Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Being "in the sweatshop business"

Earlier today, I read an interesting article about the ethical dilemma ABC faces reporting about recent factory fires in Bangladesh, specifically because Disney products are produced in at least one of the factories and The Walt Disney Company is ABC's parent company. This dilemma is worthy of exploration. My primary objection is with the title "Reporting on Sweatshops When Your Boss is in the Sweatshop Business," because classifying any company as being "in the sweatshop business" makes assumptions about a company's business model and approach to overseas production and labor rights (none of which were discussed in the article).

Subsequent I had this twitter exchange with @AntDeRosa which, upon reflection, illustrates some of the issues I have been hearing from CSR and sustainability practitioners (@peterfhart is the author of the article).

Disney

(Full Disclosure: I spent a year working in Disney's International Labor Standards group, the group specifically tasked with defining, implementing, monitoring, and remediating labor conditions in factories producing Disney products. As a result, I know more about their specific operations than I am allowed to discuss on an open forum and I also have a soft spot for the people I worked with. Keep this in mind as you read.)

As with many companies that have a complex supply chain, Disney's ILS program has practical limitations.  As I tweeted and stated in an earlier post, it is impractical to audit 100% of the factories in a complex, global supply chain and it is nearly impossible to ensure desired conditions exists year-round, even after a successful remediation program. This is not an excuse for problems that exist, just a statement of reality. There are definitely shortcomings to Disney's approach to factory monitoring and remediation, none of which I would feel comfortable detailing here. I would also like to see Disney adopt a Human Rights Policy. That said, Disney does deserve credit for actions they have taken, for initiatives they participate in freely, and for a policy of pushing for improvement over "cutting and running". I won't defend Disney, specifically, any further. Everyone needs to make up their own mind as to whether a company is adequately addressing human rights and labor rights in their supply chain. My only hope is that you come to your conclusion based on evidence rather than inflammatory headlines.

Sweatshop, "Defined"

Another issue I have is the use of the word "sweatshop". Factory conditions overseas vary considerably, some are deplorable, others are disagreeable, and the rest fall somewhere in-between. To call them all "sweatshops" ignores the variation in conditions and the efforts made by companies, NGOs, trade organizations, and governments. The underlying truth is companies are cleaning up messes they made 25-30 years ago, when nobody cared about sweatshops or labor rights. Progress is slow, too slow, but progress is being made due largely to corporate sustainability initiatives, stakeholder focus on transparency, corporate-NGO-government partnerships/alliances, and responsible media reporting. If the goal is to fight for continuous improvement of labor conditions (and to move toward a human rights platform), we must also acknowledge that economic conditions in developing countries would be much worse if these factories disappeared. I don't expect people to stop using the word "sweatshop," but it should be used more responsibly.

Practitioner Concerns

The twitter conversation above also illustrates so many of the concerns I heard at the recent BSR Conference. Among them:
  • What do our stakeholders value more: transparency or results? 
  • What is the point of being transparent if it opens us up to attacks? 
  • Should we only publish our successes and keep our failures and lessons learned to ourselves to avoid attack and exploitation?
  • If we keep failures and lessons learned to ourselves, how do we then share them with competitors (and they with us)?
  • If we only publish our successes, then will our initiatives only be viewed through a PR lens? (specifically noted in one of @AntDeRosa's tweet above)
  • Doesn't this mean we need to also publish our failures and lessons learned - so we aren't accused of only seeking positive PR?
These are just a few of the questions asked and they illustrate the disconnect between the "world" of CSR and sustainability practitioners and the "outside world".  There is much work to be done here, by practitioners (to start, by better explaining their mission) and by the outside world (to start, by listening with a less cynical ear). Focus should be directed upon the companies that refuse to be transparent, refuse to acknowledge mistakes, refuse to commit to improvements. Also, when a company commits to transparency, to fixing mistakes, to improving conditions, they should be held to account. Name and shame the companies that cut and run, leaving others to clean up their messes.

"in the sweatshop business"

"If your products are made in a sweatshop, you are in the sweatshop business" as Anthony DeRosa tweeted to me... is this true? To be "in the sweatshop business" implies a company intentionally seeks factories with poor labor conditions, purposely keeps conditions at that level so to profit, and ignores any pleas for improvements. It also implies that this is a part of the company business model. If this were the case for Disney, perhaps I would not object. There are certainly companies out there that deserve this designation. Disney is not one of them.

As always, if you have any questions, concerns, or corrections to the above, please let me know.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

What I Learned About Supply Chain Sourcing

As I noted in earlier blog posts, I attended the BSR Conference in October. My primary intent was to determine what organizations are doing to improve labor conditions in their supply chains. I was, to say the least, inspired by the progress. Thanks in large part to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the GPs), developed by Special Representative John Ruggie, many organizations are looking beyond improving labor rights to protecting and respecting human rights for a larger contingent of stakeholders directly impacted by domestic and international operations.

If you pay attention to international news, as I do (you may notice from my twitter feed), you cannot escape the all-too-frequent reports about hazardous conditions and tragic accidents in factories, fields, and mines around the world. A significant portion of the goods produced end up in the U.S. or other "developed" nations. I find, when discussing supply chain sourcing or international labor rights with people unfamiliar with the sustainability movement, several questions come up, including:
  • How can we, as consumers, ensure our purchases do not support these activities? 
  • What power do western-based corporations realistically have over the working conditions overseas? (without a doubt, we have our own domestic labor issues but my focus is on international development)
  • Is it within our rights or responsibilities to interfere in activities taking place in other sovereign nations? 
  • Should a capitalist society concern itself with these issues, which distract from the profit motive frequently thought to be the primary purpose of business?

I can't promise to answer these questions to the satisfaction of every person, but I have put together some blog posts to summarize corporate responsibility and sustainability initiatives in an effort to show what is currently being done and the direction we are headed.

Supplier Codes of Conduct

Over the past 20 years, corporations have been developing and implementing supplier codes of conduct (here’s an example currently in use by my former employer, The Walt Disney Company), an agreement with direct suppliers requiring adherence to a minimum level of labor standards, usually based on the ILO Core Labor Conventions. If a supplier is unable to meet these minimum standards, the organization can direct remediation or, if unsuccessful or resisted, terminate the business relationship. Although these codes clearly represent a positive development toward recognizing and protecting labor rights, they have inherent weaknesses, including:
  • realistically, corporations are incapable of auditing all their supplier factories, let alone ensuring conditions are consistent year-round,
  • implementation and enforcement are often limited by local laws and regulations,
  • agreements typically reach only one level down the supply chain, meaning they don’t have any real impact on raw material sourcing, and
  • unless the corporations produce detailed Social Responsibility reports, it is difficult for consumers to ascertain or evaluate how effective the agreements are or use that information to influence their purchasing decisions.
I’m not suggesting companies abandon their supplier codes of conduct, but it is useful to understand the limitations in a practical sense.

