According to a major consensus CSR primarily focuses on two principles the philanthropic and the trusteeship principles. Corporate philanthropy is concerned with the company's role in society.
The trusteeship principle is however more concerned with the awareness of a sense of responsibility on the part of directors towards the various groups of people with whom they are directly concerned.
It's a concept that is still evolving and could best be described rather than defined.
There are two main economic perspectives on the social responsibilities of companies.
The traditional classical theory, advocated by the free market school believes, that the only social responsibilities of companies are to increase their profits.
The economic concept of profit maximisation is considered in this context. Modern theorists on the other hand believe that profit maximisation is not the only corporate objective.
It is one of the company's main objectives and is therefore compatible with the social responsibilities of the companies.
FEATURES OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES: The image of companies working hard to make the world a better place is too often just that - a carefully tailored image. Corporate power is not generally used for the social good.
The impact of the misuse of this power may be many and beyond total evaluation. The international and national media have not been able to report all of the irresponsible impact, as many of them have never come to light.
In the following areas, transnational companies (TNCs), have generally been found guilty of irresponsible impacts:
consumers, labour, environment ,glossy advertising, mismanagement ,fraudulent acts, corporate closure The debate of globalisation:
There have been debates that globalisation will make the corporations, not the nation-state, the primary entity on the world stage in the 21st century.
Business has therefore taken a much more central role in our society these days. The question, however, that often comes to mind is whether our businesses are behaving ethically and contributing to economic development while improving the quality of life of the work force and their families as well as the community and society at large.
There has been a huge rise in the number of TNCs in both developing and developed countries. In 1970 there were 7,000, while in 2003 there were an estimated 63,000 parent companies operating, with around 69,000 subsidiaries in almost all sectors, countries and industries in the world.
This has led to a steady rise in foreign direct investment (FDI), partly because of the liberal policies' towards TNCs.
In 2000, global FDI exceeded US $1.3 trillion, an increase of 14 percent on the previous year. Increasing FDI also reflects companies' growing tendency to relocate parts of their production process to developing countries, which offer cheaper labour costs.
Companies have also moved between countries in response to changing tariff regimes to gain cheaper access to major markets.
Total FDI in developing countries has been rising since the mid-1980s, from an average of US $20 billion annually to US $93 billion by the mid-1990s, and US $149 billion in 1997.
By 2000 this figure had reached almost US $300 billion - the majority going to growing economies, such as China and India.
A recent UNCTAD survey, has found that 829 "head quarter operations" of multinationals were relocated between January 2002 and March 2003, nearly a quarter of them in developing countries.
The economist predicts more outsourcing of key business processes to the developing world (increasingly known as "off-shoring").
Further a recent report by consultants Bain & Co estimates that the off-shoring market in India will increase by 57% by 2006.
The rich countries have standards for the export of indigenous goods and products from low income South Asian countries, but they fail to notice the violation of human rights, exploitation of environment and natural resources by their corporations functioning in such countries.
We have, for example the tobacco industry, which facing dwindling sales, after successful anti-tobacco initiatives in the US, is now investing heavily in addicting South Asia.
Dow Chemical (owner of the Union Carbide company of the Bhopal gas disaster fame) aggressively markets the pesticide Dursban in India, in spite of the US Environmental Protection Agency's plans to phase out Dursban in the US because it is harmful to humans.
The existence of corporate codes/guidelines have shown that unless there are mechanisms for implementation and effective independent monitoring and verification, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
It is therefore necessary to adopt an international set of standards for the behaviour of companies.
Rich countries like the USA have regulations that bind companies to good ethical practices at home.
So why should companies not be tied to similar standards when they are working in developing countries?
Instead of talking about more voluntary CSR, governments including America, Britain and EU should discuss how new laws could raise standards of corporate behaviour in other countries.
TNCs are not party to legally binding human rights treaties, they should, nevertheless, be held accountable for the economic and social rights abuses resulting from their activities.
Most of these companies have more financial resources than the vast majority of states that are said to be primarily responsible for securing the realisation of the economic and social rights of their citizens.
The figure on the preceding page confirms that the largest TNC's have annual sales far in excess of the budgets of most governments.
