From the President: An Energy Agenda for the Next Administration

The path to cleaner, affordable energy is through international cooperation

By Peter M. Robinson

Peter M. Robinson
Peter M. Robinson

The next administration will face a number of important international challenges requiring prudent and effective action.  Near the top on anyone’s list is energy and climate change.

Energy is the lifeblood of the global economy.  American business is a vital player in the production and transport of energy all over the world, and of course our society consumes more energy than any other nation.  We have made tremendous strides in developing cleaner technologies and energy sources, while improved efficiency has boosted our competitiveness as well as environmental protection.  Nevertheless, as a trip to the gas station will attest, energy costs are a challenge for everyone, including global companies.  Indeed, some say we may need to adapt to an era of permanently higher energy prices.

However, energy can never be seen as just a “business” issue.  Indeed, it is a fundamental prerequisite for social and economic development across a broad range of areas.  Pick almost any of the Millennium Development Goals – progress toward which is a key goal of this year’s UN General Assembly session – and you will find an energy-related component.  Clean water, health care, poverty eradication: how can any of these be effectively addressed without greater access to energy?

Of course, much of the debate over energy has focused on climate change.  What is the best path to a lower-carbon future?  And how can we best use our energy resources to mitigate and adapt to the effects of global climate change, while still ensuring we meet the needs of a growing world?  Global solutions are called for, and our next president will need to take the lead in crafting international rules to tackle both the energy and climate challenges.

For USCIB members and other global firms, the way forward is clear: the only way to provide dependable, affordable and cleaner energy is through international action and cooperation to deploy and upgrade energy systems worldwide.

We have worked hard to advance understanding of these issues at the highest levels, in global talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, where countries are seeking to forge agreement on broader and more inclusive post-2012 actions as the Kyoto Protocol reaches the end of its first round commitments, and in the G8 as well (see page 9).  We have leveraged our unique affiliations with the International Chamber of Commerce and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD to advance a coordinated and integrated approach to climate and energy around the world.

There can be no doubt that American companies are up to the challenge.  The next administration must therefore frame a vision of U.S. leadership on energy and climate that places a high priority on our proven technological know-how and the business community’s ability to commercialize and disseminate the fruits of innovation.  This vision should be optimistic, driven by an understanding of the power of markets and international trade to deliver results.

A new vision on energy and climate should encompass four essential goals:

  • Broaden the energy mix. Diversifying energy portfolios is a proven strategy to manage tradeoffs and uncertainty in the near and long term.  We should not foreclose any energy options in international discussions.
  • Foster innovation. The transfer of new and cleaner energy technology to emerging markets such as China and India will be critical.  But to make this happen, private-sector innovation needs to be fostered, and intellectual property rights protected.
  • Embrace markets. The International Energy Agency puts the bill for meeting global energy needs over the next two decades at $20 trillion.  The lion’s share must come from the private sector.  To do this, we need open markets, protection for investments and trade liberalization.
  • Regulate wisely. We need long-term international policies, often called “enabling frameworks,” that are consistent and predictable, encouraging investment, securing property rights and promoting public-private partnerships for energy innovation.

The next administration must work closely with other nations, not just in established settings such as the UN, but in new arrangements that enable countries best placed to move forward to do so with a minimum of impediments.  It is a time for creative leadership, not dogma.

American business is ready to build our energy competitiveness in the global marketplace, to grow our economy and to move decisively towards a sustainable energy future.  We hope the next president is up to that same challenge.

For more information or to get involved, please contact USCIB’s Norine Kennedy  (212-703-5052, nkennedy@uscib.org).

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Environment Committee 

Other recent postings from Mr. Robinson:

Employers’ Vision of the ILO (Summer 2008)

New Financial Challenges on the Horizon (Spring 2008)

Trade Can Save the Climate (Winter 2007-2008)

From E-Commerce to the “Internet Economy” (Autumn 2007)

Closing Remarks by USCIB Peter Robinson to OECD Ministerial on the Future of the Internet

Peter Robinson

President and CEO, United States Council for International Business

Closing Remarks for OECD Ministerial on the Future of the Internet

Seoul, June 18, 2008

 

Congratulations to Korea and the OECD on organizing such an impressive ministerial meeting!

The discussions over the last 3 days have been interesting and insightful in looking to the future and the role of all stakeholders along this path.

On behalf of the business community, let me applaud Ministers for signing a Declaration that lays out a clear path to the future Internet economy. We are especially pleased to see that our vision shares many of the same hopes and expectations as those that are outlined in the Declaration.

