Corporations And The UN: Nike And Others "Bluewash" Their Images
The last few years have witnessed the increasing blurring of corporate and governmental roles in the international sphere - none more worrisome, perhaps, than the United Nations cozying up to big business. With a surge in private-public partnerships among various U.N. agencies, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is leading the international organization into ever more intrusive and entangling ties between the U.N. and multinational corporations.
The last few years have witnessed the increasing blurring of corporate and governmental roles in the international sphere - none more worrisome, perhaps, than the United Nations cozying up to big business. With a surge in private-public partnerships among various U.N. agencies, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is leading the international organization into ever more intrusive and entangling ties between the U.N. and multinational corporations.
One recent misstep is the U.N.'s "Global Compact." With the disappointing support of some international human rights and environmental organizations, the U.N. has asked multinational corporations to sign on to the compact's unenforceable and overly vague code of conduct. Companies are able to sign on to the compact and "bluewash" themselves, as critics at the Transnational Research and Action Center in San Francisco have labeled the effort by image-impaired corporations to repair public perceptions by hooking up with the U.N. in a report, Tangled Up In Blue.
"The U.N. must not become complicit in the positive branding of corporations that violate U.N. principles," warned a coalition of sustainable development activists organized by TRAC, in a July letter to Annan. "Given that there is no provision for monitoring a corporation's record in abiding by U.N. principles, the Guidelines' [the Guidelines on Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Business Community, issued to clarify which companies are eligible for U.N. partnerships] modalities for partnerships are quite susceptible to abuse. For example, a company with widespread labor or environmental violations may be able to join with the U.N. in a relatively minor cooperative project, and gain all the benefits of association with the U.N. without any responsibilities. The U.N. would have no way to determine whether the company, on balance, is contributing to U.N. goals or preventing their realization."
This kind of bluewashing is already taking place. Among the early supporters of the compact are Nike, Shell, and Rio Tinto. Nike has employed sweatshop workers in Asia and elsewhere to produce its overpriced athletic wear. Shell has been targeted by activists for its ties to the Nigerian government, which has a dismal human rights history. Rio Tinto, one of the world's largest mining companies, has been associated with environmental and human rights disasters around the world. These are three of the last companies you would expect to see on a list of responsible businesses.
Just as troublesome, Kofi Annan has framed the compact in the context of acceptance and promotion of corporate globalization - a kind of plea to business leaders to recognize their own self-interest in restraining some of their worst abuses.
In exchange for corporations' signing on to the Global Compact, he said when first announcing the initiative, the U.N. would seek both to make it easy for companies to enter into partnerships with U.N. agencies and to advocate for speeding up corporate globalization.
"You may find it useful to interact with us through our newly created Web site, www.un.org/partners, which offers one-stop shopping for corporations interested in the United Nations," Koffi Annan told business leaders gathered in January 1999 at the Davos World Economic Forum. "More important, perhaps, is what we can do in the political arena, to help make the case for and maintain an environment which favors trade and open markets."
The promise of the United Nations, if only sometimes realized, is to serve as an intergovernmental body to advance justice, human rights, and sustainable development worldwide. Not long ago the U.N.'s Center on Transnational Corporations collected critical data on multinationals and published incisive critiques of growing corporate power. That growing power eventually was sufficient to force the closure of the Center on Transnational Corporations, thanks to the demands of the United States. Now, with the U.N. permitting itself to become perverted with corporate sponsorships, partnerships, and other entanglements, it risks veering down the road of commercialization and marginalization.
An effective United Nations must be free of corporate encumbrances. Its agencies should be the leading critics of the many ways that corporate globalization is functioning to undermine the U.N. missions to advance ecological sustainability, human rights, and global economic justice - not apologists and collaborators with the dominant corporate order.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The last few years have witnessed the increasing blurring of corporate and governmental roles in the international sphere - none more worrisome, perhaps, than the United Nations cozying up to big business. With a surge in private-public partnerships among various U.N. agencies, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is leading the international organization into ever more intrusive and entangling ties between the U.N. and multinational corporations.
One recent misstep is the U.N.'s "Global Compact." With the disappointing support of some international human rights and environmental organizations, the U.N. has asked multinational corporations to sign on to the compact's unenforceable and overly vague code of conduct. Companies are able to sign on to the compact and "bluewash" themselves, as critics at the Transnational Research and Action Center in San Francisco have labeled the effort by image-impaired corporations to repair public perceptions by hooking up with the U.N. in a report, Tangled Up In Blue.
"The U.N. must not become complicit in the positive branding of corporations that violate U.N. principles," warned a coalition of sustainable development activists organized by TRAC, in a July letter to Annan. "Given that there is no provision for monitoring a corporation's record in abiding by U.N. principles, the Guidelines' [the Guidelines on Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Business Community, issued to clarify which companies are eligible for U.N. partnerships] modalities for partnerships are quite susceptible to abuse. For example, a company with widespread labor or environmental violations may be able to join with the U.N. in a relatively minor cooperative project, and gain all the benefits of association with the U.N. without any responsibilities. The U.N. would have no way to determine whether the company, on balance, is contributing to U.N. goals or preventing their realization."
