• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE OLYMPIC VIOLATIONS The Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, the Swedish sponsors and human rights Report #68 This report has been published with the financial support of the Swedish Agency for International Development Assistance (Sida). Sida has not, however, been involved in the design of the report and it takes no position on its content. The report has been authored by Swedwatch. LO-TCO Biståndsnämnd (LO-TCO Secretariat of International Trade Union Development Co-operation), RFSL (Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights) and RFSU (Swedish Association for Sexuality Education). The report can be downloaded from www.swedwatch.org. Author: Erik Jennische Cover photograph: Dmitry Lovetsky Police arrest a Russian LGBT activist during a demonstration in St Petersburg in June 2011. Layout and graphics: Daniel Fagerström, Paperhits Publisher: Viveka Risberg Published in January 2014 ISBN 978-91-981365-5-5 Swedwatch is a religiously and politically independent organisation that examines Swedish com- panies doing business in developing countries. The organisation’s purpose is to reduce social and environmental ills, encourage role models, share knowledge and hold an open dialogue with Swed- ish companies so that the business community pays greater attention to these issues. Swedwatch has six member organisations: the Church of Sweden, Diakonia, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Fair Trade Center, Solidarity Sweden-Latin America and Africa Groups of Sweden. 2 Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6 2. Method ........................................................................................................................ 6 International regulatory framework for corporate responsibility ............................. 8 3. Background to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi ................................................. 9 Human rights situation in Russia .............................................................................. 9 4. The Olympic Movement ...........................................................................................12 The International Olympic Committee (IOC) ...........................................................13 The Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC) ..................................................................14 The Olympic Movement and human rights violations .............................................15 The SOC and human rights .......................................................................................18 5. The SOC’s main sponsors ..........................................................................................21 Companies’ views on the human rights violations .................................................. 22 6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................27 7. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 29 Appendix 1: Questionnaire used for the Swedish sponsors ......................................... 34 3 Summary In December 2013, just a few weeks before the Winter Olympics at the Russian resort Sochi, Gunilla Lindberg, both Secretary General of the Swedish Olympic Commit- tee and a member of the board of the International Olympic Committee, stated that sports “is the single greatest human rights organization in the world”. The Olympic movement’s close collaboration with the Russian government in plan- ning the Olympic Games in Sochi makes this a controversial statement. The respect for human rights in Russia has quickly deteriorated since Vladimir Putin regained his presidency in May 2012. Restrictions in the freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, as well as laws prohibiting public conversations pro gay rights, have all been enacted in Russia. The preparations of the Olympic Games in Sochi have also adversely affected human rights, mainly the rights of migrant workers in connection to the building of arenas and overall infrastructure. Local authorities have also imposed restrictions on the free- dom of expression on Sochi-based organizations and media outlets. No public com- mitments from The International Olympic Committee, IOC, have been made in order to counteract the increasingly deteriorating state for human rights in the country. Similar problems were an issue in connection to the Olympic Games in Beijing 2008. IOC promised then that the games would improve the respect for human rights. But when several prominent human rights organizations showed that the games rather contributed to deterioration, IOC did not act. In this report Swedwatch has interviewed The Swedish Olympic Committee, SOC, and their sponsors in order to gain their opinion regarding the Olympic movement’s responsibility for the effects on human rights in the host country, as well as what possi bilities for action they have themselves. Hopefully SOC and their sponsors will, in the future, take action in order to make the games have a positive impact on human rights. One of the reasons why the Olympic movement – consisting of IOC, the national Olympic committees, for example SOC, and the international sports federations, for example The International Ice Hockey Federation – do not contribute to improving the situation for human rights is the fact that the movement lacks a human rights policy. The Olympic Charter states that the movement’s fundamental goal is peaceful development and human dignity. But The Charter entirely lacks references to basic human rights conventions. Neither does the Charter contain any of the fundamental concepts of human rights, apart from protection against discrimination. It is The Charter that guarantees that the values of the movement are upheld in the process of appointing host countries and host citities for the Olympic Games, and in the later contracts between IOC and the hosts. But the week language of The Charter, in regards to human rights, makes it impossible for IOC to make demands on the hosts, and creates unclear expectations. The Russian government can therefore bask in the light of one of the world’s most prestigious events, whilst at the same time not having to protect human rights. 4 Not even the statement that all forms of discrimination are a violation of The Charter contribute to an improved situation in the host country. During the year preceding the Olympic Games, violations of LGBT-people rights have increased in legislation as well as in society in general. IOC has, regardless of this, refrained from criticizing the Russian government, and seems to be satisfied with the government’s promise that the game’s themselves will go through with the respect of The Charter. Swedwatch’s interview with Stefan Lindeberg, president of SOC, shows that neither SOK believes that human rights issues, not directly related to the games, are a responsibility of the Olympic movement. On the other hand, in the opinion of Stefan Lindeberg, IOC should make public demands regarding human rights on the host countries, which is not done today. Regardless of the Olympic movement’s lack of taking responsibility for the adverse human rights impacts of the games in Russia, Swedish enterprises will contribute with more funds to SOC in 2014 than ever before. This development is in conflict with the overall trend among Swedish companies to take more responsibility for human rights issues in their entire operations and supply chain, as well as act accordingly to international frameworks for corporate responsibility. A companies branding and marketing are to the full extent part of their value chain. Swedwatch’s study shows that none of SOC’s main sponsors, Nordea, Vattenfall or ATG, have procedures for mitigating the risk for adverse human rights impacts in regards to their sponsoring activities. Both The UN Global Compact and The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations, which Nordea and Vattenfall have com- mitted to, state that companies have a responsibility to mitigate adverse human rights impacts in their entire value chain. ATG lacks entirely a human rights policy. None of the companies have tried to influence the Olympic movement in order to increase its commitment to human rights in connection to the games. During Swedwatch’s interviews with the sponsor companies they stated that vio- lations of human rights in connection to the Olympic Games were problematic. All three companies admitted that their sponsoring activities should be part of the com- pany’s overall human rights policies in the same way as in relation to other business partners. During the interviews the companies became increasingly committed to finding ways of contributing in a positive way. Nordea discussed the possibility of establishing a joint strategy together with the other sponsoring companies, and all three companies stated that human rights aspects will be a part of future negotiations with SOC. In a survey, conducted with the remaining sponsors of SOC, the companies answered that the Olympic movement has a responsibility for human rights violations in con- nection to the Olympic Games. They also stated that they, as sponsors, could make demands through the sponsoring agreements regarding the movement’s commitment to human rights.

Load more

  38

Copy Link