With the above in mind, I have put together posts summarizing information I gathered related to the following:
I hope these are helpful or, at least, interesting. As always, if you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

Supply Chain Sourcing and Human Rights


In my "introduction" post, I described the key elements and drawbacks of Supplier Codes of Conduct. Based on that information, you may understandably wonder why developing and implementing an even more ambitious human rights policy makes sense, especially given already stretched resources. I hope below I can provide a convincing rationale as well as provide some hints and resources.

Developing a Human Rights Policy

Philosophically, a human rights policy is all encompassing and applies to all stakeholders, beyond employees and suppliers, including parties and communities directly impacted by operations. Some elements may already exist within your organization, such as an anti-discrimination policy and the supplier code of conduct. Some items might seem obvious, and we do tend to take certain rights for granted (especially those ensconced in our own founding documents). These are rights that must be protected, developed, sometimes even explained to government officials and citizens in developing (and some developed) nations. Consider that groups oppressed by their government for decades (for example, Myanmar's Rohigya) likely have limited access to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and GPs. As much as we struggle with defining and defending our rights in the U.S. (interpretation and application to new technology, for example), imagine how difficult it is to enforce them in operations in foreign countries, especially those run by corrupt governments.

Practical Guidance

The GPs are not binding, but voluntary based on ability to operationalize by industry and country. The corporate responsibility under the GPs is to respect human rights and to provide remedy for failures, as appropriate. In contrast, it is the state’s responsibility to protect the human rights of its citizens and establish a system by which they can obtain remedy for shortfalls. These organizations are actively involved in translating the GPs to best practices for industries and organizations:
Domestic laws (in the country of operations) are often not sufficient to meet above guidelines. It’s no secret western companies are attracted to developing nations with the intent of gaining access to raw materials and labor at lower expense due to lack of infrastructure and government regulations.

HR Impact Assessment

Before developing a human rights policy, the company should complete a human rights impact assessment in order to identify and prioritize areas of concern. The basic steps are:
  1. Identify the most relevant issues
  2. Identify gaps in current management system
  3. Proactively shape the agenda (look for opportunities)
  4. Find balance between addressing risks and finding opportunities
  5. Get expert views and hear concerns of “rights holders”
  6. Impact/evaluate at product or segment level (micro) and at corporate (macro) – thinking about actual results, as well as value of transparency (in a report to the public or perhaps working with competitors to find solutions to bigger problems)
Important to realize this is not an “all or nothing” proposition – should be aspirational and incremental. You can't solve all the problems in a day. Think about the most obvious HR risks. Chances are you are not the only one to notice and there are people on the ground trying to address it or other companies that have tried and can share successes, failures, and lessons learned. However, don’t neglect a rare worst-case scenario that could have a huge HR impact. These are the events rights holders might be concerned about and that NGOs and governments have no idea or capability to address (e.g., BP oil spill or Bhopal gas leak). This will require creative crisis planning that could pay-off in the long run – at the site of design, at other sites, or even for competitors. Imagine if you have planned for a leak or equipment failure and the actual cause is sabotage. At least you have a plan to work from. Weigh the probability of occurrence against the estimated impact but realize these are moving targets, especially when dealing with developing nations and the potential of government turmoil.

Examples - Human Rights Policies

Implementing a Human Rights Policy

You can copy and revise HR policies as seems appropriate for your organization. However, the trick will be in implementation and integration within your business processes. Here are some key questions that need to be answered:
  • Who will be responsible for implementing? If it is to be a team, who are the right people for that team and why?
  • How will responsibilities be divided? by country/region or by issue or by function/segment? 
  • How will they share information?
  • How will they make decisions?
  • What is their organizational structure? Who do they report to? Why is that appropriate?
  • How will their policies be integrated into continuing operations?
  • How will their progress be tracked and evaluated?
It is important to be pragmatic, aspirational, and flexible. As world events occur, risks and opportunities will also change.

Other Lessons

Focus on the process - when designing and implementing a human rights policy, the key is to be process-focused rather than outcome-focused. A focus on outcomes often ignores what went right or wrong along the way and ignores room for improvement. We need to realize, and be able to communicate coherently to stakeholders, we are dealing with complex environments with a multitude of unique situations that must be approached as such and, preferably, not abandoned at first perceived failure.

Look for success stories - as much as the above is true, not every situation is so unique that other opinions, experiences, and best practices can be ignored. Even a thread of similarity might be useful to address current challenges.

Utilize local resources - don’t be afraid to rely on (a wide variety of) locals to contextualize. You may be missing an essential piece of the puzzle if you don’t understand all the cultural dynamics. This is especially true if, at meetings and negotiations, you notice a particular demographic (perhaps, women) is missing. You may have stumbled upon a component of the informal power structure within the community and an indication of who is operating behind the scenes. It is also valuable to identify the observers and historians within communities as they can tell you who actually makes important decisions.

Look for opportunities, cautiously - The GPs focus on eliminating risks but do not build on to enhancing or promoting human rights opportunities. An important, but risky, opportunity would be developing basic social services not provided by the government. An organization considering such a venture needs to also develop a viable exit plan in case the operation ends, for whatever reason. Perhaps partnering with a local NGO and obtaining independent funding sources would help to ensure continuation of services.

Defend transparency - A common question asked by practitioners, executives, and boards is what actions open the organization up to more risk, particularly legal or reputation? Unfortunately, we are still dealing in the reality where results are valued over transparency. Western corporations are often forced to make and defend a business case (ROI and legal protections) to investors and lenders, but are rarely called to account on the ethical imperative of human rights unless the damage has been done. There is a shift in consumer and investor behavior, but not sufficient to cause a sea change. A paradigm shift is needed here in both the investor and NGO communities.

Use leverage - what if the government is unwilling or unable to protect the human rights of its citizens, let alone create a legal system? How far can (should) a corporation go to fill the role of the state? One suggestion is using the leverage of the business relationship and U.S. regulations to provide incentives to the government officials for protecting human rights principles directly related to smooth operation of facilities. If necessary, the company may be able to devise penalties for failure to protect, especially in particularly egregious events that could negatively impact the company’s ability to operate in the country and reputation at home. For example, the conflict mineral provision of the new Dodd-Frank legislation may have good and bad aspects in implementation; however the existence of the law now provides U.S. corporations with leverage to use when dealing with the DRC and other countries of concern.

