Corporate Reporting Of Sustainability & Human Rights:
A post-structuralist analysis of the construction of the relationship between
human rights and sustainability in the Mining, Chemical and Pharmaceutical
Industries.
By
Ken McPhail & Carol Adams.
v.7
Rough Draft, Please do not quote without the permission of the authors
Abstract
According to Ratner (2001),
“The last decade has witnessed a striking new phenomenon in strategies to
protect human rights: a shift by global actors concerned about human rights
from nearly exclusive attention on the abuses committed by governments to
close scrutiny of the activities of business enterprises, in particular multinational
corporations.”
Much of the activity surrounding attempts to apply human rights to the corporate
sphere, emanates from the United Nations. Historically, the UN has clearly linked the
state of the environment with the realization of human rights, as can be seen for
example in Principle 1 of the 1972 Stockholm conference on the Human Environment.
However, apart from a recent special issue of the journal Critical Perspectives on
Accounting (2011), the issue of human rights has thus far been substantially absent
from the professional accounting curricula; global international financial reporting
standards; and the professional bodies research agendas. Yet not only do we know
little about the emergent nature of corporate disclosures in relation to their human
rights responsibilities, we also know little about whether and how this disclosure is
being related to the more established sustainability discourse. This paper begins to
address this issue by studying the human rights disclosures of thirty Fortune 500
companies in the mining, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Drawing on a poststructuralist perspective of rights, the paper explores how the notion of corporate
responsibility for human rights violations is being discursively constructed through the
disclosures of these companies within their annual accounts and sustainability reports.
The paper specifically focuses on the way the relationship between human rights and
sustainability is being construed.
Professor Ken McPhail, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, La Trobe University,
Melbourne, Australia E: k.mcphail@latrobe.edu.au
1
Introduction.
According to Ratner (2001),
“The last decade has witnessed a striking new phenomenon in strategies to protect
human rights: a shift by global actors concerned about human rights from nearly
exclusive attention on the abuses committed by governments to close scrutiny of the
activities of business enterprises, in particular multinational corporations.”
This paper begins to explore this development by studying the human rights disclosures of thirty
Fortune Global 500 companies in the mining, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Drawing
on a post-structuralist perspective of rights, the paper explores how the notion of corporate
responsibility for human rights violations is being discursively constructed through the
disclosures of these companies within their annual accounts and sustainability reports. The paper
specifically focuses on the way the relationship between human rights and sustainability is being
construed.
The increasing focus on business and human rights relates to at least three developments in the
political economy of globalisation that challenge the prevailing model of state accountability for
human rights (Muchlinski 2001). Firstly, there is growing concern over government ability to
regulate multinational corporations for human rights abuses perpetrated outside of the
jurisdictions within which they are headquartered (Ratner 2001)1. While the power of
corporations has increased, they have simultaneously become more independent of state oversight
(Muchlinski 2001), despite the fact that many of these Foreign Direct Investment projects are
partially funded by home states via Export Credit Agencies2. Secondly, there is growing concern
that the structural conditions of the global economic system and the mobility of capital, is
bringing business pursuit of profit into conflict with human rights obligations 3. Finally, the
1
Although interestingly the International Council on Mining and Metals, a body set up to champion the
mining sectors interests comments, “One example is the current lack of clarity over the boundaries between
companies and states in upholding human rights (while seeking to uphold human rights within their
legitimate ‘sphere of influence’, for example, companies also clearly need to avoid becoming political
actors, or interfere in the political affairs of host countries.” (ICMM 2006: 2) Yet this seems rather naïve
and to ignore the rather obvious point that companies are political actors and do have an impact on the
affairs of host countries.
2
Some developing nations, however, represent the business and human rights agenda as effectively an
extraterritorial extension of the power of Western states. They represent the business and human rights
agenda as a form of cultural imperialism (Muchlinski 2001).
3
Venkateswarlu (2003:8) for example comments, “The wage rates for children are far lower than adult
wages. We can reduce our labor costs considerably if we hire girl children. If we want to hire adult labour
we have to pay higher wages. With the current procurement price we get from the seed companies we
cannot afford to pay higher wages to the labourers’. The exploitation of child labour on cottonseed farms is
2
increasing interest on corporations and human rights is related to the changing nature of the
business-state relationship. While most of the challenges surrounding business and human rights
are construed in terms of the potential for multinational corporations to become complicit in
human rights violations in developing counties, Prof John Ruggie, the Special Representative to
the UN High Commissioner for business and human rights, has raised the human rights
challenges associated with the outsourcing of public services. He, comments:
“States do not relinquish their international human rights obligations by outsourcing
the delivery of services”
Prof. Ruggie goes on to say,
“ As a necessary step, the relevant service contracts or enabling legislation should
clarify the State’s expectations that these enterprises respect human rights. States
should ensure that they can effectively oversee the enterprises’ activities … through
the provision of adequate independent monitoring and accountability mechanisms.”
Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and
transnational corporations and other business enterprises, 2011, page 10.
Thus, while allegations of corporate involvement in human rights violations is not new, the global
political economic context within which contemporary violations are perpetrated, challenges
established views of the states primary role in relation to the protection and promotion of human
rights (Muchlinkski 2001: 32). The subsequent attempts to apply the discourse of human rights to
multinational corporations in particular, presumes a changes in legal, political and social relations
which in turn, changes the very foundation of human rights thinking.”
Yet apart from a recent special issue of the journal Critical Perspectives on Accounting (2011),
the issue of human rights has thus far been substantially absent from the accounting literature.
According to a 2006 survey of Fortune Global 500 companies, nine out of ten companies who
responded to the survey had human rights principles in place. More than half of the FTSE 100
companies had adopted a human rights policy and over 60% of respondents referenced the
Universal Declaration within these policies (International Business Leaders Forum 2005).
Companies are therefore beginning to articulate their social responsibilities in terms of human
rights as they are conceived through the Universal Declaration. The Business Leaders Initiative
Human Rights (2004) would therefore seem correct when they comment,
linked to larger market forces. Several large-scale national and multinational seed companies, which
produce and market the seeds, are involved in perpetuating the problem of child labour. The economic
relationship behind this abuse is multi-tiered and complex and masks legal and social responsibility.”
3
“increased numbers of businesses [are] willing to talk seriously about their human
rights responsibilities, perhaps recognizing that human rights is the most legitimate
and universal framework for determining the social dimensions of business
responsibility and issues of corporate governance.”
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, Report 2, page 11, Dec. 2004.
The language of human rights is therefore beginning to make its way into the working
environment of corporations at the policy level. Yet despite these major developments within the
field of corporate social responsibility, relatively little is know of what corporations are disclosing
about their human rights responsibilities or how these disclosures are shaping our understanding
of rights (although see Islam & McPhail 2011).
Much of the activity surrounding attempts to apply the universal declaration of human rights to
the corporate sphere, emanates from the United Nations4. Historically, the UN has clearly linked
the realization of human rights with the state of the environment.
The United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) has been instrumental in promoting the GRI sustainability
reporting guidelines5. Allen White, of the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies
(CERES) played a significant role in the development of the GRI recently commented that the
UN endorsement of the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in June 2011,
represents one of the most significant developments in CSR within the last decade. Yet not only
do we know little about the emergent nature of corporate disclosures in relation to their human
rights responsibilities, we also know little about whether and how this disclosure is being related
to the more established sustainability discourse. While we believe that Fineman’s (2001: 21)
comment, that the notion has been “ethically purged,” we wonder at the extent to which the
emerging rights discourse provides the notion of sustainability with an ethical framework6.
The seminal work on human rights within the accounting literature has commented on the
potential for human rights to re-invigorate the CSR arena7. Sikka (2011) for example comments,
4
Principle 1 of the 1972 Stockholm conference on the Human Environment for example, states, “Man has
the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality
that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve
the environment for present and future generations.”
5
The GRI was established in 1997 as a not for profit and endorsed by the UN in 2002 (Hill 2007).
6
We simply make an empirical observant here rather than a normative commitment.
7
See the special issue of Critical Perspectives on Accounting, “Accounting for Human Rights.
4
“A focus on human rights can reinvigorate accounting, corporate governance and
CSR research and can help to strengthen democracy, public accountability and
provide a better world.” (Sikka 2011)
Gray & Gray (2011) also note the extent to which sustainability and human rights are interwoven, commenting,
“Beyond the importance of the issues themselves and the route that they offer into
employment and social justice: human rights are inter-woven with environmental,
water and land rights issues as well. It is short stop to then recognise that human
rights lie at the heart of wider issues such as sustainable development itself and
global climate change.” (Gray & Gray 2011)
Yet, along with the recognition that human rights lies at the heart of sustainability, they also point
out that the relationship is complex and often conflicting (Gray & Gray 2011). There would
therefore seem to be an obvious need for further research firstly on how the relationship between
sustainability and human rights could be construed theoretically, and secondly, whether and how
the relationship is emerging in practice.
