Beijing’s Darfur Envoy Feels Misunderstood

A report in today’s Reuters Africa indicates that China is feeling miffed about their perceived role in moving the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur.

China’s envoy to the strife-torn Sudanese region of Darfur on Thursday accused western media and non-governmental groups of stirring up anti-Chinese feelings among opposition groups in the African country. China’s Darfur envoy, Liu Guijin, said such groups did not understand what Beijing was trying to do in the region.

“Some important opposition groups have some views on China, but it’s hard to simply call them an anti-Chinese force,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a forum on Darfur in Beijing.

While I for one like to keep an open mind on how the Beijing government is trying to “help,” given their massive exploitation of Africa’s natural resources and their consistent disregard to fundamental human rights domestically and overseas, Mr. Liu’s comments appear to be crocodile tears. We applaud efforts to address these important issues but the PRC has a lot to do before we can feel their pain.

The United Nations Global Compact Office announced on Tuesday that a total of 630 companies have been removed from its list of participants for failure to communicate progress this year.

The delisting of companies is part of ongoing efforts by the Global Compact Office to enhance the accountability and credibility of the initiative. The so-called Integrity Measures were introduced in 2004 following a comprehensive review of the governance of the UN Global Compact. In accordance with the Integrity Measures, companies are required to communicate annually to their stakeholders on progress made in implementing the ten principles of the UN Global Compact. Failure to meet the Communication on Progress (COP) deadline results in a company being listed as “non-communicating” on the Global Compact website. Read more »

At the end of July, IAM and SPEEA will be holding an investor forum for Wall Street analysts, institutional investors of Boeing and members of the media who cover the aerospace and aviation industries. A core theme that will be discussed at the forum and which will be a central part of their upcoming bargaining this Fall deals with the company’s fragmented global supplier business model. The unions say it leads to failure as reflected by the significant production delays in the current 787 (Dreamliner) program. Organized labor believes it has a credible perspective regarding the aerospace industry and argues that the aerospace industry is ill-suited to the global supplier business model adopted by Boeing management. The aerospace industry is at a demographic inflexion point and Boeing and other companies need to cultivate a capable and effective workforce in the U.S. to succeed in the global marketplace. Boeing turned away from the integrated design and manufacturing model over 10 years ago and the unions will be making the case as to why it is in the best interests of shareholders to return to it. More to come…

Coming , under pressure from Washington DC area NGOs, Verizon Communications announced yesterday that it would withhold payments from its contractors who don’t pay their immigrant laborers wages and overtime. As reported by the Washington Post (June 24, 2008: D4), a company spokeswoman said that it would withhold work from contractors found to have acted improperly.

“If it is true that workers are not being paid by subcontractors … Verizon will take the proper course of action,” stated Sandra Arnette, a Verizon spokesman.

Interestingly, a review of the company’s Supplier Code of Contact as it pertains to labor states:

Suppliers of products or services produced in or provided from the United States shall comply with all applicable federal, state and/or local laws and regulations. Suppliers of products or services produced or provided from outside the United States shall comply with applicable laws and regulations of relevant countries. However, regardless of applicable laws and regulations, suppliers must uphold the human rights of workers by treating them with dignity and respect.

Nothing in its Code suggests that exploited workers can be assured that the company will take substantive steps to protect them. The Code itself does not spell out specific steps it will take to address these workers concerns nor does the company spell out what it would consider as evidence of wage and hour violations.

This raises a fundamental question for all companies with respect to how they address supplier conduct vis-a-vis the contractors’ employees. In addition, though a company may have a Code of Conduct, this in and of itself does not fully address the company’s actual practices. In the case of Verizon, putting theory into practice will reveal a great deal.