Business Demonstrates Leadership on CSR at Global Compact Leaders Summit

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

With over 1,000 participants from government, business, labor, and civil society, the Global Compact Leaders Summit, held July 5-6 in Geneva, was heralded by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as the largest single gathering ever held to address corporate responsibility. The UN Global Compact, launched seven years ago by Mr. Ban’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, is a voluntary pact to promote corporate practices in support of key UN goals.

Mr. Ban, who opened and closed the summit, acknowledged the positive role of business. “You have made it abundantly clear that market leadership and sustainability leadership go hand-in-hand,” he said. “This will help us build the supportive measures needed to create more sustainable markets, and it will ultimately help improve the lives of many people around the world.”

The Geneva summit – attended by USCIB President Peter M. Robinson, several USCIB members and representatives from our global business network – afforded companies, either publicly or through the publications distributed at the meeting, to illustrate specific, “on-the-ground” projects in which they had participated with a variety of UN agencies.

One of the most important presentations came from USCIB Trustee Neville Isdell, chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola, who in the opening plenary appealed to business to “Speak Up, Step Up and Scale Up” its leadership in conservation and sustainability. Mr. Isdell pointed specifically to Coca-Cola’s programs for water conservation, as well as its participation in tsunami relief with the UN Development Program and the UN Fund for International Partnerships.

Several leading CEOs spoke in plenary sessions.
Several leading CEOs spoke in plenary sessions.

Mr. Isdell defended the Global Compact’s voluntary nature. “Governments can enforce accountability, but they cannot engender responsibility,” he stated. “Responsibility is a choice, and the Global Compact allows business people to make that choice.”

Among the other leading global CEOs making plenary presentations were Carl-Henric Svandberg of LM Ericsson, Anne Lauvergeon of Areva, B. Muthuraman of Tata Steel and Ntombifuthi Mtoba of Deloitte South Africa.

Participating civil society leaders included Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, and Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International. While supportive of voluntary corporate responsibility initiatives, both called forcefully for greater accountability and compliance programs to measure company performance.

Abraham Katz, chairman of the International Organization of Employers and president emeritus of USCIB, also addressed the Global Compact summit, citing the important role of small and medium-sized enterprises in furthering sustainability at the local level. He highlighted the importance of support for open trade policies and offered IOE help in this regard.

The summit concluded with the adoption of a “Geneva Declaration,” which pledged joint action in support of the Global Compact’s goals by business broadly, by adherents to the Global Compact and by national governments.

ICC Secretary General Guy Sebban and IOE Secretary General Antonio Peñalosa serve on the Global Compact Board, a multi-stakeholder body comprised of 20 representatives from business, labor, civil society and the UN.

ICC paper

In preparation for the summit, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) unveiled a new policy statement on “The Role of the United Nations in Promoting Corporate Responsibility.” In its paper, ICC said the role of the UN should be to promote corporate responsibility broadly, including through the creation of new initiatives – local, regional and global – and to support their growth and development.

ICC defines corporate responsibility as a voluntary commitment by business to manage its activities in a responsible way. The UN can best support these commitments by acknowledging the value of having a broad range of initiatives available to tackle different issues and try new approaches, the statement said.

Noting that companies and organizations elect to engage with or support a diverse array of corporate responsibility initiatives, ICC said it was essential for the UN to work with as many different initiatives and programs as possible to ensure the broadest engagement with the private sector.

ICC also called on the UN to improve the governance of the Global Compact, in order to increase its transparency and its accountability within the UN system. In particular, ICC called on the UN to give the Global Compact Board oversight responsibilities as opposed to its current advisory role.

Staff contact: Ariel Meyerstein

More on USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee

UN Global Compact website

ICC website

China’s Labor Law

The New York Times

October 19, 2006

Letters to the Editor, page A26

China’s Labor Law

To the Editor:

Re “China Drafts Law to Empower Unions and End Labor Abuse” (front page, Oct. 13):

American companies support high labor standards in China. Indeed, we are troubled that such fundamental rights as freedom of association are forbidden under current Chinese law and not provided for in the draft law.

As a first step, current Chinese labor law needs to be enforced, which your article rightly notes is rarely done and targets supposedly deep-pocketed foreign companies when it is.

But American businesses believe that the draft law is too rigid and will lead to slower job growth. Making matters worse, ambiguities in the draft law would have to be sorted out in a judicial system that does not always operate fairly or predictably.

And since both foreign and domestic employers need a predictable investment climate, it should come as no surprise that an ambiguous and unpredictable law would give investors pause.

Adam B. Greene

New York, Oct. 13, 2006

The writer is vice president of labor and corporate responsibility for the United States Council for International Business.

 

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Committee

More on USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee

World Employers Applaud Nobel Peace Prize Selection

Muhammad Yunus
Muhammad Yunus

The International Organization of Employers has welcomed the recognition given to Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladesh economist and founder of Grameen Bank who pioneered micro-lending, by the Nobel Prize Committee.