This paper begins to explore the emergence of the discourse on business and human rights by
studying the human rights disclosures of thirty Fortune Global 500 companies in the mining,
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. The structure of the paper is as follows. The following
section outlines the theoretical perspective adopted within the paper. This section provides a
review of various theoretical perspectives on the nature of human rights before developing a
taxonomy of the different ways in which the relationship between sustainability and human rights
could be construed. The second substantive section outlines the methods adopted in the paper and
section three presents an analysis of the findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of the
implications of the study.
1. Human Rights & Sustainability
This section explores two related issues. Firstly, how are we to think about human rights? and
secondly, how, theoretically could the relationship between human rights and sustainability be
construed. The objective of this discussion is to provide a framework against which corporate
disclosures on human rights can be contextualised.
1.1 Human Rights.
5
Much of the contemporary discussion of business and human rights starts with the United
Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Amnesty International defines human
rights as:
“those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity.” (Amnesty
2005:9).
However, while the discourse of human rights has become the generally accepted way in which
human beings talk about how they should be treated (Howen 2005), the nature of rights is
political and ideologically contested. Indeed, the ubiquity of human rights may, in part, reflect
the economic power underlying western notions of ethics and dignity.
Four different perspectives on human rights can be identified from the law literature: a naturalist
perspective; a protest perspective; a deliberative perspective and a discursive perspective
(Dembour 2006, see also Gallhofer et al 2011). The naturalist perspective locates rights in human
nature and reason. Protest scholars like Costas Douzinas (2007; 2000), on the other hand, contest
that while the human rights discourse has historically operated as “a language of protest,” this
function has been lost as rights have become increasingly bureaucratized. Indeed he contends that
the language of human rights has been so co-opted that the proliferation of rights and talk of
rights, paradoxically marks the end of human rights. Protest scholars have traditionally drawn on
a Marxist interpretation of rights. While they empathise with the basic premises underpinning the
universal declaration, they contend that their translation into practice serves the interests of
capital (Cooper et al 2011). The deliberative school views rights in terms of a language that
facilitates the articulation of interests within a pragmatic process of determining how we are to
proceed in a given situation while the discursive school, draws on post-structuralist theory to
argue that rights are discursively constituted, although this view is not necessarily dismissive of
rights (Dembour 2006). This paper draws on a discourse perspective to consider how the notion
of human rights is being constructed through corporate disclosures and specifically how it is
being constructed in relation to the notion of sustainability.
1.2 Human Rights & Sustainability
The primary way in which human rights and sustainability are being connected within the context
of corporate disclosure, is via the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Etzion & Ferraro, 2010).
6
Sustainability has emerged as the master frame within which notions of business and the
environment are discursively constructed (Dresner 2002). The GRI and Triple Bottom Line
reporting, have been criticised on the one hand for constructing the economic, environmental and
social spheres as three distinct unconnected areas, rather than one complex interconnected system
and on the other for failing to recognise the fundamentally different nature of each of the three
different components on which it reports (See for example Henriques & Richardson, 2004; Milne,
et al 2004; Brown et al 2005; Archel et al 2008; Brown et al 2007; Klok, 2004). For these and
other reasons, Waddock, (2007) doubts the potential of the GRI to challenge prevailing business
ideology. As we commented above, the relationship between human rights and sustainability has
not yet been explored within the literature, however it would seem that the same criticisms apply.
According to Vischer (2005), for example, the relationship between the two is hotly debated and
the aim of this section is to explore how these two rhetorically powerful ideas have theoretically
been connected. We recognise that Sustainability, like human rights is a complex notion with a
range of interpretative possibilities (see for example Bosselmann 2008), however the nature of the
relationship between the two is not contingent upon ones ecological convictions.
This section reviews the extant legal literature on the relationship between human rights and
sustainability. Methodologically, the review serves three functions. Firstly, given the lack of
accounting literature on the subject, we thought it would be useful to collate the extant literature
on the relationship between sustainability and human rights. The second intention was to develop
a theoretical framework that will provide a way of orienting the emerging corporate discourse on
the relationship between human rights and sustainability8. Finally, we wanted to gain some
insight into alternative theoretical constructions that are currently excluded or marginalised
within the evolving corporate disclosure.
The Unrelated View.
The first possibility is to conclude that there is no relationship between human rights and
sustainability. According to Picolotti and Taillant (2003: 14), this perspective is quite common.
They comment, “local and international organizations, governments and civil society tend to
isolate human rights issues into a limited sphere and treat environmental degradation as an
entirely unrelated issue.” Adams et al (2011), for example, are critical of the separation of
8
We recognise that we could have adopted a more inductive approach and investigated corporate
disclosures in a more grounded fashion. These debates have been well rehearsed within the literature and
we do not cover them again here.
7
sustainability and poverty reduction goals implicit within the Millennium Development Goals.
They contend that there is a clear need for the alignment of strategies to alleviate poverty and
promote sustainability.
The Antagonistic View.
The second option is an antagonistic view that would set human rights in opposition to
sustainability. As Vischer (2005: 47, see also Shelton 1991-92) comments,
“How do human rights and sustainability relate to one another? There has been a
growing awareness that there are limits to human development on our planet. More
and more people have to live with the limited resources offered by nature. The
quality of life of future generations is threatened. What does this imply for human
rights?”
Hamm (2001) elaborates on the tension between sustainability and human rights by contrasting
the right to a healthy environment with the emerging discussion around the idea of the right to
development9. As Hamm (2001; Udombana 2000) comments, this is obviously related to the
debate on whether the right to development is in any way limited by the need for sustainability.
However, over and above a practical antagonism, Visher (2005: 48, see also Grenstad and
Wollebaek, 1998; Talisse & Aikin 2008) also identifies a conceptual incompatibility. He
comments,
“The two concepts have different roots and serve different purposes. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is intended to create a social and political order
guaranteeing the development of every individual human person and of humanity as
a whole. Starting with the rights of the individual, it sets out the basic prerequisites
for a just social order. It is not immediately concerned with preserving the planet.
The concept of sustainability has developed out of the disturbing awareness that
human activity has sparked off an inexorable process of destruction. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is essentially more anthropocentric. .... How can these
two objectives be brought into line with one another?”
Rights to the Environment Perspective
A third alternative is to translate sustainability issues into a language of rights. We call this
perspective, “rights to the environment.” There is some evidence of this kind of perspective
9
Whether this (right to development) is a right in its own or the result of a number of underlying rights.
8
within the UN debates (Shelton 1991-92). The 1999 Aarhus convention for example, secured a
landmark agreement on citizens’ rights to the environment. The convention states,
“In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person present and
future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and wellbeing, each party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public
participation in decision making, and access to justice in environmental matters in
accordance with the provisions of this Convention (UNECE, 1999, Article 1).”
The significance of this convention lies in the link it articulates between the rights to
environment, information and participation in relation to activities that have an impact on the
environment.
Shelton (1991-92) suggests the “right to environment” has gained some international momentum
and may be the predominant emerging approach. The 1981 African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights was the first human rights treaty to expressly recognize the right of all peoples to
a generally satisfactory environment favourable to their development” (Shelton 1991-1992: 125).
The OECD has also articulated a need to construe a “decent” environment as a human right, a
point to which the International Labor Organization has also alluded (Shelton 1991-1992)10. The
right to a healthy environment is also contained within the Bill of Rights of the South African
constitution (Tilbury et al 2002). Here, the environment could be viewed as inextricably related
to the enjoyment of basic human rights and therefore, rights could be seen to be violated as a
result of environmental damage11 (Shelton 1991-92). Shelton (1991-92) explains that the rights
threatened by the environment include the right to life, the right to health, the right to suitable
working conditions; the right to information (for example in relation to the dumping of toxic
substance) the right to an adequate standard of living and rights to political participation. While
this view presents the environment as a prerequisite to the enjoyment of fundamental rights, there
is the danger that it could bring the environment into conflict with civil and political rights12.
Related to this perspective is an associated view that would seem to present access to individual
elements of the environment as a human right. An example of this perspective might be the
10
(Report: Integrating human rights with sustainable human development: A UNDP Policy document
(1998)
11
While all environmental degradation does have an impact on the enjoyment of rights, it can also promote
other rights, or the rights of others.
12
This can often happen in relation to economic development, where a right to development is prioritised
over other civil and political rights.
9
emergent discussions within the rights arena that explicitly construe the right to water as a human
right (Alvarez, 2003).
Alvarez (2003: 72) for example comments, “The right to water is
understood as part of the right to life, as a component of the right to health and as part of the right
to food.” Bradbrook & Gradam (2006) similarly discuss the advantages of construing access to
energy as a human right.
Rights of the Environment Perspective
A fourth view distinguishes the rights of the environment from rights to environment. This view
argues that the environment needs to be preserved for its own sake. This approach would seek to
develop a set of specific environmental rights. Environmental rights can be taken to mean rights
that the environment possesses, as opposed to rights that humans have to a sustainable
environment. Stone (1972: 452, 456) for example, explores the extent to which trees and other
natural objects should be given rights. Stone outlines a range of “inanimate right-holders,” from
trusts, corporations and joint ventures, to states and the church and concludes that he is “quite
seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called “natural
objects” in the environment – indeed to the natural environment as a whole.”
Human Environmental Rights Perspective.