Developing countries, in need of foreign direct investment, are in a dilemma as they are forced to follow the neo-liberal approach of economics.
Many South Asian countries, including SAARC states especially India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, offer incentives to foreign investors, such as tax breaks, repatriation of profits and even, in export-processing zones, exemption from some national laws, including those governing particular employment practices.
As a consequence, TNCs have introduced new industries and manufacturing categories into many third world countries, in recent times, like consumer electronics, toys, apparel, automobile parts and sports goods, major production of which is done in overseas plants and through their subcontractors.
This is causing serious implications for the work force and the environment.
In June 1996, Life magazine created waves with photographs of Pakistani kids looking shockingly young and paid as little as six cents an hour hunched over soccer balls that bore the unmistakable Nike swoosh.
But it wasn't just Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Puma, and Brine were all manufacturing balls in Pakistan where an estimated 10,000 children worked in the industry, many of them sold as indentured slave labourers to their employers and branded like livestock.
More than 75% of investment in biotechnology is in the private sector controlled by large foreign agribusiness corporations.
Genetically engineered crops to resist specific insects and fungi could clearly be very beneficial, but the TNCs driving the Biotechnology Revolution regard such projects as risky and unprofitable.
Their focus is primarily on the problems of the developed countries, as is the case in medical and pharmaceutical research.
The third world and the SAARC countries do not have enough resources to indulge in long term research for developing crops that are useful to their poor population, like cow-peas, sweet potatoes etc.
The private sector of the rich countries, with means and resources, acts irresponsibly to the social needs of the third world.
The Uruguay Round has already granted far higher standards of intellectual property rights protection to the TNCs, thus facilitating, further, their monopolisation of technology and ability to earn huge money through higher prices.
There are strong pressures from Northern governments, at the WTO, to grant foreign companies the right of entry, establishment and national treatment of all WTO member states.
Other proposals on competition policy, investment and government procurement could give them further rights of access to business in developing countries.
The practice of TNCs, adopting systems of differential pricing in different markets and the labelling practices, following in rich and low income developing countries, confirms the unethical behaviour of these companies.
By abandoning their traditional role as direct, secure employers, to pursue their branding dreams, they have lost the loyalty that once protected them from the citizen's rage.
A survey in 2002 has found out that 80% of people thought 'large companies have a moral responsibility to society.
Recent research also indicates a significant increase in the number of people who regard social responsibility in corporate behaviour as very important; from 28% in 1998 to 46% in 2001.
Studies on TNCs have identified three main areas, viz., gender, environment and corporate citizenship, wherein actions of TNCs are affecting our economy, politics and socio-cultural norms.
The common theme that connects the above areas is the growing conviction that TNCs have a responsibility for protecting the rights of all those affected by what they do.
The failure to internationally monitor and regulate TNCs, and instead, moves to widen their rights and access, have led to a spectacular rise in their power and authority.
TNCs have generally and rapidly expanded the outreach and volume of their activities.
This has correspondingly increased the damage caused to the environment, in terms of volume and geographical spread.
Liberalisation policies and global market integration has facilitated the institutions and activities, that has led to greater exploitation and depletion of biological diversity and resources, such as forests and fishery resources, and have promoted and expanded environmentally-harmful, land-based activities (agriculture and aquaculture), that has lead to continued reduction in the status of biodiversity.
Many TNCs, their subcontracting partners, and local firms ignore good practice in production and waste disposal, even where required to do so by law and pose ongoing threats to the global environment.
Other resources continue to be depleted beyond sustainable rates, such as water, soil and minerals.
That TNCs are the most important players and factors involved in environmentally damaging activities can be gauged from the following:
-- TNC activities generate more than half of the Greenhouse Gases emitted by industrial sectors with the greatest impact on global warming.
-- TNCs have virtually exclusive control of the production and use of ozone-destroying CFCs and related compounds.
-- In mining, TNCs still dominate key industries and are intensifying their activities. In aluminium, for example, six companies control 63% of the mine capacity.
-- In agriculture, TNCs control 80% of land world-wide cultivated for export crops; and 20 firms account for 90% of pesticide sales.
-- TNCs manufacture most of the world's chlorine, the basis for some of the most toxic chemicals including PCBs, DDT and dioxins.
