Of course it is important to be culturally sensitive in deciding the time, place and manner of raising human rights issues. Such issues are sensitive in any country, non-western or western. When human rights issues are raised by a foreigner, one way for the foreigner to avoid being perceived as patronising is for the foreigner to start by acknowledging that he or she also recognizes human rights shortcomings in his/her home country (one source of such country-by-country information is the annual Amnesty International Report, available from Amnesty International’s national offices).

But while one should be culturally sensitive in deciding how to raise human rights issues, human rights by their very definition are universal and internationally-recognized. Fundamental human rights are designed to protect the inherent dignity of the human person, no matter what his or her culture or background: no person in any society should be tortured, or enslaved, or arbitrarily killed, or imprisoned without a fair trial, or deprived of fair access to food or education. These rights are set forth in international instruments which have been adopted by countries from all regions of the world.

The argument that human rights are "western" is occasionally put forward by governments (often unelected ones, particularly when they are being criticized), but seldom put forward by the people those governments rule.

Basic human rights were what were being demanded:

• by the Filipinos who poured onto the streets in 1986 to sweep away the Marcos government and install a democracy led by Corazon Aquino;

• by the South Korean students, shopkeepers, professors and autoworkers who were tear-gassed in 1987 when they called for democracy;

• by the Chinese who demonstrated in Tienanmen Square and elsewhere across the country in 1989;

• by the Thais who marched in the streets in 1992 to oust a military-dominated government;

• by the Burmese who support Aung San Suu Kyi.

It is becoming increasingly absurd to watch some governments at United Nations conferences making the argument that human rights are "western" while masses of men, women, children and human rights organizations from their own country are demonstrating outside the conference center and showing the whole world how universal is the demand for respect of basic, internationally-recognized human rights. For example, while Asian governments were at a 1993 UN meeting in Bangkok to discuss human rights, a huge parallel UN meeting of Asian non-governmental organizations was taking place, and these Asian NGOs adopted a declaration containing the following statement: "As human rights are of universal concern and are universal in value, the advocacy of human rights cannot be considered to be an encroachment upon national sovereignty."

True, when the early human rights instruments were being drafted after World War II, much of the drafting was done by westerners.

But it is an insult to non-western cultures to argue that the core principles of international human rights (respect for life, the prohibition of extrajudicial murder by the state, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of arbitrary detention) are western ideas—those principles of the sacredness of life, of human dignity, and of the importance of justice and fair treatment are reflected in the teachings of all religions and all cultures.

As the Dalai Lama has stated:

"Respect for fundamental human rights is as important to the people of Africa and Asia as it is to those in Europe or the Americas. All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they are intimidated, imprisoned or tortured….We must, therefore, insist on a global consensus not only on the need to respect human rights worldwide, but also on the definition of these rights. Some governments have contended that the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are those advocated by the West and cannot be applied to Asia and other parts of the Third World because of differences in culture and differences in social and economic development. I do not share this view, and I am convinced that the majority of Asian people do not support this view either, for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity, and they have an equal right to achieve that….The rich diversity of cultures and religions should help to strengthen the fundamental human rights in all communities. Underlying this diversity are fundamental human principles that bind us all as members of the same human family. Diversity and traditions can never justify violations of human rights. Thus discrimination of persons from a different race, of women, and of weaker sections of the society may be traditional in some regions, but if they are inconsistent with universally recognized human rights, these forms of behaviour should change."

[From a speech delivered by the Dalai Lama in New York City, 27 April 1994.]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, none against, and 8 abstentions.

Over the decades since the adoption of the Universal Declaration, governments from all regions have expressed their support for the Declaration and for the universality of the rights which it sets forth.

At the United Nations Conference on Human Rights held in Teheran in 1968, the representatives of all 84 governments there adopted by consensus a solemn Proclamation containing the following clause:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states a common understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community."

The Vienna Declaration, adopted by consensus by the 171 governments at the 1993 United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, includes a paragraph which states that the governments were…

"…reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The Vienna Declaration goes on to say that "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…constitutes a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations".

The Vienna Declaration also states:

"All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms."