This Ministerial has successfully built on the previous Ministerial, which focused on e-commerce. The last 10 years have shown us that the Internet is much more than a new platform on which to conduct business.  It has become intertwined with every aspect of our lives and economies. The next 10 years will allow us to further realize the potential of the Internet to better our societies, both developed and developing, and to bring more of the world’s people online to create, communicate and collaborate as part of their business and personal lives.

Our vision of the future Internet is characterized by a virtuous circle of investment and innovation, fueled by creativity and empowering users. The future Internet will also be characterized by increased user participation and choice of applications, products and services provided through a wide variety of high capacity platforms that are more available, affordable and user-friendly. The Internet will facilitate greater productivity and expanded access, to, and quality of, education, skills development and healthcare. Innovative ICT solutions will help us address challenges such as the environment.

 

Role of business

The Ottawa ministerial established a precedent for a regulatory framework that recognized the need for private sector leadership and flexibility to enable innovation. Since, the convergence of voice, data, video and audio on the Internet, driven by the extensive deployment of competing IP-based networks, has enabled innovation to thrive , empowering consumers and enhancing opportunities for further growth and innovation.

Going forward, we need to understand how the next level of convergence will impact business. Further investment will be needed to provide adequate capacity, security and capabilities for future Internet-supported development and connectivity.  Business will also work with other stakeholders to develop market-driven technical standards that will enable the Internet’s ongoing expansion.

 

Creativity

The Internet is also facilitating an unprecedented level of collaboration and interaction in commercial as well as social settings. The application of ICTs to learning, health, the environment and professional and social networking enables the robust exchange of information and knowledge. A confluence of factors—has created a fertile environment for users to become creators and publishers in their own right.  Pervasive, speedy, intelligent and affordable broadband access, provided through capable high capacity networks is vital to the future growth of these and other innovative offerings. Preserving and fostering the incentive to create is also vital to the continued migration of content to the online world. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, which supports and encourages users to make legitimate use of content, play an important role in this regard.

 

Confidence

Security and privacy will be increasingly important- not just because of increased threats, but also because emerging technologies may provide more seamless ways of collecting and using information. User trust and confidence in these new technologies will enable faster adoption and greater access to the benefits they can provide.

Today, businesses deploy a variety of technologies to meet customer needs and to build confidence in the online environment, and also actively leads educational initiatives in Internet privacy and safety.  While there is no silver bullet to stop cyber-crime, business is committed to working with governments and other stakeholders to effectively address this problem.

But in the end, improved education, innovative technology widespread dissemination and adoption of industry best practices; and effective law enforcement will be most effective in addressing these threats to Internet users’ privacy and safety and ensuring the continued integrity of the Internet.

 

Role of governments

We commend Ministers for their commitment to establish and maintain policy frameworks that will promote a trusted Internet-based environment, continued investment and increasing competition that will lead to expanded Internet access worldwide, increased innovation and user choice.  Indeed, such frameworks are essential for the future Internet economy.

Ministers have taken the important step to reaffirm the principles that enabled a new platform for commerce to evolve into a new platform for all aspects of life and declaring to contribute towards further development of the global Internet economy. While a framework that promotes continued technology innovation is crucial, we must keep in mind that ICTs are a means to achieve growth and societal benefit rather than an end in themselves.

 

The role of governments is fundamental for four key objectives:

  1. Ensuring that any new measures or incentives have a positive impact on infrastructure investment, innovation and the growth of the Internet
  2. Enforcing existing laws, particularly criminal laws, which address harmful and/or illegal online activities and coordination across relevant agencies and jurisdictions
  3. Recognizing the continued importance of market-driven, consensus-based global standards and the leadership of the private sector in their development
  4. Developing policies that stimulate the availability of and demand for network development, deployment, and interconnectivity, and the availability of different devices and modes of connectivity to increase Internet penetration

 

Role of OECD:

Finally, after Seoul,  as governments work towards further implementation of the commitments made here, careful attention should be paid to the important, unique and beneficial role that the OECD plays. The OECD will continue to be instrumental in working with all stakeholders to further the achievements of the Ottawa and Seoul Ministerial Conferences, in particular by producing neutral, fact-based economic reports that examine current market conditions and the impact of new developments, emerging technologies and any potential policy questions. The OECD also facilitates co-ordination and consistency of broad policy frameworks across Member economies by providing a forum for dialogue, involving all stakeholders.