-- TNCs are the main transmitters of environmentally unsound production systems, hazardous materials and products to the Third World. For example, 25% of pesticide exports from the US in the late 1980s were chemicals banned or withdrawn in the US itself.
-- TNCs dominate the trade (and in many cases the extraction or exploitation) of natural resources and commodities, that contribute to the depletion or degradation of forests, water and marine resources and toxic wastes and unsafe products.
-- Through advertising and product promotion, they also promote a culture of unsustainable consumption.
With the growth in production volume and geographical scope of big companies, based largely on the continuing use of unsustainable production systems (and promotion of wasteful lifestyles), and in many cases displacing more sustainable systems or lifestyles, more environmental degradation world-wide must be expected.
The issues of corporate citizen ship involve such questions as to whether global TNC owe responsibility to their owners or to their workers, community, consumers, or the whole world.
This is a question however, which has remained as yet unanswered as governments have so far failed to adopt an international code to regulate the conduct of TNCs.
Shell, BP, Nike, GAP, Coca-Cola, J.P. Morgan Chase, Polo Ralph Lauren - the list could be made longer - have had their reputations severely damaged in recent times because they have acted contrary to current values.
In an opinion poll, published in 2002, 25,000, individuals from 23 countries were asked about companies' role in society.
Eight out of ten employees in larger companies said that the more social responsibility the employer takes, the more motivated and loyal the employees become.
A majority of the questioned shareholders stated that they would consider selling their shares in a company that fails in respect of social responsibility, even if the earnings are good.
TNCs are frequently referred to as the "New Tribe", ready to transmit and implant modern techniques to traditional societies.
We all see, on television, fashion shows, pop music concerts etc, sponsored by these corporations. Not to mention sports, especially cricket which has become totally commercialised.
Many of our young pop icons and artists have contracts with these TNCs, who are supporting these artists for the purposes of the transnational capitalist class. The growth of transnational television networks and the internet has greatly facilitated this process, by creating an alternative consumerist worldview.
Among global CSR initiatives the following are the most prominent:
(i) GLOBAL COMPACT: The Global Compact, an international initiative, was launched at UN headquarters in New York on July 26, 2000.
The Global Compact is a voluntary corporate citizenship initiative. It is not a regulatory instrument - it does not "police", enforce or measure the behaviour or actions of companies.
Rather, the Global Compact relies on public accountability, transparency and the enlightened self-interest of companies, labour and civil society, to initiate and share substantive action in pursuing the principles upon which the Global Compact is based. The nine principles are:
HUMAN RIGHTS:
PRINCIPLE 1: Business should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights within their sphere of influence; and
PRINCIPLE 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
LABOUR STANDARDS:
PRINCIPLE 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
PRINCIPLE 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
PRINCIPLE 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
PRINCIPLE 6: eliminate discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
ENVIRONMENT:
PRINCIPLE 7: Business should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
PRINCIPLE 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
PRINCIPLE 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
(ii) OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: The Guidelines are non-binding recommendations to companies, developed and adhered to by thirty-three governments.
Their objective is to assist Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) to operate in harmony with government policies and with societal expectations.(iii) Global Sullivan principles:
A set of eight social responsibility principles addressing economic, social and political justice; human rights; equal opportunity; training; and greater understanding among people, in relation to all aspects of the activities of companies.
(iv) CAUX ROUND TABLE PRINCIPLES FOR BUSINESS: The principles, developed by a network of senior business leaders, from both the industrialised and developing nations, to seek to express a world-wide standard for ethical and responsible corporate behaviour.
(v) CONSUMER CHARTER FOR GLOBAL BUSINESS: Consumers international - An international federation of consumer organisations has developed a Charter based on eight consumer rights: the right to basic needs; safety; information; choice; a fair hearing; redress; consumer education; and a healthy environment.
The charter sets out best business practice in areas of interest to consumers, such as ethical standards, competition, product standards, marketing, labelling, disclosure of information and consumer redress.
THE CASE OF EAST INDIA COMPANY - A CLASSIC EXAMPLE: Concerns about corporate power and responsibility are as old as the corporation itself. East India Company, could be regarded as the world's first TNC.