Establish a grievance mechanism - the mechanism should be available to address small issues that arise directly related to the operations and their impact on employees and the surrounding communities. The mechanism should aim to find solutions before small problems become big problems (e.g., Lonmin). A government unwilling or incapable of protecting the rights of its own citizens is also not likely to establish an effective legal system, and it is currently unresolved as to where such citizens of a foreign nation might have their complaints heard, if a corporation response is inadequate (see Kiobel Supreme Court case).

Integrate human rights practices into existing processes - and include progress in job evaluations. Again, for evaluations, it is important to focus not just on the results, but also on incremental progress, ability to trouble-shoot and work with other outside entities, engagement with human rights experts and rights holders, and appropriate transparency. Focus on identifying the challenge, developing and implementing a strategy, evaluating the impact, and identifying the lessons learned so that an industry standard might be developed. Keep in mind the corporate obligation to “respect” versus the state obligation to “protect” and be aware that, in some cases, rights holders may not be aware of or understand their rights.

As always, if you have any comments or questions related to the above, please let me know.

A New Approach to Stakeholder Engagement

Below I have summarized my notes taken during a workshop about stakeholder engagement.



I have also included some clarifying and contextual information, based on my academic and practical experience with stakeholder identification and engagement.

(links provided within are not endorsements but, rather, examples for explanatory of contextual purposes)

Who are your stakeholders?

Traditional stakeholder groups include investors, lenders, customers, employees, and suppliers. Businesses have a direct financial relationship with these groups. Profits and regulations, supply and demand, dictate the rules of engagement. These groups are still relevant within new stakeholder engagement strategies; however the scope of engagement with these groups should expand to align with goals related to social responsibility and sustainability initiatives. In addition, new stakeholder groups (e.g., socially responsible investor “SRI” groups, environmental and human rights NGOs, local affected populations) should be considered, as they can both influence corporate reputations and provide valuable information about goal development, best practices, and lessons learned.

Why engage these groups?

Investors and SRI groups have financial benchmarks and analyses that provide guidance related to market and long-term expectations. Sustainability initiatives will likely cause a significant initial investment; however, if properly managed, the initial investment should produce both quantitative and qualitative returns. SRI groups are likely to have a more long-term perspective beyond the quarterly and annual earnings focus of markets and lenders. Expect SRI groups to be more demanding with regards to sustainability initiative results and transparency.

Customers may initially reject cost increases directly resulting from sustainability initiatives. This may be partially remediated through transparency, especially if initiatives can be shown to positively impact customer lives (e.g., reduced packaging or environmentally safe cleaning products). Consumers may reach out with concerns about raw material sourcing, especially when news reports alert them about specific issues (e.g., factory conditions, child labor, conflict minerals). These should be seen as opportunities to establish new sustainability initiatives responsive to customer concerns.

Suppliers may not initially see the benefit of investing in sustainability initiatives (related to supplier codes of conduct and social audits, for example), especially if only one of their customers is pressing for improvements. However, if competitors can form an alliance with similar goals, cost of implementation may be shared in exchange for purchase commitments and transparency obligations to improve ethical reputations of all parties. Not all companies have the purchasing power of Wal-Mart, but this may be an opportunity for competitors to work together when costs and benefits can be shared.

Competitors are useful for forming alliances to tackle large (see my recent chocolate post) and small issues, as well as for comparing successes and failures. This requires trust and relationship-building, not seen often enough in corporate culture. Sustainability and transparency should be viewed as two sides of the same coin. Sustainability concerns may not be shared across an industry. Sharing ideas, information, and responsibility will require a shift in thinking about corporate secrecy.

Local and international NGOs, including those focused on environmental or human rights, are valuable resources. Once seen as rivals, these groups are increasingly taking on partnership and advisory roles for sustainability initiatives and strategic development. NGOs can also be helpful with stakeholder identification and negotiations, especially local groups with ties to affected communities. Based on their experiences, they may also be able to identify companies that have successfully (or unsuccessfully) tackled similar issues and can share best practices (or lessons learned). Information sharing requires a commitment to transparency and two-way dialogue, often out of the comfort zone. (I have more information about human rights-focused initiatives in a separate post)

How to engage with stakeholders?

Create an engagement strategy. Begin by asking questions about the goals of engagement and how it fits with the organizational mission, goals, and sustainability initiatives. The goals of engagement should provide some guidance as to which internal groups and individuals should be involved, as well as which stakeholders should be included, in discussion about each sustainability initiative. The company needs to find a proper balance between engaging a wide variety of stakeholders and avoiding information overload.

Research, evaluate, and prioritize stakeholder groups. Be aware, prior to engagement, there will be conflicts and difficult decisions must be made. Not every group can or will be 100% satisfied with the initiative or the outcome. Evaluating groups ensures those with higher priority have a greater chance of having their needs heard and met.

Plan engagement(s). There are consulting groups that can help coordinate creative, structured, and strategically appropriate stakeholder engagement activities. Although there are obviously costs involved, the benefits of investing in this type of assistance early in the process include ensuring the criteria of engagements are sound and the goals are achieved.

Engage! This is your opportunity to listen, to identify concerns, and to discover new ideas. Again, the benefit of having a trained consultant present is assistance keeping the conversation on track and productive. It is also important to remember that you do not need to act upon 100% of the information gathered in these engagements.

Prioritize and integrate key points gathered during stakeholder engagements in to strategic planning and development. Identify the important lessons learned from the process so they can be worked in to future engagement opportunities.

When to engage?
  • When you want to take a proactive stance related to an emerging or recently discovered issue
  • When you are exploring innovative sustainability initiatives and want input from directly affected groups, experts, and parties that have previously worked on this issue or in the region
  • When the organization has both the power and the will to make positive and sustainable change
  • When the project is still in the planning phase – these types of engagements are not designed to tell stakeholders what will be done but, rather, to gather information needed to make decisions. If the key decisions have been made, if the strategy has been formulated, the type of engagement discussed above is a waste of time and resources. What you want is buy-in
Lessons:

My takeaways from the workshop:
  • Consider using a stakeholder engagement consulting group to plan and engage on first time or complex engagements
  • You do not need to act upon 100% of what you hear
  • Be proactive and transparent
  • Integrate with corporate strategy at all stages of engagement planning and implementation
  • Compare issues important for business success with issues important to society
  • Be prepared to address dynamics and conflicts between stakeholder groups and needs
  • Get stakeholders out of reactive mode by making them a partner in a shared vision of the future
  • Keep in mind the initially established goals and desired benefits – strategic and reputation – while developing relationships with stakeholder groups
  • Follow-through, either through action or transparency
Above all, stakeholder engagement is a learning and organic process, not an event.

