Global Policy Forum

By Vicente Garcí­a-Delgado*

Early response by civil society at the UN shows substantial reservations about incorporating the Global Compact into the proposed UN Office of Constituency Engagement and Partnerships. On June 28, 2004 the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society Relations issued its report "We the peoples: civil society, the United Nations and Global Governance" (the Cardoso Panel and Report). The Panel (of which CIVICUS' Secretary General, Kumi Naidoo was a member) undertook this complex and demanding effort at the request of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in February 2003 as part of Mr Annan's "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change."

I would like to echo the Secretary General's praise of the Panel: "I warmly welcome this valuable contribution to the reform process of the United Nations. The report is very thoughtful and includes a number of interesting proposals […] I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Chair [former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso] and the members of the Panel for the dedication, effort and imagination that they brought to their task. Through their work, they have already made an invaluable contribution to the strengthening of the United Nations in a world that is remarkably different from the one in which the United Nations was founded."

The Panel deserves our sincere recognition and appreciation for its hard work and the remarkable contribution it has made to improve UN-civil society relations.

Proposal 9: Global Compact equalized with civil society

The Cardoso Report contains 30 proposals, each of them deserving of our considered attention. Indeed, civil society at the UN is currently organizing several debates to come up with consensuated positions and, as appropriate, to offer possible alternative proposals. This article, however, reflects exclusively on Proposal 9 under the caption "Engage the private sector as a key constituency for partnership."

Pursuant to Proposal 9, the Secretariat would strengthen its relationship with actors in the private sector by, among other things, "Incorporating the Global Compact into the proposed Office of Constituency Engagement and Partnerships (see proposal 24)" (OCEP), and "Strengthening the Global Compact's capacity for and contribution to enhancing corporate responsibility."

Some civil society representatives at the UN have immediately voiced concern that incorporating the Global Compact into the proposed OCEP may create confusion about the essential nature and identity of civil society vis-í -vis the for-profit sector. This may in turn become a distraction from the real issues concerning relations between the UN and civil society and unintentionally create an atmosphere of further distrust between civil society and large multinational corporations (LMC). Furthermore, some representatives believe that the proposed arrangement may actually reduce the space of civil society at the UN given the considerable asymmetries between it and LMCs.

Dennis Frado, Director of the Lutheran Office for World Community, raised concerns at a recent NGLS Briefing on the Cardoso Report, that with the establishment of OCEP "confusion about what is a non-governmental organization might materialize... business work for-profit hence they do not qualify as NGO which is defined as a non-for-profit entity ... Additionally, the issue of private sector accountability is very weak in the report." Frado further suggested, as have a number of other NGOs, that a "specific accreditation and accountability process for business is necessary and they should at a minimum be subject to resolution 1996/31." (ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 sets forth the requirements for NGOs seeking UN accreditation.) More pointedly, Dr Frado emphasized that "economic power has to be kept in line with political process."

Civil society´s distrust of large multinationals

Civil society's lingering distrust regarding LMCs´ true attitudes toward human, social, environmental, labor and cultural rights, and their commitment to sustainable development (and particularly sustainable production and consumption) is not just a form of paranoia, as some in the business sector would want citizens to believe.

Writing for the 4th CIVICUS World Assembly, held in August 2001, Isagani Serrano, then Senior Vice President and Board Member of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, asked "[w]hy has there been some success with CSO-government collaboration, while minimal success with collaboration between CSOs and business?" He offered the following answer: "The negative impact of globalization is blamed on global corporations that are seen to [be] more powerful than most governments." (Cross-Sectoral Collaboration for Sustainable Change, page 11).

The enormous power of transnational corporations, their fragmented national loyalties and conflicting interests, their essential non-accountability, and the abundant examples of corporate mischief (from Nestlé's powder baby milk to the Bhopal disaster, and from the Exxon Valdes to ENRON, Halliburton and WorldCom, to name a few), adding to their undue political influence and their tendency to rush to the bottom line with little or no regard for social, cultural and environmental concerns, (not even generally accepted accounting practices) makes for much of the mistrust many in civil society feel toward LMCs in general.

If many large corporations, many of them as American as apple-pie, are not prepared to fulfill basic civic responsibilities in their home country (See: "Study Finds That Many Large Companies Pay No Taxes", Johnston, David Cay, The New York Times, October 20, 2000, page C2 [http://www.civicus.org]), how prepared are they to behave responsibly in areas of the developing world where governments, anxious in their quest to receive a share of foreign direct investment, are often played against each other in an ugly race to the bottom? What human, social, environmental and cultural rights are being violated in the process? What human, social, cultural and ecological costs remain hidden, externalized, excluded from their reports and their bottom lines?

