IBFAN Oral Statement on Panel V - Obligations of States to guarantee the respect of human rights by TNCs and other business enterprises, including ETOs

Thank you Chairperson. 

I am speaking on behalf of the International Baby Food Action Network, the Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific, Brot für die Welt, Friends of the Earth Europe and the Global Policy Forum, members of the Treaty Alliance, as well as on behalf of the Society for International Development.

Most violations of human rights derived from activities of corporations are occurring outside of their home countries. Let us take the example of the country which hosts this present session, Switzerland. Switzerland is home for many corporations with a transnational character, including the well known Syngenta and Nestlé. 

Syngenta produces a highly hazardous pesticide name “paraquat” which continuously poisons thousands of plantation workers and farmers who spray it without any protection and without having been trained to reduce risks. These workers suffer acute and chronic poisonings including chronic respiratory disease. Some of them even died after having used paraquat since there is no antidote. In addition, children who live around these plantations are also exposed and suffer negative effects. However, Syngenta continues to produce and sell this product knowing that it seriously endangers health, therefore violating the right to health of exposed communities. 

Meanwhile, Nestlé, Swiss industrial flagship and so-called “Health & Wellness” company, has been violating the WHO Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes since decades. Last year, IBFAN released a monitoring report in which Nestlé’s offences in this regard are presented in more than 40 pages. In 2013, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No 15 on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, set a direct obligations on private companies, providing that « among other responsibilities and in all contexts » they should comply with the WHO Code and the relevant subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions. Even though Nestlé has been repeatedly informed about the systematic violations of the Code identified by IBFAN as well as about the obligation set by the General Comment No 15, the company did not improve its practices. 

Unfortunately, Switzerland has failed to regulate appropriately the conduct of corporations domiciled on its territory and/or jurisdiction and thus, has left Syngenta and Nestlé free to perpetrate their abuses abroad. 

States have the obligation to protect citizens against harm derived from the activities of companies based in their territory and/or jurisdiction. Children are particularly vulnerable and damages affecting them are often irreversible, as highlighted by Dr. Kotrane. Therefore, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly affirmed that obligations of States should include protection of child’s rights beyond their territorial borders. In particular, States must ensure that all business enterprises, including transnational corporations operating within their borders, are adequately regulated and do not adversely impact on children’s rights in foreign jurisdictions. Other HRTBs including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, have also called upon States to regulate the extraterritorial actions of third parties registered in their territory. 

The Maastricht Principles further clarify extraterritorial obligations of States, in particular the obligation to protect. Therefore, a legally binding instrument should seek inspiration from Principles 24 and 25. Finally, a legally binding instrument should oblige States to ensure effective judicial remedy for those affected by corporate misconduct. 

Thank you.

IBFAN-GIFA raises lack of compliance with the International Code and informs shareholders about the release of the movie Tigers at Nestlé's AGM

At Nestlé's latest Annual General Meeting, the Geneva Infant Feeding Association (IBFAN-GIFA) raised attention about the movie Tigers, based on the true story of a former Nestlé's sales representative for baby foods, Mr. Aamir Raza, who resigned after becoming aware of the adverse impact of infant formula on child's health. IBFAN-GIFA noted that the stand taken by Mr. Raza, was officially acknowledged and supported by Canada's Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. GIFA further recalled that Nestlé's advertising is deceiving many mothers and urged the company to finally bring its policies and practices into line with the International Code of Breastmilk Substitutes.

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK was also present and asked Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, to drop the public relations approach and address people’s concerns before he retires. He has attempted to rebrand the company as a Nutrition, Health and Wellness company, but many people see Nestlé as a Malnutrition, Death and Water Stealing company. Last year a survey found it to be the least ethical company of the past 25 years, which will otherwise be his legacy. (Read the text of Baby Milk Action's intervention)

There were 2,446 shareholders present to hear the intervention, representing 73.5% of voting rights. IBFAN was the only campaign group raising concerns about Nestlé’s business practices.

Text of GIFA's intervention and the response from Mr Brabeck (Nestlé Chairman), Mr Schipper (Head of Nestlé Nutrition) and Mr Bulcke (Nestlé Chief Executive Officer) are given below.