As always, if you have any comments or questions related to the above, please let me know.

Taking on Human Trafficking

Below I have compiled my notes taken during a session with David Arkless, President, Corporate and Government Affairs, of ManpowerGroup, and Jean Baderschneider, Vice President, Global Procurement, of ExxonMobil Global Services Company. As with all blog posts in this series, what I have written below should be considered paraphrases, not direct quotes.

How to Combat Human Trafficking

Jean Baderschneider: This requires focus from leadership and the organizational culture they create. There must be training, transparency, and action with a long-term focus. ExxonMobil’s supply chain audits will address human trafficking (a tool to identify and address human trafficking risk is in development). This issue requires extensive training to both increase awareness and teach people what to look for.

David Arkless: Manpower has a global approach to ensure employers have the right to be an employer. Agree this issue requires training and education. It is often dangerous work. They try to engage with governments that are supporting (or turning a blind eye toward) human trafficking. Some governments exploit their own people and benefit financially from the slave trade. This is a good project for companies to work together and (carefully) use leverage to put pressure on governments.

JB: One promising new direction is data creation and mining. The current environment is so dangerous for NGOs that they need more government involvement.

DA: Companies must show governments how to shift from criminal trafficking to ethical migrant labor and show them it is also more profitable.

Why Combat Human Trafficking?

JB: She personally believes fighting human trafficking is a moral duty more than a business case, but the business case is to have the best trained, legal labor force available. ExxonMobil allocates resources to fighting human trafficking because it is part of their business model.

DA: He had to come up with a cash positive business model to convince the Board of Directors to commit funds. Their “case study” exceeded financial projections, partially because of unexpected and intangible benefits, such as improved reputation and brand perception. Manpower is now perceived to be the #1 company in their industry due to ethical positioning.

JB: ExxonMobil expects problems due to the complexity of their supply chain. This is why the human trafficking tool for social audits is being developed.

What are key risks?

DA: Manpower had to focus on labor-intensive risks. One big issue was document forgery. They needed to train people in all their offices how to identify forgeries. This requires a more sophisticated level of expertise. Forgery in human trafficking is rampant and well-developed. There are not enough police or investigators worldwide to tackle this, especially in “problem” countries or regions.

JB: The hard work is identifying who to partner with and, especially, who can be trusted. There is a huge need to increase awareness. Governments are tricky and their policies are not always helpful. You need to be willing to stand your ground. Organizations prioritize human trafficking because it is the right thing to do, definitely not strategically or financially beneficial (especially at first). Tackling human trafficking networks is complicated and potentially dangerous.

DA: The internal structure of many trafficking networks is better developed and managed than many countries.

JB: We need to focus on the Guiding Principles role of government versus role of business and start holding governments responsible for protecting their citizens.

DA: Organizations can join together and address government shortfalls and make a business case to convince governments that trafficking is a risky model, especially because it involves a criminal element.

JB: In the same respect, businesses should do all they can to ensure no human trafficking exists in their supply chain and stand their ground against governments standing in their way. Companies should establish standards for their own operations, apply them to suppliers and down through the supply chain. Companies should also encourage training throughout their supply chain network so people understand the human rights aspect, know how to identify signs of human trafficking, and know what to do and who to go to with questions or if they see something suspicious. Due to technology, it is easier for companies to use NGOs to gather and mine data, but it is still dangerous work [speaks of bomb threats and suspicious car accidents].

DA: There are not enough local and international police or investigative resources devoted to human trafficking, especially considering the number of humans trafficked (~21 million) and the sophistication of the networks.

What is the business case?

JB: We want to employ the best trained, legal labor force available.

DA: We used one country as a case study and the unexpected intangible benefits (reputation and brand perception) made the difference.

JB: Partnering with some suppliers, NGOs, and some governments is important to continue increasing awareness. Need to find a way to work with the “bad” governments.

DA: Document forgery was the tipping point for them. Now they have people in all their offices to identify forged documents.

Lessons:

My takeaways from the talk:
  • Fighting human trafficking networks is dangerous work
  • Human trafficking networks are sophisticated and often operate with benefit of government officials
  • A business case can be made, depending on how you approach the problem and the solution
  • Each company and industry has a unique area they can focus on (e.g., document forgery)
  • Companies should work together, (carefully) using leverage against “bad” or complicit governments

Obviously this is a very complicated issue, difficult to tackle with any depth during an hour long session. However it is valuable to learn how companies in very different industries have identified ways to tackle human trafficking within their own supply chain network. I’m sure this won’t be the last time I’ll write on this subject. As always, if you have any comments, questions, or corrections related to the above, please let me know.

Creating a Sustainable Global Supply Network in the Chocolate Industry

Below I compiled my notes taken during a session with Barry Parkin, Global Commercial Vice President of Mars Chocolate. As with other blog posts in this series, all written below should be considered paraphrases, not direct quotes.

Mars Facts:
  • Mars is 100% family owned, started in 1911
  • They have 5-6 million cocoa farmers in their supply chain
  • Each farm is about 1-3 hectares
  • Average production is half-ton cocoa per hectare
  • Cocoa trees take 2 to 3 years to produce
  • This yield has not changed substantially over the last 50 years 
Side note: CNN Freedom Project put together a series of reports discussing the issue of child labor in cocoa fields. They are worth a read/watch if you haven’t already. I have embedded the first video below.


Why Focus on Productivity?

These are not professional farmers are they are struggling financially.

Mars approach is focus on improving cocoa yields which benefits the farmers financially and contributes to economic growth of their country. This approach also helps Mars by keeping supply up to meet demand.

Mars has tried small partnerships up and down their value (supply) chain, hundreds of small-scale projects, without any noticeable increase in yields.

Their new strategy is to partner with competitors on 2 or 3 big projects, intended to:
  • Address worst forms of child labor
  • Involve governments and NGOs
  • Improve productivity/yields
  • Work toward eliminating all child labor
  • Get kids in schools
  • Encourage economic and social development 
This strategy operates under the philosophy: “if you don’t solve the economic issues, you can’t solve the social issues; but you can’t stop at solving the economic issues.”

Mars believes yield development should be considered a pre-competition issue (competitors should be willing to work together).

They examined processes to determine where they can either influence the actors or bring science to reduce water use and improve production – for cocoa production they can do both.

