Ladies and Gentlemen, good afternoon and thank you for that very generous introduction.

I feel very honoured by the invitation to speak at this event.

It is also a pleasure to perform on home territory… When Mary Lawlor first mentioned this event she reminded me of my own involvement in the ratification of the two major UN Covenants which support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Since then the Berlin Wall has fallen. The world, with minor exceptions, shares one economic system. Capital moves freely around the world. And news moves just as freely and even more quickly, thanks to global communications. Many countries of the world which were inaccessible to companies from Europe and North America have now been opened to western businesses. Trans-national companies find themselves in new places with new issues to manage. And they also find themselves under scrutiny, in the media, and by an active ‘civil society’ of Non-Governmental Organisations and agencies.

We have also seen, in Vienna in 1993, 171 States reaffirm the Universal Declaration at the World Conference on Human Rights. In his opening address at that conference, United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali reminded us that “equality of opportunity for development is a prerogative both of nations and of individuals who make up nations”, and that “the right to development is a human right”. This is a key role of Business.

Business provides the economic vehicle to provide the fundamental human right to development, for nations and individuals. Business, in other words, is essential to the development and protection of human rights for the 5 billion people on this globe. Without development, and without business, I believe fundamental human rights cannot be secured. Far from being in conflict one is dependent upon the other.

 So business has a key role to play. But it must do it responsibly. With economic development must come environmental stewardship and social responsibility and there must be a new acceptance of this responsibility. This is all very well in theory. In practice business finds itself faced with new, complex, and challenging situations.

Business finds itself having to deal in a practical way with human rights issues. This is not a matter of choice but a reality in this global environment. And getting it right is not only a matter of ethical behaviour and moral choice. Enlightened business people have realised that good business is good business. Good business is sustainable, is part of global society not at odds with it, and reflects values which are shared across the world.

“I see it as a question of responsibility”

I see it as a question of responsibility.For example, a company which abuses its workforce, or a company which employs forced labour, is not only in breach of the Universal Declaration and the Vienna Declaration, but is flying in the face of civilised thinking all over the world. Such a company is acting irresponsibly in an area over which it has direct influence. And in a world of increasing transparency and global communication, such a company is also foolish if it thinks such behaviour will not attract attention. Even if moral imperatives are discarded self interest should dictate responsibility.Companies have direct control over their own staff policies in their own operations, and must be held responsible for ensuring their performance meets international expectations.

Codes of conduct lay down the expected behaviour, but are not in themselves enough. Codes must be backed up by an assurance process within the company and a way to verify that assurance process for shareholders, customers, employees, and society. Verification must also be done to accepted standards. In the same way as Financial and, increasingly, Environmental reporting is verified by objective professionals in the field.

Assuring and examining those operations over which a company has direct control is relatively straightforward. And if it is not yet common practice throughout the world, I expect it will not be long before it is. Consumers, shareholders, staff, and good managers will make it happen. But business interacts with society around it, and deals in many areas over which it does not have direct control. In these areas, such as suppliers and contractors, and joint-ventures, companies have varying amounts of influence.

Influence varies according to the nature of the deal, the competitive situation, and the business environment. Good business practice for many years now has been to build close relationships with suppliers, distributors, and partners. This practice will increasingly raise standards through competitive forces. Such forces don’t just drive down costs, they also raise standards as leading companies demonstrate the benefits of responsible behaviour.

We are seeing major developments in this area. Non-Governmental Organisations and industries, have been working together to establish standards. Leading companies and NGOs have been working towards common goals. Last year Christian Aid, for example, published its “Global Supermarket” report, and Sainsbury’s initiated its ethical monitoring programme. Another example is the Council for Economic Priorities in the USA, working with manufacturers, human rights groups, labour groups and certification/audit firms in addressing child labour in the production of sports goods. Initiatives such as these have not, yet, extended to the capital-intense industries but the principles must surely be the same. We must always remember that we are not in the business of satisfying our own consciences, but we are in the business of global development. Early attempts to stop the use of child labour in Bangladesh resulted in child unemployment, child prostitution, and children working in dangerous metal smelting works rather than the safer conditions of a football-stitching factory. We now understand that the eradication of child labour requires the provision of schools, education, and development.