Intervention of Ms Camille Selleger (IBFAN-GIFA):

Dear Mr. President, dear shareholders,

My name is Camille Selleger, and I speak on behalf of the Geneva Association for Infant Feeding, Swiss member of IBFAN.

Company’s managers just told you about Nutrition, Health and Well-Being, but the story I will now tell you is rather different.

Last February, at the Geneva’s International Film Festival on Human Rights, a movie was screened to sold-out packed rooms. This movie, Tiger, is based on the true story of Syed Aamir Raza, who worked as a Nestlé sales representative in Pakistan in charge of promoting baby foods to hospitals and doctors. During one of his visits to a hospital, he discovers a room full of babies dying because they were not breastfed, but rather fed with infant formula. Alarmed by the effects of the products he promotes on child’s health, he resigns and sends a legal notice to Nestlé calling on it to stop the practices he had been part of. The film then tells how Nestlé tried to keep him to tell his story and how he came to IBFAN for help. It finally became impossible for him to return to Pakistan and he remained separated from his wife and children for seven years.

On the occasion of the film's premiere in Canada, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism declared: 'The account of Mr. Raza’s principled stand in defence of the health of babies and their families is one that deserves to be told, and one which reflects the best of Canadian values.'

Ancient history, will say the leaders of the company ... actually not that old! The dying babies who appear in the film are real babies filmed in 2013 in Pakistan. Indeed, babies fed formula milk are more likely to get sick than breastfed and in areas affected by poverty, they even run the risk of dying from diseases. Despite this, many mothers, seduced by brands’ advertising discourse, sincerely believe they are giving their child good nutrition by feeding them with infant formula.

We welcome Nestlé’s recent commitment to renounce the logo 'Natural Start'. However, this is a very small step following years of campaign and monitoring by IBFAN. In fact, the whole business strategy of the company must be revised to comply with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

Mr Bulcke, earlier on you spoke about respect. My question is a very simple one indeed. When is Nestlé going to put its money where its mouth is and adhere to the International Code [of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes] instead of just paying lip service to it?

Response of Mr Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, Nestlé Chairman

Thank you very much Ms Selleger. I think what we are going to try and do is to see if we can convince you by calling on another speaker to try to explain what we’re about. So we are going to ask Mr Schipper, who’s in charge of nutrition, and he’s a newcomer. He has a lot of energy and perhaps he will be more successful than we have been Heiko to convince Ms Selleger.

Mr Heiko Schipper, Head of Nestlé Nutrition

Thank you Mr Brabeck and thank you for the question, Ms Selleger. First I would like to start to talk about our Nestlé Nutrition business. Our mission is to nurture a healthier generation and we do this by focusing on the first 1000 days of life. Both through our products that are safe and science-based. 

[Note: In a presentation to investors in September 2013, Mr Schipper highlighted the ‘product solutions it promotes during the first 1000 days – including follow-on milks and toddler milks’, which the World Health Organisations says are ‘unnecessary’].

We also market our breastmilk substitutes responsibly in line with OUR commitments to the WHO Code. I think you are also familiar that our policy is the strictest in the industry.

[Note: Nestlé refers to its own policies, whereas it should ensure its activities at every level comply with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly. By Nestlé's own assessment of the violations of the Code and subsequent relevant WHA resolutions documented by IBFAN, 90% are permitted by Nestlé’s narrower policies].

Our compliance is the most strict within the entire industry.

[Note: Nestlé is a greater source of violations in IBFAN’s monitoring than any other company, with the possible exception of its main rival, Danone, the second biggest company – see who is the worst]

We are training our employees. We have internal and external auditors in place. In fact, last year, we increased our level of audits to 43, which is an increase of 25%. And also our compliance policies towards our WHO Code commitments are also recognised through our inclusion in the FTSE4Good Index where since 2011 only Nestlé has been present. So for the last four years we are the only player in the industry who is recognised to have strict compliance policies in place. We are in fact audited every year on 104 points when it comes to our commitments and we have passed them in the past four years.

