Robert Archer
Executive Director, International Council on Human Rights Policy

Expert opinions included on this web site have not been edited by GE. View full disclaimer

Most very large companies now acknowledge that they have human rights responsibilities outside as well as inside the workplace, and many have developed policies that address the human rights impacts of their activities and relationships. It is welcome that GE is among them.

Numerous factors lie behind the greater emphasis on human rights: strong ethical convictions of some leading executives; sober calculation of reputational risk; public opinion; catastrophic policy errors; the behavior of peers and competitors; and new international policies. The mix of motivation matters less than the fact of change.

So what objectives should very large companies like GE set for themselves? They have made an initial commitment; they have excited expectations. What should they aim for?

Companies that operate in a range of environments face distinct constraints and opportunities; and those that operate on the largest scale are challenged to do most. Below are four “tests” that companies like GE might apply as they operationalize their human rights policies.

1. Work to scale. Do the company’s human rights objectives reflect the scale and diversity of its activities and its ability to shape attitudes? GE, for example, has a vast and complex chain of suppliers to manage and a huge culturally mixed and multilingual workforce. Its human rights policies and training programs need to be correspondingly ambitious. Are they? A company that sets its human rights policies too low, relative to its scale of operations, courts reputational damage.
2. Demonstrate due diligence. Has the company put in place adequate systems for identifying risks, responding to them and explaining its response? Do these systems make sure that the company is listening carefully to many points of view? Very large companies invest heavily to monitor risks and opportunities associated with the technologies and markets they depend on. In matters of survival they look far ahead. Do they look as far forward — or at all — at their social impacts and risks and their need to manage these? This year’s Olympic Games illustrate the problem. It was evident that locating the Games in China would generate human rights controversies; yet when these occurred, the corporate sponsors seemed to be caught unready, as if they had done little to think through their positions in advance.
3. Act positively. When faced by a human rights challenge, does the company disengage and avoid risk, or take a positive approach? No large company would build its production or marketing strategy solely on avoiding harm to its current technological or market position: they would seek enhanced advantage — higher productivity and better outreach. The same should be true of policies that concern reputation. Confronted by reputational threats, the instinct of many companies is nevertheless to dig defensive positions — which do not protect reputation and fail quickly when public expectations become focused.
4. Speak plainly. The public reasonably expects senior executives of very large companies to speak cogently and honestly about public issues. Just like political and civic leaders, they are judged by their transparency and common sense and their willingness to engage frankly with difficult problems. Even more clarity is expected of executives who represent billion-dollar enterprises, with all the policy and information and communication support this implies. Denials of responsibility or declarations of ignorance are simply not persuasive. The human rights and communications policies of such companies should take account of this.

Against the tests above, many among even the largest companies are in lag. They appear to promise too little and to deliver too little, and as a result may appear both hypocritical and inept — an outcome toxic to reputation. Recognizing that public expectations will continue to rise — rightly, because the companies themselves are involved in setting new standards for themselves in matters of public policy — very large companies like GE should raise their game. They need to be more ambitious.