THE OLYMPIC VIOLATIONS the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, the Swedish Sponsors and Human Rights

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 companies 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 freedom 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 possibilities 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 committed 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 company’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 connection 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. They also stated that their willingness to sponsor the movement would increase with an increased commitment to human rights and that the movement should have a policy for handling the games impacts on human rights.

5 Swedwatch recommends that the Olympic movement adopts a human rights policy which relates to the UN conventions on human rights as well as ILO’s core conventions on the labor standards, and that the Swedish sponsors use their leverage in order for this to become reality. Stockholm and Sweden should moreover not offer to host the games until IOC adopts a strategy for respect of human rights in connection to the games.

1. Introduction

Preparations for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing had an adverse effect on the human rights situation in China. The same problems exist in the run-up to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics being held in February. In the last few years, Russia has introduced a number of new restrictions on the freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. In Sochi, the preparations have resulted in direct violations of migratory workers’ rights and restrictions of local organisations and media freedoms. Although the Olympic Movement has failed to deal with these problems, Swedish companies are providing more sponsorship money to the Movement than ever before. This is a development that runs counter to the trend of Swedish companies taking more responsibility for human rights problems in their supply chains and working in accordance with the international guidelines for corporate responsibility.

As part of the research for this report, Swedwatch conducted interviews with the Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC) and its sponsors about how they perceive the Olympic Movement’s responsibility for the impact that the Olympic Games have on human rights in the host country. It is hoped that the report may encourage the SOC and its sponsors to start working towards positive outcomes of the Games for human rights.

2. Method

While working on the report, Swedwatch interviewed the SOC’s three main sponsors, ATG, Nordea and Vattenfall.1 We also sent a questionnaire to the thirteen other SOC sponsors: Adecco, Apollo, Arla, Arlanda Airport/Swedavia, Atos, Cloetta, H&M, Jet Set Sports, Samsung, Unilever, Viasat, Volvo and ÅF. The interviews and question- naires were performed in November 2013. The global sponsors of the Olympic Move- ment are not included in the report.

The fundamental questions addressed in the report are: How do the Swedish Olym- pic Committee and its sponsors perceive their responsibility for the Games’ adverse human rights impact and what do they believe they can do to counteract this?

1 Maria Guggenberger (Manager) and Elisabeth Normelli (Producer) at the Concepts Division at ATG, Tomas Björklund (Sponsoring and Event Director) and Helena Östman (Head of Communications) at Nordea, Annika Bränning (International Sponsoring Manager) and Carina Netterlind (Press Secretary) at Vattenfall.

6 FACTS

The SOC’s three main sponsors

In 2011, the Swedish Olympic Committee shared its vision of doubling its sponsorship revenue up to and including 2016, from roughly 40 to 80 MSEK per year. According to the SOC’s Chairman, Stefan Lindeberg, this goal will already be reached in 2014.1 The SOC’s three main sponsors are ATG, Nordea and Vattenfall.

ATG ATG has sponsored the SOC since 1979, by giving part of the revenue from the annual Olympiatravet (“The Olympic Trot”) horse racing event to the SOC. The purpose of this funding is to secure good premises for Sweden’s Olympians and Paralympians. ATG uses the Olympic Rings and the Olympic Flame during four of the heats and during the final. Moreover, competitors include athletes from the Olympic and Paralympic Games. In 2012, Olympiatravet donated 8.2 MSEK. According to ATG, this funding has helped Sweden win a massive 274 medals at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.2

Nordea Nordea has been sponsoring the SOC for 25 years and it has been a main sponsor since 2013. The contribution means that Nordea’s customers can choose to invest in the Olympiafonden investment fund and thereby forego part of their yield to the SOC. If the yield is too low, Nordea has a guaranteed minimum contribution. Over the years, the yield has resulted in contributions totalling more than 130 MSEK. The money is used to support young Swedish talents. Since autumn 2013, Nordea has also become a main sponsor of the SOC.3

Vattenfall Vattenfall has sponsored the SOC since 2006 and it became a main sponsor in 2010. The aim of the sponsorship is to increase the number of Olympic medals. There is a similar collaboration with the Olympic committees in the company’s other core markets, the Netherlands and Germany. The funding is used to support 24 established athletes and roughly 30 talents in each country.4 Vattenfall has declined to reveal how much the sponsorship is worth.

1 “SOK dublar sponsorintäktarna” SponsorWorld, 11 April 2013 2 ATG’s Annual Report 2012 and www.olympiatravet.se/olympier/ 3 “Samarbetet utökas med Sveriges Olympiska Kommitté”, Nordea press release, 4 October 2013 4 “Vattenfall sponsrar framtida olympier”, Vattenfall press release, 7 March 2012

In order to describe the human rights situation in Russia and locally in Sochi, we have largely referred to Human Rights Watch reports, as well as more established sources such as Amnesty International and Freedom House.

To describe the Olympic Movement’s view of human rights, we have analysed the Olympic Charter, which is its central guiding document, as well as the documents that describe the application process that prospective host cities and countries have to follow. We have also interviewed Stefan Lindeberg, Chairman of the SOC.

7 The report was written in collaboration with 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). These organisations have kindly read and com- mented on the report.

2.1. International regulatory framework for corporate responsibility

International efforts on developing the regulatory framework of how companies should act with respect to human rights have come a long way in recent decades. In this report, we have used three regulatory frameworks to identify companies’ obligations with respect to human rights and to formulate recommendations. A brief description is given below.2

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were launched in the mid-1970s. These guidelines have since evolved, but they basically outline that companies should respect human rights, contribute to sustainable development and promote employees’ rights. Companies should also provide good information about their businesses and their products. The guidelines are not legally binding, but they are endorsed by more than forty countries.

The debate about corporate responsibility subsequently developed quickly. Around the turn of the last century, the United Nations took the initiative to start a partnership with companies entitled the UN Global Compact. The goal is for companies to sign the initiative’s ten principles on human rights, labour law, the environment and the fight against corruption. The UN Global Compact is not legally binding, but those companies who sign it agree to follow the ten principles and report on how they do so. To date, more than 7,000 companies have signed the UN Global Compact, of which 143 are Swedish, including Nordea and Vattenfall.

One problem, which has become increasingly clear while working with corporate responsibility for human rights, is how far this responsibility stretches and what companies can be expected to do. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council approved the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, directed at both nation states and companies.3 According to the principles, businesses can impact human rights on three levels. Business that cause or contribute to adverse human rights impacts, should try to avoid and prevent potential risks, act to stop existing violations, and remedy damage that has already occurred. However, businesses can also adversely impact human rights through their business partnerships, and thereby be directly

2 The description of the regulatory frameworks comes from Hållbart företagande – Plattform för svenskt agerande, Regeringskansliet (Government Offices of Sweden) 2013, Platinautvinning med risker – Vilket ansvar har svenska företag i Sydafrika, Swedwatch report #64, 2013 and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, regeringen.se 2013 3 The document builds on all international agreements about human rights, but specifically mentions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the ILO’s core conventions.

8 linked with violations. The responsibility they bear is not legal, but the guiding principles demand that the business seeks influence overs its business partner to avoid and prevent having an adverse impact.

To fulfil its responsibility to respect human rights, businesses should act publicly, and entrench this in their internal policy documents and routines. Businesses should also continuously perform human rights due diligence, and offer ways to compensate those who have been subject to violations. Human rights due diligence is a method to continuously identify risks for a business’s adverse human rights impact, describing how to manage this and prevent future risks. The results should be communicated outwards and directly to all stakeholders.

In this report, we investigate to what extend the Swedish sponsors are directly linked with human rights violations and, if so, what they have done to deal with and prevent these.