In closing, I’d like to emphasize that all stakeholders must continue to work together, each according to their role, to address the challenges faced by the global economy, to promote the continued growth of the Internet and bring its benefits to more of the world’s people. Today, the private sector continues to lead the way in the innovation and development of ever-more efficient and focused services, applications, content, devices and networks that allow more users to share in the benefits of the Internet. We look forward to working with governments, civil society, the technical community and the OECD to nurture the powerful potential of the Internet economy.

More on USCIB’s Information, Communications and Technology Committee

OECD website

Employers’ Vision of the ILO Summer 2008

From the President’s Desk:

Focusing international labor policy on entrepreneurship and enterprise creation

By Peter M. Robinson

Peter M. Robinson
Peter M. Robinson

Globalization and the integration of international markets have been a tremendous benefit for the countries that have prepared themselves to take advantage of the new opportunities they provide. But for those countries that have failed to adjust or reform, these forces have exposed systemic failures in national governance that have in turn led to considerable social upheaval due to increased competition and changing labor markets.

Since social pressures can present a considerable barrier to maintaining or expanding international integration, a key policy challenge for international business is to develop effective mechanisms that can help countries reform their domestic policies to respond better to new external pressures. One such mechanism, the International Labor Organization (ILO) – the UN agency responsible for international labor and social policy – could play a leading role in this effort, and business is taking the lead to make it more responsive to employers’ needs.

Focusing on Current Needs

Abe Katz   At the IOE’s May General Council meeting in Geneva, USCIB President Emeritus Abe Katz officially concluded his two-year term as the IOE’s chairman, passing the baton to Prof. Wiseman Nkhulu of South Africa.  Mr. Katz noted the continuing relevance of the ILO to the conduct of international business, particularly at a time when the relationship between trade and labor standards has become an important political issue.  USCIB President Peter Robinson and Executive Vice President Ronnie Goldberg also hosted a dinner in honor of Mr. Katz attended by employer members of the ILO Governing Body, business and labor union representatives to the International Labor Conference, and senior U.S. government and ILO officials.  Many in attendance worked with Mr. Katz during his years as USCIB’s president (1984-98), when he served on the ILO Governing Body.  Toasts were made by numerous participants, including IOE Secretary General Antonio Peñalosa, IOE Executive Vice Chairman Daniel Funes de Rioja, International Trade Union Confederation Secretary General Guy Ryder, and ILO Director General Juan Somavia.  All reflected deep respect and admiration felt by colleagues from all sides. USCIB and its members have deeply appreciated Abe’s leadership over the past 24 years.
Abe Katz
At the IOE’s May General Council meeting in Geneva, USCIB President Emeritus Abe Katz officially concluded his two-year term as the IOE’s chairman, passing the baton to Prof. Wiseman Nkhulu of South Africa. Mr. Katz noted the continuing relevance of the ILO to the conduct of international business, particularly at a time when the relationship between trade and labor standards has become an important political issue. USCIB President Peter Robinson and Executive Vice President Ronnie Goldberg also hosted a dinner in honor of Mr. Katz attended by employer members of the ILO Governing Body, business and labor union representatives to the International Labor Conference, and senior U.S. government and ILO officials. Many in attendance worked with Mr. Katz during his years as USCIB’s president (1984-98), when he served on the ILO Governing Body. Toasts were made by numerous participants, including IOE Secretary General Antonio Peñalosa, IOE Executive Vice Chairman Daniel Funes de Rioja, International Trade Union Confederation Secretary General Guy Ryder, and ILO Director General Juan Somavia. All reflected deep respect and admiration felt by colleagues from all sides. USCIB and its members have deeply appreciated Abe’s leadership over the past 24 years.

The main challenge in making the ILO more effective and relevant for the business community is to focus its machinery on developing practical and workable solutions to current social and labor policy challenges. The global business community took a significant step forward in this area when the International Organization of Employers (IOE) – one of USCIB’s key international affiliates – produced an Employers’ Vision of the ILO, a comprehensive business agenda for the ILO.

Developed under the direction of Abe Katz (see box), the outgoing chairman of the IOE and USCIB’s president emeritus, the Employers’ Vision presents a clear agenda for the ILO that promotes entrepreneurship and enterprise creation, the main ways jobs are created and sustained. The vision also calls for increased attention on productivity improvements through education, skills development and training.

