PRESS BRIEFING ON GLOBAL COMPACT

PRESS BRIEFING ON GLOBAL COMPACT

It was too early to say whether the United Nations Global Compact would be successful or not, as that was an ongoing experiment seeking to align non-State actors, including business, in support of United Nations goals, the Compact’s Executive Head, Georg Kell, told correspondents today at a press briefing upon the release of the Compact’s annual Report on Progress and Activities.

An accompanying press release issued today by the Office of the Global Compact recalls that the idea for a corporate citizenship initiative, which was first articulated in a statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the World Economic Forum in 1999, is very much alive today.  The number of companies participating in the Compact, which operates on the premise that finding solutions to make markets more sustainable and inclusive can only be achieved if societal actors learn how to work together effectively, had doubled to approximately 1,000, with more than half from the developing world.

Recalling that the Global Compact was launched as an official entity at United Nations Headquarters in 2000, Mr. Kell said it was coming to life in many countries around the world and had successfully experimented with engagement around dialogue and projects.  Citing a few highlights of the report, he noted that, following the launch, the Compact had pursued outreach activities and built up experimental forms of dialogue with business, labour and civil society.  Today, the Compact was being rooted in more than 50 countries, with local networks replicating activities at the global level.

The more than 1,000 participating companies were undertaking dozens of projects in support of United Nations goals, making the Compact one of the most comprehensive business networks, he said.  The business participants came from all parts of world, with about half from developing countries, and one-third from small- and medium-sized States.  Also involved were five United Nations entities -- the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme and now, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

He said that the Compact was very important for the Organization, and also as a catalyst for institutional change.  It was helping the Organization to learn how to engage business and other non-State actors in support of United Nations goals.  Indeed, inside the house, the Compact was contributing to the renewal of the Organization from within.  Its major achievements involved bringing the Compact’s universal principles into the boardroom of corporate actors.  In the area of human rights, for example, it was advocating the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the fundamental principles of those rights in the workplace, as well as environmental principles.

Bringing those principles into the boardroom was significantly amplifying what the United Nations was doing.  That also prepared the United Nations for alignment with the corporate world, by organizing global dialogue and learning encounters.  Last year, several such meetings took place, where companies presented their findings.  There were plenty of case studies available regarding how a company worked with United Nations principles.  Policy dialogues had also been held around topical issues relating to the Millennium Development Goals.  A big one had been held on HIV/AIDS in the workplace, and another would be convened shortly on transparency. 

He explained that all of that was happening in parallel with inter-governmental discussion and was intended to prepare the ground for projects and practical solutions.  The aim for the least developed countries was to promote sustainable development in the poorest regions.  Other initiatives were more “dilemma focused”, such as how to interpret human rights in the practical day-to-day lives of companies, and how to internalize human rights within corporate strategy and management. 

Replying to a series of questions, Mr. Kell said that, concerning monitoring, the Compact did not convey any seal of approval to companies.  It was not a ranking initiative, but an engagement mechanism, or the beginning of a process of internal change in support of the goals of the broader society, in particular, of the United Nations.  There was a new strategy in place, whereby participating companies had been asked to communicate their progress on implementing the Compact and its principles in their annual financial reports and/or other public documents.  The proof of how seriously companies were taking those principles, therefore, was in the public domain. 

It was that way that the Compact hoped to maximize a process of social change, he added.  There were also internal integrity measures in place.  For instance, the Compact did not accept money from business for its core activities, in order to avoid real or perceived “regulatory capture”.  Laggards sitting on a fence arguing over human rights was not the Compact’s business; that was the business of governments.  In today’s world, where companies operated on a global level, taking a stand on human rights was no longer a choice.  Companies should have a policy in place.

Turning to a question about the role of non-governmental organizations, he said several dozens had been engaged, all of whom were willing and able to make a constructive contribution to the Compact’s implementation.  Indeed, they were making a tremendous contribution, including in terms of the dissemination of knowledge in such areas as labour rights.  Amnesty International, for example, was briefing companies on a large scale about how to develop effective human rights policies.

There were currently 40 United States companies in the Compact, including Hewlett Packard and Pfizer, he replied to a further question.  That was a small number given the relevance of the United States in global corporate affairs, he added.

* *** *