote products or brand names of any private corpora-tion, and will avoid the appearance of such endorsements.

7. The United Nations will avoid any public association or financial relationship with companies withdestructive practices, or products that are harmful to human health or the environment. Beforeentering any relationship with a corporation, the UN will thoroughly evaluate whether the objec-tives of that company are compatible with those of the UN. In doing so, it must set up open andtransparent processes of dialogue with NGOs and community groups with expertise on those cor-porations’ activities.

8. The United Nations and its agencies will continue to fulfill their mission with funding from gov-ernments. In cases where private corporations wish to make a donation, the money will go to pro-grams that have no connection to commercial projects for that company.

9. The UN will act with full transparency in all its dealings with the private sector, at the conceptual,planning and implementation stages. NGOs should have access to the same information in thisregard as the private sector.

• Berne Declaration (Switzerland) • BAYERwatch (Germany) • Brazilian Institute of Economic and SocialAnalysis • Centro de Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente (Argentina) • Chile Sustentable (Chile) • CorporateEurope Observatory (Netherlands) • Ecoropa (France) • Environmental Rights Action/Friends Of The Earth(Nigeria) • Essential Action (U.S.) • Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy (U.S.) • Friends of theEarth (England, Wales and No. Ireland) • Global Exchange (U.S.) • Greenpeace International (The Netherlands)• Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (U.S.) • Institute for Policy Studies (U.S.) • International Baby FoodAction Network • International Forum on Globalization (U.S.) • International NGO Committee on HumanRights in Trade and Investment (India) • International Rivers Network (USA) • International South GroupNetwork (Zimbabwe) • Lokayan and International Group for Grassroots Initiatives (India) • MovimientoAutoridades Indígenas de Colombia (Colombia) • Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP)(Nigeria) • Organic Consumers Association (U.S.) • Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (U.S.) • Project Underground (U.S.) • Rural Advancement Foundation International (Canada) • South Asia Network onDams, Rivers and People (India) • Tebtebba Foundation (The Philippines) • Third World Network (Malaysia) •Transnational Institute (Netherlands) • Transnational Resource & Action Center/CorpWatch(U.S.) • Women'sEnvironment and Development Network (U.S.) • Third World Institute (Uruguay)

Partial list of groups endorsing the Citizens Compact and/or opposingthe Global Compact


1 Kofi Annan “Working Together,” Business in Africa,February 2000.

2 Kofi Annan address to World Economic Forum inDavos, Switzerland, Feb. 1, 1999, on file with authors.

3 Executive Conclusions, “High Level Meeting on TheGlobal Compact” July 26, 2000, United NationsHeadquarter.

4 “Guidelines—Cooperation Between the United Nationsand Business Community,” Office of the SecretaryGeneral, published July 17, 2000.

5 Speech of UNICEF Executive Carol Bellamy toHarvard International Development Conference,Cambridge, Mass. April 16, 1999 www.unicef.org/exspeeches/99esp5.htm.

6 Some confusion arises because of the way the UN useswords describing the relationship with business. Thetitle of the draft WHO guidelines, for example, refers to“interaction” with commercial enterprises. But else-where WHO uses the term “partnership.” The SecretaryGeneral's July guidelines refer to “cooperation” withthe business communinty, but again uses “partnership”elsewhere. Overall, there is little doubt that “partner-ship” is the way the UN describes the relationshipaspired to with the business community, and it is themost commonly used term.

7 “Guidelines and Procedures For Mobilization OfResources From the Private Sector,” UNDP Divisionfor Resources Mobilization and External Affairs,November 1998.

8 Letter from TRAC et al to Secretary General KofiAnnan, July 25th, 2000 http://www.corpwatch.org/globalization/un/gcltr2.html.

9 Maria Livanos Cattaui “Yes to Annan’s ‘GlobalCompact’ if It Isn’t a License to Meddle” InternationalHerald Tribune July 26, 2000.

10 Peter Utting, “Business Responsibility for SustainableDevelopment,” United Nation Research Institute forSocial Development, Geneva Jan. 2000.

11 Statement by Pierre Sane, Amnesty International,Global Compact Press Conference, United NationsHeadquarter, July 26, 2000.

12 William New, “UN: NGOs Call for CorporateRegulation” UN Foundation, June 1, 2000.

13 Personal Communication with Roberto Bissio, ThirdWorld Institute, Uruguay, July 10, 2000; PersonalCommunication with Rosalind Petchesky, BoardMember, Women’s Environment & DevelopmentOrganization (WEDO), July 27, 2000.

14 Question to Maria Eitel Vice President of Nike, GlobalCompact press conference, UN Headquarters, July26th, 2000, webcast at www.un.globalcompact.org;Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now, July 27, 2000.

15 Speech of UNICEF Executive Carol Bellamy, April 16,1999.

16 “Guidelines and Procedures For Mobilization OfResources,” UNDP, November 1998.

17 Letter of Bas van der Heide, Coordinator of HAIEurope, to Dr. Gro Brundtland, May 28, 1999www.haiweb.org/news.brundtland.htm.

18 International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)Comments on WHO Guidelines on Interaction withCommercial Enterprises (Preliminary version July1999) posted on haiweb.org/news/ibfancomments.html.

19 Joshua Karliner, The Corporate Planet: Ecology andPolitics in the Age of Globalization, (Sierra ClubBooks, 1997), San Francisco, pp. 52-55.

20 Jan-Olaf Willums & Ulrich Goluke, From Ideas toAction: Business and Sustainable Development, TheGreening of Enterprise 1992, InternationalEnvironmental Bureau of the International Chamber ofCommerce, Norway, May 1992, p.20-21.

