incommunicado

Made up of several national entities brought together within a group on a global scale, multinational corporations (MNCs) have a predominant position in the international arena and have become unavoidable actors in the globalisation of the economy.

But their influence is not limited to the economic sphere, as illustrated by the increase in commitments to sustainable development and social responsibility (CSR). Questions of general interest, which are traditionally handed down to states, have been gradually transferred to these private actors.

Take action now to condemn the kidnapping of two trade union leaders at a Marks & Spencer (M&S) supplier factory in India and to call for their immediate and safe return. The kidnappings are part of a brutal attack against 60 workers, which took place as they arrived for work at the Viva Global factory in Gurgaon, India.

The workers were attacked by thugs brandishing hockey sticks and lathis as they arrived for their shift at 9:30am Delhi time on the 25th August 2010. One of the thugs has been identified as the labour contractor used by Viva Global to provide workers to the factory. Sixteen women were severely beaten and two workers, both trade union leaders, were kidnapped. Their whereabouts remains unknown.

The attack follows several months of campaigning by the Garment and Allied Workers Union (GAWU) to get improvements in conditions at Viva Global. Workers complained of excessive and forced overtime, low wages, a lack of water to drink and in the toilets. In June 2010 a woman was burned with acid at the factory after picking up an unmarked bottle she believed to be water to use in the toilet.

Harassment of union members, including threats of dismissal, violence and even death has been increasing at the factory in recent weeks. On Monday 23rd August Viva Global management attempted to prevent workers from entering the factory and made threats against union leaders and workers, who were warned they would be beaten or even shot if they continued their campaign.

The same day a tripartite meeting was held between Viva Global Management the Labour Department and the Garment and Allied Workers Union (GAWU). An agreement was reached that all workers would be reinstated and the threats of violence against workers would immediately cease. These events represent a serious violation of this agreement.

The Viva Global workers, along with a large number of local supporters, are now holding an ongoing demonstration outside Viva Global. The President of the union, Anannya Batterchjee has declared an indefinite hunger strike until her union colleagues are safely returned.

For more information and to Take Action, go here

The Berne Declaration and Greenpeace Switzerland are once again on a global hunt for corporations whose social or ecological behavior stinks to high heaven. For their public naming and shaming we need relevant cases from civil society... that means you!

Whether exploitative working conditions, calculated environmental sins, intentional disinformation, or other disregard for corporate social responsibility: At the forefront of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in late January, the most evil corporate offenses will appear on the shortlist of the Public Eye Awards 2011. And those firms placed in the pillory will feel the heat: Our renowned (in)famous awards shine the international spotlight on corporate scandals and thereby help focused NGO campaigns succeed.

We are searching for well-documented cases where firms cause concrete environmental and/or social harm. This year the award categories are:

• GLOBAL AWARD (chosen by an internal panel of experts)

• PEOPLE'S AWARD (chosen via online voting at www.publiceye.ch)

Two awards, two chances: Tell us who you nominate and why this firm merits a (or maybe even both!) Public Eye Awards 2011. The easiest way is by briefly answering the following questions:

• What is the corporation? How many employees? Where are its headquarters?
• Which of its activities do you consider socially and/or ecologically irresponsible?
• What consequences do the firm's activities have for people and environment?
• What is the current state of your campaign? What are the next steps?
• Where on the internet is further information about this particular case?

Participation pays: The winners will be invited by us to Davos where they can present their cases to the prominent attendees of our media conference.

Send nominations by e-mail to info publiceye.ch

ENTRY DEADLINE for nominations is September 20, 2010.

More infos at www.publiceye.ch

LAGOS (NIGERIA) / AMSTERDAM (THE NETHERLANDS).- Friends of the Earth International is outraged by reports that a major UN investigation into Nigeria oil spills funded by oil giant Shell relies more on figures produced by oil companies and Nigerian state statistics than on community testimony and organizations on the ground who work with communities. [1]

After releasing some information last week about its ongoing investigation, which is due to be released in early 2011, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) was strongly criticised by environmental and human rights organisations. The UNEP acknowledged that its investigation relies heavily on data supplied by the oil industry and in an August 23 statement announced that no draft report currently exists.