The IOE also calls for international labor standards that are practical and implementable.  Many existing standards set goals so impossibly high that few countries ratify them, and those that do so are unable to enforce them. Similarly, the IOE paper stresses that the ILO must help countries reform labor laws and other regulations that stifle enterprise creation and job growth, and which force operators into the ineffective and constraining informal economy.

International Business Leadership

Changing the ILO will not be easy or painless. A key reason for hope is that the ILO has a tripartite structure that is unique in the UN, meaning that employers and trade unions share voting power with the ILO’s member governments and participate in its oversight and management. USCIB Executive Vice President Ronnie Goldberg was recently re-elected to a second term on the ILO Governing Body.

On a broader level, USCIB relies on the IOE to coordinate international business engagement in the ILO. I was able to see the IOE in action at the annual International Labor Conference in June, when representatives of the IOE’s 145 national affiliates from 138 countries gathered in Geneva to speak on behalf on their business communities. The IOE is poised to build on the considerable achievements of Abe Katz in his term as IOE chairman under the new leadership of Professor Wiseman Nkuhlu, chairman of Pan African Capital Holdings of South Africa.

For more information or to get involved, please contact USCIB’s Adam Greene  (212-703-5056, agreene@uscib.org).

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Committee

Learn more about the IOE

Other recent postings from Mr. Robinson:

New Financial Challenges on the Horizon (Spring 2008)

Trade Can Save the Climate (Winter 2007-2008)

From E-Commerce to the “Internet Economy” (Autumn 2007)

Business and Human Rights, Revisited (Spring 2007)

New Financial Challenges on the Horizon Spring 2008: Policy makers must come to terms with both sovereign wealth and subsidized takeovers

By Peter M. Robinson

Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson

Government-controlled investors – including sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises – have gained a sizeable influence in international business and finance. The total value of sovereign wealth worldwide already amounts to several trillions of dollars, and it is expected to multiply many times over during the coming decade.

This raises unique public policy issues: sovereign investors may provoke national security concerns, spur fears of market volatility and financial instability, or generate protectionist pressure on governments. What to do? In recent months, USCIB has been an important forum for discussion of this and related issues.

A two-pronged approach

In February, at the Bank of New York Mellon’s Wall Street headquarters, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau spelled out for a USCIB audience how the United States is working closely with other countries, both those that make and those that receive sovereign investments, to anticipate and manage concerns over sovereign wealth funds.

Ambassador Veroneau explained that the U.S is working with major multilateral institutions – including the IMF and the OECD – to develop best practices for sovereign wealth funds, promote strong international standards of transparency and corporate governance, and maintain open, transparent, and non-discriminatory investment policies among all countries.

A new OECD report, prepared at the request of G-8 finance ministers, provides policy guidance for recipient countries. A complementary effort in the IMF aims to develop best practices of transparency and accountability for sovereign wealth funds. Together, these two projects are designed to build confidence in sovereign investment as a source of much-needed capital, to keep markets open and to resist financial and investment protectionism.

As I write this, we look forward to May 8, when Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt is scheduled to review progress on these and related issues with USCIB members in New York.

A related challenge

At the same time, the attention of policy makers is likely to turn to a related, but under-appreciated, issue: subsidized foreign takeovers of U.S. companies. What are the implications when a foreign company, backed by financial support from its home government, purchases a U.S. firm? And what actions should be taken to ensure a level playing field while maintaining fundamental market openness?

A new study from the United States Council Foundation, USCIB’s research and educational arm, investigates several recent cases of subsidized finance in cross-border M&A transactions, and suggests corrective measures that should be taken to head off the possibility of protectionist overreaction to subsidized investments. The paper, “Investment Subsidies for Cross-Border M&A: Trends and Policy Implications,” is authored by Gary Hufbauer and Thomas Moll of the Peterson Institute for International Economic, and Luca Rubini of the Birmingham Law School (UK).

According to Dr. Hufbauer, who detailed the report’s findings at the National Press Club in April, while subsidized M&A or non-transparent sovereign wealth dealings do not pose a “clear and present danger,” they merit thoughtful consideration well before a political confrontation occurs.

The study examines three recent instances where subsidized finance was seen or alleged to have played a significant role in an M&A transaction: the Chinese state-owned oil firm CNOOC’s bid for Unocal, the purchase of several Ingersoll-Rand divisions by Korea’s Doosan Infracore and moves by Electricité de France to expand into a number of new markets abroad.

Dr. Hufbauer and his co-authors contend that subsidized M&A, if not restrained by agreed international rules, might breed costly, wasteful emulation as well as protectionist sentiment in major markets – not least the United States – especially when viewed against the sensitivities raised by the growth in sovereign wealth funds.