3. Background to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi

In July 2007, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided that the Winter Olympics would be held in Sochi, a holiday resort in southern Russia. The decision was made even though human rights in Russia have continuously been deteriorating since the late 1990s. According to Freedom House’s 2007 report on civil and political rights and political freedom, Russia ended on the same low level as the Soviet Union in 1988.4 At the same time, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and several other human rights organisations raised the question of what impact the Olympic Games in Beijing would have on human rights in China.5

3.1 Human rights situation in Russia

Human rights organisations agree that since Vladimir Putin was reinstalled as Presi- dent of the Russian Federation in May 2012, the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated further. Russia has passed laws that restrict the right to public assembly, criminalised defamation, criminalised religious insults, introduced further restrictions of what can be published on the internet and expanded the definition of treason. A new law forces civic movements that participate in political activities and

4 Freedom in the World, Country Ratings and Status 1973-2013, Freedom House 2013. 5 Amnesty International published around ten reports between 2005 and 2008 under the main title “China: The Olympics Countdown”.

9 accept foreign funding to register as foreign agents.6 During 2013, the authorities led a campaign against such organisations and they inspected at least one thousand of them.7

3.1.1 Violations of LGBT rights in Russia Violations of LGBT rights in Russia have a long history. Homosexuality was forbid- den during the Soviet era and was not legalised until 1993. However, since then, progress has been slow. According to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s 2013 survey on European countries’ guarantees for LGBT rights, Russia came bottom out of 49 countries. Russia guarantees these rights to 7 percent, compared to the UK that tops the list with 77 percent.8

Another central part of the problem is the oppression that political activists face while working to change laws and attitudes. In the last two years, not a single permit has been issued in Moscow for public demonstrations for LGBT rights. In St Petersburg, only two of the thirty applications received in the last five years have been approved.9

In January 2013, the Russian State Duma decided to amend the Federal Law On Pro- tecting Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development. Pres- ident Vladimir Putin signed the law in June. The purpose of the amendment was to protect children from "propaganda" that advocates the rejection of traditional family values.10 According to the legal text, propaganda is:

“the act of distributing information to minors that 1) is aimed at the creating non- traditional sexual attitudes 2) makes non-traditional sexual relations attractive 3) equates the social value of traditional sexual relations with that of non-traditional sexual relations; or 4) creates an interest in non-traditional sexual relations.”

According to both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the law breaches Russia’s international obligations to fight the discrimination of LGBT persons, and represents a threat against human rights in the country.11 The Council of Europe has adopted a resolution stating that the law is a breach against human rights and that Russia should abolish it.12

6 “Russian Federation” in Amnesty Annual Report 2013, Amnesty International 2013, “Putin: Protect Freedom of Expression” Amnesty International, articled published on 13 August 2013, “Russia: Behind the Smokescreen of Olympic Celebrations: Key Human Rights Concerns in the Russian Federation, Amnesty International 20 November 2013, “Russia: Silencing Activists, Journalists ahead of Sochi Games”, Human Rights Watch 7 August 2013, “Russia” in Freedom in the World 2013, Freedom House 2013, 7 “Russia: A year on, Putin’s ‘foreign agents law’ choking freedom”, Amnesty International 20 November 2013 8 Rainbow Europe, ILGA Europe Report 2013 9 “Reason for Action”, Russian LGBT Network, an open letter to representatives of the G20 countries at the St Petersburg Summit in September 2013 10 The law was published by Rossijska Gazeta in June 2013. The translation is not official. 11 “Russia’s anti-gay ‘propaganda law’ assault on freedom of expression”, Amnesty 25 January 2013 and “Russia: Reject Discriminatory Bill”, Human Rights Watch 24 June 2013 12 Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1948 (2013).

10 Several human rights activists believe that the violations of LGBT persons have increased since the law was introduced. The Russian activist, Masha Gessen, spoke of a “huge, palpable rise in anti-gay violence” in Russia.13 Several other organisations say that the new law and the authorities’ unwillingness to guarantee LGBT organi sations’ basic rights, creates a forgiving culture for hate crimes and hate propaganda towards LGBT persons.14 When Vladimir Putin closed one of the country’s most important news agencies in December 2013, and replaced it with a new organisation called International Information Agency Russia Today, he appointed Dmitry Kise- lyov, a high-profile television personality, to be the first president of the newly formed agency. Kiselyov has made numerous homophobic statements, including that homo- sexuals should not be able to donate blood and that their hearts should be burned ahead of being used for transplants.15

3.1.2 Direct human rights violations in Sochi Even though it is clear that the human rights situation in Russia has deteriorated in general during the last few years, it is hard to say to what extent the Olympic Games have contributed to this. Nevertheless, the preparations for the Games have had direct negative consequences for human rights locally in Sochi.

When Human Rights Watch interviewed 66 of the 16,000 migrant workers in Sochi in 2012, it became evident that their human rights in the workplace had been violated, and that their working conditions frequently contravened Russian law. Migrant workers, who largely come from Central Asia, but also from the Ukraine and Serbia, for example, explained that employers often tended not to pay their wages. Some of them worked for several months in the hope of getting their money, but then travelled back home empty-handed. Others revealed that employers retained their first month’s pay, claiming that they would pay it once work was completed. Those who quit or were dismissed never received this money. Several workers also said that their passports or identity cards had been confiscated by their employers.16

The working conditions also contravened Russian labours laws. The workers interviewed stated that work was carried out in twelve-hour shifts with one day off every other week. Russian labour laws set the limit at 40 hours per week with a right to compensation for overtime and at least one day off per week. A group of Ukrainian workers had been promised 1,500 USD per month, but after two months they had only received 420 USD in total. According to Human Rights Watch, the IOC has seriously failed to guarantee the protection of workers’ rights in Sochi.17

13 Gessen quoted by Richard Socarides in “At the Olympics, a Rainbow on Every Coke Can?”, The New Yorker, 28 October 2013 14 “Reason for Action”, Russian LGBT Network 2013. 15 “Russian news agency RIA Novosti closed down”, BBC 9 December 2013 and “Putin dissolves state news agency, tightens grip on Russia media”, Reuters 9 December 2013 16 Race to the Bottom – Exploitation of Migrant Workers Ahead of Russia’s 2014. Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, report by Human Rights Watch 2013 17 ibid.

11 The preparations for the Games have also resulted in violations of freedom of expression and freedom of association in Sochi. The police have accused at least two journalists and one newspaper chief of criminal offences based on the criticisms they presented. The offices of two NGOs working on documenting violations ahead of the Games were subject to inspections and searches by the authorities. Human Rights Watch has long lists of companies that have been threatened with bans, environ mental activists who have been harassed, websites that have been closed down and journalists who have been censored, because of their activities linked to the preparations for the Olympic Games.18

When LGBT activists wanted to organise a so-called Pride House during the Olym- pic Games, as was done during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver in 2010 and the Summer Olympics in London in 2012, they were not permitted to do so. The purpose of Pride House is to spread information about homophobia within sport and to serve as a meeting place for LGBT athletes during the Games. At first, the authorities claimed that there had been errors in the application, but then explained that it would “contradict the foundations of public morality” and that its activity could “undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation as a result of the reduction of its population”.19

4. The Olympic Movement

The Olympic Movement consists of several different organisations that have different functions and powers. The Movement is led by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), but it also has two further constituent parts: the National Olympic Committees (NOCs, e.g. SOC) and the International Sports Federations (e.g. the International Ice Hockey Federation, IIHF).

The Olympic Charter is the guiding document for the entire Olympic Movement. It describes the values, obligations, organisational structure and much more.20 The Charter begins with the seven fundamental principles of Olympism that define the goals of the Movement. The Movement works for “the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preser vation of human dignity”. The Charter also states that the freedom to determine “the structure and governance of their organisations” is a fundamental principle within the Movement. It says that “[the] practice of sport it is a human right” and that “[any] form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement”. However, the Charter says nothing about the freedom of expression, political freedom, the freedom of association in general, or any other central freedoms or rights.