Although it started out as a speculative vehicle to import precious spices from the East Indies - modern day Indonesia - the company grew to fame and fortune by trading with, and then conquering, the sub-continent.
The East India Company set up factories in Masulipatam, near modem Madras (now Chennai), in 1611, on the west coast of India in Surat in 1612, on the east coast in Madras in 1639, and near Calcutta (now Kolkata) on the Hooghly (one of the mouths of the Ganges) in 1640.
By 1652, there were some 23 English factories in India. Bombay (now Mumbai), came to the British Crown in 1662 and was granted to the East India Company for 10 years.
The British victory in the Battle of Plassey, in 1757, gave the company control of Bengal.
The Company ruled over a fifth of the world's people, generated a revenue greater than the whole of Britain and commanded a private army, a quarter of a million strong.
The Company was not just like any other ruler. As a commercial venture, it could not and did not show pity during the Bengal famine of 1769-1770. Shareholder interests came first when it dispossessed Bengal's peasantry with its 'permanent settlement' of 1794.
And the principles of laissez-faire ensured that its governor-general would note the devastation of India's weavers, in the face of British imports, and then do absolutely nothing.
For many natives, it was the company's plunder that first de-industrialised their country and then provided the finance that fuelled Britain's own industrial revolution.
In essence, the honourable East India Company found the sub-continent rich and left it poor.
BHOPAL GAS INCIDENCE: On 3rd December 1984, highly toxic Methylisocyanate leaking from a Union Carbide
Pesticide plant, killed more than 8,000 people and injured or disabled upto 2,00,000 others. Union Carbide's operations in India were conducted through a subsidiary, Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), the parent US company (UCC) had 50.9% of UCIL shareholding.
The company never installed in Bhopal the computerised pressure temperature sensing system, which it had used for several years in the US plant as a warning device.
Also, the community, living near the plant had never been told of the significance of the danger alarm and the threat to them by the location of the plant in their community.
The incident raised many legal, ethical, technological, sociological, disaster management and ecological issues.
The Bhopal gas disaster, which left thousands of people dead and injured, was settled for a mere US $470 million - which works out to around Rs 10,000 per victim, if it had been divided equally amongst all.
In the same year, an article in the Times of India stated that approximately US $40,000 was spent on the rehabilitation of every sea otter affected by the Alaska oil spill.
Each sea otter was thus give rations of lobsters costing US $500 per day. The life of an Indian citizen in Bhopal was clearly much cheaper than that of a sea otter in America.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST EXXONMOBIL: An environmental group has charged ExxonMobil for causing between 4.7 and 5.3 percent of human-made carbon dioxide emissions, since the inception of the company in 1882.
According to the report in 1996, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an international committee of experts that reviews the scientific research on global warming) found the relationship between the emission of carbon dioxide and climate change.
The group alleged that in the light of these findings a more cautious approach to the production of fossil fuels, such as oil and gas should have been observed, but ExxonMobil's response was, both to pour money into lobby groups that have questioned the link between fossil-fuel combustion and global warming, and "to increase its production of fossil fuels to record levels.
The company lobbied hard against the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions by developed countries, and funded such groups as the Global Climate Coalition, the Cooler Heads Coalition, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which question the scientific basis for the link. ExxonMobil has also strongly opposed shareholder action efforts to urge management to take the issue more seriously and invest more in renewable energy sources.
Incidentally, the US federal judge has recently ordered ExxonMobil to pay nearly US $7 billion in damages and interest as compensation for the disastrous 1989 oil spill of the Exxon Valdez.
Two further studies have found that ExxonMobil's emissions, both from its own operations and the fossil fuels that it has produced and sold, totalled an estimated 20.3 billion tons of carbon between 1882 and 2002, or roughly five percent of all emissions released globally over that 120-year period.
This amount is equivalent to about three times the amount of carbon dioxide that the entire world emitted from fossil fuel combustion in 2002.
If methane is added, total emissions come to about 21.53 billion tons of carbon equivalent.
Another study found that ExxonMobil's emissions also contributed between 3.4 percent and 3.7 percent of total attributable temperature change (about 0.6 degrees centigrade) since 1882, and about two percent of the total sea level rise
TOXIC COLA INCIDENT IN INDIA: Another incident that I would like to quote here is the "Toxic Cola" case in India.