Moving toward a new treaty

The appropriate response, they say, is to move toward a multilateral compact on M&A subsidies. Such a pact would be designed to increase government transparency, while drawing a line around what types of subsidies would spur review and limiting the types of retaliatory actions governments could use to counter subsidies. The authors suggest this year’s Group of Eight summit in Japan as an appropriate forum to begin discussions of such a multilateral agreement.

We believe this new study highlights an important issue for future consideration by USCIB members and the policy community. Together with our recent programs on sovereign investment, it is yet another example of the way USCIB can serve as your advance-warning mechanism, anticipating tomorrow’s issues today.

For more information or to get involved, please contact USCIB’s Rob Mulligan at (202) 682-7375 or rmulligan@uscib.org.

 

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

More on USCIB’s Financial Services Committee

Previous postings from Mr. Robinson:

Trade Can Save the Climate (Winter 2007-2008)

From E-Commerce to the “Internet Economy” (Autumn 2007)

Business and Human Rights, Revisited (Spring 2007)

The Internet’s Continued Growth Requires Careful Choices (Autumn 2006)

Securing the Promise of Nanotechnology (Summer 2006)

Making Progress in the Fight Against Fakes (Spring 2006)

Trade Can Save the Climate: Success in the Doha and Bali negotiations would be greater than the sum of the parts

By Peter M. Robinson

Peter M. Robinson
Peter M. Robinson

Apart from their seemingly mind-numbing complexity, the UN climate negotiations that took place in Bali in December, where nations began to map out a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, would seem to have little in common with the Doha round of global trade talks. Indeed, they are rarely mentioned in the same breath.

This is disappointing. Freer trade and progress on climate change are both essential to sustainable development. International trade is a proven path to economic growth and technological advancement: as countries trade more, they grow richer and have more resources to devote to environmental protection. So both rich and poor countries have a clear stake in finding workable, mutually reinforcing resolutions to the Doha and Bali talks.

Free trade and environmental protection go hand in hand

What’s more, despite repeated predictions of imminent collapse, the Doha round is actually showing some signs of progress. Reaching a comprehensive agreement that lowers barriers to trade in both goods and services could positively influence the course of global climate policy. If both the Doha and Bali negotiations are successful, the result would be greater than the sum of the parts.

Conversely, if trade and climate are set against each another, the results would hamper economic growth, fuel protectionism and complicate the already difficult task of coming to a global consensus on protecting the climate. Even now, too many parties seem to want to use trade as a “hammer” to force countries to follow a specific path on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. We must resist this temptation.

Nearly everyone involved in the climate talks agrees that innovative technologies are indispensable in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. China’s greenhouse gas emissions are expected to surpass those of the United States this year. It’s clear that the commercialization and dissemination of environmentally friendly technologies in rapidly developing countries like China and India is especially critical.

Needed: a technological pipeline

Most poorer nations understandably view the pursuit of economic growth as their right, and it is unlikely that they will agree to anything that places serious obstacles in their way. So far, they have resisted binding curbs on emissions, feeling this would constrain growth. But there already exist many cleaner-energy technologies and practices that could permit these countries to continue to pursue growth while contributing to a global reduction in emissions.

Many see a global price for carbon, set through an “artificial” market along the lines of European-style emissions trading, as the main catalyst for climate-friendly investment and technology. But far more important is freeing up the power of traditional markets to deliver green technologies where they are needed most.

A recent World Bank report found that removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers in 18 of the high-emitting developing countries for four basic clean energy technologies (wind, solar, clean coal and efficient lighting) could lower the costs of these technologies by some 13 percent, which could help reduce emissions significantly. What’s more, it is clear that these reductions could be further augmented through the application of better management practices and technical know-how, both of which tend to follow in trade’s wake.

A huge market for firms

Making sure climate and trade regimes are harmonious and mutually reinforcing would also open up vast opportunities for many multinational firms. The world market for environmental technologies is valued at $800 billion per year and growing. GE, United Technologies and many others are innovating, and they are looking to market and utilize their climate-friendly technologies in India, China, Brazil and other rapidly growing markets.

So more open trade could be what bridges the rich-poor divide on global warming and brings the world together, generating economic prosperity while protecting the climate.

To be politically viable, climate solutions must speak to real-world needs, including economic growth. They must be seen to deliver benefits today to people in both rich and poor countries. And they need to be in line with other political and market realities.