Mars started with a research farm in Brazil to investigate companion crops, fertilizer, and insect repellent. They are using an organic and industrial fertilizer mix. They have determined pheromones work best to repel pests.

Certification

Mars is working to certify farmers but believe this should be done through collaboration with other big brands. There should be one certification process due to time and money investment of social, environmental, and productivity training and auditing. They are starting to see momentum in this direction.

Certification must result in economic prosperity for the farmers.

In the Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), they have already seen productivity yields increase by 30%.

Currently the supply of certified cocoa is keeping up with consumer demand, but this will change and there are not enough farmers ready to be certified. A massive training program is needed.

Mars works with governments to ensure countries can support the training programs and the results with improved infrastructure and resources to accommodate needs associated with increased production and economic growth.

They have resisted lowering the certification “bar” because they want to see real sustainable change.

It is cost-prohibitive for farmers to achieve certification without outside (company) funding.

Palm Oil

Side Note: Rock Center on NBC did a report on the destruction caused by palm oil plantations, which threatens orangutan habitats. I have embedded the video that aired below but there is more on their site.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Unilever got the industry together to address palm oil certification. Mars joined their existing group.

Mars plans to source 100% certified palm oil by the end of 2013, 2 years ahead of original commitment.

Other Raw Materials and Supply Chain Issues

Mars uses thousands of raw materials so they have to prioritize and pick those which they think they can make the biggest positive difference.

Goal is to marry sustainability with procurement because it makes sense within their business model.

“You can only sell it well if you buy it well.”

They plan to use metrics related to improvements they want to see. So far they have agreement conceptually but nothing has been set.

Strategic Sourcing

Responsible sourcing is risk-focused.

There will be competition to provide certified cocoa. That is where the industry is headed.

As of now, they do not see certified cocoa significantly influencing consumer purchasing.

It does provide a reputation benefit.

Goal is to get to 100% certified cocoa and then work on efficiency.

Lessons

My takeaways from the talk:
  • There are many ways to approach sustainability and human rights issues – philosophically, strategically, and financially
  • Working on addressing big problems takes industry collaboration and working with governments and NGOs
  • Infrastructure improvements must accompany economic and social change
  • Consumers are not driving change on many important human rights issues
I wrote more about issues in the chocolate supply chain here, prior to the conference. I must say, I'm more optimistic now than I was then. If you have any comments, questions, or corrections related to the above, please let me know.

Tackling Corruption

Below I compiled my notes taken during a session with Travis Winslow, Director of Ethics and Corporate Compliance at Carnival Corporation, and Jermyn Brooks, Chair of Transparency International. As with all blog posts in this series, what I have written below should be considered paraphrases, not direct quotes.

The session notes are brief so I’ve included some extra resources based on my own research on the various forms of corruption and how it impacts human rights.

Side Note: Transparency International developed and, in 2009, updated Business Principles for Countering Bribery. This guide includes basic definitions and program development best practices for organizations attempting to identify and fight bribery and related forms of corruption within their operations.

How do you tackle corruption in your own organizations?

Travis Winslow: The corruption issue is a key factor reducing foreign investment

Jermyn Brooks: Countries should adopt legislation consistent with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. In the United States, foreign bribery cases outnumber those in other countries.

TW: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) does not exclude facilitating payments, but there is not much difference between facilitating payments and bribes. Without more specific guidance, companies make assumptions and draw their own lines. No consistency. UK’s 2010 Bribery Act does prohibit facilitating payments.

JB: Often a policy is a publicly stated commitment but question is if organization complies with laws and guidance. This requires implementation and monitoring. Businesses would prefer one authoritative guideline, with industry-specific sub-guides (e.g., for maritime operations or working in conflict areas).

Side Note: The UN Global Compact Working Group devoted to the 10th Principle, the Anti-Corruption Principle, developed Reporting Guidance for Compact participants. This guide emphasizes the importance of transparency, spells out the business case for anti-corruption initiatives, and provides a matrix of basic and desired reporting elements. The guide also includes detailed best practices for implementation and monitoring of anti-corruption initiatives. Their Business Anti-Corruption Portal provides a variety of tools and resources developed in partnership with larger organizations experienced with fighting corruption in developing countries. The Portal was designed to benefit small and medium sized companies by sharing training programs, due diligence tools, and other resources.

TW: We seem to have reached the point where companies know and accept they should be proactive in these areas but don’t want to be first or act alone. Companies open themselves up to scrutiny by consumers and investors. Encouraging transparency means not going on attack as soon as transparent information is available, or nobody will follow.

Side Note: Carnival Corporation is a member of BSR’s Maritime Anti-Corruption Network, a group that shares best practices and creates awareness about maritime-industry challenges specifically related to bribes and other forms of corruption.

Lessons

My takeaways from the talk:

  • Companies want consistent global rules and guidelines defining bribery, facilitating payments, and other forms of corruption
  • Some industries face specific challenges that need specialized guidance and competitors would (and do) benefit from information sharing and transparency
  • Companies are hesitant to be too transparent on these issues because of perceived potential backlash

This is another complex issue and difficult to tackle with any depth during an hour long session. As always, if you have any comments, questions, or corrections related to the above, please let me know.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Phew!

I'm finally home after five weeks on the road, including an unintended extended stay in NYC for Hurricane Sandy. I was a lucky one, safely ensconced at the fabulous Tribeca Grand Hotel during the storm then moved to an uptown Marriott soon after. All things considered, my hurricane experience was (dare I say) pleasant.

Others did not fare as well, and another storm is on the horizon. There are plenty of organizations taking cash and non-cash donations, and blood banks are still suffering from shortages. If you are interested, I've compiled a list of my favorites. Feel free to add yours in the comments.

I won't get too political, but must celebrate the re-election of our President Barack Obama. One tweet in particular captured the spirit in our home:


I'm working on several blog posts related to the BSR Conference and an upcoming presentation on developing human rights policies in organizations. Exciting stuff coming! Stay tuned.

Friday, October 26, 2012

I'm at a Conference! (Thursday Update/Friday Preview)

Summary of Thursday Activities

Last night I discovered my laptop cord has a frayed spot - all sparks and wires - which I imagine is quite dangerous, a fire hazard at the very least. As such, my NYC work is coming to a close unless I can track down a new cord (if you have ideas, please pass them along). I have included my Friday schedule below and will continue to tweet when I can. In the meantime, I'll be drafting my blog entries the old-fashioned way - pen and paper! Per usual, BSR can be found on twitter @BSRNews and conference hashtag #BSR12.