[Note: FTSE has warned Nestlé several times not to suggest that inclusion in the FTSE4Good investment index signifies compliance with the WHO Code. Companies are assessed on their own policies, not the Code and Resolutions and Nestlé was only included after the criteria were weakened – and it weakened its own policies shortly before being included, knowing it would be assessed against those. IBFAN, Save the Children, UNICEF Lao and others have called on FTSE to strengthen its criteria].

So I believe that we have a very industry leading and strict policy in place.

When it comes to the movie you are referring to, we are aware of this movie. This is a movie that is set, I believe at the end of the ’90s, but these allegations made are highly questionable and certainly are not consistent at all with our policies that we execute in the markets.

[Note: Tigers is based on the true story of former Nestlé salesman, Syed Aamir Raza. Internal company documents provided by him show that he was performing the duties required of him. Indeed, a job description for the equivalent post in Canada in 2014 states the main responsibility is to ‘[s]timulate retail sales through the promotion of infant formulas and cereals to gain Healthcare Professionals recommendations.’]

Mr Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, Nestlé Chairman

Perhaps Paul you would like to come in.

Mr Paul Bulcke, Nestlé Chief Executive Officer

Ms Selleger, you said that we are very cynical. I find that you are very cynical in your speech. Respect for the truth. The truth, Madam, the events that are described in the film took place decades ago, based on the allegations of one person. And they are entirely false and wrong. There is nothing to be added. There is nothing more to say. These are false.

[Note: In addition to the documentary evidence substantiating the allegations by Syed Aamir Raza, there were contemporary surveys conducted in 33 cities in Pakistan and published as the report Feeding Fiasco, which found evidence from health workers of the activities of company representatives. A Save the Children survey in 2012 found health workers continued to report being targeted by company reps. with Nestlé most prominent]

Camille Selleger, IBFAN-GIFA

Well, I suggest that your shareholders make up their own minds.

Mr Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, Nestlé Chairman

Thank you for that, Madam.

Camille Selleger, IBFAN-GIFA

I invite shareholders to view the film that will be shown in Switzerland in the Autumn 2015 and perhaps they will be able to make up their own minds.

[Note: As Camille Selleger said in her opening comments, the film includes actual babies, malnourished after being formula fed, who were filmed in 2013. Mike Brady spoke to shareholders next, showing a picture from a Bangladesh report from 2014 ‘Tragedies of infant formula and sub-optimalbreastfeeding’. Despite knowing babies die from unsafe formula feeding, Nestlé promotes its infant formula in Bangladesh as the ‘gentle start’ for babies. Mr Schipper told investors in 2013 that this marketing campaign is a‘growth engine’. See Mike Brady’s intervention and Mr Brabeck’s response.]

Great success for the discussion evening 'Nestlé in Pakistan: The Baby Formula Scandal exposed' during the International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights 2015

On February 27, 2015, during the International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH) held in Geneva, the movie Tigers was screened within the framework of a discussion evening entitled 'Nestlé in Pakistan : The Baby Formula Scandal exposed' organized in collaboration with IBFAN-GIFA.

The feature film Tigers is based on the true story of a former Nestlé salesman, Mr Syed Aamir Raza. He blew the whistle after the shock realization of the impact of his employer’s activities on children’s health. That decision had terrible consequences on its private life and he had then to seek asylum in Canada, where he spent long years away from its family before they could finally be reunited in exile.

Mr Aamir Raza attended the screening and took part in the debate that followed, together with Ms Yasmine Motarjemi (former corporate food safety manager at Nestlé and whistleblower) and Mr Mike Brady (Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK). The co-author of the movie, Mr Andy Paterson, was also present and answered some questions about the preparation of the movie. The debate was moderated by Mr Alain Maillard, chief editor for Edito, and led to a very fruitful discussion with the public. 

Related links:

• Article on the event in the newspaper Le Courrier - February 27, 2015 (in French)
• Webcast of the debate

Written contribution to the Committee on the Rights of the Child / 2014 Day of General Discussion / Digital Media and Children’s Rights

Breastfeeding protection, an essential component of the child’s right to health

Breastfeeding is recognized as a crucial intervention to provide infants and young children a healthy start in life.[1] It is the single most effective intervention for saving lives:  if applied globally, optimal breastfeeding can annually prevent about 830.000 deaths of children under 5 years. Unfortunately, out of 135 million babies born every year, almost 83 million are not enabled to follow optimal breastfeeding practices.[2]

Enshrined in the article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the ‘highest attainable standard of health’, breastfeeding should be protected against marketing practices that could undermine it. Therefore, the Committee has integrated the 1981 International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (the Code), to date completed and extended by fifteen subsequent relevant WHA resolutions forming an integral part of it, in the CRC General Comment No. 15 (2013), which specifies that besides the States’ obligation to implement and enforce the Code (para 44), baby food companies have the direct obligation to comply with it in all contexts (para 81).

