State Secretary Mr. Leiv Lunde

Human rights, development and business ethics

The Sri Lanka - Norway Society Colombo, 21 January 1999

Excellencies, friends of Sri Lanka and Norway, ladies and gentlemen,

Introduction. The bilateral relations

I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the Sri Lanka - Norway Society for giving me this opportunity to speak to you. The Society was founded in 1982 as a result of Sri Lankan hospitality and as a manifestation of our friendly relations. Over the years, the Society has gained strength and become an important catalyst for relations between Sri Lanka and Norway. There are abundant opportunities for collaboration in practically all areas of social and economic life, provided they are used actively. Since the beginning of the 1970s, when official development cooperation between our two countries was established, I am glad to say that there have been many examples of creative measures that illustrate this.

I am also glad to note that relations between our two countries have been strengthened in other fields as well in 1998, and that this will continue in 1999. A group of Sri Lankan members of parliament visited Norway in 1998, and the establishment of a parliamentarian friendship society for members of the Sri Lankan Parliament and the Storting (the Norwegian parliament) was a milestone. As a consequence of this, a delegation of Norwegian members of parliament headed by the President of the Storting, Mrs Kirsti Kolle Grøndahl, will pay a return visit to Sri Lanka in just a couple of months. In December 1998, the head of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Håkon Blankenborg, also visited Sri Lanka and had discussions with members of parliament, government representatives and the opposition.

After comprehensive discussions between our two governments, we adopted a new set of guidelines for cooperation with Sri Lanka last year. Further consultations have been held in Colombo in the last few days, leading to a further strengthening of ties between Sri Lanka and Norway. The basis for our work includes political consultation, trade, investments, humanitarian assistance and long-term development cooperation. The guidelines emphasize that the cooperation should be conducted in such a way that projects and programmes will contribute, directly or indirectly, to reconciliation and peace. Another major priority is support to income and job creation through effective incentives to the private sector.

An important principle in Norwegian development cooperation is that the responsibility for development in a country rests with the country itself. Our impression is that the government of Sri Lanka takes this responsibility very seriously, as projects and programmes with support from Norway are effectively integrated into national planning and implementation of development policies

Over the last few years, Norway’s development cooperation with Sri Lanka has amounted to a total of NOK 100-130 million annually. As agreed between our two countries, most of the funds flow to the southern parts of the country, but a proportion is directed to the north and east. Among the important sectors and priorities are rural development (including electricity and clean water), rehabilitation, human rights, democracy and reconciliation as well as environmental protection.

Integrated rural development programmes in the southern part of Sri Lanka have been a cornerstone of Norwegian development cooperation with Sri Lanka. Such programmes constitute a good example of the correspondence in development goals between the two countries. They are now increasingly geared towards employment and income generation. Existing programmes cover the districts of Moneragala, Hambantota and now also Batticaloa, which I will be visiting tomorrow.

In 1998 an increasing number of Norwegian and Sri Lankan institutions have launched cooperative deals. They include agreements between universities in our two countries and cooperation between three Norwegian research institutions and their partners in Sri Lanka and between a number of Norwegian and Sri Lankan environmental agencies. Promising cooperation has also been established between the Norwegian state petroleum company, Statoil, and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation.

Norway is giving support to projects run by approximately 60 Sri Lankan NGOs. This is expected to continue in 1999. In addition, eight Norwegian NGOs are represented here or are carrying out projects through their counterparts in Sri Lanka. (These are: FORUT, Norwegian Save the Children, CARE - Norway, the Development Foundation, the Norwegian Teachers’ Association, the Forum for Women and Development, the Family Association and DELTA International.)

Finally, I am particularly delighted that we saw such a remarkable increase in industrial cooperation between Norwegian and Sri Lankan companies in 1998. A specific networking programme has been established, export promotion tours are being arranged to both countries and altogether 15 Norwegian and Sri Lankan companies have launched joint ventures lately. This very positive trend is expected to continue in 1999 and new initiatives have been discussed.

Human rights, development and business ethics in an age of globalization

Turning to my main topic for today, I would like to offer you some thoughts and views on issues related to development, human rights and business ethics in an era of globalization. A few weeks ago we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both at home and at international meetings, conferences and ceremonies. “Now that we have a means of removing or lightening the burden of oppression and injustice in the world, we must learn to use it,” said René Cassin, the main author of the Declaration and 1968 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (in Oslo). Human rights must be respected and they must be used. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, says Article 1 of the Declaration. We must apply the same standards to ourselves as to others. This is a question of consistency and credibility, and applies to civil and political rights as well as social, economic and cultural rights. The global poverty problem is one of the biggest human rights challenges we are facing. We have a moral obligation to act.

