Living the Global Compact
The top 15 pharmaceutical companies show quite a variety of corporate behaviors. Some companies, like Novartis, contribute much more to the public welfare than others. Yet the public imputes “clan liability” to all pharmaceutical corporations, as the term “Big Pharma” demonstrates. The weakest performer has the greatest impact on the image of the whole industry. If a company earned reputation capital for better-than-average contributions to the public welfare, it would make business sense and more companies would engage in something benefitting higher purposes. I don’t care if they do it for value capital or as a reflection of their values, as long as they do it.
“In 1947, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was clearly directed to state and state actors. Today, it is having a major impact on non-state actors, including companies.”
Why has the issue of Human Rights been so controversial from the inception of the Global Compact?
The Global Compact encompasses two human rights principles. The first is that businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights within their sphere of influence. Second, businesses should make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
The reference documents available for consultation were primarily the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various covenants. For a comprehensive picture, however, other conventions also had to be considered, and there were considerable differences of interpretation between the various reference documents.
In part, that reflects the fact that there are different families of human rights. Most people associate human rights violations primarily with torture and political imprisonment – the sphere of civil and political rights that aims to guarantee the freedom of individuals from undue interference by the state. But there are economical, social and cultural rights as well. These are “positive rights”. To fulfill them, one needs resources. The question is: Whose resources?
There is a right to employment which is more aspirational. Nevertheless, there has been increasing pressure on companies to do more and better.
Mary Robinson, in her time as High Commissioner for Human Rights, was the first to point to the preamble to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which articulates that not only states, but individuals and all actors in society, have to ensure that these human rights are respected. In 1947, the Universal Declaration was clearly directed to state and state actors. Today, it is having a major impact on non-state actors – including companies.
As Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, Professor Ruggie has worked very successfully with a broad range of stakeholders to establish a clearer societal division of responsibility for human rights. Under his model, business has different responsibilities than the church or the state – or NGOs.
Companies, however, do have an obligation to respect human rights even where the state commits violations. Ruggie recommends companies to exercise “due diligence” in such cases or wherever there is an indication of possible violations. Ignoring a problem without exploring it proactively is not a valid response. Novartis assumed a leadership role by undertaking its first compliance assessments of human rights in 2002 and steadily expanding such compliance assessments to additional countries.