Fifthly, there is a systems perspective that seeks to develop a more holistic view of the systemic
interaction between rights and sustainability. Agyeman et al (2002; Meier & Fox 2008; Adams et
al 2011) provide an example of this more nuanced political economy of the link between human
equality and sustainability13. They argue that environmental degradation (although construed as a
global problem) tends to impact the poor more greatly and they argue that there is an empirical
link between more equal income distribution, greater civil and political rights and the quality of
the environment. Drawing on Adeola (2000) they contend that much of the environmental
degradation caused by MNC’s represents a major human rights violation against local people
caught in the path of globalization and they contend that there is increasing recognition that one
of the best ways to protect the environment is to ensure civil and political rights (Agyeman et al
2002). As such this perspective seems to locate environmental issues within the rights discourse.
The relevance of this perspective will become apparent later when we consider how CSR
disclosure tends to place human rights within the sustainability discourse. Agyeman et al (2002)
13
In fact Agyeman et al (2002) present the inclusion of the human rights into the environmental and
sustainability agenda as a challenge to the sustainability agenda’s focus on biodiversity.
10
draw on Liepetz (1996) to argue for the recognition of human environmental rights. Agyeman et
al (2002: 83) comment on how the success of the environmental justice movement was linked to
the extent to which it was able to “tap into the discourse and rhetoric of the civil rights
movement. Indeed they contend that the success of the environmental movement is related to the
extent to which environmental justice was linked to a labour and social justice “master frame” 14.
Agyeman et al (2002: 78) go on to say that a “truly sustainable society is one where wider
questions of social needs and welfare, and economic opportunity are integrally related to
environmental limits imposed by supporting ecosystems.” Agyeman et al (2002: 77) comment
that “Wherever in the world environmental…degradation are happening, they are almost always
linked to questions o social justice, equity, rights and peoples quality of life in the widest sense.”
The Pragmatic View.
Finally, there is a pragmatic view. The case for viewing the link between human rights and
sustainability in pragmatic terms essentially involves the following arguments: there are
advantages from building upon legal obligations that result from the ratification of human rights
treatise; the mobilization of the human rights discourse; added credibility; the specificity they
provide to vague terms such as participation and empowerment in relation to civil and political
rights; the role of human rights institutions already in place at a national level (Philip 2005).
Drawing on the specific example of energy, Bradbrook & Gradam (2006) express the reason for
wanting to use the language of human rights in terms of the extent to which the framework
imposes obligations on states. They say for example, “There are significant advantages in treating
access to energy services as a human right. For example, the existence of such a right imposes
obligations on states, both at the national and international level.” They explain that “accessing
the well-established and extensive human rights machinery will help to fill a need identified by
commentators in the energy field.” They point to the fact that, the debate over energy has been
somewhat random and uncoordinated and suggest that the human rights framework may provide
a mechanism for addressing this deficiency (Bradbrook & Gradam 2006; 414).
We therefore identified six distinct ways of constructing the relationship between human rights
and sustainability within the literature. We use this broad theoretical taxonomy to explore
corporate disclosures on human rights in section 3 below.
2. Method.
14
Indeed Taylor (2000) links the success of environmentalism with its links to the civil rights movement
11
As indicated above, the aim of this paper is to begin to explore the emergent nature of corporate
disclosures in relation to their human rights responsibilities, specifically in relation to the more
established discourse of environmental sustainability.
We construe both human rights and
sustainability as discursively constituted notions (Phillips and Hardy 2002) and we explore how
the meaning of human rights, and the relationship between human rights and sustainability are
discursively constructed and framed within the limited narrative sphere of corporate reporting
(see for example Hajer 1995; Macnaghten & Urry, 1998)15.
We apply the taxonomy outlined in the previous section, to the human rights disclosures of thirty
Fortune Global 500 companies in the mining, pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Our choice
of sample was influenced by three factors. Firstly, prior surveys indicated that a significant
proportion of Fortune Global 500 companies had human rights principles in place and we
therefore assumed that there would be a greater likelihood of finding human rights disclosures16.
Secondly, using the Fortune Global 500 enabled cross-country comparison. Finally, the bulk of
the emerging discourse on business and human rights has focused on large multinational
corporations (Ratner 2001). Collectively the sample represents some of the most powerful
corporations in the world and we were interested to explore how these corporations narrated their
human rights responsibilities. We selected the top 10 companies in the chemical, mining and
pharmaceutical sectors17, three industries that have attracted considerable criticism in relation to
human rights challenges (see for example Allens Arthur Robinson 2007; Joseph 2003).
Collecting data on multiple industries enabled cross sector as well as cross country comparisons.
A list of the companies is provided in table 2.1 below. The companies were incorporated across a
range of 12 different countries. Pemex is the only company in the sample that is State owned.
Both annual and CSR reports were collected for all the companies in our sample for the year
200718. As we noted above, The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been
instrumental in promoting the GRI sustainability reporting guidelines and the primary way in
15
Note, we say nothing here about whether and how both notions relate to a “real” external world. This is
an entirely different matter which would require further elaboration of a nature inappropriate for the current
purposes of the paper.
16
We recognise partial perspective provided by our sample in that it provides an insight into the human
rights disclosures of large corporations in particular and we recognise that further work is required in
relation to SME’s.
17
The decision to focus on the top 10 companies in each sector was driven primarily by resources
available, in the form of research assistance.
18
Some companies made reference with their reports to additional disclosure material on their WEB pages.
This material however was not analysed.
12
which human rights and sustainability are being connected within the context of corporate
disclosure, is via the GRI (Etzion & Ferraro, 2010). Therefore, while all references to rights were
collated, a content analysis template was developed specifically based on the human rights
disclosure requirements associated with the Global Reporting Initiative G3 guidelines. The
guidelines recommend disclosure relating to nine human rights issues in particular. These issues
are outlined in table 2.2 below. For the purposes of this research, indicators relating to equal
opportunities with respect to race and gender in the work place and supply chain were not
included. A copy of the content analysis template is provided in appendix 1. The content analysis
was undertaken by an experienced research assistant. The research assistant pilot tested the
content analysis protocol and the corresponding data and classifications were independently
checked by both co-authors.
Table 2.1 Sample Companies form the Fortune Global 500 as at 2007 .
Chemical
Mining
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pharmaceutical
BASF
Dow
Chemical
Bayer
Sabic
Dupont
Mitsubishi
Chemical
Hanwha
Germany
USA
Pemex
BHP Billiton
Mexico
Australia
Pfizer
Glaxosmithkline
USA
UK
Germany
Saudi Arabia
USA
Japan
CVRD (Vale)
Rio Tinto Group
Anglo American
Xstrata
Brazil
UK
UK
Switzerland
Roche Group
Sanofi-Aventis
Novartis
AstraZeneca
Switzerland
France
Switzerand
UK
Korea
India
Germany
Netherlands
Germany
Abbott
Laboratories
Merck
Wyeth
Johnsone &
Johnsone
USA
Evonik
Akzo Nobel
Linde
Group
Oil & Natural
Gas
Surgutneftegas
Encana
OXY
Russia
Canada
USA
USA
USA
USA
Many of the companies in our sample were signatories to the Global Compact. BASF for example
is a founding member. Dow, Bayer, Akzo Nobel, and Vale, explicitly disclosed that they are
signatories to the Global Compact, while two thirds of the corporations explicitly referenced the
Global Reporting Initiative as being influential in framing their CSR disclosure practices19.
Novartis, is however particularly noteworthy.
The company was one of the first in the
pharmaceutical industry to sign up to the Global Compact and they have worked closely with the
UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, as well as the Special Rapporteur on
the Right to Health. The company piloted a human rights compliance project in 2007.
19
The following companies did not reference the GRI: Dupont; Hanwha; Evonik; Oil & Natural Gas;
Surgutneftegas; Sanofi-Aventis; AstraZeneca; Abbott Laboratories; Wyeth.
13
Table 2.2 GRI Human Rights Reporting Requirements
Aspect: Investment and procurement practices
HR1 Percentage and total number of significant investment agreements that include human rights
clauses or that have undergone human rights screening.
HR2 Percentage of significant suppliers and contractors that have undergone screening on human
rights and actions taken
HR3 Total hours of employees training on policies and procedures concerning aspects of human rights
that are relevant to operations, including the percentage of employees trained
Aspect: Non-discrimination
HR4 Total number of incidents of discrimination and actions taken
Aspect: Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining
HR5 Operations identified in which the right to exercise freedom of association and collective
bargaining may be at significant risk, and actions taken to support these rights
Aspect: Child Labor
HR6 Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of child labor, and measures taken to
contribute to the elimination of child labor
Aspect: Forced and Compulsory Labor
HR7 Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor, and
measures taken to contribute to the elimination of forced or compulsory labor
Aspect: Security Practices
HR8 Percentage of security personnel trained in the organization’s policies or procedures concerning
aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations
Aspect: Indigenous Rights
HR9 Total number of incidents of violations involving rights of indigenous people and action taken
3. Analysis
This section analyses the disclosures made by the companies in our sample and is split into three
parts. Firstly, we provide a general overview of the broad human rights reporting patterns within
our sample. Secondly, we analyse the specific narrative disclosures in order to begin to
understand how the relationship between human rights and corporate accountability is being
constructed through voluntary disclosures (Hajer 1995; Macnaghten & Urry, 1998)20.