Speaking from Geneva, IOE President Abraham Katz praised the work of the Grameen Bank in enabling innovators and entrepreneurs to have access to finance so as to turn business ideas into reality.

“It is this type of innovation and thinking that is needed, particularly in the developing world, to fill the gaps of commercial lending and thereby allow local people to develop their own means to work out of poverty, or to provide employment opportunities to others,” said Mr. Katz, a retired U.S. diplomat who served as USCIB’s president from 1984 to 1999.

IOE, part of USCIB’s global network, serves as the voice of employers worldwide, in particular at the International Labor Organization, promoting policies that support growth, employment and entrepreneurship.

Mr. Katz also congratulated the Nobel Prize Committee for recognizing the work that Mr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank have done, which he said would encourage others to explore micro-finance solutions both in South Asia and elsewhere.

“The IOE supports efforts by the International Labor Organization and lending institutions to build on this innovation, and through micro-finance encourage local actors to establish and expand business as a core means of working out of poverty” he said.

“The awarding of the prize to the business sector shows a healthy recognition of the contribution of business as a means to drive economic and social development.”

Staff contact: Ariel Meyerstein

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Committee

More on USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee

Remarks by Ronnie L Goldberg to the Jamaica Employers Federation Forum for Executive Women

Ronnie Goldberg
Ronnie Goldberg

Remarks by Ms. Ronnie L. Goldberg

Executive Vice President and Senior Policy Officer

United States Council for International Business

Jamaica Employers’ Federation Forum for Executive Women

 

I am honored and delighted to be with you this morning at the launch of the JEF Forum for Executive Women. I am speaking to you in a dual capacity: I am Executive Vice President of the United States Council for International Business. Like you, we are a membership organization, representing some 300 corporations, firms, and associations from all sectors of the U.S. economy. And like JEF, we represent our country’s employers in the International Organization of Employers (IOE), which has a membership of some 140 countries, and which represents the views of employers on international labor and employment policy issues at the International Labor Organization (ILO) in Geneva. And that is my second hat. I am also here in my capacity as the IOE Regional Vice President for North America and the Caribbean.

Jackie [Coke-Lloyd, JEF Executive Director] has asked me to speak on the subject of Women’s Entrepreneurship. I want to begin by setting the broader context. Women’s entrepreneurship is both about women’s position in society and about the role of entrepreneurship in the same society. Each of these is a vast topic, and the latter particularly is a front burner subject for employers and their organizations around the world. The International Organization of Employers (IOE) in Geneva has produced an extensive body of work in this area. In fact, last spring at the U.N. in New York, I heard Jackie Coke-Lloyd speak eloquently on behalf of the IOE on the actions that governments must take — through economic policy measures and promoting the reform of laws, regulations, and other barriers to growth — to unleash entrepreneurship and create an enabling environment for employment creation.

Our subject this morning is a subset of these issues.

The first thing one learns in beginning to explore the world of women’s entrepreneurship is the magnitude and diversity of the phenomenon. Worldwide, women-owned businesses comprise between ¼ and 1/3 of businesses in the formal economy, and probably even more in the informal economy. Women-owned enterprises exist in all sectors of the economy and are of all sizes. The Body Shop, a U.K.-based multinational, is the product of women’s entrepreneurship. However, women are most heavily represented in small businesses, perhaps largely due to legal, social, and/or cultural factors.

These estimates are likely to be low: First, because available data does not always distinguish by gender, and secondly, because women are more likely to run businesses in the informal economy and to operate through domestic service and homework. Such activities by their very nature are less likely to be counted in official statistics.

Here are two examples from opposite ends of the development spectrum that speak to both magnitude and diversity of the subject:

— In the U.S., there were at last government count approximately 6.2 million women owned firms, employing 9.2 million people, generating $1.15 trillion in sales.

— In Zimbabwe, 97% of all businesses are micro (employing fewer than 5) and of these, 67% are run by women.

In the U.S., we are told by the U.S. Department of Labor, the issues of most importance to women entrepreneurs are access to capital, trade, affordable health care, taxes, access to government procurement, gaining media exposure, work-life balance, trends in technology, and retirement security.

Of course the specifics on such a list will vary enormously among countries with different levels of development, but I would venture to guess that to the extent that these concerns are fundamentally about accessing the capital and markets needed to grow a profitable and sustainable business, and about securing essential social protections, women entrepreneurs in many countries face the same issues. At first glance, the striking thing about these issues is that they are small business issues, not particularly women’s issues.

Indeed, there is a certain “so what” to everything I have said so far. After all, women comprise approximately half the human race. That their enterprises should be numerous and diverse, that they should have an impact on their economies, and that they share the problems of all small business owners could be considered obvious.

