Corporate Accountability & the Johannesburg Earth Summit
   

· Earth Summit 101

· Corporate Failure Since Rio

· Six Reasons for Accountability

· Accountability vs Responsibility

· Rules for Big Business

· FoEI's Position Paper

· Type 2 Outcomes - Voluntary Partnerships

· The Bush Administration and the Earth Summit

Corporate Impacts Issue Briefs: Water, Biodiversity

Polluted Profits
· Bush's First Year in Office
· Environmental Rollbacks
· Accounting Tricks
· Corporate Veil of Secrecy
· Paying Polluters

Case Studies of
Corporate Irresponsibility

· AES
· Doe Run
· Enron
· ExxonMobil
· Monsanto
· Newmont
· Nike
· Unocal
· Suez-Lyonnaise
· Vivendi


Bush Administration and the Earth Summit

“President Bush's decision not to attend the Johannesburg Earth Summit is yet another indication that he places the interests of his corporate friends above working with the international community on critical global issues like climate change and poverty,” said Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth.

“His choice speaks volumes about his administration's outright resistance to addressing environmental and social accountability for corporate bad actors and global climate change.”

President Bush's recent statement that corporate self-regulation is insufficient in the financial and accounting arenas is equally true for environmental and social protections. However, the administration has steadfastly resisted any proposals to develop international rules, such as disclosure requirements and legal liability, for corporations worldwide.

The administration's resistance to a corporate accountability framework is part and parcel of the broader refusal to negotiate any significant international agreement at the summit. The administration has insisted that almost the only kind of outcome it will accept are Type 2 outcomes, which are voluntary partnerships undertaken jointly by (any combination of) non-governmental groups, companies and governments.

Furthermore, the administration appears to be retreating from key principles that former President Bush agreed to in Rio. For example, the U.S. is backtracking from the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," which says that nations most responsible for an environmental problem should take the lead in addressing it. The administration is also retreating from the "precautionary principle," a cornerstone of environmental policy that demands that nations make cautious choices when facing potentially harmful environmental consequences.

Climate change has also been a contentious issue in the negotiations, and the administration has repeatedly stated that it would strongly object to any references to the Kyoto Protocol appearing in the final Plan of Implementation.

While the administration continues to push for new trade agreements and stronger investor rights, multilateral agreements to address specific social and environmental issues are simply out of the question for the administration, which has pressed repeatedly to remove any references to concrete targets or timetables from the summit's final declaration.

At the end of the fourth and final preparatory meeting in Bali, Indonesia, the administration had not proposed any new funding to implement past multilateral environmental agreements or address on-going environmental challenges.

top

 

 
home | take action | media center | related links