abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapelocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewprofilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathtagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

Time to establish human rights criteria for selecting corporate sponsors

Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of the Olympics has been contentious - with activist groups in the UK and in India…joining the rising chorus of complaints over the company’s role in the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster…In response to these criticisms, Dow decided…to withdraw its logo as an official sponsor of the Games. Human rights groups now want the Olympic organizing committee to accept that it made a mistake when it chose to work with Dow…The ongoing controversy…raises the important question of what sort of sponsor screening processes organizing committees of major events should undertake…Should it be companies with a squeaky clean reputation, and if so, how is such reputation defined? If companies responsible for specific abuses are to be eliminated, who makes the determination – civil society, or courts of law? What sort of due diligence steps are necessary for the company, and what sort of due diligence should event organisers themselves undertake? [also refers to GE, Coca Cola, Union Carbide (part of Dow)]

Part of the following stories

Union Carbide/Dow lawsuit (re Bhopal)

Commissioner at sustainability watchdog for London 2012 Olympic Games quits over Dow Chemical sponsorship of stadium wrap