According to the media reports, the Indian Parliament banned the sale of Colas manufactured by a wholly owned subsidiary after it was found out that it contained high concentrations of pesticides and insecticides, including lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos, in the colas, making them unfit for consumption.
Some samples tested showed the presence of these toxins to be more than 30 times the standard allowed by the European Union. Tests of samples taken from the US of the same drinks were found to be safe.
The Indian subsidiary has also been accused of creating water shortage in communities where there is already little ground water. It has been alleged that after exhausting ground water, the company indulges in community service by providing free water tankers to the local people.
It is also alleged that the local subsidiary is giving away toxic sludge to farmers in Kerala as fertiliser, which contains highly harmful substances like lead and cadmium.
REGULATING TNCS - COULD SAARC PLAY A ROLE? So far I have dealt with CSR generally, but now I would like to specifically focus on South Asia particularly SAARC countries in order to see how CSR is developing here.
In Nepal and Bangladesh, the process of corporatisation is at an early stage. Small businesses and sole traders dominate. But there is strong potential of the growth of CSR in India and its neighbouring countries.
In this connection I would like to first give below the outcome of a survey which was jointly conducted by the Confederation of Indian Industry, United Nations Development Program, British Council and Price WaterhouseCoopers in October 2002.
It was labelled as the most ambitious attempt to capture the entire gamut of issues pertaining to CSR in India.
In all, 43 questions were posed to corporates.
THE FINDINGS ARE BASED ON THE RESPONSES OF 102 COMPANIES:
-- Respondents were unanimous that CSR is very much a part of the domain of corporate action and passive philanthropy is no longer sufficient. A significant portion of respondents recognised CSR as the means to enhance long term stakeholder value.
-- CSR creates a feel good factor about the company, increasingly instrumental in retention of talent.
-- Distinct customer preference for companies with a social conscience.
-- Increasing expectations of shareholders that their companies be sensitive to the needs of society.
-- Good corporate citizenship and CSR initiatives are directly linked with improved brand reputation.
-- The second most important aspect of CSR, according to the survey report, was that it provides an opportunity to improve relationships with local communities.
-- Most companies do not have a systematic approach to CSR implementation.
-- The survey felt industry associates have a critical role to play in shaping experiences and rewarding best practices. It suggested the inclusion of CSR as a subject in business schools.
The courts, in a lot of jurisdictions are using international conventions upon local subsidiaries, although in a lot of cases, these laws are inapplicable to them. Many companies have been subjected to legal actions in one country (home or abroad) when the alleged violation occurs in a different country.
Today social responsibility by TNCs has become a serious concern for states and citizens.
In Pakistan, in the past years, a lot of initiatives have been taken in connection with corporate governance but few initiatives have been taken on corporate socio-legal responsibilities. The same is true in the case of other states of this region.
Legally binding regulations are therefore needed to lessen the devastating impact that companies can have, in an ever more globalise world.
Whatever responsible initiatives companies choose to carry out on their own behalf, binding international standards of corporate behaviour must be established to guarantee that the rights of people and the environment are properly protected.
We already, have as example, a UN convention on bribery signed by more than 100 states. This convention has led to serious efforts in tackling bribery among the business community.
While I am discussing the role of SAARC on CSR, I may also state that we need to have a strong and collectives stand on those multilateral agreements which have social and ecological consequences for SAARC states.
For example, selling products internationally made with child labour is WTO-legal. Similarly, WTO rules set a ceiling on safety by making certain international standards the only presumptively WTO-legal standards.
Domestic standards on health, the environment and public safety, that may be higher than the international one, must pass stringent tests in order not to be considered trade barriers.
Such provisions facilitate corporations in boosting their profits. I think the SAARC states should, based on the precautionary principle, take a common stand to demand that no existing multilateral rules be interpreted to limit the capacity of governments to establish and maintain non-discriminatory health, environment or food safety measures.
SAARC consists of low to middle income countries. We cannot afford the researches and studies made in developed countries.
However, the researches and their conclusions, with reference to specific cases are available.