So why does the subject of women’s entrepreneurship deserve separate consideration? Indeed, why does it, as I will argue this morning, deserve separate and specific policy responses, both from governments and from organizations such as our own? The answer may be obvious to those of us in this room, but it bears articulating.

The OECD has concluded that the concerns and needs of women entrepreneurs are distinct and need to be studied separately for two reasons:

— Women’s entrepreneurship constitutes an important untapped source of economic growth, and

— The topic has been largely neglected. Mainstream research, polices and programs often do not take into account the specific needs of women entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs.

These points are obviously interconnected and they are worth considering in turn.

The Secretary General of the OECD observed recently that “half the brainpower on earth is in the hands of women,” and it only makes economic sense to harness it. Let’s leave aside the question of whether the SG has wildly underestimated. The point is that countries that do not capitalize on the full potential of one-half of their society are grossly misallocating their human resources and compromising their ability to compete in the global economy.

A recent lead article in The Economist put it this way: “Forget China, India, and the Internet. Economic growth is driven by women.” The article goes on to observe that an increase in female employment, in both the developed and developing world, has arguably been the biggest engine of global growth in recent decades.

There is more. There is clear evidence that enabling women to develop their skills and qualifications and to join the labor market boosts incomes and well being throughout the society in question. In particular – as those in this room well know, given Jamaica’s enviable record in education – educating girls boosts prosperity. Not only are better-educated women more productive, they raise healthier, better-educated children. Putting more resources in the hands of women has a multiplier effect, raising the welfare of the entire family.

Yet, despite their gains and despite these demonstrable impacts, women remain perhaps the world’s most underutilized resource. In short, not only is equal opportunity in the area of economic empowerment not a reality. Its absence is a drag on growth, development and poverty alleviation.

Which brings us to the second point: what are the gender specific entrepreneurship issues and what are appropriate policy responses? And here I beg your indulgence once again as I state what may be obvious to us, but what often needs to be better reflected in our programs and policies.

Many differences occur because women’s life experiences contrast with those of men in terms of the education they receive, their involvement with their families, the social spaces they occupy and the circles in which they mix. As a result of these differences, women may lack the confidence, skills and resources to successfully start and run a business. There are a variety of reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is societal or cultural resistance to women in business. Others include women’s traditionally more significant role relative to men in balancing work and home responsibilities and also women’s overlapping productive and reproductive roles. Let me say a word about each of these

— Socio-cultural resistance to women in business

Such resistance may be well engrained in societies and the effects may begin from childhood. Limited or inadequate access to education may limit a women’s business potential, as may the notion that certain fields of endeavor are inappropriate or off-limits.

These negative attitudes towards women in business may have a number of potential consequences. Firstly, women may not consider business as a career option or lack the confidence to start up and run a business. Secondly, if a woman does start up a business these attitudes may impact on her choice of sector and her investment behavior. The evidence indicates women’s enterprises tend to be smaller both in terms of workers employed and in terms of the presence and value of fixed assets. Women’s enterprises also tend to be concentrated in low investment, less remunerative sub-sectors which build on traditional skills, while men tend to be concentrated in more dynamic sub-sectors. Lastly, women engaged in economic activities may not perceive themselves as “business women” and therefore not register their business, restricting access to business development services.

— Balancing home and work responsibilities

Women’s potential in business is often limited by their traditionally more significant role relative to men in balancing work and home responsibilities. The division of labor between men and women members of the household may reduce the amount of time, energy and concentration women have to expend on their business.

— Overlapping productive and reproductive roles of women

The overlapping of productive and reproductive roles influences women’s entrepreneurial behavior. This may have implications as to women’s choice of economic activity and investment behavior. Women may prefer businesses that maintain close links between the personal and business. Women may invest less in their business and more in their family than men.

These gender-specific constraints to entrepreneurship require specific policy responses. Frequently, however, business laws, policies and services do not adequately consider the needs of women entrepreneurs and sometimes further exacerbate gender-specific constraints to entrepreneurship.

Here is where we – JEF, USCIB, and IOE – come in. Our organizations exist to inform and advise governments and international bodies such as the ILO on appropriate policies, and to provide useful services to our business members.

Let’s take policies first. Laws that discriminate on the basis of sex – directly or indirectly – can be constraints to entrepreneurship. For example, in some countries women lack the legal status to establish a contract, represent themselves in legal cases and/or hold property in their own name. [I understand that here in Jamaica recent legislation on Property Rights of Spouses and on Maintenance has addressed such concerns] On the other hand, a legal framework that does not provide for the overlapping productive and reproductive roles of women may indirectly discriminate against women. Thus, we need to lobby for laws that increase the ability of women to participate in the labor force by ensuring equal treatment (and safety) in the workplace, but also those that address concerns such as the availability of affordable day care.