This kind of bluewashing is already taking place. Among the early supporters of the compact are Nike, Shell, and Rio Tinto. Nike has employed sweatshop workers in Asia and elsewhere to produce its overpriced athletic wear. Shell has been targeted by activists for its ties to the Nigerian government, which has a dismal human rights history. Rio Tinto, one of the world's largest mining companies, has been associated with environmental and human rights disasters around the world. These are three of the last companies you would expect to see on a list of responsible businesses.
Just as troublesome, Kofi Annan has framed the compact in the context of acceptance and promotion of corporate globalization - a kind of plea to business leaders to recognize their own self-interest in restraining some of their worst abuses.
In exchange for corporations' signing on to the Global Compact, he said when first announcing the initiative, the U.N. would seek both to make it easy for companies to enter into partnerships with U.N. agencies and to advocate for speeding up corporate globalization.
"You may find it useful to interact with us through our newly created Web site, www.un.org/partners, which offers one-stop shopping for corporations interested in the United Nations," Koffi Annan told business leaders gathered in January 1999 at the Davos World Economic Forum. "More important, perhaps, is what we can do in the political arena, to help make the case for and maintain an environment which favors trade and open markets."
The promise of the United Nations, if only sometimes realized, is to serve as an intergovernmental body to advance justice, human rights, and sustainable development worldwide. Not long ago the U.N.'s Center on Transnational Corporations collected critical data on multinationals and published incisive critiques of growing corporate power. That growing power eventually was sufficient to force the closure of the Center on Transnational Corporations, thanks to the demands of the United States. Now, with the U.N. permitting itself to become perverted with corporate sponsorships, partnerships, and other entanglements, it risks veering down the road of commercialization and marginalization.
An effective United Nations must be free of corporate encumbrances. Its agencies should be the leading critics of the many ways that corporate globalization is functioning to undermine the U.N. missions to advance ecological sustainability, human rights, and global economic justice - not apologists and collaborators with the dominant corporate order.
The last few years have witnessed the increasing blurring of corporate and governmental roles in the international sphere - none more worrisome, perhaps, than the United Nations cozying up to big business. With a surge in private-public partnerships among various U.N. agencies, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is leading the international organization into ever more intrusive and entangling ties between the U.N. and multinational corporations.
One recent misstep is the U.N.'s "Global Compact." With the disappointing support of some international human rights and environmental organizations, the U.N. has asked multinational corporations to sign on to the compact's unenforceable and overly vague code of conduct. Companies are able to sign on to the compact and "bluewash" themselves, as critics at the Transnational Research and Action Center in San Francisco have labeled the effort by image-impaired corporations to repair public perceptions by hooking up with the U.N. in a report, Tangled Up In Blue.
"The U.N. must not become complicit in the positive branding of corporations that violate U.N. principles," warned a coalition of sustainable development activists organized by TRAC, in a July letter to Annan. "Given that there is no provision for monitoring a corporation's record in abiding by U.N. principles, the Guidelines' [the Guidelines on Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Business Community, issued to clarify which companies are eligible for U.N. partnerships] modalities for partnerships are quite susceptible to abuse. For example, a company with widespread labor or environmental violations may be able to join with the U.N. in a relatively minor cooperative project, and gain all the benefits of association with the U.N. without any responsibilities. The U.N. would have no way to determine whether the company, on balance, is contributing to U.N. goals or preventing their realization."
This kind of bluewashing is already taking place. Among the early supporters of the compact are Nike, Shell, and Rio Tinto. Nike has employed sweatshop workers in Asia and elsewhere to produce its overpriced athletic wear. Shell has been targeted by activists for its ties to the Nigerian government, which has a dismal human rights history. Rio Tinto, one of the world's largest mining companies, has been associated with environmental and human rights disasters around the world. These are three of the last companies you would expect to see on a list of responsible businesses.
Just as troublesome, Kofi Annan has framed the compact in the context of acceptance and promotion of corporate globalization - a kind of plea to business leaders to recognize their own self-interest in restraining some of their worst abuses.
In exchange for corporations' signing on to the Global Compact, he said when first announcing the initiative, the U.N. would seek both to make it easy for companies to enter into partnerships with U.N. agencies and to advocate for speeding up corporate globalization.
"You may find it useful to interact with us through our newly created Web site, www.un.org/partners, which offers one-stop shopping for corporations interested in the United Nations," Koffi Annan told business leaders gathered in January 1999 at the Davos World Economic Forum. "More important, perhaps, is what we can do in the political arena, to help make the case for and maintain an environment which favors trade and open markets."
The promise of the United Nations, if only sometimes realized, is to serve as an intergovernmental body to advance justice, human rights, and sustainable development worldwide. Not long ago the U.N.'s Center on Transnational Corporations collected critical data on multinationals and published incisive critiques of growing corporate power. That growing power eventually was sufficient to force the closure of the Center on Transnational Corporations, thanks to the demands of the United States. Now, with the U.N. permitting itself to become perverted with corporate sponsorships, partnerships, and other entanglements, it risks veering down the road of commercialization and marginalization.
An effective United Nations must be free of corporate encumbrances. Its agencies should be the leading critics of the many ways that corporate globalization is functioning to undermine the U.N. missions to advance ecological sustainability, human rights, and global economic justice - not apologists and collaborators with the dominant corporate order.