Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

4. Human Rights Mean Business: Broadening the Canadian Approach to Business and Human Rights

4 Human Rights Mean Business: Broadening the Canadian Approach to Business and Human Rights c r a i g f o r c e s e At the turn of the new century, as at the beginning of the last, the world’s nations are a disparate series of economies varying enormously in their characteristics . Speaking generally, in the north, countries have passed through an industrial revolution, through a period of progressive and incremental improvements in standards of living and through several centuries of gradual, if imperfect, diffusion of wealth through the ranks of society. In the south, for various reasons, nations evidence fewer of these transformations. In the developed nations, fundamental human rights, including labor rights, have been advanced, codified, and, for the most part, observed. In developing countries, even where these standards have been codified, many are often ignored, sometimes egregiously. At the same time, by reason of a complex mix of developments in information and communication technology, and an incremental codification of liberalized trade and, increasingly, investment rules, the international economy has become ‘‘globalized.’’ Economic integration and globalization are relatively nonproblematic where globalization links developed nations with broadly homogeneous views on fundamental human rights standards. They become more controversial where they integrate developed and developing countries with different records on human rights. In the latter circumstances , trade and investment have the potential to straddle a range of human rights environments, prompting two critical questions. First, to what extent should northern businesses be expected to apply the international human rights standards by which they abide in their home jurisdiction in countries where they are not compelled to observe these rights? Second, to what extent should businesses evaluate, and respond to, the broader human rights impact of their trading or investment operations in countries with repressive, human rights-abusing regimes? Notably, businesses have been grappling with similar questions for some time. For example, in ∞∫∑≠, Belgian textile manufacturers and mine operators decided among themselves to ban child labor in their facilities. Dissenters from the compact found it advantageous to continue hiring children, thereby undercutting the prices of the competitors abiding by the rules. In the absence of laws of general application forcing defectors to conform to the minimum age requirements of the agreements, the ethical operators 72 Craig Forcese found it impossible to maintain their standards and returned to employing children.∞ Meanwhile, in apartheid era South Africa, foreign multinationals bolstered , both directly and indirectly, the regime’s capacity to stave off political liberalization. In this regard, two U.S. car companies were accused of supplying South African security forces with vehicles,≤ and at least one Canadian bank was a regular lender throughout the apartheid period to the country’s military-industrial and nuclear industries.≥ Similarly, South Africa received vital assistance from key U.S. bankers and investors.∂ Further, U.S. firms in South Africa were concentrated in strategic sectors and provided key technological and infrastructure support in these areas.∑ In fact, U.S. companies played a critical role in bolstering South Africa’s capacity for refining imported oil and provided capital and engineering skills for the country’s coal liquification projects,∏ projects that were designed to make South Africa less vulnerable to external pressures. Despitethesignificantconsequencesoftheirpresence,theseforeignfirms demonstrated a great reluctance to intervene and influence South African government policy. For example, U.S. corporate executives argued that they were in South Africa ‘‘as guests of the South African government. To antagonize the Government [was] to jeopardize the companies’ ability to function .’’π The U.S. business community’s recalcitrance was eventually overcome by demonstrating that the consequences of inaction on human rights issues dwarfed those associated with action. The very real prospect that the U.S. Congress would impose sanctions in ∞Ω∫∑ drove the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in South Africa, for the first time, to apply pressure on the Botha regime by imploring it ‘‘to . . . extend voting rights to Blacks, and open a dialogue with all races and political movements.’’∫ In ∞Ω∫∑ President Reagan signed an executive order disallowing government export assistance to U.S. companies in South Africa that failed to abide by the Sullivan Principles, a code of conduct on business operations in the apartheid state.Ω Appeals for reforms to apartheid were made in South African newspapers by U.S. firms just before the president signed his order.∞≠ Lessons can be drawn from both these examples. Implicit in the Belgian scenario are three themes of contemporary relevance. First, as with any other...