It is also worth recalling that every government which is a member of the United Nations is bound by the UN Charter. In Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter all UN Member States pledge to take joint and several action to achieve "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all…" The Preamble to the UN Charter speaks of the determination "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women…"

Numerous UN human rights treaties and declarations adopted after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights spell out more specifically the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration. The text of these subsequent instruments have usually been adopted by unanimity at a time when western countries have been a small minority in the UN, and after a lengthy drafting process involving countries from all regions, all cultures, and all political systems.

Yes, cases involving religion, marriage, freedom of speech, and how to balance the interests of the individual versus the interests of the group can be tricky depending on the culture. For that reason the text of the international instruments relating to these issues has been very carefully drafted with the participation of governments representing all regions. (See, for example, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1981.)

Countries representing all regions, cultures and religions have voluntarily decided to ratify UN human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When countries ratify a UN human rights treaty, they can lodge a reservation concerning a particular provision of the treaty if they wish to do so – very few reservations have been made by any countries to any provision.

Regional human rights instruments have also been adopted. For example, in 1981 governments of the Organization of African Unity adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which contains rights similar to the Universal Declaration.

Countries in all regions of the world have now on their own initiative incorporated into their domestic constitutions and laws the fundamental rights reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the extent to which they respect those laws in practice is another question.

• "It has been a long-cherished ideal of mankind to enjoy human rights in the full sense of the term. Since this great term - human rights - was coined centuries ago, people of all nations have achieved great results in their unremitting struggle for human rights."

• "We have spared no effort to safeguard human rights…and have achieved remarkable results."

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights "is the first international human rights document that has laid the foundation for the practice of human rights in the world arena." We "highly [appraise] the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

The three statements above were made by the Government of China, in its 1991 State Council White Paper on Human Rights.

The paper goes on to say that "China has taken an active part in the UN activities in the sphere of human rights"; it lists all the UN human rights instruments China took part in drafting, and all the UN human rights treaties China has ratified.

It also talks extensively about the need to understand China as a developing country and China’s view that other countries should not interfere in its affairs, but the main point is that in this paper and in many other places the Government of China is on record as fully endorsing international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

China has even on its own initiative become a party to international treaties such as the UN Convention against Torture. Under this convention, China is required to appear before an international committee of human rights experts every four years and to answer detailed questions from them about whether China in practice has been implementing and respecting all the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

In October 1997, China allowed United Nations human rights experts to visit Chinese prisons and conduct private interviews with political prisoners of their own choosing. The experts were Kapil Sibal of India and Louis Joinet of France, senior members of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (which reports to the UN Commission on Human Rights). They visited prisons in the Tibetan capital Lhasa and in Shanghai.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "every individual and every organ of society" has the responsibility to strive "to promote respect for these rights and freedoms" and "by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance." As important institutions of society, companies have a responsibility to promote worldwide respect for international human rights. As Sir Geoffrey Chandler (former senior executive at Shell, now chairperson of Amnesty International’s UK Business Group) has observed, the Universal Declaration "not only legitimises companies’ right to speak out on these matters; it imposes an obligation to do so."

The Caux Round Table Principles for Business, adopted by a group of United States, Japanese and European business leaders in 1994, recognizes this responsibility: "We believe that as global corporate citizens, we can contribute to such forces of reform and human rights as are at work in the communities in which we operate. We therefore have a responsibility in those communities to…respect human rights and democratic institutions, and promote them wherever practicable."

This responsibility to promote human rights and the rule of law can also be seen as an opportunity for business to act in its enlightened self-interest. Leading business people who have sponsored the Amnesty International UK Business Group (Richard Branson, Sir John Harvey-Jones MBE, Sir Peter Parker LVO, Sir Lewis Robertson CBE, Baroness Denton of Wakefield, Anita Roddick, Michael Stoddart) in a 1991 joint statement noted that "companies should be aware of the human rights context of the countries in which they operate, a context which will increasingly influence the investment climate".