The information and knowledge is at hand and we should take benefit of it. In this background, it seems reasonable to demand revision of such provisions and interpretations of global agreements.
SAARC countries should join hands for the common good and common interest of the people of this region to stop the oppressive activities of TNCs.
SAARC countries should formulate binding code of conducts and liability at inter government and national levels in line with the UN Global Compact. But unlike the Global Compact, this law should enforce/measure the behaviour/action of transnational companies working in the SAARC countries.
It should be based on public accountability and transparency of all actions of the subsidiaries, irrespective of nationality.
There is also need to pass more laws on consumer protection and strict adherence to existing international laws on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights, backed by corresponding national legislation.
We also need to collaborate to collectively lobby at the international level, for binding global law on corporate conduct/liability providing, inter alia as follows:
-- Penalties in case of violations in host country
-- Foreign investors undertake obligations in line with the host countries' interests, development policies and objectives
-- Home governments to undertake obligations, for ensuring responsible behaviour by their corporations.
-- Greater transparency in accounting, especially with regard to transactions that have a speculative effect on the currency or financial markets of the host countries.
-- The home governments, on their part, should undertake to provide information regarding the involvement of multinationals in any questionable dealings that may be useful for the host government at the time of investment approval.
-- Provisions for corporate social and environmental reporting and disclosure - including the disclosure of payments to overseas governments, information on the social and environmental impact of overseas operations and information on legal actions against companies, framing new responsibilities for company directors to give them a 'duty of care', for communities and the environment, making them legally accountable for the actions of their companies overseas, change the law to enable people, harmed by home companies' overseas operations, to seek redress in home country courts and to provide the resources to enable them to do so.
-- Provisions for local people's right to information in case of any violation by TNCs in host countries.
-- Tortuous (civil/criminal) liability of parent companies for the abusive/hazardous pursuits of their subsidiaries
-- Obligations of home countries on the export and transportation of toxic substances to host companies
-- Obligations of home countries on transfer of hazardous substances
-- Equitable principles of liability and compensations.
-- Interim damages to victims for personal injuries.
-- Procedure for managing litigation, enforcing awards and judgements abroad, arbitration, prevention for raising the separate corporate personality defence and collusive settlements.
The TNCs working in low income countries in the field of pharmaceuticals, health products and food should be made bound to engage in research in areas vital to the development and needs of the local population.
We need to take bold steps to preserve our future, our environment and our planet and we need to do it now.
Corporate social responsibilities should be regarded as an integral part of corporate legal responsibilities.
This decade may yet witness the imposition of further responsibilities and obligations upon companies, towards the broader community, both through self regulation and legal regulations, with the modern corporation increasingly perceived as a social, rather than an economic institution.
IN THE WORDS OF BERLE AND MEANS: "The rise of the modern corporation has brought about concentration of economic power which can compete on equal terms with the modern state - economic power versus political power, each strong in its own field.
The state seeks in some aspects to regulate the corporation, while the corporation steadily becomes more powerful, makes every effort to avoid such regulation. Where its own interests are concerned, it even attempts to dominate the state.
The future may see the economic organisation, now typified by the corporation, not only on an equal plane with the state, but possibly even superseding it as the dominant form of social organisation.
The law of corporations, accordingly, might well be considered as a potential constitutional law for the new economic state, while business practice is increasingly assuming the aspect of economic statesmanship."
It has now been more than a decade that the United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations has ceased to exist.
Attempts by the UN and trade bodies for a universal code of conduct for TNCs have been blocked at every turn.
The voluntary approach by TNCs to regulate their conduct have miserably failed. This has led to a sudden raise in social activism' by NGOs and other actors of civil society.
The business managers and NGOs have no right to decide social policy priorities among themselves and to draft our collective labour and human rights codes for us. In true democracy it is the work of voters and elected politicians.
By entrusting the corporate managers with this duty, we are taking away the fundamental rights of the people to govern themselves.
SAARC countries should, therefore, introduce uniform laws to make TNCs accountable for higher standards of safety.
We also need international treaties to enable the victims of any tragedy to sue these companies, in the country of the origin or in their own home countries.
(From a speech made by the writer at the 10th SAARCLaw Conference.)