Check against delivery
Excellencies, colleagues, dear friends,
First, I would like to share with you some thoughts on the importance and utility of shared values.
Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said at the launch of the UN Global Compact in Davos in 1999: “National markets are held together by shared values. In the face of economic transition and insecurity, people know that if the worst comes to the worst, they can rely on the expectation that certain minimum standards will prevail. But in the global market, people do not yet have that confidence. Until they do have it, the global economy will be fragile and vulnerable. What we have to do is find a way of embedding the global market in a network of shared values.”
A network of shared values. Values beyond pure principles. I share these ideas, and I would like to echo the need for a compact that will embed the global market in a network of shared values.
With globalisation, capital has outgrown society. The balance of power has tipped in favour of transnational profit-maximising investors. However, the main challenge posed by globalisation today is not the size of foreign direct investment (FDI) in itself. On the contrary. FDI is increasingly flowing into developing countries, lifting millions of people out of poverty. Foreign affiliates of transnational corporations have generated more than 53 million jobs. We should, in fact, encourage more foreign direct investment in developing countries.
Our overriding objective – and a moral issue – is to eliminate poverty. This conference in Oslo has shown that businesses want to take part in facing this challenge, in finding the solutions.
Distribution is the main problem. That is distribution not only of wealth, but also of cost and benefit, of risk and opportunity.
Distribution, not only between countries, but also between social groups and between generations within countries.
In the globalised world today, the domain of foreign policy is extending into the domain of internal affairs. And vice versa. Take health issues, migration, conflicts.
Your home affairs are my foreign affairs.
Foreign policy issues are now affecting taxation levels and subsidies to ensure redistribution and protect the environment.
Human rights, particularly those relating to health, education and culture, and labour rights – both for nationals and for migrant workers – are also extensively affected.
Therefore, we need to strengthen the capacity of all nation states to safeguard these fundamental rights and to provide basic services.
The structures governing globalisation were created by national governments and are being maintained by national governments that are willing to surrender part of their sovereignty. But in their current form, these structures systematically favour capital and wealth creation.
For this reason corporations also have a clear responsibility to support universal values agreed among governments worldwide. There is no excuse for companies not to pay attention to human rights. Like all other kinds of human activity, corporate action carries moral responsibility.
Likewise, there is no excuse for companies not to pay attention to climate change. Environmental issues are, of course, part of the CSR agenda, and have always been; that is protection of the environment in the traditional sense. Yesterday evening, we all had the opportunity to hear Al Gore present An Inconvenient Truth. In addition to combating poverty, the second global challenge we share is that posed by climate change.
Indeed, it is in all companies’ interest to pay attention to climate change. Even the most dedicated believers in the upper hand of the market now see that unchecked markets will not do – and even worse – that unchecked markets will lead us down the slippery slope of global warming. The Stern report and the latest report from the UN Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tell it all. This conference has shown that we all need – as individuals, as NGOs, as companies, as political leaders – we all need to respond to the wake-up call being sounded by the climate changes we are witnessing. This is the new, overriding dimension of corporate social responsibility.
The obvious remedy is a more advanced and more coherent approach to governance, at the national, regional and global level. This is precisely what this conference has been addressing. It has begun to set wheels in motion.
*****
A partnership for sustainable development implies a certain equality between the partners. But partners though we are, businesses and governments have shared but different responsibilities.
I am often asked by people if there is not perhaps a need for governments to introduce stronger laws, or create new international agreements covering such areas as the environment, labour standards, human rights and investments abroad.
Clearly there are areas where new international agreements will be important. For example we will need a new agreement after Kyoto.
And where such areas are identified, Norway, for one, will be active in efforts to develop agreements of this kind.
Governments have a responsibility to introduce legislation to ensure sustainable development. And yes, all governments have an important regulatory role to play. They cannot leave this responsibility to businesses and other organisations.
But in many areas there is neither a lack of international agreements nor a lack of national legislation. There is rather a lack of implementation and political will to make the hard choices required.
Again, climate change is a good example. So is corruption, and there are many others that you have been discussing during this conference.
Partnerships between governments, businesses and NGOs can prove valuable in implementing laws and international agreements. They can foster strategies for implementation and create new technologies. They can monitor implementation and identify loopholes in the current laws and agreements. Although they cannot absolve governments of their responsibility to exercise their regulatory powers where needed, such partnerships are vital.
Should we then take steps to make corporate social responsibility part of our national legal frameworks?
In a way this would be a contradiction in terms. CSR, almost by definition, goes beyond national legislation. A company that confines itself to the minimum requirements set by law is not automatically a socially responsible one.
CSR requires more, it requires innovation by partnerships. We must work together to ensure that internationally recognised standards are effectively implemented in all countries.
A question that has received considerable attention is whether there are certain minimum standards relating to human rights, labour and the environment that should be adhered to world-wide. And whether businesses should comply with these standards even when the country where they are operating does not.
The ten principles of the UN Global Compact point in this direction. So do the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and a number of others.
I believe that all countries should apply these standards, and that all businesses throughout the world should comply with them.
But does this mean that countries should adopt national legislation to force companies operating abroad to adhere to international standards, whether the host country does or not?
Punishing companies for not following national rules and standards when they operate abroad is not necessarily the answer. Here in Oslo we have recently witnessed an American-owned hotel refusing to accommodate a Cuban tourist delegation because of the extraterritorial reach of the US boycott against Cuba. We need to look further into the issue before we draw any concrete conclusions. Regardless of whether businesses should be put in a situation where they face conflicting requirements through national legislation with extraterritorial reach, we need to work towards universal acceptance and implementation of the highest international standards.
Dear friends,
While we were planning this conference, we were told that we would be better off not starting a discussion on these issues, as we would only create a greater demand for policies and initiatives that we would find it hard to respond to.
However, regardless of what action is taken in the near future, I would argue that a government that exercises its convening power, its ability to mobilise such a great force of actors – be they speakers or participants – serves a purpose of its own. There is great merit in the benefits of face-to-face meetings: the understanding that is fostered, the ideas, opinions, and expertise that are exchanged. I am sure that this event will have an impact on future policy making. We have created a spirit of partnerships; a “network of shared values”.
From its outset, this conference has had one guiding objective, that it should be more than “just another conference”. Looking back at the scope of the programme, the list of speakers, and reading some of the reports from the discussions, I can see that you have all contributed to realising this objective.
The road ahead towards sustainable development is still – undoubtedly – a long one. I am, however, optimistic that if we engage the political will and the concerted efforts of us all, a positive outcome can be achieved. As Al Gore has reminded us, we are duty-bound to succeed as we have only this planet to live on. And we are held together by a shared agenda, a shared set of values.
I am pleased that the conference has produced the “Oslo Document for Change”, which will be submitted to the Commission for Sustainable Development in May in New York.
The conference has been an important step in our work on accountability issues. We have discussed poverty and development issues, the green agenda and issues related to global climate change. We have discussed how best to support decent working conditions and how to fight corruption. The conference has shown that businesses, NGOs, professors and students, and politicians can merge agendas – domestic agendas and the international agenda - without confusing roles. Because we all share the same values, of social and environmental responsibility, of the dignity of human beings. We have strengthened an alliance on accountability issues.
A big thank you to the many sponsors, collaborators and organisers – from UNEP, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, to hardworking colleagues in ministries and in Innovation Norway. And perhaps we’ll meet again here in Oslo at some point for a “Second Oslo Conference”?
Thank you.