18 Russia: Silencing Activists, Journalists ahead of Sochi Games, Human Rights Watch, article published on 7 August 2013 19 ibid. 20 The Olympic Charter, last revised 9 September 2013

12 The Olympic Movement is led by the IOC and it has two additional parts: the National Olympic Committees and the International Sports Federations. The three branches all fulfil their core task for the main activity of the Movement, the Olympic Games. Source: The Olympic Movement – Introduction, Olympic.org

Yet that does not prevent the IOC’s representatives from using the term “human rights” when referring to the organisation. When IOC member and the SOC’s Secre- tary General, Gunilla Lindberg, was asked why the Swedish delegation at the Olympic Games in Sochi should not openly advocate for human rights, she said: “We work with sport, which is the largest human rights organisation in the world”.21

4.1 The International Olympic Committee (IOC)

The IOC’s primary tasks are to lead the Olympic Movement, select the host city for the Olympic Games and make arrangements for the events. However, the IOC is not an

21 “Kravet inför OS – så ska protester stoppas”, Expressen 10 December 2013

13 umbrella organisation of national committees and sports federations. It selects its own members who have personal mandates. Since 1999, the IOC is made up of 115 members, of whom 15 are active athletes, 15 hold central positions in the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and 15 hold central positions in the International Sports Fede rations. Other parts of the Olympic Movement may nominate candidates to the IOC, but they may not vote for them. The IOC’s Nominations Commission presents the candidates and the IOC Executive Board proposes candidatures for election. The Executive Board consists of 15 members (IOC President, four Vice-Presidents and ten other members) who are elected by the IOC Session by secret ballot for a four-year term.22

The SOC’s Secretary General, Gunilla Lindberg, has been an IOC member since 1996 and has twice been selected as a member of the Executive Board, including one term as Vice-President.23 She is also a member of the Coordination Committee for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics.24 The only other IOC member from Sweden is former Olympic high jump champion Stefan Holm.25

4.2 The Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC)

The Olympic Movement is made up of around 200 National Olympic Committees (NOCs), including the Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC). According to the Olym- pic Charter, their main task is to determine the delegation of athletes. They are the only ones who can nominate candidate cities that want to host Olympic Games. They cannot elect any of their own representatives for the IOC, but IOC members are also members of their respective NOCs. Even if the NOCs’ direct influence over the IOC is limited, they have the right to formulate proposals and opinions to the IOC concerning the Olympic Charter, the Olympic Movement, the organisation of the Olympic Games and where the Games should be held.26

The SOC is made up of 50 sports associations and describes its task as being responsible for Sweden’s representation and collaboration with the Olympic Movement. It states that it enjoys an active role in the IOC, particularly via its Secretary General, Gunilla Lindberg.27

The SOC has ongoing support from the state, which amounted to 35 MSEK in 2012. Since 2009, the SOC has also received state funding worth 212 MSEK as part of a high performance initiative.28 In November 2013, the SOC submitted a proposal to host the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Stockholm.

22 “The Organisation”, IOC 23 “Mrs Gunilla Lindberg”, IOC 24 “Coordination Commission – Sochi 2014”, IOC 25 “IOC Members”, IOC 26 The Olympic Charter, Chapter 4, Rule 7 27 “Internationellt arbete”, SOC 28 Riksidrottsförbundets verksamhetsberättelse 2012 (Swedish Sports Confederation’s Annual Report)

14 FACTS

Fundamental Principles of Olympism

1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preser- vation of human dignity.

3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olym- pic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

5. Recognising that sport occurs within the framework of society, sports organisations within the Olympic Movement shall have the rights and obligations of autonomy, which include freely establishing and controlling the rules of sport, determining the structure and governance of their organisations, enjoying the right of elections free from any outside influence and the responsibility for ensuring that principles of good governance be applied.

6. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

7. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC.

Source: The Olympic Charter

4.3 The Olympic Movement and human rights violations

4.3.1 IAAF World Athletics Championships in Moscow 2013 During the IAAF World Athletics Championships held in Moscow in August 2013, the debate about violations of LGBT rights in Russia exploded, both in Sweden and internationally. Just a few weeks before, Vladimir Putin had signed a law banning propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations. During the World Championships, the Swedish athletes Emma Green Tregaro and Moa Hjelmer painted their nails in rainbow colours as a protest.

15 Even though the International Olympic Committee is not responsible for the World Athletics Championships, the debate soon shifted here. The main question was whether the Russian law was discriminatory and whether it thereby violated the Olympic Charter.

The IOC had previously made a comment about the law prohibiting propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations stating: “As a sporting organization, what we can do is to continue to work to ensure that the Games can take place without discrimination against athletes, officials, spectators and the media.”29 However, after the World Championships, it was felt that the question about whether the law was discrimi natory needed to be directed to the Russian government.

Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Kozak, wrote a letter stating that the law is not discriminatory since it applies to everyone, and that the “Russian Federation guarantees the fulfillment of its obligations” with respect to the Games. The IOC then discussed the law during a meeting in September 2013, and concluded that it did not violate the Olympic Charter, and that it should therefore not be discussed.30 However, the IOC did not comment on the consequences for freedom of expression or the discrimination of Russia’s citizens.

4.3.2 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing 2008 The debate about the Olympic Games and human rights in Russia is similar to the debate that preceded the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Members of the IOC and the SOC expressed their hopes that the Games would contribute to an improvement of the human rights situation in China. In 2001, Liu Jingmin, Executive Vice President of the Beijing Olympic Bid Committee, explained that the IOC can “help the development of human rights” by offering the Games to Beijing.31 A year later, the IOC Chair- man Jacques Rogge affirmed his belief that “the Olympic Games will improve the human rights record [in China]” and he urged the Chinese government to improve its protection of human rights. If this did not occur, the IOC would be forced to act.32

In 2006, Jacques Rogge still hoped that the Games would strengthen human rights in China.33 But that same year, Gunilla Lindberg, who is a member of the IOC and Secre- tary General of the SOC, stated that Amnesty’s most recent report had not been positive at all. She was nevertheless convinced that the Olympic Games would benefit the Chinese population.34 However, two weeks before the 2008 Beijing Games, Amnesty concluded that “there has been no progress towards fulfilling these promises, only continued deterioration”. The crackdown on human rights activists, journalists and

29 IOC statement on recent Russian legislation, IOC, 31 July 2013 30 “Russia defends anti-gay law in letter to IOC”, AP 22 August 2013 and “IOC Statement”, IOC 22 August 2013 31 “Will China’s government uphold the Olympic ideal?” Amnesty, The Wire, September 2005 Vol. 35. No. 08 32 BBC Hardtalk 23 April 2002 quoted in “People’s Republic of China The Olympics countdown – broken promises”, Amnesty 29 July 2008 33 ibid. 34 “‘Idrotten värd fredspris’”, SvD 17 December 2006

16 lawyers had intensified due to the Games, since the Chinese authorities wanted to “present an image of ‘stability’ and ‘harmony’ to the outside world”.35

The conclusion drawn by many human rights organisations is that the human rights record has not improved in China since the Beijing Games, neither with respect to civil, political nor labour rights.36 The International Trade Union Confederation, which has been campaigning for the IOC to take greater responsibility for workers’ rights in the supply chain for the last ten years, does not feel that the IOC is listening to its demands.37

No progress has been identified in the IOC’s own evaluation of the Games either. The only time that human rights are mentioned in the document is in relation to the criti- cism it has received: “To those who have criticised the IOC on human rights issues, one can argue that the Games have elevated international dialogue on such issues among governments, world leaders, politicians, NGOs and pressure groups.”38 In response to its hopes before the Games, this must be described as a recognition of its failure to strengthen human rights in China.