However, the misconduct of baby food companies continues to be a key cause for poor breastfeeding practices, as these companies reap profits from promotion of their products which directly compete with breastfeeding. Recently, the report Breaking the Rules 2014, published by IBFAN’s International Code Documentation Centre, presented more than 800 Code violations by 27 companies in some 81 countries.

Digital media: a new marketing avenue for baby food companies

Since democratization of new technologies and Internet access, a new avenue has opened up for companies to advertise their products on digital media, including social media such as Facebook and YouTube. Mobile and web-based technologies using ‘behavioural targeting’ offer them new opportunities to interact directly with mothers, despite the fact that the article 5 of the Code prohibits baby food companies to seek direct or indirect contact with pregnant women and mothers of infants and young children, regardless of the mean used for making that contact.

Popular bloggers, especially mothers, are roped in to endorse products and thus influence their huge following. Advancing their electronic marketing even further, companies are developing mobile software applications (known as ‘apps’) that millions can download onto their mobile phones, tablets, laptops and PCs. Companies use these apps as direct promotional tools. Several apps are designed to ‘help’ pregnant women and new mothers. Special offers, discounts, contests, product launches and campaign announcements are now available to tech-savvy young mothers and their families.

Creating a corporate culture among parents through websites, social media and apps

Websites facilitate baby food companies’ contact with mothers by offering them gifts (such as a trip to Singapore), free samples and discount prices (such as a ‘Ramadan special package’, offered by Hero[3] on its Egyptian online shop).

Encouraging mothers to spread the word about their products, companies’ websites also foster their participation through a wide range of social activities, such as, for example, photo contests for babies, invitations to baby fairs or mothers blogs.

Thousands of mothers[4] are linked to companies through their Facebook, Twitter or Pinterest pages, where offers of free gifts, promotions and ads violating the Code are regularly posted. Some of these pages even offer ‘live chats’ or ‘carelines’ through which mothers can talk directly to company personnel to get nutritional advice on infant and young child feeding.

Besides, many other companies have developed a phone app for monitoring the feeding routines of infants and for providing advice, such as the one developed by HiPP[5] in Norway. In Slovenia, Novalac[6] even offers parents a local language smart phone ‘baby app’ which allows the company to offer promotions and special deals to parents.

‘Mothers clubs’, or how companies disguise marketing under ‘parents advice’

A new trend for companies is to promote virtual platforms called ‘Nutriclub’, ‘Moms club’ or even ‘Baby club’, connecting with pregnant women and offering mothers one-on-one support, parenting advice, information about pregnancy and child development, together with information on their products. When joining a ‘club’, mothers are offered gifts, promotional offers and invitations to try products. For example, parents who sign up to Wattie’s[7] club are offered the chance to win about USD 520 of free gifts.

Video clips and viral marketing, advanced marketing tools for selling baby foods

Baby food companies are regularly publishing attractive video clips on their websites and social media, but also on TV and as ads on other websites. These video clips are systematically ‘shared’ on YouTube, allowing them to be spread over social media by users. For example, a cute cartoon video clip, recently published by Nestlé, has been viewed over a million times within a month.

These video clips often claim that industrial baby foods have positive effects on babies’ health and contribute to their optimal cognitive development. For example, in a Dumex[8] video clip run on the company’s website and on TV, mothers share their opinion on the good effect of Dumex baby formula to assist the baby’s immune system. Similarly, in Hong Kong, Nestlé’s video clip for infant formula claims that the product promotes ‘gut health, digestion, absorption’. There is overt comparison with breastmilk via the DHA and ARA components which, contrary to systematic reviews of the evidence, are claimed to ‘help baby’s brain and visual development.’