Finally,
we specifically analyse how the relationship between human rights and sustainability is being
discursively constructed within these disclosures.
3.1 General Overview & Context.
Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 provide a general overview of human rights disclosures by the companies
in our sample.
We draw four inferences from Figures 3.1 and 3.2 and the corresponding
supporting tables in appendices 1 and 2. Firstly, the level of human rights disclosure varies
20
In this paper we are less concerned with the specific disclosures in relation to the individual human
rights aspects of the GRI than with the way the corporations construed their human rights responsibilities in
general.
14
significantly across the companies in our sample from no mention of human rights to almost
complete coverage of all human rights aspects of the GRI. Figure 3.2 also implies that the level
of engagement may be related to the nationality of the company. All three sectors contain
examples of companies that talk a lot about their human rights responsibilities and companies that
say nothing at all. Secondly, the reporting patterns, as well as the quantity of disclosure also
varied across the sectors, perhaps indicating that the companies think that they face different
challenges depending on the sector within which they are located. Having said that however, it
was also apparent that issues relating to discrimination received more attention in all three
sectors. Thirdly, it would seem that the companies within our mining category seemed to disclose
more in relation to human rights than the corporations in the pharmaceutical and chemical
industries. Fourthly, the supporting table in appendix 1 indicates that the corporate disclosures in
our sample were primarily narrative. We identified a significantly greater amount of narrative
disclosure relating to human rights than numerical data.
Inset Figure 3.1 About Here
Insert Figure 3.2 about Here
Figure 3.3 indicates the extent to which the corporations in our sample made disclosures relating
to sustainability in comparison to disclosures relating to human rights21. The figure records any
mention of human rights, not just those disclosures which relate to the nine issues contained
within the GRI guidelines. The table also indicates the extent to which the two issues were
collectively presented. We make three observations from figure 3.2. Firstly, the corporations in
our sample were more likely to discus the issue of sustainability than they were, the notion of
human rights. Secondly, it is clear that human rights disclosures are related to the GRI. No
corporation mentioned human rights that did not also reference the GRI. Finally, the table
indicates that there is comparatively little combined discussion of human rights and sustainability.
We interpreted the notion of a combined discussion rather loosely to include any disclosure which
connected the meaning of sustainability and human rights.
Insert Figure 3.3 About Here.
21
A supporting table is provided in appendix 3.
15
However, over and above these specific observations, the primary message form this overview is
that the emerging narrative of corporate accountability for human rights abuses has entered the
sphere of corporate disclosure. We think this creates a number of significant questions relating
not only to the presence of human rights within annual reports and Sustainability reports, but to
how this presence works to construct both the meaning of rights in relation to corporations, and in
relation to sustainability. It is to these questions that we turn in the following section.
3.2 Human Rights & Corporate Accountability
In this section we specifically explore how the notion of human rights is discursively emerging as
an aspect of corporate accountability.
Our aim is to begin to understand how corporate
accountably for human rights is framed and how its scope is being constructed. We are interested
in exploring whether and how corporate accountability for human rights is being constructed in
comparison with the accountability frameworks that have been associated with sustainability.
Human Rights & Accountability Frameworks
The emergence of human rights as a new issue within CSR is associated with the universal
declaration of human rights. Indeed, a number of companies make bold claims about their
commitment to the rights that the declaration contains. BHP for example state,
“We are publicly committed to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the UN Global Compact.”
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 73 .
Bayer, similarly comment,
“Respect for human rights is the basis for all fair and civilized social interaction. As
a socially responsible company, Bayer therefore supports the United Nations’
Declaration of Human Rights and the 10 principles of the Global Compact.”
Science For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 70.
Although the business and human rights agenda has emerged subsequent to the discourse on
sustainability, it is never-the-less, based on a long established legal framework with clear set of
accountability relationships. In contrast therefore to the notion of sustainability, where legal and
accountability relationships are currently emergent, the notion of human rights comes with an
16
established legal accountability framework22.
Within this framework, corporations are
beneficiaries of rights that can be protected from intrusion. Muchlinski (2001) for example
explains that corporations, as legal persons, have been held to have the right of property; freedom
of speech; fair trial and privacy.
Corporations therefore have rights that can be violated
(Muchlinski 2001). While the responsibility to respect individual rights is assumed to be widespread and the concern of all organs of society, accountability for the realization of rights has
traditionally been construed within international human rights law as the responsibility of states,
not corporations. It is the states responsibility to regulate on socially important maters and it is
the corporations’ responsibility to abide by the law (Muchlinski 2001).
However, the
corporations in our sample articulated their responsibilities in light of the requirements of the
universal declaration variously as a responsibility to both respect and promote rights, obligations
which, “go beyond the furthest limits of responsibility hitherto imposed by human rights law in
response to violations committed by private actors” (Muchlinski, 2001).
We found some evidence of the contested nature of where responsibility for respecting and
promoting rights ultimately lies. Dow, for example, seem to stress the traditional view that
responsibility for protecting human rights lies with nation states. They comment,
“Dow's Values and Code of Business Conduct are influenced by and reflect the
fundamental principles described in the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. We respect the sovereignty of governments around the world and the
responsibility of governments to protect the human rights of its citizens. Dow also
has a significant role to play by ensuring compliance to local laws, regulations and
customs.” [my emphasis]
Human rights, The Dow Chemical company.
Akzo Nobel similarly seem to stress a compliance view of human rights when they comment,
“We will conduct our activities in a socially responsible manner. In this respect we
observe the laws of the countries in which we operate, support fundamental human
rights in line with the legitimate role of business.”
AkzoNobel Corporate, Code of Conduct, August 2008, page 5.
22
Note we make no comment about the framework itself, we simply point out that its existence should be a
factor in understanding how both human rights and sustainability are or are not likely to converge.
17
Other disclosures, however, not only articulate a duty to observe human rights but also reference
an overt corporate responsibility to promote human rights. BASF, for example, appear to accept
this broader responsibility, although this accountability is limited to their sphere of influence23.
They comment, “We strive to contribute to the protection and wider recognition of human rights
in our spheres of influence,” (BASF Group’s Position on Human Rights, February 2011, page 1)
and Novartis comment,
“As well as actively avoiding involvement in the abuse of human rights, we share
the notion that companies – within a fair societal division of responsibilities – also
have a role to play in promoting human rights, such as the right to an adequate
standard of living.”
Novartis 2007 GRI report, July 2008, page 70
Merck (Advancing the Dialogue, Toward a Healthier Future, Corporate Responsibility 2008
Report, page 37) also comment, “Business has an important role to play in protecting and
promoting the advancement of fundamental human rights,” and BHP Billiton (BHP Billiton
2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 247) seem to convey a similar perspective, when they say,
“wherever we operate we will…ensure ... we understand, promote and uphold fundamental
human rights within our sphere of influence, respecting the traditional rights of Indigenous
peoples and valuing cultural heritage”.
The language of these quotes challenges the traditional construction of human rights as the
primary responsibility of nation states and position the corporation in the role of moral arbitrator
within the communities within which they operate (Muchlinski 2001). BHP seem to recognise the
issue of jurisdiction in relation to human rights, however they comment that promoting human
rights means working with host governments. They, comment
“While recognising the national sovereignty of host governments, we have a
responsibility to promote human rights by contributing to public debate, supporting
international agreements and commitments, and identifying opportunities to
constructively engage government on human rights issues relevant to our business in
the host country.”
23
The corporate accountability for human rights extends to suppliers and other individuals and
organisations within their sphere of influence. BHP Billiton, for example comment, “When engaging
suppliers and business partners, we endeavour to avoid being complicit in or encouraging any activities that
may result in human rights abuses. Where possible, we also seek to influence the behaviour of our suppliers
and business partners by drawing attention to human rights issues, such as safety in the workplace.“
BHP Billiton Full Sustainability Report 2008, page 133
18
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 248
Oxy also explicitly state a responsibility to promote rights contained in international law as
opposed to simply adhering to national legislation. They say,
“A formal Human Rights Policy was adopted in 2004. The policy sets forth Oxy’s
commitment to promoting, within its sphere of activity and influence, those rights
and freedoms universally recognized in international as well as national law.”
Oxy, Social Responsibility Report 2007, page 6
If, as Muchlinski (2001) comments, the mere claim that corporations can have a duty to observe
rights pushes human rights law beyond its limits, then presumably corporations claims to promote
human rights are even less intelligible within the sphere of traditional jurisprudence. This is
primarily because the claim to be responsible for both the promotion and protection of human
rights ontologically constructs the corporation in a manner which has exclusively been the
preserve of the state (Muchlinski 2001).
If, as Shearer (2002; see also Schweiker, 1993) and
Arrington and Francis (1993) contend, the act of rendering an account reflexively constructs the
account giver, then the question here is whether the nature of these corporations human rights
claims discursively construct them in a way which changes the accountability relationships
involved in rendering the account.
The Scope of human Rights.