4.3.3 Respect for human rights and the selection of a host city Despite the Olympic Charter’s principles about peace and human dignity, the Olympic Movement does not have a public policy for human rights to describe the demands it places on the cities and countries that host the Olympic Games or on the companies that supply products and services to the Games. The Charter does not refer to any international standards for responsible and sustainable business, such as the UN Global Compact or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The only demands the IOC places on its hosts is that they must comply with the Charter and the other rules defined by the IOC’s Executive Board.39

The process of selecting a host city is split into two phases.40 First, the IOC checks whether the Applicant Cities meet the relevant criteria. Those who do become Can- didate Cities and they are then invited to continue in the process. During the first phase, Sochi received excellent scores with respect to adhering to the Charter, with between seven and nine out of a possible nine points. However, it was not possible to deduce how the different parts of the Charter were evaluated.41

35 “People’s Republic of China The Olympics countdown – broken promises”, Amnesty 29 July 2008 36 Freedom in the World 2013, Freedom House Report 2013 and “Letter to President Obama on Rights Reform in the Olympic Movement”, Human Rights Watch, article published on 1 October 2009 37 “About”, Play-fair.org, Fair Play? Human rights of workers in Olympic 2012 supplier factories 38 Final Report of the IOC Coordination Commission – Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008, IOC 2010 39 The Olympic Charter, Chapter 5, Rule 33 40 Documents from the various stages are collected on the IOC’s website under “Host City Election – Documents”. 41 XXII Olympic Winter Games in 2014 – Report by the IOC Candidature Acceptance Working Group to the IOC Executive board, IOC 2006

17 During the second phase of the selection process, there is a comprehensive evaluation of the Candidate Cities’ ability to host the Games. The evaluation of Sochi and the other two cities that had progressed to the second phase were presented to the IOC in 2006, when the debate about the impact of the Olympic Games on human rights in China was at its most intense. In spite of this and the fact that the human rights situation in Russia has been deteriorating for several years, there was no mention of the human rights situation in Russia or locally in Sochi in the report. There was no risk assessment that the Games could have on human rights either. However, the report on Sochi did regard it as positive that Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, had expressed his strong support for the Games.42

The routines have not changed. The bidding process for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games have just begun and the document describing the process leading up to the IOC’s decision states that the vision of the Games must be “aligned with the Olym- pic Movement’s vision and mission”.43 It says nothing about the Games having to promote respect for human rights. The only positive obligation that the host country must comply with is to guarantee respect for the Olympic Charter and to follow the IOC Code of Ethics. However, neither the Charter nor the Code of Ethics provides any guidance concerning human rights.44

4.3.4 Environmental demands and the selection of a host city What is clear on the other hand in the selection process of host cities, both prior to the Olympic Games in Sochi and later, is the Olympic Movement’s will to minimise the environmental impact of the Games. The environmental commenced after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.45 For example, the Charter states that the IOC should work “to promote sustainable development in sport and to require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly” and “to promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries”.46 In the late 1990s, the Olympic Movement developed its own Agenda 21, an action plan for sustainable development, and in autumn 2013, the 10th edition of the World Conference on Sport and the Envi- ronment took place in Sochi. There are also detailed questions about the environmental impact the Games can have, and how the cities intend to manage these, in the questionnaire that cities must complete as part of the bidding process.47 Although the IOC has received extensive critizism for failing to comply with its own environmental requirements, thanks to the action plan there is at least an agenda to discuss.

4.4 The SOC and human rights

When Swedwatch interviewed the SOC’s Chairman, Stefan Lindeberg, for the pur- poses of this report, we were given a very different perspective of the Olympic Move-

42 IOC 2014 Evaluation Commission Report, IOC 2007 43 2022 Candidature Acceptance Procedure, IOC 2013 44 IOC Code of Ethics, 2013 45 Described under “Sustainability” on the IOC’s website www.olympic.org/sustainability 46 Olympic Charter, Chapter 1, Rule 2:13 and 2.14 47 2022 Candidature Acceptance Procedure, IOK 2013

18 ment’s view of human rights than is detailed in the aforementioned documents.48 Lindeberg says that it is “unacceptable” that the Games lead to violations.

“Our fundamental platform is that the Olympics are a symbol to show that, even in a turbulent world, you can come together in peace with respect for every individual’s integrity. And to be able to manifest this dream. That is the whole idea of the Olym- pics, as a symbol for a more positive future.”

According to Stefan Lindeberg, the IOC has also evaluated the consequences of the Games in Beijing and improved resources to take these experiences forward.

“However, I am unable to talk in detail about what conclusions have been drawn and how exactly this has impacted the work in Sochi, as I have no information about this.”

In the IOC’s Final Report of the Beijing Games, cited above, there is no mention of any such evaluations or conclusions.

Stefan Lindeberg says that the SOC expects that the IOC will follow up on the Host City Contract that is signed once a city wins an Olympic bid. Swedwatch has been unable to find the Sochi contract, or indeed any other host city contracts, on the IOC’s website. However, the British organisation Games Monitor, which worked with the local impact of the Games prior to the 2012 London Olympic Games, has published the Host City Contract signed between London and the IOC.49 The contract says nothing about a host city’s responsibility to ensure that there are no human rights vio lations associated with the Games or any other references to human rights.

Stefan Lindeberg thinks that it would be positive if the IOC placed similar demands on the hosts concerning human rights as they do for the environment.

“I have assumed that there are corresponding evaluations of all aspects of an Olympic Games, to draw lessons and do a better job in the future, including everything from how to solve parking issues, to environmental work and the impact on human rights.”

When we pointed out that there were no publications about host cities’ responsibilities for human rights on the IOC’s website, Stefan Lindeberg answered as follows:

“The Games build on the fundamental values of human rights, and organisers must accept to follow these conditions. And the IOC then follows up on these. At least, that is what we have been told when we have asked questions about the past events, including the legislation and harassment of the LGBT community. We are told anyway that the IOC has reacted and raised these questions and received answers.”

Stefan Lindeberg believes that the IOC can only take responsibility for what happens during and around the Games, and in that respect the IOC and the Russian authorities have clarified that there must be no discrimination. He also thinks that the

48 Interview with Stefan Lindeberg conducted over the telephone on 19 November 2013 49 Host City Contract – Games of the XXX Olympiad in 2012 IOC 8 June 2005

19 demands on hosts’ respect for human rights should be made public and transparent, and that they should be part of the application process.

“Of course they should be. The demands made when an organiser signs a contract, from different perspectives; what situations they will guarantee technically, environ- mentally and socially. I don’t see any reasons to hide this. But it is important to see the difference between the IOC placing demands on what is related to the Games and not on the politics in a country in general.”

The question about how the sports movement should relate to human rights violations in the countries where it decides to allow its event to be hosted has caused a recurring debate in recent years. In relation to the debate about whether it was cor- rect to locate the 2014 IIHF World Championship in Belarus, the Chairman of the Swedish Ice Hockey Association Christer Englund said: “We never mix hockey and politics. We never take sides.”50 The problem with both Stefan Lindeberg’s and Chris- ter Englund’s arguments that sports associations should not take the politics in a particular country into consideration is that they cannot make demands on the political leaders in that country not using sport to promote the image of their politics and themselves.

Stefan Lindeberg does not think that there is any reason for sponsors to contact the IOC directly. If they are worried about what is happening in relation to the Games, they should turn to the SOC. He does not think that there is any reason for the SOC to join forces with others NOCs to exert pressure on the IOC to act more transparently. He is confident in the IOC’s actions.

The clear difference between the IOC’s demands on hosts – that lack any references to the international human rights conventions – and Stefan Lindeberg’s image about what values guide the Olympic Movement, are based on the fundamental principles outlined in the Olympic Charter.51

The problem is that even if the Charter states that the Olympic Movement seeks to promote peace and human dignity, it does not refer to any internationally recognised documents that define what this means. The Olympic Movement has also failed to define how the principles should be given strength in the contracts that the IOC signs with the host cities. It is thus impossible to place any demands on the hosts to comply with these principles. Compared to Nordea and Vattenfall, which have undertaken to follow both the UN Global Compact’s principles and the OECD Guidelines for Multi- national Enterprises, the Olympic Movement is lagging far behind in its ambitions to guarantee that its activities do not have an adverse impact on human rights.

50 Interviewed by Swedish Radio (P1 morning programme) on 27 March 2013, quoted in Ulf Bjereld’s article “Farligt förneka idrottens makt”, Expressen 10 December 2013 51 In a follow-up question asked sent via email about which documents should define that human rights are fundamental for the Olympic Movement, Stefan Lindeberg answered the Olympic Charter and the IOC’s Code of Ethics.