21 Joshua Karliner The Corporate Planet, p. 172.

22 For an overview see, Joshua Karliner, The CorporatePlanet, pp. 50-57; various sources on the climate issueexist, for a diversity of resources see http://www.corp-watch.org/feature/climate, and for a comment by TimWirth when he was with the Clinton administration see:John H. Cushman, Jr., “U.S. Will Seek Pact on GlobalWarming” The New York Times, July 17, 1996; on cor-porate meddling in the Montreal Protocol’s efforts tophase-out methyl bromide see Joshua Karliner, AlbaMorales, Dara O’Rourke, The Bromide Barons: MethylBromide, Corporate Power and Environmental Justice,Political Ecology Group/Transnational Resource &Action Center, San Francisco, May 1997, pp. 18-21; oncorporate influence in the Commission on SustainableDevelopment regarding the biotechnology issue see“UN Accused of Industry Bias on Biotech” Third WorldResurgence, no. 58, Penang, June 1995 and on theBiosafety Protocol to the Biodiversity Convention seeAndrew Pollack, “Setting Rules for BiotechnologyTrade,” The New York Times, February 15, 1999.

23 “Tobacco Companies Strategies to Undermine TobaccoControl Activities at the World Health Organization –Report of the Committee of Experts on TobaccoIndustry Documents,” World Health Organization, July2000; Gordon Fairclough “Cigarette Firms Tried to FoilWHO, Say Investigators,” Wall Street Journal August2000.

24 Letter from Undersecretary General John Ruggie toTRAC et al, July 24, 2000 on file with authors.

25 “Taming Globalization” The Washington Post, August7, 2000.

26 Speech by Martin Khor, Director of Third WorldNetwork, at the Opening Session of the MillenniumForum, New York, May 22, 2000.

E n d n o t e s


27 Robert Evans “Report for UN Calls World Trade Body‘Nightmare’” Reuters, Geneva, August 11, 2000.

28 “Secretary General Proposes Global Compact OnHuman Rights, Labour, Environment, In Address toWorld Economic Forum in Davos,” www.un.org/part-ners/business/davos.htm.

29 Text of the Global Compact, 1999 version,www.un.org/partners/business.fs1.htm. This languagewas removed from later on-line versions of the GlobalCompact.

30 See Kofi Annan, “Address to the Chamber ofCommerce of the United States of America”Washington DC, June 8, 1999.

31 “Report for UN Calls World Trade Body ‘Nightmare’,”August 11, 2000.

32 David Weissbrodt, “Principles relating to the humanrights conduct of companies,” working paper preparedfor the Commission On Human Rights Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection ofHuman Rights, 52nd session Item 4, May 2, 2000.

33 Joshua Karliner, “A Perilous Partnership” TransnationalResource & Action Center, San Francisco March, 1999p. 9.

34 Business Humanitarian Forum, “Building MutualSupport Between Humanitarian Organization and theBusiness Community” undated report on Jan. 27th,1999 meeting of the BHF; Conference Agenda,“Defining New Cooperation in the HumanitarianAgenda,” Nov. 1-2, 1999 Washington D.C., and letterfrom John Horekens, Director, Division ofCommunications and Information, UNHCR, to TRACet al, Oct. 8, 1999, on file with authors.

35 Claudia H. Deutsch, “Unlikely Allies with the UnitedNations,” New York Times p. C1, December 10, 1999.

36 “UNICEF Accused of Forming Alliance with BabyFood Industry,” British Medical Journal, July 15, 2000.

37 Rachel L. Swarns “Loans to Buy AIDS Drugs areRejected by Africans” The New York Times, July 22,2000.

Endnotes , cont inued

This report was wr i t ten by Kenny Bruno and Joshua Kar l iner .

TRAC counters corporate-led globalization through education and activism. We work to foster democraticcontrol over corporations by building grassroots globalization – a diverse movement for human rights, laborrights and environmental justice.

Our website Corporate Watch provides visitors news, analysis, action resources and research tools.www.corpwatch.org the watchdog on the web

This report is available in PDF format on the web at: http://www.corpwatch.org/un

Thanks to: Debi Barker, Beth Handman, Miloon Kothari, Julie Light, Alison Linnecar, Mele Smith, Elisabeth Sterken

Design by Nadia KhastagirCover Art by Paul NormandiaSeptember 2000Printed on 100% recycled post-consumer waste with soy-based inks.

TRACP.O. Box 29344San Francisco CA 94129, USAtel: 415-561-6568email: [email protected]

SUPPORT THE WORK OF TRAC AND CORPWATCH.ORGFOR A CORPORATE-FREE UNITED NATIONS

Name:

Address:

Email

Telephone

Please make check payable to TRAC/Tides or use your credit card:m Visa m Mastercard

Card# Exp.

Signature Date

m $35 m $50 m $100 m $500 m $1,000m Other _______

TRAC is a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible.Donations can also be made at www.corpwatch.org

Presidio Bldg 1016, PO Box 29344 • San Francisco, CA 94129 USA • tel. 1.415.561.6568 • fax. [email protected] • http://www.corpwatch.org

Order more copies of Tangled Up in Blue.$2 each. Bulk discounts available.

Amount _______

CA residents add 8.5% sales tax Sales tax _______

Donation _______

Total _______

Corporate Partnerships at the United Nations Up In Blue.pdfSupport the Code of Conduct on...

Documents

Transcript of Corporate Partnerships at the United Nations Up In Blue.pdfSupport the Code of Conduct on...