Speech by Jean Lambert MEP at the Green/EFA public meeting in Paris, Nov.2003
(originally given in French)
Thank you for the invitation to contribute to this Round Table. I shall be telling you a little of what is happening at EU level concerning Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Five years ago (in 1988), Parliament adopted a resolution (not a Directive) concerning A European Code of Conduct for Major European Companies operating in developing Countries. This resolution made many proposals for regulating such operations. Parliament also proposed to hold an annual hearing to look at companies operating in a specific sector and to hear evidence about their behaviour in developing countries. So, in terms of the overall result, we have seen no rules but in place but the hearings have been held and companies such as Nestle have found it an embarrassment not to be present when their conduct is under review. The hearings have at least tried to keep the subject alive.
At the Spring Summit in Lisbon in 2000, Council called upon the good will and the sense of responsibility of the big corporations to help achieve the Lisbon goals, especially with regard to growth and competitiveness. Well, we can always hope!
In July 2001, the European Commission published a Green Paper entitled: The promotion of a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. The Green Paper defined CSR as:
"…the voluntary integration by business of social and environmental concerns in to their commercial activities and their activities with stakeholders".
There you have it - the key words: voluntary integration and not through a Framework Directive: not even any rules requiring annual reports to consider the so-called "triple bottom line".
In their Communication on a European Union Strategy in favour of sustainable development of June 2001, the Commission invited, rather than demanded, that any company quoted on the stock exchange and employing over 500 workers, should include in their annual reports to shareholders a triple bottom line approach in terms of measuring their results against economic, social and environmental criteria. Invited them! I have to say that, at this time, I don't know how many have accepted the invitation and I don't think the Commission does either.
The European Parliament itself is completely divided on the issue of any sort of legislation. It has been impossible to find a majority for it. This is partly due to the fact that, in some countries such as Denmark, the method of voluntary negotiation between business and other actors has proved very effective. Others see regulation as an additional burden and this is often coupled with the view that CSR is good business practice and gives a market edge to companies. Others of us are less convinced and feel we should at least have minimum standards, if only to protect those involved in overseas operations.
We now have what is known as a Multilateral
Stakeholder Forum on CSR, announced in October 2002 by the Commission
and under the wing of the Dublin Work Foundation. The aim is to promote transparency
and the convergence of both practice and the instruments of social responsibility.
There
are about 40 participants and these represent employers, workers, consumers and
civil society as well as professional associations and business networks. They
are due to produce a number of reports by the middle of next year (2004).
It is true that this is a difficult subject in technical terms and comparisons and quality marks are not easy, but they are becoming ever more essential. This is due to big business being increasingly seen as a partner for government (many of us would say that it always has been, it is just more open now!)
After the Sustainable Development Summit in Johannesburg last year, we learnt that to guarantee the delivery of clean water, energy etc. for the poorest countries, would require the involvement of big business, not just governments as was the case in the development of these essential services in many of our countries in the west. That is a serious step.
We know how big companies, like BP behave outside the EU. Look at the proposed Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the so-claimed international law that the company has created to be able to do that. This is currently part of major complaint to the Commission about the project, which campaigners believe cannot be delivered within the Copenhagen criteria on democracy and human rights which set the framework for membership of the EU. There are many other cases of EU (and other ) companies behaving badly in third-countries.
It is not enough to have a "black list" of companies, nor to use the media or consumer pressure as a substitute for the power and responsibility of governments. Open and growing partnerships between government and big business imply an equality of power and risk making it more difficult for government to take action against its so-called partners. Some would see this as strategy of business to avoid regulation and accountability - they could well be right.
If, as Council stated in its resolution of February 2003: the debate about CSR must be seen in the larger context of the governance of companies and the question of their responsibilities… what is to happen to companies who don't want to accept "invitations"?
That is why we as Greens have been demanding a Framework Directive on our companies' conduct both here and elsewhere, so that we can take our responsibility as politicians, not just as consumers.
Jean Lambert MEP