Shell oil spills and gas flaring in Nigeria are a major human rights and environmental tragedy.

Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends the Earth International and director of Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria said:

"We monitor spills regularly and our observations often contradict information produced by oil companies and Nigerian regulatory agencies . If the UNEP team would ask community monitors it would avoid falling into the trap of spinning Shell's figures. The UN assessment is being paid for by Shell so we are not surprised that it tells Shell's version of the facts. But the reality is that several studies have placed the bulk of the blame for oil spills in the Niger Delta on the doorsteps of the oil companies; particularly Shell.”

Geert Ritsema Friends of the Earth Netherlands /Milieudefensie added:

“UNEP should base its findings mostly on independent sources rather than on information from the oil companies responsible for the massive oil pollution in Nigeria. Last week UNEP team head Mike Cowing repeated Shell's lies that only ten percent of oil pollution in Ogoniland was caused by equipment failures and company negligence and 90% by locals stealing oil. Yet he himself earlier stated that Shell's large scale oil pollution and performance in Ogoniland was 'unacceptable'. These figures are not even consistent with some Shell official reports which admit that 45% of all leakages from Shell facilities between 1998 and 2007 were due to poor maintenance of oil installations.” [2]

In May 2008 four Nigerian citizens and Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Nigeria filed a unique lawsuit against Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell. The Nigerians, fishermen and farmers, suffered major damage from oil spills because of oil production by Shell. The first lawsuit hearing is expected take place in The Hague (The Netherlands) later in 2010. [3]

Oil extraction in the Niger delta started during the 1950s and was suspended in Ogoniland in the 1990s because of unrest and many oil spills there have not yet been cleaned up by Shell.

http://www.foei.org/en/media/archiv...

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends the Earth International and director of Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria, Tel: +1 347 657 42 60 (US mobile number valid only until August 28)

Geert Ritsema from Friends of the Earth Netherlands /Milieudefensie. Tel: +31-6-21829589 (Dutch mobile number)

NOTES TO EDITORS:

[1] The UN investigation is mentioned in several articles including:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...

[2] See Dutch tv program Zembla 'Vuile olie van Shell' of 13 June 2010 with Cowing's statements: http://zembla.vara.nl/Nieuws-detail...[tt_news]=27169&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1974&cHash=cdead045fc and see document 'Dagvaarding Goi' on the website: www.shellrechtszaak.nl , under the heading 'juridische documenten' (page 14 and 15)

[3] Court case information is online at http://www.milieudefensie.nl/englis...

The British government is acting unlawfully in refusing to put forward eligible UK companies and individuals trading in Congolese ‘conflict minerals' for targeted UN sanctions, said campaign group Global Witness today in an application to the High Court for a judicial review.

A number of UK companies known to have been trading in minerals sourced from the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) should have been put forward to the UN Sanctions Committee following UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions in 2008 and 2009. By failing to adequately investigate the companies and individuals the UK government is breaching its international legal obligations, says Global Witness in the claim submitted today.

“It is a sad day when we have to sue the UK government, but we hope that this case will mark a turning point. The issues at stake have global significance for how wars are financed,” said Gavin Hayman, Campaigns Director at Global Witness. “These companies have profited from a brutal conflict, and should face UN sanctions – but sanctions are useless without a fair and clear government procedure for considering whether individuals or entities should be listed.”

UNSC Resolution 1857, passed on 22 December 2008, calls for a travel ban and asset freeze to be imposed on all individuals and entities supporting illegal armed groups in the eastern DRC through the illicit trade of natural resources. It was backed up and strengthened the following year in Resolution 1896, passed on 7 December 2009. UN Member States are encouraged to put individuals and entities forward for sanctions.

Extensive evidence from Global Witness, the UN Group of Experts and others, shows that British companies have supported armed groups by purchasing minerals from areas under their control in the DRC. Despite this, the UK government has never put any of them forward for sanctions.