There is therefore evidence that some corporations construed their responsibility in terms of
promoting the realization of human rights. However, over and above the question of the extent to
which corporations should be accountable for respecting or realizing rights, there is a second
question which relates to the scope of the rights for which corporations are to be held
accountable. Traditionally, rights have been the presumed preserve of the state because of the
states capacity to both violate and promote them. As Muchlinski (2001: 35) comments “which
human rights are MNC’s to observe? They may have some influence over social and economic
matters, as for example ensuring the proper treatment of their workers; but they can do nothing to
protect civil and political rights. Only states have the power to do that.”
In line with Muchlinski’s observations, we found some evidence that the scope of human rights is
being limited specifically to labour rights. Astra Zenica for example comment,
“We are fully supportive of the principles set out in the UN Declaration of Human
Rights, and our Code of Conduct and supporting policies outline the high standards
19
of employment practice with which everyone in AstraZeneca is expected to comply,
both in spirit and letter. These include respecting diversity and, as a minimum,
complying with national legal requirements regarding wages and working hours“
AstraZeneca, Annual report and form 20-F Information, 2007.
Xstrata similarly comments
“Xstrata supports the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Labour Organisation Conventions. We respect the legislation in each
country in which we operate. Xstrata is a signatory to the UN Global Compact and
we have aligned our strategy and operational performance with ten universally
accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anticorruption. ... The primary human rights in our business relate to the rights of our
employees and contractors to work for equal pay, associate freely, to a safe and
healthy workplace, to non-discrimination and to legal rights. Other risks relate to
the rights of communities associated with our operations and projects to be treated
with dignity in a manner that respects cultural heritage, traditions and norms.”
Xstrata plc Sustainability Report 2007, page 27
Pemex also clearly limits the scope of human rights to labour and discrimination issues when they
comment,
“The Company respects human rights, equal opportunities and non-discrimination
policies based on gender, race, age, language, socioeconomic level, abilities,
religion, disability or other characteristics, that prevent full exercise and respect for
human rights. Pemex taught 1,417 hours of employee training during 2007, for
Corporate and PPQ employees in human rights.”
Pemex 2007 Sustainable Development, page 76
However, while on the one hand, limiting human rights to labour rights obviously restricts the
scope of corporate accountability, we also identified some evidence of a broader construction of
rights. Novartis was the only company in our sample to construct human rights in terms of the
civil, political and economic rights categories normally employed in relation to the universal
declaration. They say,
“Respect for human rights is an essential ingredient of good management. As a
responsible corporate citizen, we aim to exert an enlightened presence wherever we
operate. We do everything in our power to ensure that we are not complicit in any
20
violations of human rights - whether these are civil, political, economic, social or
cultural in nature.”
Novartis 2007 GRI report, July 2008, page 53
BHP Billiton’s disclosures also extended the scope of rights to incorporate rights to environment,
water and health, over and above labour rights, they say,
“When engaging with our local host communities, we have a responsibility to
protect those human rights directly affected by our activities. These include the right
to a clean environment by minimising the impact of environmental pollution from
our operations and the promotion of other basic human rights, such as access to
clean water and basic health services.”
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 248
There is therefore evidence of a range of corporate constructions of human rights, and therefore
the scope of rights for which they will be held accountable. This scope ranges from labour rights,
through broader social and political rights, to the right to a clean environment. The presence of
these claims is perhaps indicative of the “fragmented centres of power … which extend the
individual’s perception of authority, repression and alienation beyond the apparatus of the state”
(Muchlinski 2001: 40). These disclosures are only intelligible if it is assumed that MNC’s have
the capacity to violate human dignity and the power to directly influence political institutions. It
would therefore, in light of their own disclosures, seem difficult to sustain an argument that these
large corporations are not socio-political organisations or that their primary accountability
relationship is based on the property rights of shareholders24. States responsibility for civil,
political and economic rights, has after all been legitimised by their democratic accountability.
Muchlinski (2001:44) for example comments that articulating a responsibility for human rights,
“appears to treat corporations as quasi-governmental public institutions. That is to give them a
constitutional status that they neither deserve nor need.”
We also identified some evidence that the notion of human rights was being constructed in terms
of core business activity. In terms of a parallel with sustainability, this might be akin to those
corporations that view sustainability as a set of constraints within which business is undertaken as
opposed to viewing sustainable energy, for example, as the core business model. In the following
24
While these commitments are voluntary, they can gain legal force if they become encoded in for
example supplier contracts
21
quote for example, Novartis, seems to display the latter kind of construction in relation to the
right to health. Under a list of target for 2007 and 2008 they say,
“Target for Respect for Human Rights 2007,
Evaluate pilot Human Rights Compliance Assessment and carry out compliance
assessment in one new country. Participate in debate about corporate content of the
“Right to Health.” Work closely with UN Representative on Business and Human
Rights, as well as Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.
Target for 2008
Pilot a Human Rights Compliance Assessment in an additional country and develop
a pharma-specific version of the assessment. Support the Business Leadership
Initiative on Human Rights (BLIHR) in development of an online tool to help
companies assess and address challenges related to human rights. Contribute to the
new round of discussions about business and the right to health.”
Novartis 2007 GRI report, July 2008, page 13
Integrating Accountability for Human Rights.
While there may be some differences in the underlying accountability frameworks, accountability
for human rights, like accountability for sustainability, subsequently becomes subject to
management. As one company commented, “BHP Billiton manages human rights across our
various relationships according to the UN Global Compact's 'Sphere of Influence' model”.
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 247
Under the heading of “Self-Assessment and Management,” the company explain how human
rights risk is being incorporated into the company’s business planning and review processes.
They say,
“Integral to meeting these commitments are our HSEC Management Standards,
which require that human rights aspects … are considered on a risk basis by our
operations and integrated into business planning and review processes as
appropriate.”
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 248
22
In order to encourage all aspects of the business to assess their potential risks to human rights
issues, the company introduced a target for all sites to undertake “a human rights self-assessment
and implement a risk-based human rights management plan by 30 June 2008.” [our emphasis].
Bayer similarly indicate that human rights had been incorporated into their management systems.
They say,
“In the year covered by the report, the focus was on climate protection, our Groupwide communication program on anti-corruption and compliance, the expansion of
our procurement management system and the integration of our human rights
policy into our management systems. Our commitment to sustainable health care
serves the goal of strengthening human rights.”
Science For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 104
Novartis similarly comment on their efforts to mainstream human rights into their business, they
say,
“As well as being a signatory of the UN Global Compact, Novartis is one of the few
multinational corporations to have developed a guideline on human rights. This sets
out our human rights commitments and responsibilities and is implemented through
normal management procedures…. Together with institutions like the Business
Leaders Initiative on Human Rights (BLIHR), the Danish Institute for Human Rights
(DIHR), the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), and the International
Finance Corporation (IFC), we are helping to develop new tools for mainstreaming
human rights into business and assessing corporate impacts.”
Novartis 2007 GRI report, July 2008, page 70
Bayer explain how they have implemented a series of measurable targets in relation to their
sustainability policy. The inference from the following quote is that these targets also include
human rights goals. They say,
“We developed a Group-wide position on human rights and presented the “Bayer
Climate Program,” which is based on our new policy on climate change. Both apply
in all countries and regions where Bayer operates throughout the world. The
subgroups and service companies are charged with implementing these policies on a
day-to-day basis. How we measure and manage our performance in this area is
illustrated by the Sustainable Development Program 2006+ (“Our goals for 2010”),
comprising several fields of activity including innovation, product stewardship,
excellence in corporate management, social responsibility and responsibility for the
23
environment. Within these fields, we have assigned specific measures to each goal in
order to monitor our progress and document the achievement of targets.
Science For A Better Life, Bayer Annual Report 2007, page 72
The following disclosure by Bayer also implies that, in this instance, the issue of human rights
had been incorporated into the company’s performance management system. They say,
“Our values and leadership principles clearly reflect our position on human rights.
They serve as the basis for all internal leadership training courses and are also
communicated systematically in special modules – such as the thematic area
“Respect for people and the environment.” What’s more, through our performance
management system, which is applied uniformly around the world, individual
conduct targets are agreed each year as leadership goals with all of our currently
roughly 25,000 managerial employees, taken into consideration in the bonus system
and monitored.”
Science For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 70
Some of the corporations in our sample therefore articulated their responsibility for human rights
as a responsibility to both protect rights and promote rights. This language challenges prevailing
corporate accountability models. We also identified some evidence of a range of corporate
constructions of human rights. Some delimit the scope of rights for which they will be held
accountable, while others reflexively construct the corporation as a quazi-governmental public
institution.
3.3 Human Rights & Sustainability
In this section we specifically explore how the relationship between human rights and
sustainability is being discursively constructed and framed within the narrative sphere of
corporate reporting. We draw on the taxonomy of six perspectives outlined above to both frame
the way in which the relationship is being constructed and highlight the alternative
conceptualisations that are currently being marginalised. The six alternative perspectives outlined
above were as follows: The unrelated view; the antagonistic view; the rights to environment
perspective; the rights of environment perspective; human environmental rights and finally, the
pragmatic view.
Human Rights & Sustainability As Unrelated.
24
Most of the disclosures that mentioned human rights and sustainability together, constructed both
notions as distinct. There was little relating to the reasons why they are mentioned together, or
their interrelationship, other than that they are perceived to be part of the new CSR environment.