 Approached in this way, business is truly contributing to the securement of human rights in the course of global development. As I said earlier, relationships between companies and contractors vary according to the nature of the deal, the competitive situation, and the business environment. In some industries, in some countries, progress will be slower than in others. But the general principle of building closer relationships based on shared standards is good business practice and will raise standards across the world.

I have talked so far about business dealing with human rights issues in its own operations, where it has direct control, and promoting standards in suppliers, contractors and partners, where it has influence. But business has increasingly been asked in recent years to exercise influence in a broader arena. To influence governments. Let me say straight away that I do not subscribe to the view that companies do not have influence with governments, or, if they do have it, do not exercise it.

Business has, quite rightly, always argued its corner. It is appropriate for companies to describe the commercial impacts of the fiscal environment, to governments and to consumers and to shareholders and staff. And in engaging that debate, companies are inevitably having an influence. The real question is not whether companies have influence, but do they use what influence they have responsibly.

We must remind ourselves that business influence in politics can be a force for bad as well as good. It was business that helped Adolf Hitler to power in Germany in the 1930s. And in the 1970s, society was rightly concerned about multinational companies exerting political influence. We must be cautious about encouraging business to take a political role.

So yes, business has influence. But it also carries huge responsibility. And the way in which business influence manifests itself is very different in different countries. Some in business say ‘Why should business stand up and lecture Governments on human rights? Our business is to look after our shareholders”.

Well, I don’t believe that business should stand up and lecture governments on human rights. But I also believe that it is part of building good sustainable businesses to help establish safe, secure, stable and peaceful societies. Business thrives where society thrives. We don’t have to look far for an example of this. Look at the investment confidence in Northern Ireland during the first cease-fire and after that cease-fire broke down.

It is appropriate for companies to point out to governments the impact of social or environmental policies on commerce. Just as it is appropriate for companies to point out the impact of fiscal policy on commerce. This is not a call for lectures or public posturing. But it is a recognition that it is legitimate for companies to engage in discussions about the commercial impacts of unsustainable development.

In practice, this must be managed in different ways in different situations. Sometimes publicly, sometimes quietly. I realise this approach does not satisfy those who have a deep-seated distrust of corporations. It is seen by some as a way of avoiding dealing with human rights issues. I think it is essentially a matter of trust or mistrust of corporations.

Trust is established through relationships and track record. In South Africa during apartheid there were companies who crassly profited from that system. There were also foreign companies who, driven largely by consumer pressure, withdrew from South Africa. There were however also companies who did not withdraw because they believed they could make significant contributions to the transformation of South Africa, by engaging the ANC and other groups, by being exemplary employers, and by having the courage and conviction to act as islands of normality in an abnormal society. These companies also faced pressure from consumers and others who perhaps were not aware of the positive contribution such companies were making. That positive contribution did not escape the attention of leaders such as Nelson Mandela. And let me say it again – such companies were acting not only ethically but in a fully commercial manner.

So businesses sometimes need a tough skin to deal not only with human rights issues but also with the attention of a media which is not interested in a ‘business does good work’ story. I have talked about only a few aspects of business and human rights. I have shared with you my view that responsible companies see human rights issues as part of their business environment, that responsible companies are dealing with their own operations through standards and openness, that they are increasingly building relationships with suppliers and contractors to raise standards. And yes, business has influence. But that influence must be used with great care, and will be exercised in different ways in different situations.

Responsible business is playing its rightful part in global development and in social development. Business must re-establish trust with society. That will be done by example, not just talking as I have been doing. It is right that business is scrutinised and that good business is rewarded with praise while bad business is punished with exposure. I believe that business is a fundamental force for good, for economic development, and for environmental and social improvement.

And for the rights of 5 billion humans. It has been a privilege to be here today. Thank you for asking me, and thank you for listening.

This speech was delivered by Peter Sutherland to Amnesty International.