Indeed, what bases do citizens have to assume that LMCs have truly embraced human rights and sustainable development and adopted the UN principles as the overarching objective guiding their global actions in an increasingly vertiginous, cut-throat, competitive market place?

Thus there remains among civil society, both north and south, a persistent ambivalence, if not outright rejection over the idea of large multinational corporations partaking wholeheartedly in the goals and aspirations that, generally speaking, inform the work and efforts of citizens' associations, as well as the principles and spirit of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Civil society is not business, and viceversa

Corporations have a most important social role to play, and a responsibility to contribute to the goals of a just and equitable world along governments and civil society. Their cooperation is urgently needed and will be most welcome, as long as they share the ultimate objectives of this the grandest of partnerships. Multinational corporations have at their disposal a full array of financial and human resources, and the communications' knowledge and marketing savvy necessary to help make such goals a reality. All three key social institutions are called to engage each other, work together and contribute toward those goals in a win-win-win situation. Neither governments nor civil society can afford not to engage with business under appropriate conditions. Nor can business afford not to join in the effort.

But just as governments are not civil society, and civil society is not governments or business, corporations are not civil society. And while there is general agreement on the difficulty, if not impossibility, of coming up with a single, widely accepted definition of civil society, certain basic points can be made to differentiate civil society from other non-state actors. For example, so called "uncivil society" (terrorist organizations, organized crime, racist groups and groups advocating violence) are definitely not part of civil society. In a similar vein, many in the non-profit sector might find it hard to accept the idea that there is no basic, inherent difference between it and the "for-profit sector".

The Panel´s approach

I fully agree with the Cardoso Report (pa.76) that partnerships must engage "all who are relevant or affected, often including the private [for-profit] sector," and that the UN "needs to engage with all those actors using different strategies with each." The Panel points out that UNDP is offering "important guidance on these matters."

The Panel also recognizes (pa.77) that "[m]any in civil society are concerned that multinational corporations will have too much influence on the United Nations." Yet, it goes on to say that the corporations' "constructive engagement" through the Global Compact "represents a way for the [UN] to monitor accountability and responsibility."

The Panel does not explain what "constructive engagement" means, and given the Global Compact´s meager results thus far, it might as well leave the term undefined, because it means nothing. Nor does the Panel shed any light on how the Global Compact represents a way to "monitor accountability and responsibility." Considering that "accountability" means little without binding global rules of corporate behaviour, such statement rings rather hollow.

To the latter point, the Panel asserts that "[f]uller use could be made of the reporting mechanisms of the Compact." I couldn't agree more. The Global Compact needs real monitoring and enforcement mechanisms before it can gain the credibility it seeks. There are substantiated allegations to the effect that some of the participating GC companies have already violated one or more of the 9 (now 10) principles they purport to embrace when they join the Compact, and there are suggestions that some companies have actually engaged in lobbying for lower social and environmental standards, in direct opposition to the GC's principles and goals.

It behooves the Global Compact Office fully to investigate these allegations, and some suspensions and exclusions may be in order. Civil society would by-and-large support these efforts, but I can see no need to stop calling on the Office of the Global Compact to use its own mechanisms to the fullest. A transfer of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to OCEP would be tantamount to a recognition of failure by the Office of the Global Compact, and the GC itself.

The Panel believes that incorporating the Global Compact into OCEP will contribute to "strengthening the Global Compact's capacity for and contribution to enhance corporate responsibility." How would its incorporation into OCEP strengthen the GC's capacity to enhance corporate responsibility is unclear. If the GC itself lacks the capacity to enhance corporate responsibility, then the GC is failing to fulfill its most basic goals, and good business practice would call for its termination and dissolution.

I wish to be proven wrong, because eventually governments, the UN, other international institutions, civil society and the business sector will have to work together to face the challenges confronting humanity in the XXI century. But wishful thinking is just that, and it is dangerous. An extensive body of evidence leads to an inevitable conclusion: With honourable exceptions, the business sector as a whole has thus far failed to convince large sections of civil society about the sincerity of their professed commitment to the principles of the UN.

In conclusion

The Panel's Proposal 9 would, inter alia, incorporate the GC into the proposed OCEP. But, what is to be gained by a discredited GC joining OCEP? Conversely, what is the downside of such an incorporation and the adverse effects on civil society and the UN itself? Proposal 9 would in effect place the GC on a par with civil society under the same OCEP roof and would provide wholesale legitimacy to the GC's participating corporations. Such wholesale legitimacy, at least for the time being, is undeserved.

Meshing together civil society and the Global Compact is unlikely to improve relations between the UN and civil society. Indeed, such an action may result in a set-back for civil society-business collaborations, a result nobody wants.

In solidarity, CIVICUS UN Representative (New York)

Vicente Garcí­a-Delgado

About the Author: Vicente Garcí­a-Delgado is the CIVICUS UN Representative in New York