They were constructed as referents, connected only in the sense of being elements in a broader
CSR strategic narrative. Anglo American, for example, seem to construe human rights as the
latest development in the evolving nature of CSR when they say,
“The risks we face and the issues of major concern to stakeholders do not change
dramatically from year to year although, of course, new issues and concerns surface
over time. This has seen this report evolve from a typical safety, health and
environment report to one which includes governance, ethics, human rights issues, a
greater focus on the company strategy and future projects.”
Anglo American, Report to Society 2007, page 12
Some of the discussion presents human rights as relating to a set of distinct but connected
objectives.
Bayer for example seem to separate human rights from labour rights and
environmental protection when they comment,
“With our support of the United Nations Global Compact, we want to raise standards
in the fields of human rights, labor rights and environmental protection. In the year
covered by the report, the focus was on climate protection, our Group-wide
communication program on anti-corruption and compliance, the expansion of our
procurement management system and the integration of our human rights policy into
our management systems.”
Science For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 104
Bayer likewise comment, “[we] developed a Group-wide position on human rights and presented
the “Bayer Climate Program,” which is based on our new policy on climate change.” Science For
A Better Life, Bayer Annual Report 2007, page 72. The disclosure of the development of both
policies would seem to indicate that both issues are emerging within the CSR arena, however the
existence of two separate policies also indicates a lack of integration.
However, while there was a lack of integration, quite a number of the disclosures seemed to
position human rights as a sub-category within the sustainability report and broader sustainability
agenda. Sustainability therefore appears as the master frame, within which human rights are
given relevance. The sense here is that human rights are a part of what it means to be sustainable,
25
although, again the reasons why this might be the case are not fully articulated. Xstrata for
example comment,
“Our Sustainable Development Standards require community relations strategies to
be developed that uphold and promote human rights and respect cultural
considerations and heritage, in particular with regard to the use of security providers
and personnel in high-risk areas.”
Xstrata plc Sustainability Report 2007, page 27
Vale similarly comment,
“We understand that sustainable development is a challenge to our greater society, to
which Vale is a contributor. We are focusing attention on the evolution of critical
issues such as human rights, socioeconomic development, environmental
conservation and climate change, among others. In this sense, we are committed to
the company’s sustainability vision and support Vale’s engagement to the private
and public sectors, as well as to civil society, to address the social and environmental
challenges with which we are faced.”
Vale, Sustainability Report 2007, page 3
The majority of disclosures therefore tend to isolate human rights issues into a limited sphere that
is unrelated to environmental degradation (Picolotti and Taillant; 2003 Adams et al, 2011). When
BHP talk about human rights within the context of sustainable development they link rights
primarily to employees, contractors and host communities. They say,
“Our Charter highlights that we care as much about how results are obtained as we
do about delivering good results. Our Health, Safety, Environment and Community
Management Standards provide the basis for developing and applying management
systems at all levels of our Company and are a driver of our contribution to
sustainable development. The Standards highlight four key components of
sustainable development:
• Health – promoting and improving the health of our people and host
communities.
• Safety – providing a workplace where people can work without being
injured.
• Environment – promoting efficient resource use, reducing and preventing
pollution and enhancing biodiversity protection.
• Community – engaging with employees and contractors and with those
affected by our operations, including host communities; and understanding,
26
promoting and upholding fundamental human rights within our sphere of
influence”.
BHP Billiton Annual Report 2008, page 56
In terms of elaborating the nature of the relationship between rights and sustainability, Merck
connects human rights to sustainability in a way that constructs sustainability narrowly in terms
of ongoing business activity and licence to operate. They say,
“Supporting human rights makes business sense too—companies that violate
internationally recognized human rights are not sustainable.”
Bayer however, appear to link human rights to a slightly broader notion of sustainable
development. They comment,
“We also expect the conduct of our business partners to reflect our efforts to uphold
human rights. As an integral component and expression of our efforts on behalf of
human rights, therefore, we demand through our procurement guidelines
“Requirements for suppliers” that our suppliers clearly commit to the principles of
sustainable development. We verify that this is the case before establishing business
relations with them.”
Science For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 70
The emergence of disclosure on sustainability and human rights seems also to be explicitly linked
to shifts within the regulatory environment and stakeholder pressure. The appearance of human
rights, alongside sustainability reflects the presence of different regulatory entities, including
NGO’s and frameworks. Anglo American for example comment,
“The issue of regulatory frameworks is of course bigger than both climate change
and the corporate sector. They are needed for orderly societal function. As a
responsible corporation Anglo American continues to play an active part in
voluntary initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the
Global Compact, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the
Kimberley Process, the Global Reporting Initiative and others. They are an
appropriate response to many of the problems such as corruption, security and
human rights and the sometimes bitter past experiences of developing countries at
the hands of western companies and developed countries. Frameworks that have
been developed in cooperation with international agencies, labour, NGOs and
government seem to have a greater degree of relevance. By proactively working this
27
way, on societal problems and issues, industry is able to inform national approaches
and find successful solutions.
Anglo American, Report to Society 2007, page 4
Xstrata suggest a similar link when they comment,
“Xstrata’s Sustainable Development Framework has been mapped to international
standards including the ICMM and UN Global Compact principles, Voluntary
Principles on Security and Human Rights, ISO14001 and OHSAS18001”
Xstrata plc Sustainability Report 2007, page 23
However, Bayer also comment that the decision to incorporate human rights into their
business and reporting practices related to stakeholder perspectives on the need to
incorporate human rights into the companies sustainability report. They comment, “64% of
stakeholders would like to see human rights contained in the sustainability report.”(Science
For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 27).
The compartmentalisation of human rights and sustainability would therefore seem to reflect
criticisms of the way the GRI and Triple Bottom Line fails to recognise the fundamentally
interconnectedness of the three different areas on which it seeks to report (See for example
Henriques & Richardson, 2004; Milne, et al 2005; Brown et al 2005; Archel et al 2008; Brown et
al 2007; Klok, 2004). There is little recognition of the potentially antagonistic relationship
between human rights and sustainability.
Rights to Environment & Rights to Health.
However, while the emergent construction of the relationship between sustainability and human
rights outlined above might have been anticipated given both the predominance of the GRI and
the criticisms it has received, we never-the-less also identified some examples of the rights to
environment perspective outlined above (Shelton 1991-2; Alvarez 2003).
BHP for example, seem to connect human rights specifically labour and indigenous rights with a
slightly broader notion of sustainable development that recognises their impact on the right to
food and water. They comment,
“Our objective is to minimise potential negative social impacts while maximising the
opportunities and benefits for our host communities. In order to achieve this
28
outcome, we engage in a range of sustainable development and community relations
activities, including:… Upholding and promoting the human rights of our employees
and contractors, our suppliers, and the communities in which we operate,
incorporating such issues as freedom of association, the exclusion of child labour,
the prohibition of forced labour and appropriate use of security forces; …
Monitoring, measuring and managing our social and economic impacts, which
incorporate positive impacts, such as increased economic opportunities through
employment, training and business spin-offs, as well as potential negative impacts,
such as resettlement, impacts on food and water supplies, and loss of cultural sites
or values”
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 238
They go on to explicitly mention the right to a clean environment. They say,
“At the centre of our sphere of influence are our employees and contractors, for
whom we play an important role in the protection of their rights. This is
demonstrated through our commitment to providing a safe and secure workplace.
When engaging with our local host communities, we have a responsibility to protect
those human rights directly affected by our activities. These include the right to a
clean environment by minimising the impact of environmental pollution from our
operations and the promotion of other basic human rights, such as access to clean
water and basic health services.”
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report, page 248
Within the Pharmaceutical and chemical sectors, Novartis, Bayer, and Sanofi also construe
the relationship between human rights and sustainability in terms of the right to health,
although this is undoubtedly related to the perceived positive impact of their core business
on human rights. Bayer, for example talk about how their “commitment to sustainable
health care serves the goal of strengthening human rights.” (Science For a Better Life,
Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007, page 104) Novartis also indirectly comment
on the role of business in promoting the right to health. They say,
“Through the work of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development, we
have taken a leadership role in helping to define the part business can play in
protecting and promoting human rights, particularly with regard to the right to
health. We are involved in pioneering efforts to apply the concept of a living wage
across our worldwide operations.”
29
Novartis 2010 GRI report, October 2011, page 85
Sanofi, similarly state, “Our commitment to sustainable health care serves the goal of
strengthening human rights.”
Within the mining sector there is therefore some evidence of an emergent “right to environment”
perspective, which may be emerging as a way of articulating the nature of the corporate
accountability relationship between BHP and the communities within which it operates. Within
the Pharmaceutical industry, however, the relationship between sustainable development and
human rights is mediated by the idea of the right to health which clearly connects to the core
business of these types of corporations. However, if “rights to environment” is the preferred
construction at the UN (Shelton 1991-92), then one might expect to see traces of this perspective
beginning to emerge within corporate disclosures. There therefore seems to be evidence of a
paradoxical relationship between the GRI, which may be contributing towards a
compartmentalised view of sustainability and human rights if the UN favours a rights to
environment view. We should also not over look the fact that both these views marginalise the
sense in which human rights and sustainability are in opposition or more systemically
interconnected, along with any notion that the environment may be construed as having rights in
itself.