Friday

Friday, our last day, is a half day. It begins with a presentation by Raj Shah, Administrator of USAID (@USAID), followed by a panel with Fred Krupp (@FredKrupp), President of Environmental Defense Fund (@EnvDefenseFund), and Mindy Lubber (@MindyLubber), President of Ceres (@CeresNews). Next will be a presentation by Jeff Jarvis (@JeffJarvis), blogger at BuzzMachine (@BuzzMachine) and Professor.  On this final day, we only have morning breakout sessions. I'll be attending either "Tackling Bribery and Corruption Risks in Global Supply Chains" with Travis Winslow, Director of Ethics and Corporate Compliance for Carnival Corporation (@CarnivalCruise), and Jermyn Brooks, Chair of Transparency International (@anticorruption), or "Identifying an Effective Remedy for Human Rights Impacts" with Natalie Bridgeman Fields (@nataliebridgema), Founder and Executive Director of Accountability Counsel, and Jonathan Drimmer, VP and Assistant General Counsel of Barrick Gold Corporation (@BarrickGold).

As always, feel free to tweet or DM questions to me at @CSRBella.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

I'm at a Conference! (Wednesday Update/Thursday Preview)

Summary of Wednesday Activities

Yesterday I attended two thought-provoking sessions on supply chain issues - the first on tackling human trafficking, the second on addressing surprises and planning for future issues. I am writing something up that will be more substantial than a summary blurb and will post it next week. I hope you read it and let me know what you think. In the meantime, BSR can be found on twitter @BSRNews and conference hashtag #BSR12.

Thursday

Thursday begins with presentations by International Photographer Platon and Leontino Balbo, Jr., Head of Native Organic Products. For the morning breakout session, I'll be attending "Reaching Into the Root of Supply Chains: Perspectives From an End User" with Barry Parkin, Global Commercial VP for the Mars Chocolate division of Mars, Inc (@MarsGlobal). In the afternoon, I'll be attending a 2-hour working session "Sustainability and Leadership Competencies." The day ends with Plenary Speaker Anne-Marie Slaughter (@SlaughterAM), Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

As always, feel free to tweet or DM questions to me at @CSRBella.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

I'm at a Conference! (Tuesday Update/Wednesday Preview)

Summary of Tuesday Training Sessions

Today was very interesting. During the morning session about the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, we discussed how to identify human rights risks and opportunities throughout the organization, the key components of an effective human rights policy, and how to use leverage (in the form of both sanctions and incentives) to convince reluctant business partners to improve conditions and behaviors. CSR leaders working in a variety of industries discussed human rights challenges they have faced and how they approached these challenges, providing some insight in to their different philosophies about the role of corporations in society. The afternoon session about Stakeholder Engagement was useful for expanding on some of these concepts, especially developing a strategy for identifying and communicating with various stakeholder groups. Proactively identifying and strategically communicating with vulnerable stakeholder groups (as well as those who hold power over them) may provide the information necessary to prevent human rights abuses from occurring. For future research, I would like to integrate these tools with ethical leadership theories and strategic organizational development.

Without getting too wonky, that's a brief rundown of today's training workshops. I hope to expand on these concepts throughout the rest of this week. BSR can be found on twitter @BSRNews and conference hashtag #BSR12.

Wednesday

Wednesday begins the conference official. After opening remarks by Aron Cramer (@AronCramer), BSR President and CEO, and presentations by Tracy Palandjian (@TracyPalandjian), CEO and Co-founder of Social Finance (@SocFinUK and @SocialFinanceUS), and Marc Bolland, CEO of Marks and Spencer (@marksandspencer), we spend the bulk of the day in breakout sessions. The morning breakout sessions present a bit of a dilemma, as I must choose between a conversation with Jay Rasulo, the CFO of The Walt Disney Company, about integrating corporate responsibility, business value, and corporate brand (full disclosure, I worked in Disney's International Labor Standards group and love the company), "Recognizing the Risks: Modern-Day Slavery and Human Trafficking in the Supply Chain," or "Beyond Incrementalism with Justin Adams." All three are consistent with my research interests and career goals, so I may be flipping some coins on this one.

The afternoon breakout sessions were just a bit easier to narrow down. I'll be attending "Hot Spots: Identifying Future Issues in the Global Supply Chain" with Helena Helmersson, the Head of Sustainability with H&M (@hm), and Amy Hargroves, CSR Manager at Sprint Nextel (@Sprint). Next I'll attend "What All Businesses Can Learn from Privately Held Companies" with Elizabeth Seeger, Principal at KKR, and Cora Olsen, ESG Data Manager and Global TBL Management at Novo Nordisk (@NovoNordisk_GA).

The day ends with Plenary Speaker José Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1996) and Former President, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.

As always, feel free to tweet or DM questions to me at @CSRBella.

Monday, October 22, 2012

I'm Going to a Conference!

I'm going to this conference - the 20th Annual BSR (Business for Social Responsibility) Conference for sharing opportunities and challenges related to designing and implementing responsible business strategies.  Here's one of those fancy promo videos:



I have a full schedule Tuesday through Friday and will share my thoughts here on the blog as well as on twitter (@CSRBella). BSR can be found on twitter @BSRNews and conference hashtag #BSR12.

Tuesday

Tuesday workshops are considered "pre-conference training" sessions. I expect they will be interactive, reducing my live-tweeting ability. The morning session I will attend is "Human Rights Due Diligence: Implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles." I look forward to the focus on implementation and integration of the guiding principles within systems and operations using interactive exercises, real-world examples, and a step-by-step approach. Should be interesting!

Tuesday afternoon, I will attend "Innovative Stakeholder Engagement" which will present methods to engage the wide range of corporate stakeholders (e.g., employees, investors, NGOs, public officials, communities, issue advocates, campaign groups) through case studies.  Since stakeholder needs are rarely complementary, I look forward to insight regarding prioritizing needs so to develop proactive and effective business strategies.

That is the plan for Tuesday. If you have questions, feel free to tweet me at @CSRBella (or DM them if you are more comfortable).

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Silicosis is NOT Sexy

Silicosis is an incurable, irreversible, lung disease caused by inhaling dust containing free crystalline silica, often found in mining operations, quarries, and some factories. Free crystalline silica is one of the most common minerals in the Earth’s crust. Silica dust is frequently invisible to the naked eye, so light it can remain airborne for a long time, and can travel in the air or on surfaces for long distances, potentially affecting otherwise safe populations. Inhaled silica particles damage lung tissue which inhibits normal breathing. In some cases, exposure to silica dust can lead to tuberculosis. The World Health Organization (WHO) has studied and launched programs to increase awareness and preventative measures, as well as deal with the consequences of silicosis, yet incidents continue to be reported in developed and developing nations at an alarming rate.

