Dátum, 2013

Position Paper

of the American Chamber of

Commerce in the Slovak Republic –

ICT Sector Guidance on Business &

Human Rights

The American Chamber of Commerce in the Slovak Republic (AmCham) brings together more than 300 companies from Slovakia, USA and more than 25 other countries of the world. Our member companies are from various sectors including ICT, oil & gas and personal agencies. Together, our member companies create about 20% of Slovak GDP and employ more than 100,000 people. Our main goal is to actively contribute to improving the business environment in Slovakia and in Europe. In this respect, we would like to take this opportunity to comment on the draft ICT sector guidance on business and human rights.

We appreciate the fact that the draft guidance recognizes some of the existing human rights initiatives taken by the ICT sector (e. g. GNI, EICC, GeSI), and that it acknowledges efforts made by the industry to address problems in the supply chain. We also welcome the fact that the draft recognizes the complexity of human rights issues, and that it can take time to address them. It also recognizes the very positive role the sector has played in advancement of human rights.

All of this is very much welcome. However, the draft guidance seeks to set a very high standard for business/human rights. In fact, implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and processes how to control an execution of these principles along the lines suggested in the document means a heavy additional administrative and organizational burden channeling away resources, when they could be used for further improving existing corporate responsibility policies which have already proven their worth in the past.

We firmly believe that it should be recognized in the text that implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is only one approach and that, where a company has another approach with the same objective which has shown to be effective and received external support and praise, this should not be replaced by the UN Guiding Principles.

We also believe that some of the proposals for monitoring compliance are very strong, and excessive (e.g. quarterly meetings with stakeholders, p. 38). We would therefore recommend toning down some of the language if the guidance is to avoid being considered unrealistic.

We have also observed that there is a very strong emphasis on trade unions within the guidance. Specifically, they are often listed as the key - or only - stakeholder with regard to employee issues. It almost gives the impression that failure to recognize a trade union throughout its operations is an abuse of human rights issue in itself. There is little recognition of the fact that many companies do not have trade union representation because workers do not want it. And they have a right to do just that. In particular, the statement on p. 41 that ICT companies must build management communication channels through trade unions is not appropriate for this guidance, and suggests that this particular project has been captured to a certain extent by trade unions. This poses a very real possibility of undermining the credibility of the guidance with business. By the same token, there is little, if any, recognition that there are other forms of employee voice, e. g. through employee consultation forums, employee focus groups and/or staff surveys.

We appreciate the fact that the guidance declares its intent to “support and encourage” business. However, the tone seems very negative in places, which is likely to detract from its value to and acceptance by business. For instance, the guidance adopts a very negative stance with regard to temporary agency workers, giving the impression that their use is inherently bad. The guidance should acknowledge that the use of agency workers can create essential flexibility for some employers in coping with fluctuation in demand, and that many agency workers have chosen that status over a traditional employment status.

The draft guidance also adopts a negative stance on the merits and impact of audits (p. 38), which is not supported by evidence. Even though audits are not the only and definitive solution, their role in improving non-compliance issues is important. The section on audits should therefore make a more positive assessment.

Finally, we would like to voice our concern that it is not clear which companies the guidance is intended to cover. As there are other initiatives in this area, both sectoral and general, (e. g. OECD Guidelines, UNGC), there is a risk that overlapping guidelines/rules will create excessive burdens and confusion.

In conclusion, even though we welcome the fact that the draft guidance underlines the positive role that the sector has played in advancement of human rights, we are concerned about several measures proposed and/or suggested by the draft, including some of the suggested ways for setting business/human rights standards, monitoring compliance, the emphasis on the role of trade unions as well as the negative stance towards temporary agency workers and the merits/impact of audits. It is, therefore, our hope that the comments raised in this position will be taken into account when evaluating the draft guidance.