4. Conclusion
Despite the significant shift by global actors concerned with human rights from a focus on
governments to multinational corporations over the past decade, and despite the prominent role
that human rights play in the GRI, we know little about the emergent nature of corporate
disclosures on human rights.
This paper has explored how the notion of rights is being
constructed through the disclosures of some large corporations in the mining, chemical and
pharmaceutical sectors, in response to the growing expectation that corporations should be held
accountable for their impact on human rights. The paper has also specifically focused on how the
relationship between sustainability and human rights could be construed theoretically and
whether and how this relationship is emerging in practice.
This study clearly confirms that the language of human rights has entered the discourse of
corporate accountability. However, it is also apparent that the amount of talk varies significantly
across companies, sectors and nations. While the appearance of human rights alongside notions
30
of sustainability reflects the presence of different regulatory entities like the UN and the GRI,
further research is required on why different companies within the same sector have such
divergent levels of disclosure on human rights and also why disclosure appears to vary across
countries and sectors.
However, as corporations begin to articulate their social responsibility through the language of
human rights and the ideology of the universal declaration, this creates a number of significant
questions relating to how this presence works to construct both the constitutional status of
organisations and the positioning of human rights in relation to sustainability. This paper has
begun to raise those questions. The corporations in our sample articulated their duties variously as
a responsibility to both protect and promote rights that challenges the traditional view that rights
are the primary concern of nation states.
We found evidence of a range of corporate
constructions of human rights that influences the scope of rights for which they will be held
accountable. This scope ranges from labour rights, through broader social and political rights, to
the right to a clean environment. While most of the disclosures seem to constructed human rights
and sustainability as discrete notions we never-the-less also identified some examples of what we
referred to as the rights to environment perspective. We speculate that the GRI may be impeding
the development of a more integrated view of rights and sustainability.
However we also suggest that this significant development in the discourse of corporate
accountability raises significant questions about the role of the state. We question whether the act
of articulating a responsibility for human rights, confers upon corporations a constitutional status
that is unnecessary. Muchlinski (2001) for example, adopts the normative position that, MNC’s
“can be regulated to act in a socially responsible manner without an alteration to their status as
private law entities.”
There has been some concern within the CSR literature that the challenge of sustainability has
been lost because the business community has been able to construct the notion in a way which
removes its ethical as well as ecological challenges. As Fineman, (2001: 21) comments, the
notion has been “ethically purged.”
However, whether constructing the challenges of
sustainability in terms of the ethical discourse on business and human rights might go some way
towards reinvigorating sustainability is a question we will not be able to answer until much more
research has been undertaken both on how the relationship between these two meta-discourses is
being constructed, and the alternative ways in which they could be theoretically combined.
31
Considerably more work is required on how the “rights of environment;” and “human
environmental rights” perspectives, which are marginalised within the current discourse, could
impact on both the theory and practice of corporate accountability.
References
Adams, W.M., Aveling, R.,Brockington, D., Dickson,B., Elliott, J. Hutton, J. Roe, D.,Vira,B.,
Wolmer, W. (2004) “Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty” Science 306,
1146
Adams et al 2011 missing
Adeola, F. O. (2000) “Cross-national environmental justice and human rights issues: a review of
evidence in the developing world”, American Behavioral Scientist, 43, pp. 686–706.
Advancing the Dialogue, Toward a Healthier Future, Corporate Responsibility 2008 Report,
Merck & Co,
http://www.merckresponsibility.com/downloads/Merck-2008-CSR-Report.pdf (last accessed
7/02/2012)
Agyeman. J; R.D., Bullard; B., Evans (2002) Exploring the Nexus: Bringing Together
Sustainability, Environmental Justice and Equity Space and Polity 6(1) pp.77 - 90
AkzoNobel Corporate, Code of Conduct, Who we are and how we work, August 2008,
http://www.akzonobel.com/corporate_governance/policies/code_of_conduct/ (last accessed
24/01/12)
Allens Arthur Robinson, Focus: Pharmaceuticals – November 2007; Draft human rights
guidelines for access to medicines http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/ip/fopnov07.htm (last accessed
27/10/2010)
Alvarez, I.,J. (2003) “The Right To Water as A Human Right” 71-82, in Linking human rights
and the Environment. Eds Picolottie R.P., & J.D. Taillant, University Press of Arizon.
Amnesty International (2005) Human Rights & Business Pages. Non-Discrimination and
Equality. 2005. (Amnesty International UK: London).
Anglo American, Report to Society 2007,
www.investis.com/aa/docs/gr_2008_04_15.pdf (last accessed 7/02/12)
Archel 2008 missing
Arrington, C.E., Francis, J.R. (1993), Accounting as a human practice: The appeal of other
voices. Accounting, Organizations and Society pp.105-106
AstraZeneca, Annual report and form 20-F Information, 2007,
http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2007/business_review/resources/people.asp
(last accessed 25/01/2012)
32
BASF Group’s Position on Human Rights, February 2011,
http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/function/conversions:/publish/content/sustainability/ourvalues/images/BASF_Human_Rights_Position.pdf (last accessed 7/02/2012)
BHP Billiton 2007 Full Sustainability Report,
http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/sustainability/reports/Documents/2007%20BHP
%20Billiton%20Sustainability%20Report%20documents.pdf (last accessed 24/01/2012)
BHP Billiton Annual Report 2008,
http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/investors/reports/Documents/2008%20BHP%20Billiton%20A
nnual%20Report%20documents.pdf (last accessed 25/01/2012)
Bradbrook,A.J, and J., G. Gardam, (2006) Placing Access to Energy Services within a Human
Rights Framework, Human Rights Quarterly, 28(2), May 2006, pp.389-415
Brown, H.S., de Jong, M., & T. Lessidernska, (2009). “Building Institutions based on
information disclosure: lessons from GR’s sustainability reporting.” Journal of cleaner
Production, 17 pp.571-580.
Brown, H.S., de Jong, M., & T. Lessidernska, (2007). The rise of the global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) as a Case of Institutional Entrepreneurship, working Paper no.36 of the
Corporate social Reporting Initiative. Cambridge, MA: J.F.K. School of Government,
Harvard University.
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, Report 2, Dec. 2004
Cooper, C., Coulson, A., Taylor, P. (2011) “Accounting for human rights: Doxic health and
safety practices – The accounting lesson from ICL” Critical Perspectives on Accounting
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.001
Dembour, M.B. (2006) Who Believes in Human Rights: Reflections on the European Convention
(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)
Douzinas, C. (2007) Human Rights & Empire. The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism.
(Oxford: Routledge)
Douzinas, C. (2000) The End of Human Rights. (Oxford: Hart Publishing).
Dresner, S. (2002). The Principles of Sustainability. (London: Earthscan).
Etzion, D & F. Ferraro (2010) “Accounting for sustainability: analogical work and the
Global Reporting Initiative.” Organization studies. Sep/Oct2010, 21(5), p1092-1107
Fineman, S (2001) “Fashioning the environment” Organization, 8(1), pp.17-31
Gallhofer, S. Haslam J. & Van der walt, S. (2011) “Accountability and transparency in relation to
human rights: A critical perspective reflecting upon accounting, corporate responsibility and ways
forward in the context of globalization” Critical Perspectives on Accounting
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.002.
33
Gray S. & R. Gray (2011) “Accounting and human Rights: A Tentative Exploration and
Commentry” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.004
Grenstad G., & D. Wollebaek, (1998) “Greener still? An empirical examination of
Eckersley’s ecocentri approach.” Environment and Behaviour 30(5), pp.653-675.
Hajer M.A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and
the Polity Press (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Hamm, B., I. (2001) “A Human Rights Approach to Development” Human Rights Quarterly
23(4), November, pp. 1005-1031
Henriques A., & J. Richardson (2004) “Triple Bottom Line – does it all add up? In A.
Henriques A., & J. Richardson (eds), The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add Up? Assessing
the Sustainability of Business and CSR (ppxix-xxii) (London: Earthscan)
Hill, K.M. (2007). Sustainability Reporting 10 years on.
(http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/430EBB4E-9AAD-4CA1-9478FBE7862F5C23/0/Sustainability_Reporting_10years.pdf) (last accessed 10/11/2011)
Howen, N (2005) Secretary-General, International Commission of Jurists, “Business, human
rights and accountability”, speech delivered at the Business and Human Rights Conference
organised by the Danish Section of the International Commission of Jurists, Copenhagen, 21
September
Human rights, The Dow Chemical company,
http://www.dow.com/sustainability/commitments/humanrights.htm (last accessed 24/01/2012)
Islam A., & McPhail, K. (2011) “Regulating for corporate human rights abuses: The emergence
of corporate reporting on the ILO's human rights standards within the global garment
manufacturing and retail industry” Critical Perspectives on Accounting
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.00
International Business Leaders Forum, Human Rights: It is Your Business – A Case for Corporate
Engagement, 2005. http://www-dev.iblf.org/resources/general.jsp?id=123709 (last accessed
10/11/2011)
International Council on Mining & Metals (2006) “Clarity and consensus on legitimate human
rights responsibilities for companies could accelerate progress” Submission to UN Secretary
General’s Special Representative on Human Rights and Business. https://www.icmm.com/library
(last accessed 10/11/2011)
Joseph, S. (2003) ”Pharmaceutical Corporations and Access to Drugs: The "Fourth Wave" of
Corporate Human Rights Scrutiny.” Human Rights Quarterly 25(2) pp. 425-452
Klok, A (2004) More than words? An analysis of sustainability reporting.” New Academy
Review, 3(3) pp.59-75.