John Kamm, a U.S. businessman whose company received the 1996 "Best Global Practices Award" from the United States Department of Commerce for its promotion of human rights in China (including efforts to obtain the release of prisoners of conscience), remarked on the occasion of accepting the award: "Promoting respect for human rights and rule of law is good for business, and businesspeople – with the resources at their disposal, their negotiating skills and most of all their relationships – are uniquely qualified to do so."

Amnesty International’s 1997 brochure for business people (Your business deserves a strategy, AI Index ASA 01/03/97), in the section entitled "What human rights can do for you", states:

• "Human rights are about respect for the people in your business and the society within which you operate.

• Human rights ensure the protection of law and accountability of governments to businesses and individuals alike.

• Human rights can protect you and your employees.

• Human rights can contribute to the stability a country needs for its economy to grow.

• Human rights are about being the kind of company and the kind of country that others want to do business with."

The Amnesty International brochure also includes the following section:

The attention being given to international business and human rights is accelerating rapidly and will continue to do so. It is no more of a passing fad than environmentalism was when it appeared on the corporate scene a few decades ago. The following examples demonstrate the increasing priority being given to business and human rights:

a. The United Nations is launching a new study on "the relationship between the enjoyment of human rights and the working methods and activities of transnational corporations". Non-governmental organizations have been invited by the UN to submit information on the impact of transnational corporations on human rights and development.

b. Recently the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation announced the ILO is launching a major worldwide drive to push for compliance with basic worker rights (including the prohibition of forced labour and child labour). He said those who hold back were bound to face growing trade boycotts and campaigns against their goods by consumer groups and other NGOs. He said "public opinion will become increasingly important over the next few years. The sanction of the market will be more important than any government or international sanctions", pointing to several recent consumer boycotts. He said a growing number of multinational companies with subsidiaries in developing countries were asking the ILO to help them demonstrate that they were not exploiting workers and boosting profits by paying low wages.

c. Human rights organizations are giving increased attention to the subject of business and human rights. Taking Amnesty International as an example, in the past its examination of business and human rights focused mainly on the issue of corporations supplying torture equipment or other items used to commit human rights violations. But in the last few years business and human rights has become one of the more important new topics on Amnesty’s long-term agenda – the China campaign in 1996 was the first Amnesty worldwide campaign to have as one of its central components a focus on the role of business in China, and corporations are now featuring in Amnesty’s reports on Colombia, Nigeria and many other countries. Amnesty’s International Secretariat has given considerable priority to expanding its work relating to corporations, and many of Amnesty’s national sections in countries around the world are setting up "business groups" where Amnesty members (including those with a background in business) are making approaches to, and engaging in dialogue with, corporations based in their countries.

d. Big pension funds, investment funds, universities, cities and states in the United States are increasingly looking at how corporations are behaving in countries with serious human rights violations:

• In 1995 in the United States, 182 major investing institutions were managing socially responsible investments totalling $639 billion, and that amount is growing rapidly each year. Human rights considerations are increasingly a component of socially responsible investment guidelines.

• TIAA-CREF, the largest private pension fund in the United States, negotiates directly with corporations about its human rights-related concerns and participates in some shareholder initiatives. With $186 billion in assets mainly from university faculty and staff across the country, it is one of the largest holders of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

• New York City’s pension funds, totalling $62.6 billion, increasingly are asking the companies they invest in questions about their conduct in countries with serious human rights violations, and they support shareholder resolutions asking companies to report on the human rights implications of their operations in Burma. They are in the process of discussing increasing the portion of their assets in emerging markets funds, and the human rights and labour record of corporations in those developing countries will be an increasing factor in those investments: for example, for corporations doing business in China, they will keep in touch with human rights networks to learn how a particular corporation reacts to labour unrest – do they call in the army, or do they constructively talk with strike leaders?

• There is currently a bill before the New York City Council which would put companies doing business in Burma at a disadvantage in bidding for city contracts, and hearings are underway on a penalizing or selective purchasing proposal relating to Nigeria.

• The State of Massachusetts has banned contracts with companies doing business in Burma.