Silicosis in the news

Mining in South Africa - A significant case of widespread silicosis occurred in the mines of South Africa during white apartheid rule, when black laborers were not provided adequate protective equipment or health care. Tens of thousands of black miners from South Africa and neighboring countries claim to have contracted silicosis and have filed several lawsuits against western mining firms operating in South Africa during those years, including AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, and Harmony. Previously, South African law limited workers’ ability to sue their employers for injury or death resulting from incidents in the workplace. However, in March 2011, after a series of appeals, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled in favor of an original plaintiff’s right to make his claims against the company. Unfortunately, that plaintiff, Thembekile Mankayi, died of lung disease a week prior to the decision. In what many consider a breakthrough, a related case, initiated by 18 plaintiffs against AngloGold Ashanti, will have an arbitration hearing in September 2013, to be presided over by a panel of South African justices. If this case is decided in the plaintiffs’ favor, it should open the door for the tens of thousands of suffering miners and surviving families to seek recourse against negligent employers.

Denim Sandblasting in Turkey - After a doctor discovered several hundred denim factory workers suffering from silicosis, Turkey banned denim sandblasting in 2009. Many of these workers do not have health insurance; many were also working illegally and, thus, have no access to legal recourse. So far, only workers who could provide proof of legal employment have been provided with disability funds. Despite sandblasted denim bans by H&M, Levi’s, and Target, production continues and has moved to less regulated countries, including Bangladesh, China, and Egypt.

Jewelry Factories in China - In 2010, a Chinese court awarded damages to six jewelry factory workers who contracted silicosis in their workplace. The court victory also provides precedence for other factory workers seeking damages against their employers in compensation for injury or illness resulting from violation of Chinese labor law occupational health and safety clauses.

Stone Quarries in Egypt - Silicosis has not been widely discussed related to Egypt’s numerous quarry operations (yet… post-Mubarak Egypt is working through other, more immediate, labor issues, such as wages and health insurance), however a quick scan through these pictures gives an idea as to the volume and pervasiveness of the dust produced. The workers, many of them children, are not wearing any respiratory protective equipment so they are at high risk due to prolonged exposure. Also, the dust on their clothing may be transported back to their homes and neighborhoods for others to breathe. Of course, these quarry-related issues also exist in countries other than Egypt.

How to prevent exposure

As you might imagine, limiting (let alone preventing) exposure to a dust that is often not visible presents certain challenges. WHO recommends various practices be implemented in workplaces, including making changes to production processes to reduce dust creation, installing improved ventilation systems to pull dust away from workers, providing respiratory and other personal protective equipment (as well as training for proper use and maintenance), and implementing environmental protections to prevent spread of dust outside the production areas.

What is being done?

I’m in the process of reviewing various non-governmental organization (NGO) and corporate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR, or equivalent) reports to determine the extent of silicosis disclosures. So far, response appears to be limited to discussions about silicosis prevention (Fairmount Minerals) and acknowledgement of silicosis as a significant workforce health issue (AngloGold Ashanti Limited). As I find more information and report disclosures, I will update this post accordingly.

Of course, silicosis is just one of many workplace-related hazards that can be limited or avoided using stronger targeted regulations and proactive CSR initiatives to protect workers around the world. When companies say their international operations are contributing to a better life in foreign countries, I believe it is important to consider whether they are taking a proactive approach to these issues. If they haven’t evaluated the need for personal protective equipment or other safety measures, and if they haven’t included some form of health-care and retirement benefits, these companies are likely generating limited short-term benefits in exchange for long-term damage.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Chocolate is Sexy...


Now that I have your attention…

At a conference next week, I will attend a presentation by a major chocolate producer regarding sustainable global supply networks. In preparation, I thought I'd gather my thoughts and some recent reports about major cocoa sourcing issues:

In September 2001, the Harkin-Engel Cocoa Protocol, designed to eradicate child labor from cocoa fields supplying chocolate manufacturers, was signed in to law. During the past eleven years, the terms of the Harkin-Engel Cocoa Protocol have been watered down substantially and many of those terms that remain still have not been met by the major chocolate manufacturers. About 75% of the world’s cocoa is grown in West Africa, mostly the Ivory Coast, on small farms. Hundreds of thousands of children continue to work in cocoa fields, many harvesting cocoa beans using machetes, considered one of the worst forms of child labor by the UN due to potential injury.

In case you missed them, the CNN Freedom Project put together a fantastic series of investigative reports about child labor in the cocoa supply chain. Check them out for a fairly authentic picture of conditions for children working on cocoa farms and some insight as to why the issue is so pervasive in the Ivory Coast, specifically. This link will take you to their first report.

The following major chocolate manufacturers took significant steps this year toward meeting their obligations under the Harkin-Engel Cocoa Protocol, with a new 2020 target date.

Mondelez (Cadbury & Milka combined global market share 15.2%*)
Mondelez is the newly spun-off snack foods division (as of October 2, 2012), formerly part of Kraft, which includes chocolate products under the Cadbury label. Mondelez is the only major chocolate manufacturer that has not made a sustainable cocoa sourcing pledge. Since 2008, Cadbury has committed approximately $70 million to a Cocoa Partnership devoted to improving farming practices at source farms in Ghana, India, Indonesia, and the Caribbean. The program does not include farming operations in Ivory Coast, which Kraft claims were included in a separate initiative working in cooperation with the Ivorian government. Although Kraft, now Mondelez, claims they are the largest purchaser of certified cocoa, the amount relative to total cocoa purchasing is unclear and estimated at about 11%.

Mars (global market share 14.6%*)
Mars joined the pledge to end child slavery [FR] in their cocoa farming supply chain by 2020, along with the Nestle, Hershey, and other major global manufacturers. With a target of more than 20% certified cocoa purchases (about 90,000 metric tons) during 2012, Mars will become the largest user of certified cocoa in the world.

Nestlé (global market share 12.6%*)
During early 2012 Nestlé signed on with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the first project examined labor conditions in Nestlé’s cocoa supply chain in the Ivory Coast. The FLA report determined child labor exists pervasively within cocoa production in the Ivory Coast (and other African nations). In response, Nestlé developed a Cocoa Plan which includes revising their supplier code of conduct to specifically address sustainable methods for eradicating child labor from cocoa farming. The FLA will monitor progress toward goals set within the plan.

On a related note, Nestlé sponsored the September 2012 CSV (Creating Shared Value) forum “The Role of Business in Food Security and Nutrition.” Presentations and other content may be accessed through free registration.