Lipietz, A (1996) “Geography, ecology, democracy,” Antipode, 28, pp. 219–228.
Macnaghten, P. & Urry, J. 1998. Contested Natures. (London: Sage)
34
Meier. B.M. & A. M. Fox (2008) “Development as Health: Employing the Collective Right to
Development to Achieve the Goals of the Individual Right to Health” Human Rights Quarterly,
30(2) 259-355.
Milne, M., Tregidga, H., & S.Walton (2005) “Playing with Magic Lanterns: The New
Zealand Business council for sustainable Development and Corporate Triple Bottom Line
Reporting.” Paper Presented at the Fourth Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in
Accounting Conference, Singapore.
Muchlinski, Peter (2001) 'Human Rights and Multinationals - is there a Problem?'
International Affairs, 77 . pp. 31-47.
Novartis 2007 GRI report, July 2008,
http://www.karmayog.org/redirect/strred.asp?docid=22395 (last accessed 7/02/2012)
Oxy, Social Responsibility Report 2007,
http://www.oxy.com/sr/Documents/2007_hes_sr.pdf (last accessed 25/01/2012)
Pemex 2007 Sustainable Development,
http://desarrollosustentable.pemex.com/portal/index.cfm?action=content&sectionID=21&catID=
801 (last accessed 25/01/2012)
Philip. A. (2005) “Ships Passing in the Night: The Current State of the Human Rights and
Development Debate seen through the Lens of the Millennium Development Goals” Human
Rights Quarterly 27(3) August 2005, pp. 755-829
Picolottie R.P., & J.D. Taillant (2003) Linking human rights and the Environment. University
Press of Arizon.
Ratner S., R. (2001) “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility” The
Yale Law Journal, Vol.111(3), 443-545.
Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and
transnational corporations and other business enterprises, 2011, John Ruggie. Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect
and Remedy” Framework, A/HRC/17/31.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/TransnationalCorporations/Pages/Reports.aspx, (last accessed
24/01/2012)
Schweiker, W (1993) “Accounting for ourselves: accounting practice and the discourse of ethics.”
Accounting Organizations & Society, 18(2/3): 231-252.
Science For A Better Life, Bayer Annual Report 2007,
http://www.bayer.com/en/gb-2007-en.pdfx (last accessed 25/01/2012)
35
Science For a Better Life, Bayer Sustainable Development Report 2007,
http://www.investor.bayer.de/no_cache/en/reports/sustainability-reports/ (last accessed
19/01/2012)
Shearer, T. (2002) “Ethics and accountability: from the for-itself to the for-the-other” Accounting
Organizations & Society, 27: 541-573.
Shelton, D., (1991-92) “Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment.”
Stanford Journal of International law. 28(103) pp.103-138.
Sikka, P. (2011) “Accounting for human rights: The challenge of globalization and foreign
investment agreements” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.03.004
Stone, D (1972) “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects“
Southern Californian Law Review. 45, pp 450-502.
Talisse, R.B. & S.F. Aikin (2008) “Social complexity and sustainability.” Ecological
Complexity, 3. Pp.91-103.
Taylor D, (2000) “The Rise of Environmental Justice Paradigm”, American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(4) pp. 508-580.
Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R.B., Fien, J., Schreuder, D., (eds.) (2002) Education and Sustainability:
Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xii + 206 pp.
Udombana, N. J. (2000) “The Third World and the Right to Development: Agenda for the Next
Millennium” Human Rights Quarterly, 22(3), August, pp. 753-787.
UNECE 1999 missing
Vale, Sustainability Report 2007,
http://www.vale.com/en-us/sustentabilidade/Documents/sustainability-report-2007–fullversion.pdf
Venkateswarlu, D. (2007) Child Bondage Continues in Indian Cotton Supply Chain, Hyderabad,
India.
Vischer, L. (2005) Human Rights and Sustainability: Two Conflicting Notions? Student World
(1):47-58.
Waddock, S. (2007) “On Ceres, the GRI and Corporation 20/20.” The Journal of corporate
Citizenship, 26, pp. 38-42.
Xstrata plc Sustainability Report 2007,
www.xstrata.com/assets/pdf/x_sustainability_2007.pdf (last accessed 25/01/2012)
36
Figures & Tables
Figure 3.1
GRI Human Rights Disclosures By Industry
10
Number of Companies
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
HR1
HR2
HR3
HR4
HR5
HR6
HR7
HR8
HR9
HR8
HR9
GRI Human Rights Categories
Chemical Sector
Mining Sector
Pharmaceutical Sector
Figure 3.2
GRI Human Rights Disclosures By Region
Percentage of Companies
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
HR1
HR2
HR3
HR4
HR5
HR6
HR7
GRI Human Rights Categories
Europe & Australia
North & South America
37
Asia, India & Russia
Figure 3.3
Combined Human Rights & Sutainabiltiy Disclosures
10
Number of Companies
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
GRI
Sustainability
Chemical Sector
Human Rights
Mining Sector
38
Combined
Pharmacutical Sector
Appendix 1. Disclosures Related to the GRI Human Rights Aspects by Industry.
HR1
n1
Dow
Bayer
BASF
Mitsibishi
Linde
Sabic
Akzo Nobel
Dupont
Hanwha
Evonik
Sector Total
1
2
HR2
HR3
n
t
x
x
x
x
x
n
HR4
t
x
x
x
x
HR5
n
HR6
t
n
t
n
Chemical Companies
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HR7
t
n
x
x
x
x
HR8
t
n
HR9
t
n
t
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
1
1
x
1
Xstrata
Oxy
Pemex
BHP
(CVRD) Vale
Rio Tinto
Anglo
Oil & Gas
Surgutneftegas
Encana
Sector Total
Novartis
Glaxo
Sanofi
AstraZenica
Pfizer
Johnson
Abbott
Roche
Merck
Wyeth
Sector Total
Grand Total
t2
4
x
x
x
x
2
x
x
1
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
x
x
x
x
2
11
x
x
x
5
4
Mining Companies
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
7
6
Pharmaceuticals
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
7
19
4
15
Numerical Disclosure
Textual Disclosure
39
6
16
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
6
x
x
x
1
9
2
9
x
2
12
Appendix 2. GRI Human Rights Disclosures by Region.
HR1
n1
BASF
Evonik
Linde
Bayer
Xstrata
Glaxo
Novartis
AstraZenica
Rio Tinto
Anglo
Akzo Nobel
Sanofi
BHP
x
Regional Total
Percentages
1
8
Dow
Oxy
Encana
Pfizer
Roche
Merck
Wyeth
Johnson
Abbott
Pemex
(CVRD) Vale
Dupont
Regional Total
Percentages
Sabic
Hanwha
Oil & Gas
Surgutneftegas
Mitsibishi
Regional Total
Percentage
Grand Total
t2
HR2
n
HR3
t
n
HR4
t
n
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
23
1
8
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
38
10
77
5
38
7
54
8
62
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
8
x
x
x
4
33
2
17
14
x
3
25
x
1
20
11
HR6
t
n
t
n
Europe & Australia
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HR5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10
4
10
3
77 31 77 23
North & South America
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
33
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HR7
t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
40
16
n
t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
31
5
38
3
23
6
46
x
7
54
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
20
15
t
x
x
2
15
x
2
40
19
n
x
10
77
4
33
Numerical Disclosure
2
Textual Disclosure
t
HR9
x
x
x
x
7
2
6
1
58 17 50
8
Asia, India & Russia
x
1
n
HR8
1
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
33
2
17
4
33
1
8
3
25
x
1
20
12
1
20
9
1
20
9
Appendix 3. Disclosures Relating to Sustainability and Human Rights
Company
1
BASF
2
Dow Chemical
3
Bayer
4
Sabic
5
Dupont
6
Mitsubishi
Chemical
7
Hanwha
8
Evonik
9
Akzo Nobel
10 Linde Group
Totals
GRI
x
x
x
Chemical
Sustainability
x
x
x
x
Human Rights
x
x
x
Combined
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
x
x
5
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
5
5
Mining
1
Pemex
2
BHP Billiton
3
CVRD (Vale)
4
Rio Tinto Group
5
Anglo American
6
Xstrata
7
Oil & Natural Gas
8
Surgutneftegas
9
Encana
10 OXY
Totals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pfizer
Glaxosmithkline
Roche Group
Sanofi-Aventis
Novartis
AstraZeneca
Abbott
Laboratories
8
Merck
9
Wyeth
10 Johnson &
Johnson
Totals
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9
Pharmaceutical
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
8
41
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
2