Flickr/Lorie Shaull

A growing chorus of corporate leaders are speaking out against US President Donald Trump’s executive order, which suspends entry into the United States from citizens (or dual citizens) of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Hi-tech companies were the first to raise concerns, at least partly because their industry is highly reliant on foreign talent. In fact, one study shows that 51% of America’s billion-dollar startups were set up by immigrants. Some of the sector’s biggest companies have been founded or run by executives, engineers, and managers born abroad. Many came as graduate students and stayed on, as Google’s Sundar Pichai and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella’s cases show. Some, like Google co-founder Sergey Brin, are children of refugees. After the ban. Brin and Pichai addressed Google employees with spirited speeches, expressing solidarity with the staff’s anger. (Brin was also seen at the San Francisco airport, showing support to demonstrators and pro bono lawyers, who are the real heroes of this drama).

(Also read: Business can and should ally with those defending human rights)

Other companies have joined in the protests too: Starbucks announced that it would aggressively recruit refugees over the next five years; Airbnb is offering free rooms to those stranded; Amazon has reached out to US Congressmen to explore legislative options to counter the executive order; and Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also said he is exploring legal options.

Coca Cola, whose CEO Muhtar Kent is Turkish-American, has criticised the travel ban, as has automaker Ford. Goldman Sachs’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein told his employees, “Being diverse is not an option—it is what we must be.” General Electric and Nike, too, have said they oppose the ban. Yogurt maker Chobani, which has recruited refugees for nearly a decade, said it would back every employee who faces any threat or problem because of the executive order.

US corporate leaders deserve praise for speaking out.

Cynics will argue that their moves are calculated—free movement of people, like free movement of goods, benefits the corporate bottom line. Some have even suggested that companies are speaking up because they are global players, and as such have to respond to customers throughout the world, not only in America. True, these companies rely on foreign-born workforces at home and overseas. They also rely on foreign markets for revenue and profit.

And yet, to suggest those considerations drive their public posturing is cynical, because it assumes companies that commit themselves to act in a responsible manner don’t take their own policies and commitments seriously. Many of the companies that have spoken out have policies that include acting in a socially responsible manner, and some have human rights policies in place.

All of these company statements against Trump’s order demonstrate the need for a more nuanced understanding of business-government relationships.

All of these company statements against Trump’s order demonstrate the need for a more nuanced understanding of business-government relationships. CEOs don’t make such decisions lightly. They have many factors to balance, including the safety of their employees and their families. Often, such public advocacy falls way short of what is necessary to protect human rights.

To be sure, the record of these companies may not be perfect. No doubt they can do more, and speak out more often to advocate respect for human rights. But none of that negates from their stand.

Conspicuous by their absence to date are pharmaceutical companies—which rely on foreign talent far more than does the tech sector—and oil companies, which have presence throughout the world, including in countries targeted by the executive order.

All of these company statements against Trump’s order demonstrate the need for a more nuanced understanding of business-government relationships. Corporate critics see businesses as allies of the state—relying on governments for contracts, lobbying to change laws, to lower taxes, and to secure preferential terms. But the role of a corporation today is more complex—the pursuit of the bottom-line is important, but other factors, including appearing to be doing the right thing in a global marketplace, as well as living by corporate values, are also important factors. (Ford’s Mark Fields and Coke’s Muhtar Kent both cited their companies values as one reason they criticised the executive order). The values they’ve spoken of include respect for diversity, dignity, inclusion, and equality.

President Trump has set up a Strategic and Policy Forum to advise him on economic matters, which includes leaders of Wall Street firms like Blackstone, Blackrock, and JP Morgan Chase, as well as GM and Tesla, Uber, Pepsi, Disney, consulting companies EY and Boston Consulting Group, Walmart, Boeing, and IBM, among others. These members certainly have their work cut out for them.

Corporate leaders must use their collective influence to make the case that pursuit of economic prosperity is impossible without respect for human rights. The world is watching them.

(Salil Tripathi is Director of Emerging Issues at the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB). His long experience in advancing the business and human rights agenda includes being a researcher at Amnesty International (1999-2005) and a senior policy adviser at International Alert (2006-2008).