Campaigning on the first 1000 days: the hijack of breastfeeding promotion by companies

The 1000 days between a woman’s pregnancy and her child’s 2^nd birthday is a critical period for long term development. UNICEF and WHO have launched a global campaign for health and development through adequate nutrition during this critical ‘1000 days window of opportunity’. Baby food companies sensed a marketing opportunity and launched their own ‘first 1000 days’, campaigns. Both Nestlé and Danone, baby food leading companies, have co-opted the slogan of the first 1000 days.

Nestlé launched its own first 1000 days advertising campaign called ‘Start Healthy, Stay Healthy’ in order to associate itself with the UN message. Under its campaign, the company reaches out to the public through its website and social media and calls on visitors to join the company in promoting the World Breastfeeding Week 2014 while claiming to support breastfeeding. Apart from targeting mothers, Nestlé sponsors courses organised by professional organisations and even organised ‘scientific conferences’ for doctors in India, despite the explicit prohibition of such events by the Indian Infant Milk Substitutes Act. In Malaysia, the company has pushed the boundaries even further and launched a ‘1500 days’ campaign.

For its part, Danone registered the domain name http://www.first1000days.ie/  under its Nutricia subsidiary. In China, Dumex’s 1000 Days programme, with emphasis on child’s immunity, offers a service tailored for mothers and aimed at providing advice from pregnancy through various stages of early childhood. A book on this 1,000 day programme is distributed free when mothers register on the Dumex website. In Ireland, Danone’s front company Cow & Gate followed the Dumex example by launching the First 1000 Days campaign, using a celebrity couple as ambassadors. Incentives like free recipe books are offered to tempt potential customers.

How to protect child’s right to health against corporate violations of the Code through the use of digital media

In order to protect breastfeeding and thus, the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, States parties should be urged to:

1. Fully implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and its relevant subsequent WHA resolutions, especially WHA63.23, into their national legislation

It is crucial for Member States to fully implement the Code as it regulates marketing practices of baby food companies to protect the right to health of infants and young children, including against malevolent marketing practices that take place online. More specifically, article 5 of the Code prohibits manufacturers and distributors from providing mothers with free samples of their products, whether directly or indirectly. The provision also forbids promotion tools to induce sales direcly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, as we can find on companies websites, their online shops and social media. Finally, the Code states that the marketing personnel should not seek direct or indirect contact of any kind with mothers of infants or young children. 

Resolution WHA63.23 calls upon the development of legislative, regulatory and effective measures to control the marketing of breastmilk subtitutes in order to give effect to the Code.

2. Ensure effective monitoring of the Code and implement deterrent sanctions against violations

According to the Code, monitoring the application of the Code lies with governments acting individually and collectively through WHO (article 11). Resolution WHA61.20 urges States to scale up efforts to monitor and enforce national measures and to avoid conflicts of interest. 

To meet their obligations, States should therefore be urged to implement deterrent sanctions for Code violations into their legislation. 

3. Launch modern and attractive digital campaigns on breastfeeding promotion and support 

Governments should promote and support optimal breastfeeding practices through modern and attractive media campaigns. Using the same digital media devices than baby food companies, States parties would be able to counter the damages induced by the aggressive marketing practices of the private sector. By maintaining catchy and helpful websites, promoting social media pages and spreading innovative videos through the Web, governments will be able to disseminate the adequate information to a wider public and create a popular trend towards optimal breastfeeding practices. 

4. Implement their Extraterritorial Obligations into legislation

According to the CRC General Comment No. 15 (2013), baby food companies have a direct obligation to comply with the Code in all contexts and thus, to respect to right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.

Pursuant to international human rights law, States have the duty to ensure that companies based in their territory do not infringe the human rights of people their countries, but also in other countries where the companies operate.[9] Therefore, the States should be urged to implement legislation aimed at holding home-based companies, including baby food companies, accountable for their human rights violations abroad.

---

[1] UNICEF, Pneumonia and diarrhoea : How to tackle the deadliest diseases for world’s poorest children. June 2012. http://www.unicef.org/media/files/UNICEF_P_D_complete_0604.pdf.

[2] Bhutta et al., What works? Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival, The Lancet, 2008, 371 (9610) : 417-440.  http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/Lancetseries_Undernutrition3.pdf.

