“The European Union is failing to stifle a deadly trade in conflict minerals, a coalition of rights groups including Global Witness and Amnesty International warned today, ahead of weak new legislation being discussed in Parliament.
A new analysis by Global Witness shows that companies are bringing billions of euros worth of minerals into Europe without having to disclose if their purchases finance armed groups or human rights violations in countries ravaged by conflict.
“At the moment we have no way of knowing what European companies are doing to avoid funding conflict or human rights abuses,” said Michael Gibb of Global Witness.
“The European commission has proposed legislation it claims will tackle the problem, but the draft law only goes so far as to suggest companies voluntarily check and declare the source of their minerals. Studies show companies simply don’t check their supply chains, unless they are required to. Putting it starkly, this legislation will not meaningfully reduce the trade in conflict minerals.”
So campaigners want companies to be legally obliged to check their supply chains.
I can see why. The devil in that idea, is of course in the detail. Hammers can be used to crack nuts, but that doesn’t mean they are the best tool, but then they are effective.
Companies, of course, do check their supply chains without being forced to. At least say, the top few thousand in Europe, depending on how you define ‘check’.
We all know checking alone won’t solve many/any problems, it’s what happens with the results that counts, until we bump up against the complex barriers of national law and expectations, culture and institutions and their effectiveness.
What is clear is that campaigners won’t be stopping these requests any time soon, and that in some sectors, mining for example, we’re seeing more and more reporting requirements.
I can’t predict if and when EU companies will be forced to check their supply chains (however that is defined) but if I had to bet whether reporting requirements on the state of supply chains will increase, I’d say it will.
Reporting, after all, is the great government compromise between campaigner demands and big company progress, without being seen as going too far in ‘restricting trade’.
In this second recent NGO piece, “Child laborers bring case against food companies: “You’re enabling enslavement” Oxfam write that:
“A class action suit brought by a group of trafficked children from Mali to the US 9th Circuit Court may have an impact on how corporations develop their business models in the future.
In John Doe et al v. Nestle et al, child plaintiffs argued that Nestle, ADM, and Cargill aided and abetted enslavement (and numerous violations of international and US law) in the companies’ cocoa supply chains. The former child slave laborers were allegedly trafficked by cocoa growers into Cote D’Ivoire and forced to work in fields that supplied cocoa beans to the defendants in the case. The court held that they could bring the action under the US Alien Tort Statute. Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in US courts for human rights violations for conduct committed outside US borders.”
Now, this is just the latest salvo in a long running series of cases against companies for alleged connections to human rights abuses.
In the long run, the companies involved, in this case, Nestle, matter less than the fact that lawyers are trying to find ways to use old US laws to attack companies on human rights issues.
In this particular case, if asked my view, I’d say the idea that Nestle, ADM and Cargill knowingly aided and abetted enslavement is rather far fetched.
However, the lawyers may be able to make the companies uncomfortable in the public eye, and that’s been enough to claim victory and secure money for lawyers and some others in the past. And if the case goes to trial, (none have yet, they are usually thrown out, or settled) there’s always the chance that the companies can be criticised for unknowingly aiding and abetting enslavement, at least in the court of public media opinion.
The Oxfam blog notes that:
“The John Doe can is significant because it exploits the narrow opening that the Supreme Court left open for Alien Tort Statute plaintiffs following their ruling in the Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. case in 2013. In this case, the Supreme Court effectively closed the door to most foreign nationals suing foreign corporations in US federal courts. The plaintiffs in Kiobel were Nigerian citizens who claimed that Dutch, British, and Nigerian oil-exploration corporations aided and abetted the Nigerian government during the 1990s in committing violations of customary international law when they brutally crushed peaceful resistance to aggressive oil development in the Ogoni Niger River Delta.”
So the case, and its outcome, is worth keeping an eye on.
Three focused, detailed and practical sustainable business events for your diary
With: John Lewis, Nestle, First State Investments, Aviva, RBS, New Look, ABB, Ericsson, Novartis, PUMA, the Economist, Oxfam and many others.
With direct experience from: Arcelor Mittal, BP, Anglo American, Rexam, Golden Star, BHP Billiton, Shell, and many others
With: Unilever, Lord Mandelson, Greenpeace, Nestle, Wilmar, TFT, ADM, Mondelez, M&S, Waitrose, APP, Golden Agri, and many others