Among these realities is the desperate need to roll back tariffs on environmental goods and services, and halting calls for protectionist policies in the name of climate change. Completing the Doha round would set us on this path.

For more information or to get involved, please contact USCIB’s Norine Kennedy (212-703-5052, nkennedy@uscib.org).

 

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Environment Committee

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

 

Previous postings from Mr. Robinson:

From E-Commerce to the “Internet Economy” (Autumn 2007)

Business and Human Rights, Revisited (Spring 2007)

The Internet’s Continued Growth Requires Careful Choices (Autumn 2006)

Securing the Promise of Nanotechnology (Summer 2006)

Making Progress in the Fight Against Fakes (Spring 2006)

Business and Human Rights Revisited

By Peter M. Robinson

Peter M. Robinson
Peter M. Robinson

It’s no secret that many global companies must contend, often on a daily basis, with the challenges of doing business in countries and regions where respect for human rights may be severely lacking.

A year ago, we reported on a planned United Nations study examining the responsibilities of the business community in promoting and protecting human rights.  The UN recently released its second report on the issue, supporting many of USCIB’s positions in what has become a highly contentious debate.  In a nutshell: business can and should contribute to the protection of human rights, but companies cannot take the place of governments in providing essential legal protections.

The contents of the UN report – the focus of speculation among both companies and NGOs, many of whom hold that business must be held responsible for implementing and enforcing human rights laws – offered somewhat of a mixed assessment.  The answer, it seems, is a mixture of the business view and a third option, which the UN terms “shared responsibility.”

The report is the official submission of Harvard professor John Ruggie, the UN’s special representative to on business and human rights, to the new UN Council on Human Rights.  It presents his findings to date and was presented to the council on March 28in Geneva.

On the central question of the role of governments versus companies, the report states quite clearly that “the State duty to protect against non-State abuses is part of the very foundation of the international human rights regime.”  In other words, governments cannot simply shift their responsibilities to companies and must implement and enforce their human rights laws.

On the question of whether companies are liable under international human rights conventions, Professor Ruggie states: “It does not seem that the international human rights instruments discussed [in the report] currently impose direct legal responsibilities on corporations.”  This question has been hotly debated between the business community and many NGOs for the past few years, and while it is unlikely to resolve the issue completely, this conclusion does help to focus the debate on more constructive issues.

The report recognizes the value of partnerships and other voluntary initiatives in bringing a range of actors together – business, governments and NGOs – to address particular problems or concerns.  It is this results-oriented approach that presents the greatest potential for success in this area.

Importantly, Professor Ruggie has been open to dialogue with business and NGOs alike.   The three main pillars of USCIB’s global network – the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Organization of Employers, and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD – collaborated on a joint submission to Professor Ruggie on the role of business in failed states.

For more information or to get involved, contact USCIB’s Adam Greene (212-703-5056, agreene@uscib.org).

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee

UN website

 

New postings from Mr. Robinson appear quarterly.  Previous postings:

The Internet’s Continued Growth Requires Careful Choices (Autumn 2006)

Securing the Promise of Nanotechnology (Summer 2006)

Making Progress in the Fight Against Fakes (Spring 2006)

 

 

The Internets Continued Growth Requires Careful Choices

Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson

By Peter M. Robinson

At last year’s World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunisia, UN member states and other Internet stakeholders sought to tackle the challenge of broadening access to information technology, electronic communications and e-commerce worldwide. In follow-up, the global business community – led by the International Chamber of Commerce, the world business organization that serves as one of USCIB’s key global platforms for policy advocacy – is playing a key role in ongoing discussions of these issues.

Obviously, the concept of a global “information society” is key to many companies’ business plans, since the growth of e-commerce depends both on the continued expansion of Internet usage and on wider access to more advanced information technology and tools. So whether the topic is Internet governance or bridging the digital divide, business has a major stake in policies and programs affecting the Internet.

As ICC Secretary General Guy Sebban observed at WSIS, “Creating the necessary conditions for business to do what it does best – create jobs, train workers, invent new technologies and develop business models – is essential for business to help build a more inclusive information society.”

In late October, the UN’s Internet Governance Forum, a key WSIS offshoot, will holds its first meeting in Athens, bringing together stakeholders from around the world to discuss access, openness, diversity and security of the information society. In preparation, ICC last June unveiled a new initiative, Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS), to lend business expertise and experience to the global dialogue that is shaping the broad agenda on Internet governance, particularly at the UN.