Save the Children, Superfood for babies: How overcoming barriers to breastfeeding will save children’s lives, 2013. http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/SUPERFOOD%20FOR%20BABIES%20ASIA%20LOW%20RES%282%29.PDF.

[3] Hero is a Swiss company.

[4] For example, by May 2013, the Danone Facebook page had received some 53,000 ‘likes’, thus multiplying Danone’s Code violating record.

[5] HiPP is a German company.

[6] Novalac is a French company.

[7] Wattie’s is a brand owned by Heinz, a US company.

[8] Dumex is the Asian subsidiary of Danone, a French company.

[9] Principle 25  (c) (d) (e), Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Available at: http://www.fian.org/fileadmin/media/publications/2012.02.29_-_Maastricht_Principles_on_Extraterritorial_Obligations.pdf

Press release: UN Global Compact Office says it has no role to play in protecting integrity of initiative as Nestle continues to violate its principles – Baby Milk Action, 2 July 2014

• Link to the press release on Baby Milk Action's website

Baby Milk Action has today sent an open letter to the Executive Director of the UN Global Compact, George Kell, over the failure of the Global Compact Office to hold Nestlé to account for breaking its stated commitment to abide by the Global Compact Principles.

Nestlé is a sponsor of Global Compact events, which Baby Milk Action describes as a self-evidence conflict of interest.

The Global Compact was introduced by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to encourage corporations to align ‘their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.’

Last week, the US and EU opposed moves for legally-binding measures to hold corporations to account at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, citing the Global Compact as an alternative approach. For the past five years, Baby Milk Action has been pursuing complaints against Nestlé for violating the Global Compact Principles in the way it markets its baby foods. However, the Global Compact Office refuses to take action specified in so-called Integrity Measures, or to explain its refusal.

Left, Nestlé promotes its infant formula as the ‘natural start’ (and that it is the ‘gentle start’ and ‘protects’ babies) – practices executives at the highest level of the company defend. Babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies (the true ‘natural start’) and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. These and other Nestlé practices violate UN World Health Assembly marketing requirements and the Convention on the Rights of Child (particularly, Article 24 (2) (e)), and so the Global Compact Principles.

Baby Milk Action welcomes the fact the UN Human Rights Council voted to set up a working group to draft a Treaty to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses as it states its experience has shown the Global Compact to be ‘worse than useless’.

Mike Brady, Campaigns Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:

‘Nestlé has indicated it will continue the violations of the Global Compact Principles we have reported and the Global Compact Office says it has no role to play in stopping it and will close the case. The Treaty proposed by the UN Human Rights Council is essential as the Global Compact has proven to be worse than useless at stopping these human rights abuses.’

Mr Brady has written on holding corporations accountable as a member of a UN Task Force on International Dimensions of the Right to Food under the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition. Proposals from the Task Force on protecting the right to food are presented in the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food (published in 2008), and include possible approaches for legally-binding measures to hold corporations accountable (chapter 4, Mike Brady).

Baby Milk Action’s letter to George Kell

2 July 2014

Dear Mr Kell,

UN Global Compact Office failing to apply Global Compact Integrity Measures

We are contacting you to raise the failure of the UN Global Compact Office (GCO) to respect the Global Compact Integrity Measures and to confirm whether you are aware of these failings.

We have been reporting egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles by Nestlé to the GCO over the past five years in accordance with the Integrity Measures, but have found it to be a futile exercise. In its latest message to us of 11 June 2014, the GCO is again stating it will take no action. Are you, as Executive Director, aware that the GCO’s refuses to take the action specified in the Integrity Measures and do you endorse this position?

In the past, we have requested clarification as to why it will not take the action it could or should take under the Integrity Measures, quoting the actual text in our letter dated 29 August 2011. The GCO’s response on 10 November 2011 merely stated: ‘Regarding the letter addressed to the UN Global Compact, we do not plan to provide a point by point response’.

We have tried writing to the Global Compact Board and Advisory Council via the GCO. The GCO told us (21 December 2011): ‘The Global Compact Board is kept up to date of all matters raised under the integrity measures. We do not forward them individual letters.’ We have received no response from the Board or Council. Accordingly, we are making this letter public and will gladly report your response to it.