• Universities are also increasingly engaging on these issues. For example, Stanford University’s endowment fund has supported shareholder resolutions calling on corporations to review their guidelines for doing business in Burma. Stanford students worked to block any presence of Pepsi on campus because it was doing business in Burma.

e. Two complaints were filed last year in US federal courts against UNOCAL and Total relating to Burma (Myanmar):

• The first was a class action on behalf of Burmese people who have been killed, tortured, raped, forcibly relocated and subjected to forced labour by the Burmese military. The named defendants are UNOCAL, Total, SLORC (the Burmese military government), and two UNOCAL executives: John Imle (President) and Roger Beach (Chairman and CEO). The complaint says that when defendants UNOCAL and TOTAL entered into a joint venture with the Burmese military by which the military undertook to clear the pipeline route and provide security, UNOCAL and TOTAL knew or should have known that the military had a history of human rights abuses, and UNOCAL and TOTAL did not take appropriate action to prevent such human rights violations from happening. The complaint seeks damages for:

• forced labour
• crimes against humanity
• torture
• violence against women
• arbitrary arrest and detention
• cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
• wrongful death
• battery
• false imprisonment
• assault
• negligent supervision

When a company gets involved in a human rights or environmental controversy, one question is the effect on the company’s bottom line in any given year, and that depends on the company and the controversy.

In the past maybe the immediate effect on earnings wasn’t so great…for example, Shell apparently didn’t suffer much in its immediate, short-term earnings after the execution of Ken Saro-wiwa and his colleagues. But as consumers and investors are taking human rights issues much more seriously, the immediate effect on a company’s bottom line may be greater in the future.

As a garment industry representative said in his Wall Street Journal article about human rights:

"I am not speaking as a do-gooder. I do not now nor have I ever belonged to any organization with the words ‘People for,’ ‘Friends of’ or even ‘Help’ in its title. I am a garment industry consultant who has spent 30 years in Asia showing companies how to produce and buy better garments for less money. And I know for a fact that no social adjustments take place in the world of business unless the cost-accountants prove that change is necessary.

But I am here to tell you that the tapping noise you hear on your door is your CPA coming to announce that something is indeed happening out there, and that if you want to survive, now would be a good time to develop a social conscience."

["Forget MFN, the Consumers are Coming!", Wall Street Journal, 9 April 1996]

The most serious cost of a human rights controversy to a corporation may not be the immediate effect on the bottom line, but long-term damage to a company’s reputation, a damage which is hard to assess in monetary terms – it affects:

• the public’s perception of the company,

• the investment community’s perception of the company,

• the perception of the company by governments,

• the perception of the company by its own employees and managers,

• recruitment and retention of employees (whether or not the best and brightest people want to work for the company),

• the morale of a company.

It is difficult to put a precise monetary value on such long-term reputational damage.

Such controversies can ruin a company’s reputation overnight, especially if it hits the worldwide media in a big way, and the damage can last for decades in the public’s memory…whether or not all the allegations against the company were true. The road back to public acceptance is very slow.

• Say Nestle today and much of the public still is reminded of the infant formula controversy (which hit the news over 20 years ago).
• Say Union Carbide and people think of the Bhopal disaster (over 12 years ago).
• Say Exxon and people think of the Valdez -- the worst oil spill in U.S. history (8 years ago).
• Say Shell and people think of environmental degradation in Nigeria and the execution of Ken Saro-wiwa and his colleagues.
• say UNOCAL in the U.S. these days, and people think of a company working hand-in-hand with the military in Burma, and a company benefiting from the military’s use of forced labour and its repression of the population.

These corporate disasters (except Shell/Nigeria and UNOCAL because they are so recent) are included as case studies in many of the textbooks used in U.S. business schools for their mandatory business ethics courses…I suspect Shell and UNOCAL may be added in future editions.

Like the environmental movement, the focus on business and human rights represents a tremendous opportunity for those companies which have the vision to seize it and to address the issues constructively, rather than being forced into it.

As Sir Geoffrey Chandler (the former Shell senior executive who headed the UK National Economic Development Office and who is now Chair of the Amnesty International British Section business group) has said, there is no room for moral neutrality. Corporations which think they can remain silent will be doomed -- they will be perceived as not just profiting in a repressive regime but as profiting from a repressive regime, and that will do irreparable damage to their reputation.