Hershey (global market share 6.7%*)
Hershey is the latest to commit to eradicating child labor in their cocoa supply chain by 2020. This announcement can be interpreted as the result of successful targeted consumer campaigns. In August, a group of privately-owned grocers expressed concern about carrying high-end Hershey products, due to the company’s lack of responsiveness on the topic of child labor in West Africa cocoa farming. Then, in early October, the Whole Foods chain of grocery markets declared they would stop carrying the same high-end Hershey labels in response to customer complaints about Hershey’s refusal to address child labor. In addition to initiatives targeted toward moving children from cocoa fields in to schools, Hershey’s plans to expand Cocoa Link and Learn to Grow programs. These programs are designed to increase cocoa farming yields through teaching sustainable farming practices.

The above is merely background and current status of major chocolate manufacturers directly pertaining to the issue of eradicating child labor from the cocoa supply chain. I anticipate I’ll have additional thoughts after the conference.

In addition to those discussed above, I am including links to a couple organizations with targeted campaigns or programs aimed at eradicating child labor from cocoa supply chains in Ivory Coast, Western Africa, and beyond:


* global market share percentages from a January 14, 2010 Bloomberg BusinessWeek report

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Human Rights, Multinational Corporations, the Supreme Court, and Your Vote

Update (10/6/2012): Based on early analysis of oral arguments on Monday (October 1st), it appears the Justices are not prepared to completely restrict the jurisdiction reach of ATS but rather provide some vague guidelines or limitations for when it might be applied to extraterritorial human rights violations. There was no indication as to whether the Justices were also prepared to extend or restrict ATS applicability to corporations. Thus, we will all wait for the decision to be handed down in early 2013.

(original post dated September 30, 2012)
The Supreme Court of the United States (henceforth affectionately referred to as SCOTUS) will rehear arguments tomorrow (October 1, 2012) regarding Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a federal lawsuit originally filed in 2002 by twelve Nigerians, including Esther Kiobel, against Royal Dutch/Shell (a British/Dutch oil multinational) pursuant to the 1789 Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The suit alleges from 1992 through 1995 Shell used, or was complicit to actions by, the Nigerian military to suppress resistance by activist group Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) through illegal detention, torture, and extra-judicial executions. MOSOP was protesting alleged environmental damage caused by oil exploration and production operations in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta in Nigeria. For more detailed analysis of this case, I recommend starting with this Case Profile by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and this Issues Brief by John Ruggie, former United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights.

Nigeria? Why is this case being heard in the U.S.?

Funny you should ask, because that is the same question several of our Justices asked during the initial Kiobel hearing on February 28th. I am not a lawyer, and this gets pretty complicated, but I will do my best to give the basics, starting with the ATS. According to Dr. Ruggie and legal experts, the ATS “permits foreign nationals to bring civil suit in U.S. federal courts for violations of the law of nations and U.S. treaty obligations.” In 1980, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. jurisdiction under ATS could be applied to a torture case that occurred in Paraguay because the accused was found living in New York City. During the mid-1990s, human rights lawyers were somewhat successful in extending the ATS to sue corporations as “legal persons.” As a result, charges have been brought against several corporations for complicity in human rights violations and many of those cases settled prior to a court challenge regarding jurisdiction.

Kiobel is the first of these cases to come before SCOTUS after an appeals court determined international law was not clear regarding whether corporations could be sued for human rights violations. Thus, Kiobel was to be heard by SCOTUS on that question: whether ATS applied to corporate entities (as legal persons) or only to human beings (as natural persons). However, Justices Kennedy, Alito and Roberts were more focused on the issue of extraterritorial reach, that is: “Whether and under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States.” Since this specific question was not included in the original SCOTUS hearing briefs, the February hearing was postponed, allowing all sides to prepare to address extraterritorial jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not know yet if the case can be heard in the U.S. and we do not know if SCOTUS will address the original question of applicability to corporations.

Not to sound melodramatic, but the decisions on these questions, when and if they come, will impact current and future attempts by countless victims to seek legal remedy for human rights abuses perpetrated against them, their loved ones, and their communities. For many reasons (including, for example: weak or nonexistent legal system, lack of infrastructure and resources, use of threats and intimidation, and general corruption in the country where abuses occurred), a lawsuit filed in the U.S. pursuant to the ATS may be their only legitimate option. For those wishing to read something more detailed, I recommend this legal analysis by Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog. I’ve also included a link to all the briefs at the top.

Corporations are people, my friend?

For their part, Shell’s defense briefs indicate the company will not be satisfied with mere case dismissal and are instead aiming to take the bite out of the ATS, claiming lawsuits like Kiobel provide “a platform for plaintiffs or their proxies to engage in aggressive public-relations campaigns that inflict significant reputational harm on corporate defendants.” I am unaware of any such lawsuits and equally unaware of these types of alleged PR strategies, so am unable to opine about the validity of this claim. However, based on my experience, there are several more efficient and cost-effective ways to destroy a corporate reputation than a ten-year legal battle (if that were your goal). Shell’s defense brief continues: “Indeed, the mere filing of an ATS suit can have an adverse effect on a company’s stock price and debt rating.” These briefs are written for SCOTUS and legal scholars, so I will ignore what appears to be vacuous insensitivity toward the serious human rights abuses alleged in this case in favor of complaints about financial matters. I will, however, point out the confusion that would likely occur throughout the judicial system if short-term financial benchmarks are considered justifiable cause for denying a case be filed against any entity, corporate or human. As for any long-term "reputational damage", I can think of a few fantastic ways to repair or avoid this, but more on that at a later date.

It is worth noting here, if the Court finds that ATS is not applicable to corporations, many legal scholars will be examining and analyzing how the Justices reconcile that decision with the Citizens United decision, in which the Court held that corporations have First Amendment rights as if they are natural persons.

What's my point?

What is my point? Well, for one, SCOTUS decisions matter within and beyond our shores. For another, due to the age of several Justices, the next President will likely have the opportunity to shift the direction of the Court in a decisive way with long-term impact. Your vote matters.

On his September 28th Hardball, Chris Matthews discussed the potential changes to the Court under a 2nd Obama term vs. a Romney administration(with Jeffrey Toobin and Sam Stein):

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Hayes at MSNBC devoted a significant portion of his show to SCOTUS and what is at stake in this Presidential election. I highly recommend watching all eight segments if you haven't already. I posted the opening segment below (with Jeffrey Toobin, Barbara Arnwine, Akhil Amar, and Nan Aron):

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you are interested, The Nation magazine has devoted an entire issue to the Supreme Court.