At the Athens meeting, ICC and the government of Canada will organize a workshop on “building human and institutional capacity for meaningful participation in Internet governance.” The workshop will focus on the experiences and challenges at the national, regional and international levels of getting stakeholders involved in Internet governance policy issues. It will also help all stakeholders to better understand each others’ needs and perspectives.

The business community, and indeed the international community as a whole, has much to gain in these ongoing debates. If done right, governments and other stakeholders can foster the development of a truly inclusive information society. If done wrong, we face the possibility of a fractured and ineffective Internet, lack of access to information technology among those who need it the most.

For more information or to get involved, contact USCIB’s Heather Shaw (212-703-5068, hshaw@uscib.org).

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Information Policy Committee

ICC website

 

New postings from Mr. Robinson appear quarterly. Previous postings:

Securing the Promise of Nanotechnology (Summer 2006)

Making Progress in the Fight Against Fakes (Spring 2006)

Securing the Promise of Nanotechnology

Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson

By Peter M. Robinson

At a time of multifaceted regulatory and policy development, one of USCIB’s challenges is to target its resources on key areas of concern to our members.  At the same time, USCIB must be nimble enough to move quickly on new and emerging issues, especially those in our “space,” i.e., intergovernmental organizations.

The regulatory response to rapid advances in nanotechnology – the manipulation of objects at less than a billionth of a meter – presents just such an emerging issue.  Nanotech is poised to transform our economy and society, and will likely serve as a critical driver of innovation in the twenty-first century.  That may sound like hyperbole, but it’s not.

Nanotech applications are proliferating, as progress in the underlying science intersect with significant new business opportunities.  Recent studies predict that nanotechnology-related markets worldwide could reach $1 trillion by 2015, with nanotech playing a leading role in business sectors ranging from the life sciences, electronics, energy and chemicals to consumer products, textiles and cosmetics.

New technologies always bring new rules and regulations, however.  Nanotech’s dynamism and complexity make it imperative that governments get the policy framework right, especially in view of widespread public misunderstanding about the nature of nanotech.  Like any new technology, there is uncertainty over the range of potential applications, as well as the implications for human, and environmental, health and safety.

The business community believes the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development can play a critical role at this juncture.  Building on its significant expertise in chemicals policy and regulation, the OECD is ideally placed to develop internationally agreed science-based methodologies, definitions and mechanisms for managing products, and for protecting environmental and human health.

The OECD process is especially useful, since it provides an established channel for policy outreach to innovative non-member countries such as China and India.  In addition, industry’s active involvement via the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD, part of USCIB’s global network, gives the private sector a forum for addressing perceptions by the wider public.  The issue of nanotechnology was highlighted for me by many at May’s BIAC general assembly meeting in Paris.

USCIB has already played a key role in providing the OECD with industry analysis and expertise in nanotechnology.  In addition, our members are actively engaged with U.S. officials on these issues, building government’s understanding of how existing legislation may best be applied to nanotechnology, and underscoring nanotech’s great innovative potential.  We will continue to keep our members abreast of developments, and represent their interests on this crucial emerging issue.

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Nanotechnology Working Group

OECD website

New postings from Mr. Robinson appear quarterly.  Previous postings:
Making Progress in the Fight Against Fakes (Spring 2006)

Remarks by USCIB President Peter M Robinson to the OECDs Ministerial Bureau

Peter M. Robinson
Peter M. Robinson

Remarks by Peter M. Robinson

President, United States Council For International Business

At BIAC’s Consultations With the OECD’s Ministerial Bureau

Paris, May 22, 2006

 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to offer BIAC’s perspectives on the important trade and investment issues facing OECD governments.

First, on trade, the international business community continues to support an ambitious, comprehensive, and balanced result in the Doha Round negotiations. As our statement makes clear, we see this Round as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to promote major trade liberalization that will benefit and create prosperity for both
developed and developing countries. For OECD companies, this Round is critical as their growth prospects depend on improved access to industrial markets around the world.

That said, we are disappointed at the snail-like pace of these negotiations. Deadlines for reaching agreements on negotiating modalities have come and gone with the perpetual promise, seldom fulfilled, of further progress sometime down the road. That approach is a recipe for failure.

Our statement underscores our strong-held view that time is running out. Procrastination and posturing must now give way to constructive consensus building. Dynamic political leadership on the part of OECD Ministers is now more important than ever.