For far too long, the international debate on human rights has been dominated by the assumption that human rights is all about civil and political rights, while development is all about economic growth. This is not the case. This assumption was prevalent, however, during the Cold War and still dominates much of the debate. It has also dominated the discussion about the universality of human rights, where several developing countries have been in the driving seat. This is not surprising. It is true that certain human rights are of little value to people who are starving and in need. Combating poverty is an important human rights issue. Failing to acknowledge this fact, and focusing only on one set of human rights is not acceptable. This is what I would like to emphasize in my speech.

Poverty does not make it more legitimate to oppress people. Neither does culture. As a member of the South African Parliament once said: " Culture can never be an excuse for abuse". Our answer must therefore be a holistic approach, where social, economic and cultural rights are given as much attention as civil and political rights.

Making the connection between development and human rights is one such approach.

According to Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to “the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality”. Can we find a clearer mandate for every government for a rights-based approach to human development?

According to the well-known UN definition, used by the UNDP and other organizations, development is "the process of expanding people's choices". This important definition, or understanding, shows us that growth - economic or otherwise - is a means, and not an end. Furthermore, human rights is an integral part of, and a precondition for expanding people’s choices. The Declaration on the right to development addresses this topic very directly, and deals with the full range of human rights in insisting on the right of everyone to "participate in, contribute to, and to enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized".

Globalization, with its opportunities, challenges and problems, is a dominating trend in the world today. It may be seen as an impregnable wall of multinational intrigue, as a new variety of cultural or economic imperialism, as poverty generation or a development that provides new opportunities for everyone. Despite its shortcomings, globalization may, by providing new and frequent meetings between cultures and individuals, in itself contribute to the universalization of human rights.

I venture to claim that never before has the distance between the individual person and the global community been smaller. The inherent “dignity and worth of the human person”, as set out in the United Nations Charter, is therefore closely linked with the universality of human rights.

The universality of human rights begins to look different in the light of our ever closer interaction. Countries are to a larger extent moving away from denial and defensive positions and accepting that the international community has a say in the human rights situation. The current global economic crisis is an added reason for us all to focus on the inherent dignity and worth of every human being.

The situation at the end of the millennium therefore represents a window of opportunity. Several of the factors that have been major stumbling blocks to a common understanding of human rights and to progress in this area have more or less ceased to be so. Here we may have a golden opportunity.

How can we use this window of opportunity and act for the benefit of mankind? How can we make new and concerted efforts towards development through increased respect for human rights?

• We can do so by insisting in a consistent and committed manner that human rights constitute an integrated whole. Expanding people’s choices means respecting people’s rights. All of them. This is a time to consider basic rights and freedoms as building blocks for the future.
• We must therefore give the economic, social and cultural rights their rightful place in the human rights machinery and in practice. We need to understand that civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights are mutually reinforcing, and we must act upon this understanding.
• We also need to recognize our responsibility to assist states in their obligation to implement these rights. If we commit ourselves to the full range of human rights in our development efforts, we have a better basis for gaining the confidence of the recipients. Donor countries - like Norway - can allocate resources, but we cannot allocate rights. We can offer the means, but we cannot provide the will.

Challenges to industry and the NGO community

Let me now turn more directly to the issue of globalization, and how it relates to human rights and ethics. It is well established today that globalization, through technological change and economic liberalization, enhances the scope of action of the private sector, while limiting the political space open to government and public sector intervention. The dynamic process of globalization has positive impacts as well as negative ones. A major challenge is to stimulate its positive dimensions while aiming to contain the problematic side effects, not least as experienced in many Asian countries since 1997. Globalization might indeed also be seen as a threat to the observance of human rights, since large multinational companies with larger turnovers than many countries’ GNPs are not bound by the rules and obligations that regulate, or are at least supposed to regulate, government action.

But globalization cannot be stopped or reversed, and it is a hopeless task for politicians like myself to try to enhance the political space of governments in the traditional mode of command and control. With respect to human rights and ethics, for instance, this means that I cannot simply issue new laws and regulations and assume that they will solve all ethical dilemmas confronted by Norwegian companies trading or investing in the global marketplace. No, we have to find new forms of consultation and cooperation between government, industry and civil society in order to explore new ways of inducing companies to help to promote important public goods like human rights. And we need international cooperation and international standards or codes of conduct, so as to avoid negative competition effects for pioneers in the global struggle to make the world a better place to live in.

