Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
although in theory these various instruments could help to mitigate the environmental
impact of TNCs and FDI, none has su
ciently strict external enforcement mechanisms
to ensure that this actually happens. Morever, when comparing the number of global
rms
that have taken on such voluntary initiatives to the total number of TNCs in existence, it
becomes clear that only a very small percentage of these
fi
fi
rms are engaging actively in
these corporate greening e
orts.
Further critiques have also emerged. Although current voluntary measures are wide
ranging and diverse, they still only cover certain environmental and social issues, while
completely ignoring others. For example, while there may be explicit requirements in the
Global Reporting Initiative to report on activities to mitigate climate change or conserve
energy, little is included on similar activities to mitigate the spread of genetically modi
ff
ed
organisms to jurisdictions where they are not legal. And while there may be an industry-
wide code with respect to chemical safety or sustainable mining, there is not a similar
industry code or set of principles for other sectors, such as agricultural biotechnology,
which also has important environmental implications (see Clapp, forthcoming). The
weaknesses of these various instruments has led critics to conclude that there is a need
for stronger legal mechanisms at the international level to ensure that transnational
investment and corporate activity is not harmful to the environment (Clapp and Utting,
forthcoming).
Over the past decade, a corporate accountability movement has gathered momentum
in an attempt to push for stronger regulatory mechanisms to rein in and keep watch over
corporate activities that have potentially negative social and environmental consequences
(Bendell, 2004; Broad and Cavanagh, 1999). Key to this idea of corporate accountability
is to push for stronger regulatory measures than are available under the corporate respon-
sibility agenda, including
fi
fi
nancial and legal accountability on the part of
fi
rms (Bunn,
2004). This movement has advocated the imposition of legal liability on
fi
rms, that is,
damages to those a
ected in cases of malpractice. Also important to this idea is a reasser-
tion of the key role played by government as '
ff
nal authority' (WRI, 2003, pp. 135, 108).
Some in the movement have also called for 'foreign direct liability', which would enable
lawsuits to be undertaken in the home country of a TNC for environmental and social
impacts of their activities in other countries (Ward, 2001).
In the run-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, several pro-
posals were put on the table advocating for a legally binding international corporate
accountability treaty (Bendell, 2004; Morgera, 2004). A fairly detailed proposal for such
a treaty was put forward by Friends of the Earth International. This proposal stressed
the need to ensure that corporations are legally accountable not only to their sharehold-
ers, as is currently the case, but also to the broader public. The proposal envisioned much
more detailed reporting on social and environmental practices of corporations, as well
as a requirement to consult with a
fi
ected communities before undertaking new invest-
ments and activities. It further promoted the extension of corporations' liability to their
directors when there is a breach of national environmental or social laws, and to direc-
tors and corporations for breaches of international laws or agreements. The proposal
also called for rights of redress for citizens, community rights to control and access
resources, and minimum environmental, social, labor and human rights standards.
Sanctions would be imposed on
ff
fi
rms that breached the requirements under the treaty
(FOEI, 2001).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search