This article was first published on openDemocracy.
 

The post The world is watching—corporate action on Trump travel ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was funny to see the water man, Rajendra Singh of Magsaysay fame standing together with them at the Sasthamkotta lake but not entirely surprising to see him  join the BJP mela*

(Photo: A Cola victim, Thankavelu, son of Mayilamma helplessly looking at his well rendered useless by the cola company)

What Sangh Parivar rule has done to Gujarat is a good lesson for the country to learn from. The state has been turned into an ecological nightmare. A whole river was all but eliminated by design- the fate of the Sabarmati. The groundwater of a good 70 talukas is today polluted. The golden industrial triangle is one the world’s pollution hotspots. Alang coast has been turned into a hell on earth, with dead ships from around the world coming to be buried. 400 water bodies with about 2000 sq km water area in the state have disappeared when the Narmada was being regimentally dammed. And the Kalpasar project to destroy the entire gulf of Khambhat is waiting in the wings…to "happen"

One of the first things Modi did when came to power was to seek to amend the conservation laws, for which it formed the Subrahmanian committee which gave lethal recommendations to open up our forests to the business sector.

It was surprising that some state government functionaries were seen playing a key role in this campaign of a political party. BJP has also roped in someone who was associated with the Plachimada which amounts to an insult to the people of the village and their brave struggle..and to the memory of the movement's leader Mayilamma whose death anniversary will be observed tomorrow…The Jala Swaraj is obviously a gimmick by the BJP for cynical political mobilisation….

From a Facebook Post of S. Faizi

* (The Ramon Magsaysay Award is an annual award established to perpetuate former Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay's example of integrity in governance, courageous service to the people, and pragmatic idealism within a democratic society. The prize was established in April 1957 by the trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation that had opposed the Non-Alligned Movement (NAM)
 

The post BJP’s ‘Jala Swaraj in Kerala’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That’s the question which Dr S Faizi, an environmental expert has raised in a letter dated May 11, 2016 addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The protest missive to the PM has been prompted by a letter from the Union home ministry to the Kerala government informing the letter that the President has been ‘pleased to withhold’ assent to the Plachimada Coca Cola Victims Compensation Claims Tribunal Bill 2011.

The Bill was passed by the Kerala Assembly, unanimously, following the exhaustive report of the multidisciplinary High Power Committee that investigated the massive damages caused by the American company in Plachimada village, in order to elicit compensation from the recalcitrant company for the poor victims. Faizi was a member of the high power committee as an environmental expert.

The enactment of this Bill was a critical contribution in enforcing a legal regime for the sustainable management of the scarce natural resources of the country as a public resource as underlined by the recent Supreme Court judgment in the G2 scam and to remedy the deprivations suffered by the victims.

“I express my profound concern about the government action refusing Presidential assent for the Bill and at the same time express my hope that the American multinational shall be brought to justice in spite of the government’s proactive support of the unrepentant company,” said Faizi in his letter.

Full text of Faizi’s letter:

To
Shri Narendra Modi
Honourable  Prime Minister
New Delhi

Subversion of the Plachimada/Compensation Bill is a glaring breach of the national interest

Honourable Prime Minister,

Can a government elected to protect India’s national sovereignty compromise on its duty by letting go a foreign multinational that has devastated a whole village of the country, consistently disregarded the statutory authorities and callously breached numerous laws of the land?

As expert member of the Plachimada High Power Committee established by the Kerala government I was shocked to see the letter from the Home Ministry to the Kerala Govt  informing that the President has been ‘pleased to withhold’ assent to the  Plachimada Coca Cola Victims Compensation Claims Tribunal Bill 2011.

