April 2005

Peter Utting
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)
New York
USA

Thanks very much for this paper, which presents several interesting and novel ideas.

1. As with any proposals that imply significant institutional change, the question arises as to whether or not they stand a chance of ever becoming reality or whether they amount to a wish list. In this context it might be useful to say something about the type of social and political forces and alliances that might back such proposals, and more importantly, whether such a momentum already exists. In this regard, there is already some social, political and institutional backing for right-to-know legislation, mandatory “triple-bottom line” reporting, and the UN Norms.

2. There is also considerable backing for strengthening the application of the OECD Guidelines and related complaints procedures. Should these get a mention under strategy?

3. What is less in evidence is support for an international court for corporate crimes. Surprisingly, there is also little momentum behind the idea of strengthening the implementation mechanisms related to the ILO guidelines, perhaps because the unions have been calling for this for nearly three decades to little avail.

4. Given recent developments (i.e. the apparent back-tracking on the UN Norms), any proposal related to a UN Organization on Corporate Accountability should probably be put under the long-term, rather than medium-term, strategy. Given what is going on with the Norms in the Commission of Human Rights (as we speak) there could be some updating of the discussion on the Norms.

5. Encouraging existing UN institutions, however, to gather information on corporate malpractice, race to the bottom, etc. as proposed in the paper, is important.

6. Under medium-term strategy, it might be useful to mention the possibility of establishing a UN Special Rapporteur on TNCs, who could hear and investigate complaints. While thoroughly under-resourced, such an institution could be a start and signal a move in the right direction.

7. An important idea being floated by some trade union organizations that might be considered in the paper relates to an international mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the Global Framework Agreements signed between TNCs and the international trade (union) secretariats (ITS). While these are mentioned in the paper, it is not mentioned that they too are extremely weak. There really is no effective mechanism available at the international level to oblige TNCs to comply, apart from unions flexing their muscle through an international campaign against a particular company. But the capacity of the ITSs to do this is very limited. Some of the ITSs are, therefore, interested in the idea that there exist an international, and equivalent of national mediation/conciliation bodies. This role, perhaps, could be performed by the ILO.

8. Re the data on page 1, given the polemic about comparing TNC sales with GDP (value added), it may be wise not to fall prey to the critics, and to use more accurate comparisons.

9. Given the problem that developing country interests are often underrepresented in knowledge networks and consultation and decision-making processes related to CSR and corporate accountability initiatives, it might be useful to acknowledge this and plug the need for greater “participation” in the real sense of the word.

Peter Utting, UNRISD