The Global Compact website claims the initiative is ‘voluntary yet accountable’.

This claim on the Global Compact website is not borne out by our experience. There is no accountability given that:

• the Global Compact posts misleading Communications on Progress from corporations to its website with no form of checking.
• the GCO has received our evidence of violations of the Global Compact Principles and Nestlé’s refusal to end them, but does not take the action it could or should take under the Integrity Measure.

Under the Integrity Measures the GCO could provide advice and guidance to Nestlé on ‘actions to remedy the situation that is the subject matter of the allegation in order to align the actions of the company with its commitments to the Global Compact principles’. However, the GCO repeatedly tells us (for example, 30 July 2012), ‘The Global Compact Office is a voluntary initiative and does not have the mandate nor the resources to investigate or manage disputes.’

We are in on-going communication with Nestlé and have demonstrated to the GCO that executives refuse to end practices that violate the Global Compact Principles. The GCO should surely proceed to ‘review of the nature of the matter submitted and the responses by the participating company’ and then ‘remove that company from the list of participants and to so indicate on the Global Compact website’ as set out in the Integrity Measures.

One can only conclude that GCO is unwilling to apply the Integrity Measures due to the self-evident conflict of interest of Nestle being a sponsor of Global Compact events [example from 2013 and, above, from 2010], making the GCO financially indebted to the company.

The Global Compact Office closes cases without investigation

To keep the GCO updated on Nestlé’s on-going violations of the Principles we wrote to the GCO on 14 March 2014, attaching our latest correspondence with Nestlé (dated 3 March). We provided evidence of misleading statements included in the Communications on Progressposted to the UN Global Compact website (which bring the initiative into disrepute) and practices that violate human rights (which break the Global Compact principles).

The Global Compact Office replied to us on 29 April 2014, as follows:

With regard to the attached letter addressed to you from Nestle’s in response to your letter dated 3rd March 2014, we would kindly request that you please inform us whether you are satisfied with the content of the communication or if there are any other issues that should be addressed by the company. If not, please note that the matter will be considered closed by the Global Compact Office.

We responded on 9 May 2014:

If you read Nestlé’s letter you will realise that it is unsatisfactory as Nestlé is refusing to take action to stop the violations of the Global Compact Principles we have reported to it.

Rather than closing the case, it would be welcome if the UN Global Compact can provide the ‘guidance and assistance’ to Nestlé referred to in the Integrity Measures, encouraging it to take ‘actions to remedy the situation that is the subject matter of the allegation in order to align the actions of the company with its commitments to the Global Compact principles’. Please refer back to our letter of 3 March for the details.

The GCO said it had not received our original letter of 14 March 2014 (which enclosed a copy of our 3 March letter to Nestlé) so we sent it again. (We asked the GCO to investigate why correspondence sent to the address indicated on the Global Compact website had not been received as there may be other complaints that are being lost by the GCO, but have heard nothing from the GCO on this point.)

After we re-sent the information, the GCO contacted us on 11 June 2014, stating:

We have examined the matter and, as of now, we do not see any further role for the Global Compact in this process. Unless you have any additional issues that you would like to raise with the company for their response, please note that we will consider this matter closed under our Integrity Measures. 

Do you agree that the GCO has no role to play in encouraging participating corporations to stop violations of the Global Compact Principles when executives have indicated they will continue with these practices? Do you agree that corporations should continue to be listed under these circumstances?

No action taken against any corporation for violating the Global Compact Principles

We understand from our communication with the GCO that no company has ever been excluded for violating the Global Compact Principles following a complaint. Companies have been excluded for failing to provide Communications on Progress, but as these reports are posted to the Global Compact site even when they are misleading (as in the case of Nestlé), they are of little value in any case.

We look forward to your response to the questions raised in this letter and the clarifications requested in our letter to the GCO of 29 August 2011.

We will be publishing this as an open letter and will add your response, if and when we receive it.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Brady

Campaigns Coordinator

Baby Milk Action

CC: The Honourable Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General.

Elena Bombis, Advisor, Legal & Policy, Supply Chain Sustainability, UN Global Compact.