20 5. The SOC’s main sponsors

Swedwatch’s evaluation of the SOC’s three main sponsors, ATG, Nordea and Vatten- fall, has been performed in two stages. First, we went through each company’s policy on human rights in general and their own descriptions of their sponsoring activities. We then interviewed the companies about how they regard human rights violations in relation to the Olympic Games, and what they can do to minimise these.52

5.1 The companies’ links to the Olympic Games

When describing the actual purpose of sponsorships, all three companies highlight the desire to provide Swedish athletes with the best premises to perform well at the Olympic Games. They also hope that there will be secondary effects, such as creating good role models for young people and showing the importance of exercise and health. They also point out that they only sponsor the Swedish athletes through the SOC – they clearly state that they do not sponsor the IOC.

All three companies also explain that the sponsorships are described in contracts in which the SOC agrees to a number of services in return. Athletes who obtain funding, for example, may participate during corporate events focusing on employees’ health or at kick-off meetings. Companies may also use the collaboration when launching new products. Nordea is, for example, meeting parents of children who participate at the SOC’s “Olympic Days” events all over Sweden and investors can put their money into the bank’s “Olympiafond” investment fund and give part of their yield to the SOC. Vattenfall had a number of specific offers linked to the 2012 Olympic Games in London. During ATG’s annual “Olympiatravet” horse racing event, Swedish athletes take part in the winner’s circle and both the Olympic rings and the Olympic flame are used to create a good atmosphere at the competitions.

Even though the sponsorship money only goes to the SOC’s activities in Sweden, the companies are able to link their marketing and branding to the Olympic Games.

“This affects attitudes. That is to say how people perceive Vattenfall as a brand and their desire to become customers. But it’s also that the Olympic brand is itself one of the strongest brands in the world. We can associate ourselves with the Olympic brand through our sponsorship,” says Annika Bränning, Vattenfall’s International Sponsor- ing Manager.

So the Olympic Games are part of the companies’ value chains and the SOC acts as their business partner. Both the Olympic Games and SOC should therefore be part of the companies' human rights due diligence, as is expected of companies according to both the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Nordea and Vattenfall, as former and current state-owned companies, are also committed to follow the UN Global

52 The interviews with Nordea and Vattenfall were conducted on 5 November 2013. The interview with ATG was conducted on 12 November 2013.

21 Compact. It is clearly defined in the government's ownership policy that state-owned companies should be role models and be at the forefront of the work with respect to ethics, the environment, human rights, equality and diversity.53

In line with the international framework agreements for corporate responsibility, Nordea and Vattenfall have publicised their policies on corporate responsibility. Nordea evaluates its investment funds every six months to identify companies that break against international norms, also including human rights. Vattenfall takes responsibility to prevent and limit its impact on societies and human beings along the entire value chain.54 According to Vattenfall’s Code of Conduct for Suppliers, the latter are also expected to apply the same principles as Vattenfall in their business activities, which also requires companies to support and protect human rights.55

ATG does not have a policy for human rights, and it has not made any public commit- ments to follow the international regulatory framework for corporate responsibility. ATG instead focuses on taking responsibility for its players and gambling problems. ATG is not state-owned – it is jointly owned by Svensk Travsport and Svensk Galopp. However, the company is partly controlled by the state since six of the company’s eleven board members, including the chairman, are appointed by the government.56

The three companies’ guidelines for sponsorships per se are, however, rather more unclear. None of the companies say that they have used their own principles on corporate responsibility to analyse the effects their sponsorships have on human rights – neither in connection to Beijing 2008 nor Sochi 2014. Moreover, they do not have a strategy to use their connection to the Olympic Movement to prevent adverse impacts of the Games.

5.2 Companies’ views on human rights violations associated with the Olympic Games in Sochi

When Swedwatch recounted the contents of Human Rights Watch’s reports about human rights violations in general in Russia and locally in relation to the preparations for the Olympic Games in Sochi (see above), the three companies took exception to what is happening.

“Of course it is problematic if the Games are used to build a repressive regime,” says Helena Östman, Head of Communications at Nordea.

53 The government’s ownership policy and guidelines for companies and corporate ownership, Regeringskansliet (Government Offices of Sweden) 2012 54 “Samhällsansvar” (Social Responsibility) nordea.se and “Vårt ansvar – Vattenfalls hållbarhetsarbete” (Our responsibility – Vattenfall’s sustainability work) vattenfall.se 55 Vattenfalls uppförandekod för leverantörer (Vattenfall’s Code of Conduct for Suppliers), Vattenfall 2013 56 Aktiebolaget Trav och Galopp Annual Report 2012

22 5.2.1 Nordea: “Our view of Swedish sports successes has been too one-sided” During a discussion about the extent to which Nordea can influence the human rights problems associated with the Games, it becomes clear that the IOC’s ownership of the question is the biggest problem.

“If you look at how the location of the Games is chosen, it is impossible for an individual sponsor or an individual country to have any influence,” says Tomas Björklund, Sponsoring and Event Director at Nordea.

He also says that Nordea has addressed the human rights issues with the SOC, but that it is not thought to have had any effect.

In the last few decades, the IOC has placed increasing demands on hosts of the Olympic Games with respect to their environmental impact. When Swedwatch asked whether the IOC should have a similar policy and a method to minimise the risks of human rights violations associated with the Games, Nordea stated that it was in favour of this idea.

“Yes, I think that it would be suitable to have this. We are constantly reviewing our principles for investments, and now also for loans, and I think that growing demands are being placed on companies in this regard. There will be increasing demands concerning sports sponsorships and other partnerships,” says Helena Östman.

Tomas Björklund thinks that it is “odd” that the IOC does not have a human rights policy considering that it has an environmental one. Yet he is also critical of his own company’s activities in this regard.

“Whatever affects our own business – investment funds and things like that – we look at in great detail. And it is very possible that our view of the Swedish market and Swedish sporting successes has been a little too one-sided.”

Tomas Björklund is also open to the idea of cooperating with other sponsors to engage in a discussion with the Olympic Movement and the human rights issues associated with the Olympic Games.

“I am not averse to the idea of discussing this with the other main sponsors. It feels like we need to have a joint strategy that explains why we are doing this, about how we are thinking and so on. That’s not something that we are against at all.”

He also points out that the attention surrounding the Olympic Games can have an adverse impact on the Nordea brand.

Nordea’s contract with the SOC also covers the Olympic Games in Rio in 2016. How- ever, according to Tomas Björklund, there is a possibility for a review after Sochi. That would mean that there is a chance to discuss these issues if Nordea is to prolong its partnership.

23 Two Turkish construction workers, Ibrahim and Osman, are building a restaurant on one of the peaks of the Caucasus Mountains in preparation for the Olympic Games being held in Sochi, 2320 metres above sea level. PHOTO: ANDERS LINDH

5.2.2 Vattenfall: “Maybe we can make clearer demands” When Swedwatch asked Vattenfall if it might be possible to include work on human rights in the sponsorship contracts with the SOC, Annika Bränning, Vattenfall’s Inter- national Sponsoring Manager, said that she was not against the idea.

“That’s something we can think about adding. In some respects it’s already included as part of our Code of Conduct. It already says in our contract that we follow it, and that all of our partners work accordingly. They must follow our guidelines.”

Vattenfall’s Code of Conduct for Suppliers57 stipulates that the company supports the ten principles of the UN Global Compact and that it seeks to follow these throughout the value chain. The company therefore asks suppliers to work in the same way. How- ever, Vattenfall does not engage in any dialogue with the IOC.

57 Vi definieras av våra handlingar – Det är så här vi arbetar (lit. We are defined by our actions – This is how we work), Vattenfall 2012

24 “We are not their sponsors. We speak to the SOC’s Chairman, Stefan Lindeberg,” says Annika Bränning.