We need to encourage our governments to listen to the voices of women entrepreneurs, and to incorporate a women’s entrepreneurial dimension in the formation of all SME-related policies. And to do this effectively, they and the international organizations they support (such as OECD and ILO) need to improve the factual and analytic underpinnings of our understanding of the role of women entrepreneurs in the economy. The ILO, for example, has a program on Women’s Entrepreneurship Development and Gender Equality (WEDGE) within its Small Enterprise Development program. WEDGE seeks to develop a knowledge base on, innovative support services and products, and an advocacy voice for women entrepreneurs. This area deserves more engagement and support from both governments and the private sector.

Equally, it is important that the services that we employers’ organizations provide to our members consider the needs of both women and men entrepreneurs. For example, women entrepreneurs may require specific services to increase their business confidence and/or specific mechanisms for increasing their access to credit. Women’s entrepreneur networks (such as the one you are launching today) are major sources of knowledge and valuable tools for the development and promotion of women-owned businesses. Clearly, I am preaching to the converted here in Kingston.

Valuable networks can also be established internationally. I referred earlier to the extensive work done by IOE in Geneva on enabling environments for entrepreneurship. In preparing my remarks this morning I relied on an excellent IOE draft paper on “Promoting Women Entrepreneurs and Women-Owned Businesses Through Employers’ Organizations.” This compendium of case studies and practices from around the world is a rich resource of best practices and ideas, and I look forward to working with Jackie and our IOE colleagues to complete this work and ensure that it is widely disseminated.

Let me conclude with another quotation from the Economist:

“Despite the increased economic importance of women, they could become more important still. More of them could join the labor market and more could make full use of their skills and qualifications. This would provide a sounder base for long-term growth. It would help to finance rich countries’ welfare states as populations age and it would boost incomes in the developing world… There is a saying that women must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily that is not so difficult.“

Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to working with you both at home and in Geneva.

 

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Policy Committee

International Organization of Employers website

Jamaica Employers’ Federation website

Business Asks for Realistic Approach on OECD Corporate Governance Principles

During February’s meeting of a key steering group of the 30-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, negotiations on the newly revised OECD Principles on Corporate Governance reached a crucial stage.  The principles are to be finalized for adoption at May’s OECD ministerial meeting in Paris.

Commenting on the negotiations of the government experts, members of the OECD’s Business and Industry Advisory Committee(BIAC) asked their governments to sustain the notion that “one size does not fit all” in corporate governance standards.

Every national regulatory system has to find its own balance between regulation by governments and self-regulation, BIAC members said.  A level of diversity is necessary for the maintenance of an internationally competitive environment, and companies welcome the new emphasis given to the effective enforcement of existing corporate governance rules.  Business believes, however, that having clear, concise and understandable OECD principles is necessary for their effective enforcement.

The 38 business federations from all the OECD countries belonging to BIAC – and the companies they represent – will continue to take the discussions on corporate governance seriously and participate actively in the elaboration and revision of corporate governance laws and codes in their countries.

Staff contact: Ariel Meyerstein 

BIAC website

More on USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Industry Boosts Efforts on Governance Issues

Responding to highly-publicized cases of poor corporate governance and the need to restore confidence in the global financial system, multilateral institutions and the business community are beefing up efforts to provide international guidance and possibly new rules in the area.

Leading the charge is the OECD, which this month begins a review of its Principles of Corporate Governance.  Adopted in 1999, The non-binding principles were intended to serve as a reference point for countries’ efforts to evaluate their own legal, institutional, and regulatory frameworks.  They have become a global guidepost for the largest institutional investors around the world and for organizations like the World Bank.

At their annual meeting in May 2002, OECD ministers authorized the review of the 1999 principles.  With three years of experience upon which to build, the OECD will seek to evaluate gaps in the present systems of corporate oversight and identify areas that could be strengthened.  Corporate governance is also expected to be high on the agenda of the next Group of Eight summit of leading industrial nations in Evian in June.

USCIB member Edwin Williamson (Sullivan and Cromwell) will chair an ad hoc group in the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD to advance business views on issues, recommendations and procedures for implementing governance principles.

To help meet this challenge, USCIB is forming a corporate governance working group to formulate and coordinate USCIB positions on the issues.  A major early challenge in the effort will be implementation – assuring investors that governments have adopted the highest standards of governance, and that those standards are being implemented.  What should be done where standards fall short and implementation is found wanting?

It is also anticipated that some governments and NGOs will seek to broaden the OECD review to embrace other issues such as human rights, labor rights and environment, issues that are more appropriately dealt with elsewhere.  Both BIAC and ICC have argued against weighing down what has thus far been a very valuable multilateral exercise with non-governance issues

Staff contact: Ariel Meyerstein 

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

More on USCIB’s Financial Services Committee

 OECD Principles on Corporate Governance (PDF file)