I believe I can state with some certainty that the December 2006 deadline for concluding these negotiations is a real one. OECD governments should harbor no illusions that the U.S. Administration can readily obtain an extension of Trade Promotion Authority to accommodate these negotiations. Given the current mood in the U.S. Congress and the uncertainty about the shape of the new Congress after the mid-term elections in November, the likelihood of the President obtaining new trade negotiating authority is remote.

I believe it appropriate at this time to also address an argument that we in the business community hear all too often, namely, that world business has not vigorously supported this Round. That simply is not true. Just look at the number of Letters to the Editor and Op-ed pieces in the international press coupled with numerous policy statements issued by individual CEOs, national business groups, and international business associations, including BIAC, that have appeared in recent weeks. Witness also the strong business presence at the Seattle, Cancun, and Hong Kong Ministerials. The fact is we want an ambitious result and will continue to lobby vigorously with our governments to that end.

But business is not at the negotiating table. Trade negotiations are the sovereign responsibilities of governments, and it is they who must take the lead.

Second, on investment, the BIAC statement draws attention to the growing threat of investment protectionism, or more bluntly put, economic nationalism. In the U.S., last year’s bid by the Chinese National Oil Corporation to take over an American oil company followed by this year’s Dubai port affair have unleashed populist calls in the U.S. Congress and the media for stricter rules on the way the U.S. Government reviews foreign takeover or merger bids. While the U.S. Congress has yet to act definitively in this area, we can expect some tightening of the rules even as we in the business community work actively behind the scenes to keep the changes from impeding needed investment flows.

Investment protectionism is not limited to the U.S. Other OECD Governments are contemplating measures – or have taken them already – to block foreign investments.

BIAC calls on OECD Governments to push back against such protectionist threats and instead continue efforts to enhance investor’s rights through transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory treatment of investment transactions across borders. Certainly, investment protectionism will do nothing to cure the massive external imbalances, which as the “Delivering Prosperity” paper notes, are the major challenges facing OECD economies.

In sum, on both the trade and investment fronts, we are at a crossroads. Our countries can move forward, as we so ardently hope—in order to create a better and more prosperous world for our children, or stand idly by and watch the steady erosion of the multilateral institutional framework that has served the world economy so well in the postwar years.

OECD Governments can – and must – do their utmost to promote continued trade liberalization through a successful conclusion of the Doha Round while resisting the siren call of investment protectionism. We recognize that such an approach carries a certain degree of political risk for many governments, but the policy alternatives are even starker.

More on how business works with the OECD

 

Making Progress in the Fight Against Fakes

Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson

By Peter M. Robinson

USCIB’s value rests not just in its ability to mobilize leading companies in support of common goals, but in translating this into international action through our unique global network — the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Organisation of Employers, and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD. These worldwide groups form a key platform for engaging government leaders and policy makers on a wide range of issues.

Recent developments in ICC’s BASCAP (Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy) initiative demonstrate how important this network can be. There are few more pressing concerns for global companies than combating the skyrocketing proliferation of fake products, which threatens not only the bottom line and reputation of companies around the world, but also the health and safety of consumers. ICC’s genius is to marry businesses from different affected industries in many parts of the world in this common pursuit.

Last October, ICC convened a CEO-level BASCAP Global Leadership Group, made up of 17 company CEOs and chairmen – including Microsoft CEO Steven A. Ballmer and NBC Universal Chairman and CEO Bob Wright – committed to raising consumer and government awareness about intellectual property rights. The four-point plan of action on which they agreed aims to:

  • Create counterfeiting and piracy indices, identifying issues that deserve greater attention within national IP protection programs.
  • Develop a clearinghouse to share best practices and strategies.
  • Compile case studies and statistics that can be shared between businesses and governments.
  • Develop educational materials to explain why IP rights should be respected.

The coming months will see results delivered on each of these goals. A BASCAP web site has been set up at www.iccwbo.org/bascap, where visitors can download a fact-sheet with compelling arguments for protecting intellectual property. Supported by ICC’s Commercial Crime Services unit, a database of the negative effects of counterfeiting and piracy will be ready shortly, and the City University of London’s Cass Business School will undertake a benchmark survey on business perceptions of IPR protection.

Next steps include a possible CEO session with the European Commission in April, and meetings with government leaders ahead of the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg this July. We need your support for this important initiative to continue to bear fruit. If your company is not already involved in BASCAP, we encourage you to do so at the highest possible level. Counterfeiting and piracy are global problems, and their eradication will entail global cooperation and global solutions. We urge you to join us in this fight.

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

More on USCIB’s Intellectual Property Committee

BASCAP website