abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Esta página no está disponible en Español y está siendo mostrada en English

Artículo

11 Dic 2015

Autor:
Liz May, Traidcraft on Financial Times blog

"British companies should be accountable at home for harm caused abroad"

Ver todas las etiquetas

[Subscription only] In the last decade there have been at least 24 allegations of serious human and environmental harm caused by UK-linked businesses in developing countries. Had similar harms taken place in the UK many could have resulted in a criminal investigation under environmental, corporate manslaughter or health and safety legislation. This is one of the main findings of our latest research. The allegations range from forced evictions, labour rights infringements, environmental pollution and, on at least one occasion, death. Of the companies implicated, 16 are FTSE listed and two are private companies. If these figures aren’t concerning enough, it’s worth pointing out that the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, which systematically records allegations against UK companies, puts the number in the hundreds. Why are these figures important? Partly, because they go against the grain of an overall trend. In the past 10 years as the exposure of UK and European businesses to major emerging markets and smaller rapidly growing markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America has expanded, human rights practice is starting to be strengthened and embedded into business models. But this trend is not all-encompassing. Policymakers in London and Brussels have been happy to allow business to self-police its behaviour in emerging markets, where the regulatory environment cannot be guaranteed to protect workers or local communities. Our research is the latest piece of evidence proving that a persistent minority of UK businesses are exploiting the legislative void – the extractives sector being a particularly regular offender. This poses a serious threat to sustainable development, as well as considerable damage to the lives of the individuals affected. But this isn’t simply an issue of protecting victims. It’s also about creating consistency and predictability for the honest players in the market and levelling the playing field to ensure good behaviour is obligatory. The investment community would also benefit. Colin Melvin, CEO of Hermes Equity Ownership Services, told us that “legislation which would enable criminal prosecution of companies for serious overseas harms would level the playing field, end uncertainty and encourage a culture shift in corporate practice.”...The UK’s anti-bribery legislation is world-leading and the government is looking at a similar model to tackle tax evasion. Closing the legal loopholes, which allow the serious harms we have investigated, would be a logical next step. The government is in the process of reviewing its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights and is due to publish its findings shortly. It’s an opportunity to put a marker in the ground and commit to legislative solutions.

Línea del tiempo