Vattenfall is also a main sponsor of the NOCs in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as the International Ski Federation, which is one of the international sports federations included in the Olympic Movement. It is hoped that the relations with the NOCs will lead to influence over the IOC. Annika Bränning points to the criteria used to select countries as a basis for future discussions with the SOC.

“The only thing we can do is to influence those we have a contract with and perhaps we can do better here and make clearer demands. It could actually be pretty exciting.”

It is unclear what demands might be included in such a discussion.

“It is obvious that all sponsors want the Games to carry on being something positive. Otherwise there is no point supporting them at all. So it’s very important from everyone’s perspective,” says Annika Bränning.

In response to the question about whether Vattenfall could create a direct channel of communication with the IOC, she states that although there is not one at present, there is certainly potential for this with respect to certain issues.

Vattenfall’s contract with the SOC covers the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. The respect for human rights at the Olympic Games could then be discussed during the negotiations about a new deal.

“Yes, I think so. You have to do an evaluation and see how things have been and what can be better and how we want the partnership to be,” says Annika Bränning.

Swedwatch highlights that the IOC has clear environmental criteria, but none for human rights when selecting host cities, and it asked whether Vattenfall could imagine pushing this issue during such a discussion. Annika Bränning’s answer is clear. “Absolutely,” she says.

5.2.3 ATG: “It’s unfortunate that the IOC does not take these issues seriously” ATG was also a main sponsor of the SOC during the Olympic Games in Beijing. How- ever, Maria Guggenberger, Manager of the Concepts Division at ATG, is critical of the IOC.

“It’s unfortunate that the IOC does not take these issues seriously. I want the IOC to take a clearer position on the human rights issue.”

ATG’s sponsorship contract with the SOC expires in December 2014. It has not been decided whether the contract will be extended. Maria Guggenberger thinks that it would be interesting for ATG to hold a discussion about how the Olympic Games deal with human rights violations as part of the negotiations for a new contract.

25 “I think that it’s a relevant part of the sponsorship deal. I understand that the SOC does not choose where the Games are held. But even though we are just sponsors of the SOC, it is important for us and our trustworthiness to be able to fully stand behind our sponsorship,” says Maria Guggenberger.

Another problem concerns the use of the Games for political motives by the host nation.

“The IOC has said that it does not mix politics and sport, but then the message should be that the places where the Games are to be held are not given the chance to drive the communication about sports, if they mix sport and politics.”

This is a question that the SOC should raise with the IOC according to Maria Guggen- berger, pinpointing Vladimir Putin’s use of the Olympic Games to promote the image of the Russian government.

In response to the question about whether the IOC should place demands on human rights in the same way that it places demands concerning the environment, Maria Guggenberger says:

“The question is certainly relevant.”58

Maria Guggenberger says that the company is not launching any advertising cam- paigns in relation to the Olympic Games in Sochi. The company’s only link to the Games is through the “Olympiatravet” horse racing event.

5.2.4 The SOC’s other sponsors: “Yes. Sponsors have a responsibility.” In addition to the three main sponsors, the Swedish Olympic Committee also lists thirteen additional sponsors on its website. All have been sent the same questionnaire, with yes-no questions. Adecco, Arlanda Airport/Swedavia, Atos, Jet Set Sport and Viasat have chosen not to answer the questions at all.59 Samsung and ÅF did not complete the questionnaire, but sent their answers to us separately. Cloetta and Uni- lever have ended their partnership with the SOC. Arla, Apollo, H&M and Volvo completed the questionnaire. The questions and answers are enclosed in the report (see Appendix 1).

The four companies that answered, all have human rights policies, and Apollo, H&M and Volvo write that these are part of their contracts with the SOC. Arla’s policy is not included in the contract with the SOC, but the company states that it will be reviewing its sponsorship contract.

All four companies answer “yes” to the question about whether the Olympic Move- ment has a responsibility with respect to human rights violations associated with

58 The answer to this question was sent to Swedwatch by email on 26 November 2013. 59 The questionnaire was sent to them on 14 November 2013, with a reminder on 26 November. Swedwatch has even received confirmation from three companies that they received the questionnaire and they were informed that the final day to complete it was 4 December. On 6 December we closed the data collection period.

26 the Olympic Games. They also say that they could imagine placing demands in their sponsorship contracts concerning the Movement’s work on human rights, that their willingness to sponsor the Movement would be strengthened if the work on human rights was expanded, and that the Movement should have a programme to manage the impact that the Games have on human rights.

Arla, H&M and Volvo also answer “yes” in response to the question whether sponsors can influence the Olympic Movement to minimise the risk for human rights violations prior to future Olympic Games.

6. Conclusions

The report pinpoints several problems with respect to the Olympic Movement and its sponsors’ responsibilities concerning human rights and the Olympic Games.

The most striking finding is how unproblematically the representatives of the Olym- pic Movement speak about human rights, simply pointing to the fundamental principles in the Olympic Charter. It is as though the Charter includes an entire declaration on human rights.

However, the Olympic Movement’s principles contain no more than a few paragraphs about harmonious development, human dignity and renunciation of discrimination. The principles are not tied to any human rights conventions and only use a few fundamental human rights concepts. There is no mention of the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of religion, political freedom, the right to secu- rity, the right to integrity, the right to fair working conditions or the right to join a trade union. For the Olympic Movement to be a trustworthy power for human rights, it must amend its core documents to say what it says it wants to be.

The only clear demand the principles place on the members of the Olympic Move- ment is that they may not discriminate against any person or country on the grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise. However, to counteract the discrimination of LGBT persons, the freedoms of expression, assembly and organisation are also necessary. The new Russian law that bans propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations makes this work impossible, as does the Russian authorities’ oppression of LGBT activists. In the IOC’s statements about this legislation and during the interview with the SOC’s Chairman Stefan Lindeberg, it also became clear that the Olym- pic Movement’s stance on discrimination does not apply to the hosts of the Games at large, only during the Olympic Games.

The absence of a human rights policy means that it is hard for the Olympic Movement to act as a positive force in the host countries. It will also be hard to address human rights violations associated with the Games in cities such as Sochi. The IOC cannot make clear demands on hosts prior to the Games, or evaluate the effects of the Games afterwards. The hosts do not know what is expected of them either.

27 For governments such as that of the Russian Federation, which has for several years been responsible for a deterioration of human rights with respect to both legislation and society in general, the Olympic Games mean that they can host one of the world’s most prestigious events, without having to take any actions to improve the human rights situation in their country.

Not addressing this issue, in spite of the debate surrounding the 2008 Beijing Olym- pics and now Sochi, and instead continuing with the selection of the host city for 2022 as though nothing had happened, shows that the IOC does not take human rights seriously.

However, one positive message in the report is that Stefan Lindeberg says that the IOC should make public demands concerning human rights in host cities, which the IOC does not do today.

The fact that the Olympic Movement is not a democratic organisation in which members appoint those who govern it, makes it hard for members who want to promote human rights to work towards change. The formal paths are closed. The NOCs cannot appoint IOC members and they are not permitted to be part of the selection process for host cities. Nevertheless, they could use the power from the Olympic Movement’s sponsors to put pressure on the IOC to openly work for human rights.

A problem along the way appears as part of the evaluation of the SOC’s three main sponsors. Neither Nordea nor Vattenfall use the same routines to minimise the risk of human rights violations in sponsorship activities as in other activities. ATG does not have any human rights policy at all.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Global Compact and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) all state that a central part of a company’s responsibility involves minimising the risk of an adverse impact on human rights throughout its value chain. According to the UNGP, companies also have a responsibility to seek influence if this is deemed possible.

However, during the interviews it became clear that none of the sponsor companies’ representatives spontaneously regarded the Olympic Games as being a part of their value chains, and thus their responsibility. Even though the sponsors use the Olympic Movement’s brand to strengthen their own brands, they all said that they only sponsor the SOC. None of them said that they had tried to influence the Olympic Move- ment to take more responsibility for human rights, even if all three said that they had raised the issue with the SOC. At first, they did not see any way of influencing the IOC in this regard or with respect to the selection of host cities.