I would like to describe some recent Norwegian experience in this area. The issue of industry and human rights has risen towards the top of our domestic political agenda over the last few years. Here are some of the reasons:

• Norwegian companies are now involved more than ever before, and further afield than ever before, in setting up new businesses, in investment and in co-ownership. This means more contact with the authorities, organizations and employees in the countries where the companies operate, and a greater share of the responsibility for developments there.
• Greater attention is generally being paid to the human rights situation in different countries. Previously, governments that were subjected to criticism contended that treatment of their own citizens belonged to the sphere of internal affairs, and was thus not subject to foreign interference. Today there is - as I have already stressed - growing international recognition that human rights are universal and that everyone has a responsibility to call attention to violations of these rights.
• Another aspect is the high expectations we have of Norwegian business and industry beyond earning money. Both at home and abroad, Norwegian companies are expected to show awareness of their social responsibility in such matters as environmental issues, regional development and the health of their employees. This is entrenched in Norwegian legislation and business practice. There are strict ethical requirements regarding business conduct and one’s responsibility as a member of society. Public opinion now places high demands on the conduct of Norwegian companies in other countries.
• In other words, it is a worldwide trend that the consumer is becoming increasingly aware of ethical issues in business. As an example, when the world’s largest football tournament - Norway Cup - discovered some years ago that many of the footballs provided for the tournament were sewn by children who were deprived of the opportunity to go to school, they reacted immediately. It seems therefore to be more important than ever for companies to establish a corporate image as ethically aware, environmentally friendly and concerned about the health and welfare of their employees.

Human rights have, in short, moved closer to the bottom line for the companies. Not only are investors increasingly looking for “clean” companies. The fact that a government’s respect for human rights contributes to the openness and stability of its market is increasingly translated into commercial advantages for domestic and international business. This leads to the realization that low labour costs do not, in the long run, compensate for the fact that cleaner, safer and fairer workplaces result in better products.

More and more business leaders now acknowledge their own responsibility for assessing the human rights implications of their presence in other countries and regions. Many companies have chosen to draw up their own ethical guidelines for their international operations to assist their employees and contribute to increased awareness among decision-makers. Ethical guidelines also contribute to the company’s image.

The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry has been actively involved in the efforts to promote ethical issues in connection with the international operations of Norwegian companies. The Confederation has cooperated with Norwegian non-governmental human rights organizations in publishing a check-list in order to enable their member companies to update their own business policies. Individual companies have also worked with human rights organizations to provide courses for their employees or encourage discussion within the company. The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions has also contributed significantly to raising awareness of the interface between business and ethics in Norway as well as abroad.

The Norwegian Government wishes to promote awareness of human rights issues, and to provide a forum for the exchange of views and information between the business sector, major companies, human rights organizations, trade unions, research institutions and government. We have therefore established the Consultative Body for Human Rights and Norwegian Economic Involvement Abroad, known as ‘KOMpakt’. I have with me a leaflet which explains the background and structure of KOMpakt , which I hope will provide some insight into how we work.

It is important to be aware of the roles each participant in this discussion plays. Whether or not to invest or trade with a specific country or company is a business decision. The Government may give advice, or even apply the law in the case of Security Council resolutions, but usually we offer information and knowledge - and no more. Companies are not governments. Nor are they human rights organizations. Non-governmental organizations must act as the human rights conscience that puts pressure on companies, as well as on governments. We have different roles to play, and the aim of KOMpakt - the consultative body - is not to agree, but to gain more insight into each other's views. Such a dialogue can lead to new ways of doing business, new ways of furthering respect for human rights, and ultimately new prospects for our own and other communities.

Let me here add some thoughts on our own experience as regards the role of non-governmental organizations. There are many human rights organizations in Norway, as there are here in Sri Lanka, including Amnesty International and many others. The Norwegian Government has recognized the need to support NGOs and provide conditions in which they can increase their competence and capacity. This has proved to be of benefit to the business sector and government alike. The NGOs represent a great source of expertise as well as a voice of conscience. Non-governmental organizations form the basis of every country’s and every nation’s civil society. They are the functioning channels for democracy and the vehicles for freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights.

Conclusion

Several studies conclude that development projects are more successful when civil rights in particular are respected. The protection of human rights helps to give the authorities a greater sense of responsibility towards the population. And this in turn has a favourable impact in terms of development.

The lesson is as always that we can and must learn from each other. This is something that both our countries have understood. I am glad of the opportunity to join you here today and to learn more about your thinking, your priorities and your outlook for the future.

John Kenneth Galbraith made a thoughtful contribution to the 1998 Human Development Report - 40 years after publishing The Affluent Society - which provides some key truths in the human development debate. For Galbraith the problem of poverty is "not economics; it goes back to a far deeper part of human nature”. The economist calls for “a larger sense of common responsibility”.

There is one truth that must remain. Our commitment to development is identical with our commitment to the implementation of human rights. This is as it should be. The two cannot be separated.

These commitments should be based on one premise: respect for the dignity and inherent worth of every human being. Every single individual. That is all it takes - no more, but certainly no less.

Thank you.