GREENWASH, 'NORMS' AND SHELL an article I wrote from SchNEWS

“It is easier and less costly to change the way people think about reality than it is to change reality” Morris Wolfe, PR consultant.

Last month was the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights where one of the hottest topics up for discussion was the ‘’UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Trans-national Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights’ (or ‘Norms’ for short). The Commission eventually decided to give the Norms a 5-year mandate to develop and try them out further.

These norms aren’t another bureaucratic attempt to bore us into submission but are proposed decency guidelines for multinational corporations to stick too. The norms ask companies to respect the laws of the countries they operate in, ensure equal opportunities and avoid racism and sexism. More troublesome for the corporations will be the proposed clause asking them not to profit from war crimes, genocide, torture, and violations of international law. The norms also include workers rights (to form unions for example), avoidance of bribery and corruption, fair business practice, protecting consumers from harmful products and environmental protection. Which seems pretty reasonable to me, but not of course to big business which feels it is obviously above such silly ‘red tape’ and would rather ‘regulate’ itself.

Corporate lobby groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) launched a fierce campaign to kill off the proposal in the run up to the meeting, with the ‘gurus of greenwash’ Shell playing a leading role. But what is all the fuss really about when all these ‘Norms’ are just a way of trying to get multinational corporations to obey existing laws and international treaties on the environment and human rights? Right-wing governments and business groups have managed to get a disclaimer added to the conclusion which means that the Norms still do not have any official status, but at least they will stay in the pipeline for the next five years.

In fact these regulations actually already exist in UN treaties such as the Convention Against Torture or in human and labour rights conventions. The idea of the Norms is to bring together these treaties and close a loophole in the law to make them apply to multinational corporations - who could face compensation claims if they ignore them.

It may come as a surprise to some that oil giant Shell are leading the opposition to these proposed norms, claiming that they don’t find them helpful because well, they already have such high human rights standards! Their website proudly proclaims, “Shell works hard to meet environmental commitments and we invest time and money to improve environmental performance beyond that required by legislation” and that, “The welfare of our staff and the communities in which we live and work is fundamental to our approach to business”. Shell’s publicity is full of this type of drivel: “Our core values of honesty, integrity and respect for people define who we are and how we work. These values have been embodied for more than 25 years in our business principles, which since 1997 include a commitment to support human rights and to contribute to sustainable development.” And you couldn’t get more sustainable than oil now could you?

In early March a scandal around Shell’s overstatement of its oil reserves forced Chief Executive Phil Watts to resign, but you wouldn’t find any Shell top brass resigning over its overstating of green credentials. Recent reports from Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid document Shell‘s operations in the Niger Delta in Nigeria, that are still causing serious problems for local communities, nine years after the execution of nine people who paid the ultimate price for campaigning for the most basic of human rights: the right for clean air, land and water see SchNEWS 49. The alternative annual Shell report from FoE states that “The decades of pollution caused by Shell’s rusting network of pipes continue to blight daily life, ruining farmland, poisoning water tables and creating the constant risk of serious fires.” The Christian Aid report also highlights that most of the community development projects presented in various glossy Shell reports are in fact failing.

Hospitals, schools and water supply systems remain unfinished and new roads mainly help boost easy movement of its oil production. But beyond the debate about how much greenwash Shell are spouting, it is clear that the company is determined to prevent the emergence of international mechanisms through which communities could hold it accountable to its pledges. As those multinational investigators Corporate Europe Observatory point out “the company generally gets away easily with its inflated claims concerning its social responsibility record.” As Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said “Any attempt to de-rail the Norms, in particular any referral of the Norms…would effectively turn back the clock on years of progress on corporate social responsibility.”

Discoveries of massive oil reserves in West Africa are condemning the region to more greenwashing (which means exploitation and bloodshed) by big oil companies. Angola is currently the only nation in Africa where US oil companies currently dominate. European oil companies such as Shell and BP have traditionally controlled this market. In the late 90s new offshore oil techniques were discovered (Exxon Mobil, has led this exploration). New coastal oil has been discovered in Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe which will conveniently be the site of a new US Navy Base. By 2015, it is projected, the US could get 25% of its oil from West Africa.

But it’s a risky and troublesome part of the world, “incompetent repression” means that the oil is out of control. “Piracy resistance” in Nigeria, where local people rise up and sabotage or steal oil, costs big oil companies 100-300,000 barrels of oil a day, and companies say they need military security from the US to operate smoothly. So when the US has finished freeing Iraq from independence… or was it making them independent from freedom … it looks like they might be moving in to West Africa.

So it’s no surprise the corporations are fighting tooth and nail to avoid mandatory reporting on their activities, because despite all their guff about social responsibility, there only obligation they feel is really important is lining their shareholders pockets. For this they rely on lax environmental regulations in poor desperate countries and making sure the locals don’t kick up a fuss about their activities.

* For more on the Norms Corporate Europe Observatory have some good information