Later in the interviews though, they stated that it was a problem for them that their brands were associated with the Olympic Games if they resulted in human rights violations. They also expressed their desire to find ways in which to have a positive impact. Nordea discussed they idea of creating a joint strategy with the other sponsors, and all three said that future negotiations about sponsorships with the SOC should include a human rights perspective.

28 So it is certainly possible for sponsors and those members of the Swedish sports movement who wish to promote human rights protection, to seek influence. Influence also increases if people join together. A clear goal for the work could be for the IOC to develop a strategy and method for human rights that builds on its own experiences of working with environmental protection in recent decades. Such a strategy also requires a public human rights policy that is anchored in the UN’s core human rights conventions. The policy should then be integrated into contracts with Olympic hosts, and with those who supply the Games with goods and services.

If the Olympic Movement does not want to introduce such a process, the sponsors should establish whether their sponsorships comply with their own human rights policies.

7. Recommendations

To the Swedish Olympic Committee and the Swedish members of the International Sports Federations:

• Work to supplement the Olympic Charter with a human rights policy that refers to all the UN’s basic human rights conventions. • Work to ensure that the IOC places demands based on the human rights policy on those cities that seek to become Olympic host cities. • Work to ensure that the IOC becomes a member of the UN Global Compact and start working with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. • Work to ensure that the Olympic Games have public and measurable goals to provide a positive contribution concerning the respect of human rights in the host city and the host country.

To the Swedish members in the IOC, Gunilla Lindberg and Stefan Holm:

• Volunteer to become spokespersons at the IOC for the work on promoting the Olympic Movement’s work on human rights. • Place demands on the cities that want to organise the Winter Olympic Games in 2022 to have a clear strategy to maximise the Games’ positive impact on human rights.

29 To the Olympic Movement’s Swedish sponsors:

• Use your company’s human rights policy for the sponsorship partnerships with the Olympic Movement as well, and evaluate the human rights impact of the Games. • Use the sponsorship contracts with the SOC, other National Olympic Committees and International Sports Federations to influence the Olympic Movement to take greater responsibility for the human rights impact of the Games. • Bring together the Olympic Movement’s sponsors in a network to influence the Movement to take greater responsibility for the human rights impact of the Games. • Share your knowledge and experiences about how the international regulatory frameworks for companies and human rights contribute to minimising the risk for human rights violations in your organisations.

To the City of Stockholm and the Swedish Government:

• Make clear to the IOC that the City of Stockholm and the Swedish Government are not interested in hosting the Olympic Games until the Olympic Movement has a strategy for minimising the risk of the Games having an adverse impact on human rights.

References

Reports and articles

Aktiebolaget Trav och Galopp Annual Report 2012 www.atg.se/#/department.atg.imported.2.784/, downloaded on 12 December 2013 Amnesty International “Putin: Protect Freedom of Expression”, article published on 13 August 2013 www.amnesty.org/en/ appeals-for-action/sochi Amnesty International “Russia: A year on, Putin’s ‘foreign agents law’ choking freedom”, article published on 11 November 2013 www.amnesty.org/en/news/russia-year-putin-s-foreign-agents-law-choking- freedom-2013-11-20 Amnesty International “Russia: Behind the Smokescreen of Olympic Celebrations: Key Human Rights Concerns in the Russian Federation”, article published on 20 November 20131120 amnesty.org/en/ library/asset/ EUR46/051/2013/en/e94420eb-73a9-4349-8bf5-bd5a999fbbdc/eur460512013en. html Amnesty International “Russia’s anti-gay ‘propaganda law’ assault on freedom of expression”, press release published on 25 January 2013, www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/russia-s-anti- gay- propaganda-law-assault-freedom-expression-2013-01-25 Amnesty International “Russian Federation” Amnesty Annual Report 2013, 2013 www.amnesty.org/en/ region/russia/report-2013 downloaded on 12 December 2013 Amnesty International “Will China’s government uphold the Olympic ideal?”, The Wire, September 2005 Vol. 35. No. 08 www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/NWS21/008/2005/en/00d650f7-d4b4-11dd- 8a23-d58a49c0d652/nws210082005en.pdf, downloaded on 9 December 2013

30 Amnesty International China: The Olympics Countdown, various reports from 2005 – 2008, www.amnesty.org, downloaded on 9 December 2013 Amnesty International People’s Republic of China The Olympics countdown – broken promises, rapport 20080729 www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/089/2008/en, downloaded on 9 December 2013 AP “Russia defends anti-gay law in letter to IOC”, article published on 22 August 2013, news.yahoo.com/ russia-defends- anti-gay-law-letter-ioc-105223113.html BBC “Russian news agency RIA Novosti closed down”, 9 December 2013, www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- europe-25299116 BBC “Gay parades banned in Moscow for 100 years”, article published on 17 August 2012, www.bbc. co.uk/news/world- europe-19293465 Bjereld, Ulf “Farligt förneka idrottens makt”, article published in Expressen on 10 December 2013, www. expressen.se/debatt/ farligt-forneka-idrottens-makt/ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, Resolution 1948 (2013). assembly.coe.int/ASP/XRef/X2H- DW-XSL. asp?fileid=20010&lang=en Expressen “Kravet inför OS – så ska protester stoppas”, article published on 10 December 2013, www. expressen.se/sport/kravet- infor-os--sa-ska-protester-stoppas/ Freedom House “Russia” Freedom in the World 2013 freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2013/ russia Freedom House Freedom in the World, Country Ratings and Status 1973-2013, spread sheet 2013. freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world, downloaded 26 November 2013 Human Rights Campaign “LGBT Rally in Russia Ends in Violence”, article published on 15 October 2013 www.hrc.org/blog/ entry/lgbt-rally-in-russia-ends-in-violence Human Rights Watch “Russia: Reject Discriminatory Bill”, article published on 24 June 2013, www.hrw.org/node/116658 Human Rights Watch “Russia: Silencing Activists, Journalists ahead of Sochi Games”, article published on 7 August 2013, www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/07/russia-silencing-activists-journalists-ahead- sochi-games Human Rights Watch Race to the Bottom - Exploitation of Migrant Workers Ahead of Russia’s 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Report 2013, www.hrw.org/reports/2013/02/06/race-bottom-0, downloaded on 26 November 2013 Human Rights Watch Russia: Silencing Activists, Journalists ahead of Sochi Games, article published on 7 August 2013, www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/07/russia-silencing-activists-journalists-ahead-sochi- games Human Rights Watch Russia’s Olympic Abuses, various reports from 2013 www.hrw.org/russias-olympian- abuses Human Rights Watch, “Letter to President Obama on Rights Reform in the Olympic Movement”, article published on 1 October 2009 www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/02/letter-president-obama-rights- reform-olympic- movement, downloaded on 27 November 2013 ILGA Europe, Rainbow Europe 2013, report 2013 www.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/reports_ and_other_materials/rainbow_europewww.olympic.org/news/ioc-statement/207922, downloaded on 26 November 2013 IOC “IOC Statement”, press release published on 22 August 2013, www.olympic.org/news/ioc-statement/207922 IOC “Statement on recent Russian legislation”, press release published on 31 July 2013, www.olympic. org/news/ioc- statement-on-recent-russian-legislation/206969, downloaded on 12 December 2013 IOC 2022 Candidature Acceptance Procedure, 2013 www.olympic.org/Documents/Host_city_ elections/2022_Candidature_Acceptance_Procedure.pdf IOC Ethics, 2013 www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Ethics/code-ethique-interactif_ en_2013.pdf IOC Final Report of the IOC Coordination Commission – Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008, rapport 2010 www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/Br-Beijing-ENG-web.pdf, downloaded on 9 December 2013 IOC Host City Contract – Games of the XXX Olympiad in 2012, IOC 20050608 www.gamesmonitor.org. uk/files/Host%20City%20Contract.pdf, downloaded on 25 November 2013 IOC IOC 2014 Evaluation Commission Report, report 2007 www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/ en_report_1187.pdf