“The link between natural resources and conflict in the Congo is well known. Armed groups controlling the trade in minerals like tin and tungsten use the money to buy guns and fund their violent campaign against civilians. The UN resolutions recognised that companies sourcing directly or indirectly from the region are part of the problem. But in spite of our frequent appeals, the UK government has steadfastly refused to act, which left us no choice but to take them to court,” said Hayman.

Global Witness believes that the reasoning used by the UK government in refusing to put forward these parties for listing is flawed. A response received from the UK government reveals the absence of a fair and clear procedure for listing individuals and entities for UN sanctions.

The government argues that the UN resolutions do not have retroactive effect, and therefore any evidence gathered before the first resolution was passed (in December 2008) cannot be used to make a case for sanctions. Global Witness believes that this is wrong. Retrospective evidence is sufficient to indicate reasonable grounds for ongoing concern – unless there is strong evidence to the contrary – to suggest that companies previously sourcing from armed group areas may well be continuing to do so.

The UK government also argues that the evidence of sanctions violations contained in the November 2009 report of the UN Group of Experts on the DRC is insufficient to justify listing. This is despite the fact that the 2009 report from the UN Group of Experts names UK company AMC's Thailand-based smelting arm, THAISARCO, as sourcing from armed groups through their supply chains. The report also names UK national Ketan Kotecha, director of Afrimex, as working with a trading house alleged to have pre-financed the FDLR rebel group. The government has never explained why this expert evidence is insufficient.

Either way, the UK government has failed to independently verify if AMC continues to trade conflict minerals from the DRC regardless of suspicions of on-going violations.

When the 2009 UN Group of Experts report came out, the UK government altered its position on retrospective evidence, saying instead that they didn't think the evidence in the Group's report was good enough. But they did not explain why.

The UK government has also said that AMC no longer purchases minerals from eastern DRC and so no action is required. However, given the company's history of indirectly sourcing minerals from armed groups, Global Witness has real concerns. Without a robust procedure by which the government can investigate whether or not AMC (or indeed other UK companies) indirectly purchases conflict minerals or intends to, Global Witness is unsure how the government can make such categorical statements. Global Witness has certainly seen no evidence upon which such statements could reasonably be made.

Global Witness is seeking a mandatory order requiring the new coalition government to revisit their predecessors' decision and put forward for sanctions UK nationals and companies violating the terms of the UN resolutions. An application will be made to the court for a protective costs order and permission to proceed based on the unlawful and unreasonable conduct.

/ Ends

For more information contact: Seema Joshi on +44 0207 492 5890 or +44 07912517126; Blanka Geszti on +44 0207 492 5846; or Amy Barry on +44 0207 492 5858 or +44 07980 664397.

Notes:

1) The UK Government is currently one of the largest donors of funding assistance to the DRC and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

2) UNSC Resolution 1857 extended the financial and travel measures provided for in Resolution 1807 (2008) to “individuals or entities supporting the illegal armed groups in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo through illicit trade of natural resources.” UNSC Resolution 1896 renewed these sanctions.

3) In 2008, Afrimex was found in breach of the OECD Guidelines for sourcing from two comptoirs with links to the RCD-Goma rebel group and for making ‘tax' payments to the same group.

4) The Amalgamated Metal Corporation (AMC) Group includes four UK-based entities: AMCO Investments Ltd; Amalgamated Metal Corporation Plc; Amalgamated Metal Investment Holdings Ltd; and British Amalgamated Metal Investments Ltd.

5) An arms embargo against armed groups in eastern DRC was first put in place in July 2003. From 2003 to 2009, UN sanctions have continued to be in place and its terms extended.

6) For information on how the minerals of the DRC have fuelled the conflict read Global Witness' reports “Faced with a gun, What Can You Do?” and “Do No Harm, Excluding Conflict Minerals from the Supply Chain.”

7) FDLR stands for Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda, a Hutu militia whose members are alleged to include perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

8) Global Witness is represented by Leigh Day & Co Solicitors and Doughty Street Chambers on this claim.