The Bill was passed by the Kerala Assembly, unanimously, following the exhaustive report of  the multidisciplinary High Power Committee that investigated the massive damages caused by the American company in Plachimada village, in order to elicit compensation from the recalcitrant company for the poor victims. This was by way of upholding Article 21 of the Constitution and in line with the polluter pays principle, and covering entirely State subjects (II under the VII Schedule), namely,  health, agriculture, labor, animal husbandry, groundwater etc. The Plachimada Bill is in fulfillment of the State's obligation in terms of Article 21 as interpreted by the Supreme Court and based on the polluter pays principle that has become an integral part of our jurisprudence. The enactment of this Bill was a critical contribution in enforcing a legal regime for the sustainable management of the scarce natural resources of the country as a public resource as underlined by the recent Supreme Court judgment in the G2 scam and to remedy the deprivations suffered by the victims, and in pursuance of Article 39b of the Constitution. It fills an important legislative gap and complements the  Green Tribunal Act 2010, which puts a time bar of five years for filing cases for compensation.

The desperate Cola company has challenged the Bill, through ‘legal opinion’ of their lawyers, arguing that the Kerala Assembly had no legal competence to enact the Bill as they didn’t have any valid points to raise. It is unfortunate that the Solicitor General was repeating the arguments of the Cola company, far more vigorously than the company lawyers, which were unfounded and invalid as explained in the responses submitted to the Home Ministry by the Kerala govt and myself. It was the pro-Cola interest of the UPA Home Minister Mr Chidambaram that held up the Bill from being passed on to the President for a good four years. There were intense lobbying by the Cola company and US officials of various kinds against the Bill. Yet the UPA did not have the brazenness to decline Presidential assent, but your government was too quick to act in favour of the American multinational, undermining the national interests and the Constitutional provisions.

The Cola company was challenging and threatening the High Power Committee, right from the time the HPC was established by the Kerala government, and their latest challenge was the legislative competence of the State Assembly to enact the Bill, it is the misfortune of the country that our Solicitor General is repeating a multinational company’s desperate arguments. His arguments in the ‘Ex Parte Opinion’ dated 5.11.14 constitutes an ominous challenge to the State’s powers to enact legislation on subjects in the State list to address violations of Article 21 of the Constitution, does not even refer to the replies submitted to the Home Ministry when such arguments were raised by the Cola lawyers Mr K K Venugopal and Mr Feli S Nariman in their respective legal opinions in 2011 itself. Here I am attaching, for your information, the reply I had submitted as expert member of the High Power Committee.

The gratuitous advice to approach National Green Tribunal by both the UPA and your Solicitor General is only an alibi. The company was ordered closed by the State Pollution Control Board in March 2004 and as per the NGT Act (Section 15.3) the victims should have filed the case latest by March 2009, with a grace period of six months. But the NGT Act was passed in June 2010, and NGT became operational only next year May. How could have the Plachimada victims approach the NGT that was non-existent within the time bar the law has set. The Plachimada Bill was an excellent complement to the NGT filling the temporal gap, and ensuring natural justice to the poor victims of a remote village. And your government has sabotaged it.

Like Mr Chidambaram, your government also undermines the endorsement of the Bill by all the related ministries at the Centre, namely, the ministries of agriculture, rural development, water resources, food processing industries and the Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law. Beyond categorical approval, some ministries have in fact recommended to take stronger measures than the contents of the Bill. Yet you have chosen to sabotage the Bill, in favour of American corporate interests. This rejection of the Bill also serves a blow to the time tested Center-State relations; it is deeply worrying that the Solicitor General and the government are challenging the legislative competence of the State to enact laws on subjects listed under II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

It would be pertinent to see how the US, the home country of the Cola company, has handled the British Petroleum for accidentally spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The US President ordered the payment of US $ 20 billion and the company paid the amount without serious resistance, unlike the Cola company. Our government, whether NDA or UPA, has an important lesson to learn from US- on how to protect the genuine national interest.
I express my profound concern about the government action refusing Presidential assent for the Bill and at the same time express my hope that the American multinational shall be brought to justice in spite of the government’s proactive support of the unrepentant company.

With the best regards

Sincerely,

S Faizi

See Faizi's 2011 letter to former home minister PC Chidambaram here.

The post Is Shutting Your Eyes to Coca Cola’s Misconduct in the “national interest”, Mr PM? appeared first on SabrangIndia.