Part 22: The U.S. National Contact Point: Corporate Social Responsibility Between Nationalism, Internationalism and Private Markets Based Globalization

 (Pix Source HERE)

This Blog Essay site devotes every February to a series of integrated but short essays on a single theme. For 2013 this site introduces a new theme: The U.S. National Contact Point: Corporate Social Responsibility Between Nationalism, Internationalism and Private Markets Based Globalization.

Part 22:  Does the U.S. NCP measure up (or Down) to the Activities of Other State NCPs Cont.: The 2011 and 2012 Summary Reports?

This series builds on some ideas I have been working through for a number of years relating to a fundamental shift in the approaches to corporate governance that broaden the ambit of corporate governance issues from a singular focus on internal governance (the relationships among officers, shareholders and directors) to one that includes corporate behavior and the standards by which officers, directors and shareholders exercise their respective governance authority. This shift also changes the scope of what is understood as "law" to be applied to issues of corporate governance, from one principally focused on national law to governance norms that may be sourced in the declarations and other governance interventions of public and private international bodies. Lastly, it appears to point to an evolution to the role of the state from the principal source of standards and enforcer of law to a vehicle for the implementation of international standards  in which enforcement power is left to global market actors--principally consumers and investors function of the decisions of global actors.  All of this is inconsistent with traditional notions of the role of law, the scope of corporate governance and the nature of corporate social responsibility int he United States.  The extent to which the United States participates in the construction of these autonomous international systems may suggest the direction in which government policy may be moving away from the traditional consensus of corporate responsibility to something perhaps entirely new.

The examination of the US NCP has suggested a pattern of behavior that has been consistent across Republican and Democratic Administrations despite the well publicized re-imagining of the US NCP in 2011. The principle outlines of this behavior evidenced a strong policy that appeared to understand the MNE Guidelines project as substantially one directed outbound--that is that it served as an instrument of foreign but not domestic U.S. policy. In contrast, the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance tends to reflect and is incorporated as part of domestic U.S. policy.  As part of the foreign policy of the United States, the MNE Guidelines project are treated as an aspirational set of principles with no governance effects.  U.S. policy and practice is meant to reinforce the notion that these principles are hortatory, which should not be transformed, or  converted, either through elaboration in glosses from authoritative sources, or in their application in particular cases, or in the efforts to promote the MNE Guidelines, into something that acquires the characteristics of governance instruments. That approach substantially weakens the utility of the MNE Guidelines directly, and indirectly the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as a source of standards for governance norms at the international level, even as enterprises and their stakeholders continue to develop these norms and apply them to their conduct.

But is the conduct of the U.S. NCP and the policy premises this conduct applies unusual in this respect, or does the U.S. NCP reflect a common OECD NCP culture? This post completes consideration the U.S. NCP within the comparative context of the development of NCP "culture" since the institution of the NCP system in 2000. 

 

 

 

(Pix (c) Kelly Kay 2013)

 

 

 Part 22:  Does the U.S. NCP measure up (or Down) to the Activities of Other State NCPs Cont.: The 2011 and 2012 Summary Reports?  [UNDER CONSTRUCTION]

The OECD has done a fairly good job of information gathering since the adoption of the MNE Guidelines in 2000.  The information can provide a crude basis of comparison of the approach of the US NCP as compared to other state NCPs.  It can also alert as to points of significant divergence among NCPs.

Annual Meetings of OECD NCPs. As provided for in the implementation procedures of the MNE Guidelines, the NCPs meet in June each year at OECD Headquarters to share their experiences and to report to the OECD Investment Committee. Each OECD NCP submits its annual report, and together all NCPs discuss activities associated with the Guidelines at a national level.  The NCPs also use the occasion to hold consultations with business, labour and NGOs.

Summary reports of the NCP meetings:

2011	2008	2005	2002
2010	2007	2004	2001
2009	2006	2003

Access the annual reports on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Every year the OECD also holds a roundtable on corporate responsibility, addressing emerging issues and new developments, in conjunction with the annual meetings of National Contact Points.  These are meant to inform the work of the NCPs, though they do not bind any adhering state.

• 2011 - Update of the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises  
• 2010 - Updating the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises  
• 2009 - Consumer empowerment and responsible business conduct  
• 2008 - Employment and Industrial Relations: Promoting Responsible Business Conduct in a Globalising Economy  
• 2007 - The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Financial Sector  
• 2006 - Developing a proactive approach to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises  
• 2005 - The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Developing World  
• 2004 - Encouraging the Positive Contribution of Business to Environment  
• 2003 - Enhancing the Role of Business in the Fight Against Corruption  
• 2002 - Supply Chains and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises  
• 2001 -Global Instruments for Corporate Responsibility 

This post examines the Annual reports for 2011 and 2012. 

The 2011 Summary Report of the Chair of the Meeting on the Activities of National Contact Points (21 September 2001) [UNDER CONSTRUCTION].

The 2011 Summary Report marked the first review of the NCP process after the extensive reform of the MNE Guidelines of 2011.  The Summary Report is marked both by a certain optimism and by the need to continue to deal with administrative fracture among the NCP organizations.






The 20012 Summary Report of the Chair of the Meeting on the Activities of National Contact Points (21 September 2001)