“It does not need to be an Achilles heel, but every company working in countries where there are serious breaches of human rights and considerable social contrast has to acknowledge it is taking a calculated risk – not least the risk of committing an error or omission and thus becoming the target of criticism and protests from oppressed or persecuted groups.”
Beate Ekeløve-Slydal, political adviser in Amnesty International Norway, emphasizes that human rights organizations fully understand that industrial companies cannot be expected to restrict their activities to countries with good standards of living and democracy, and good intentions, letting these be the sole factors influencing their investment decisions.
No excuse
“That wouldn’t be realistic in the world we live in. Companies involved in the extraction and utilization of natural resources will frequently have to locate some of their operations in countries where conditions for democracy and human rights leave a lot to be desired. In Amnesty we are not saying that a company should exclude doing business in certain countries, but we clearly state that it is no excuse simply to claim that the alternative would be other companies – with lower ethical standards – taking its place instead,” she maintains.
Amnesty International has had a partnership agreement with Hydro concerning human rights for many years. “In our opinion this has been a positive experience, characterized by openness and an inclusive approach. Our contributions have been integrated in Hydro's action plans, we have raised timely questions regarding human rights and have taken part in talks with the company, including a discussion of the Hydro Fundamentals training program. This sort of interaction is most useful for us – such sessions can increase our competence.”
Critic and team player
Based on our experience we would like to see this partnership continue at the same level of activity as previously, and we wish to give advice on new projects as they progress. We intend to be a critic and team player at the same time.
In Qatalum early on
“How were the preparations for the Qatalum project?”
“This project was put on the agenda early on, and we took part in a series of dialogues with Hydro’s CSR unit. One of the central issues concerned the vulnerable groups of migrant workers and how they would be at the mercy of their employers. This is an important matter, largely because there are no collective negotiation rights in Qatar that permit wage demands to be made.
“Our advice to Hydro has been to help ensure that such a policy does not become permanent and to try and get a scheme established. We are not criticizing Hydro for their methods of treating hired labor. Indeed, we can see that the company’s standards are high when it comes to facilities around the construction site, such as accommodation, food and canteens, transport, safety routines, working hours and the practice of religion. Given that the information, which Hydro has presented to us, is correct, it seems that the Qatalum workers are being well looked after, compared with standards at other plants in Qatar.”
Fair wage
“We can see that wage and working conditions – beyond the above-mentioned benefits – have been contracted between Qatalum’s sub-contractors and their workers. But this does not mean it is impossible for Hydro – in conjunction with other companies – to work towards obtaining a substantial wage increase. The contractors bear the main responsibility, but as principal employer Hydro can get more involved in this issue and assume a responsibility here. It is unreasonable that wages should be set on the basis of standards in countries that are considered to be extremely poor.”
Beate Ekeløve-Slydal adds that Amnesty will be most interested in monitoring the sort of wage conditions that are contracted with those who are taken on in production jobs at the metal plant.
Criticism of contracts
“In the course of the Qatalum project we have also criticized the fact that a large number of contracts with sub-contractors are not known because they contain clauses preventing disclosure. We have been quite clear about the need for full transparency – with regard to both the major contractors and the minor sub-contractors. When bodies like Amnesty and others see that information is not openly available, we retain the impression that something is being hidden. We expect there to be full transparency regarding all deliveries on all major projects. This also means, however, that we do understand that no company can have a total insight into everything that their sub-contractors are responsible for. But this is precisely a reason for working towards full transparency. Transparency gives those, who are engaged in human rights and employee conditions, better opportunities to follow up developments and give advice.”