31 IOC XXII Olympic Winter Games in 2014 – Report by the IOC Candidature Acceptance Working Group to the IOC Executive board, report 2006 www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_ report_1073.pdf IOC, Olympic Charter, 2013 www.olympic.org/documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf, downloaded on 9 December 2013 Nordea “Samarbetet utökas med Sveriges Olympiska Kommitté”, press release published on 4 October 2013, newsroom.nordea.com/sv/2013/10/04/nordea-utokar-samarbetet-med-sveriges-olympiska- kommitte/ Regeringskansliet (Government Offices of Sweden) FN:s vägledande principer för företag och mänskliga rättigheter www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17198/a/209082, downloaded on 12 December 2013 Regeringskansliet (Government Offices of Sweden) Hållbart företagande – Plattform för svenskt agerande, 2013 Regeringskansliet (Government Offices of Sweden) Statens ägarpolicy och riktlinjer för företag med statligt ägande 2012www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15683/a/197214, downloaded on 12 December 2013 Reuters “Putin dissolves state news agency, tightens grip on Russia media”, article published 20131209 www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/us-russia-media-idUSBRE9B80I120131209 Riksidrottsförbundets verksamhetsberattelse 2012 (Swedish Sports Confederation’s Annual Report 2012), www.rf.se/ImageVaultFiles/id_29189/cf_394/ Verksamhetsberattelsen2012.PDF, downloaded on 9 December 2013 Rossijska Gazeta “Федеральный закон Российской Федерации от 29 июня 2013 г. N 135-ФЗ г. Москва” 20130629 www.rg.ru/2013/06/30/deti-site-dok.html, downloaded on 12 December 2013 Russian LGBT Network, “Reason for Action”, an open letter to representatives of the G20 countries at the St Petersburg Summit in September 2013. Socarides, Richard “At the Olympics, a rainbow on every Coke can?, The New Yorker 28 October 2013 www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/10/at-the-olympics-a-rainbow-on-every-coke-can. html SponsorWorld “SOK dublar sponsorintakterna”, article published on 11 April 2013 www.sponsorworld. com/default.asp?pI d=801&modVID=102&modID=2633 SvD “‘Idrotten vard fredspris’”, article published on 17 December 2006 www.svd.se/sport/idrotten-vard- fredspris_379548.svd Swedwatch Platinautvinning med risker – Vilket ansvar har svenska företag i Sydafrika, Report #64, 2013 Vattenfall “Vattenfall sponsrar framtida olympier”, press release 7 March 2012, news.cision.com/se/ vattenfall/r/vattenfall-sponsrar-framtida-olympier,c9228763 Vattenfall Vattenfalls uppförandekod för leverantörer, 2013, corporate.vattenfall.se/sv/uppforandekod- for-leverantorer.htm, downloaded on 27 November 2013 Vattenfall Vi definieras av våra handingar – Det ar så här vi arbetar, 2012 corporate.vattenfall.se/ Global/sverige/bolagsstyrning/uppforandekod.pdf, downloaded on 12 December 2013

Websites

IOC “Host City Election – Documents” www.olympic.org/host-city-elections/documents-reports-studies- publications, downloaded on 25 November 2013 IOC “IOC Members” www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/the-ioc-institution/ioc-members-list/, downloaded on 11 December 2013 IOC “Mrs Gunilla Lindberg” www.olympic.org/mrs-gunilla-lindberg, downloaded on 9 December 2013 IOC “Sustainability” www.olympic.org/sustainability, downloaded on 9 December 2013 IOC “The Olympic Movement – Introduction”, www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/governance/ introduc- tionold/, downloaded on 9 December 2013 IOC “The Organisation” www.olympic.org/about-ioc-institution?tab=members, downloaded on 9 December 2013 Nordea “Samhällsansvar” www.nordea.com/Om%2bNordea/Samh%C3%A4llsansvar/54122. html?lnkID=editorial-spot_hallbar-utveckling_27-05-2013, downloaded on 9 December 2013 Olympiatravet.se “Olympier” www.olympiatravet.se/olympier/, downloaded on 12 December 2013 Organizing Committee Sochi 2014 “IOC Coordination commission for Sochi 2014” www.sochi2014.com/ en/team/ioc/, downloaded on 9 December 2013

32 Play-fair.org “About”, play-fair.org/about, downloaded on 13 December 2013 SOK “Internationellt arbete” www.sok.se/omsok/internationelltarbete.4.3e7f4ba7140fff9e8b3a7a.html, downloaded on 22 November 2013 Vattenfall Vårt ansvar – Vattenfalls hållbarhetsarbete” corporate.vattenfall.se/sv/vart-hallbarhetsarbete. htm, downloaded on 9 December 2013

Interviews

ATG 12 November 2013, Maria Guggenberger, Manager of the Concepts Division and Elisabeth Normelli, Producer at the Concepts Division Nordea 5 November 2013, Tomas Björklund, Sponsoring and Event Director and Helena Östman, Head of Communications Swedish Olympic Committee 19 November 2013, Stefan Lindeberg, Chairman Vattenfall 5 November 2013, Annika Bränning, International Sponsoring Manager and Carina Netterlind, Press Secretary.

33 Appendix 1: Questionnaire for the Swedish sponsors

(Adecco, Arlanda 1. Do you believe that the 2. Does your company have a 3. Can you as sponsors influence 4. Would it be possible to make 5. If the Olympic Movement increased 6. Should the Olympic Movement Airport/Swedavia, Olympic Movement has a human rights policy? If so, do the Olympic Movement to mini demands in the sponsorship contract its efforts on human rights in the have a programme to manage the Atos, Jet Set Sport responsibility concerning you use it in your sponsorship mise the risk of human rights concerning the Olympic Movement’s countries that host the Games, would human rights impact of the Games? and Viasat have not human rights violations associ contracts? violations at the upcoming work on human rights? this increase your willingness to spon responded.) ated with the Olympic Games? Olympic Games? If so, please sor the Movement? provide examples of how. VOLVO PERSON Yes. We believe that all organi- Yes. Our Code of Conduct is Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. BILAR SVERIGE sations and companies have based on the obligations out- Bjarne Darwall, PR the opportunity to influence lined in a number of conven- and Communication and improve people’s funda- tions concerning human rights, Manager mental human rights should such as the Global Compact, take responsibility to do so. the ILO’s conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ARLA Yes. Yes. No, it is not included in our Yes. To some extent. We only Yes. We could place demands on the Yes. It is currently not relevant for us to Yes. Fredrik Larm, sponsorship contract with the have contracts with the SOC, SOC, since it is this organisation we increase our sponsorship outside the Sponsoring & Event Swedish Olympic Committee, not the IOC. have collaborated with, but not the Swedish Olympic Committee, which is Manager the SOC. We continuously seek Olympic Movement at large. We have the organisation we have a contract for all our suppliers to have contracts with the SOC. with. signed our Code of Conduct for Suppliers. We are also going to review our sponsorship contracts. APOLLO Yes. Our view of the Olympic Yes, our human rights policy I am not sure what you mean Yes. The Olympic Movement perceives Yes. Yes. Kajsa Moström, Movement is based on the is part of our Code of Conduct here. Violations that occur that it works to support human rights. Communication view they have of themselves. that is included in the contracts where? This feels like quite a Manager To feel welcome and for every- we sign. broad question. one to be able to participate. In ancient times, the Olympic Games served as a cultural link between people. They travelled from near and far to Olympia to see the Games. That is the idea of the Olympic Movement even today, to achieve greater understanding between people and reduce conflicts in the world through such exchanges. H&M Yes. H&M supports human Yes. We apply all our policies in Yes. H&M does not sponsor Yes. H&M supports the Swedish Olym- Yes. We do not sponsor the Olym- Yes. We believe that it is extremely Camilla Emilsson rights and diversity and these all our business relations. the Olympic Movement. H&M pic Committee and it shares the same pic Movement, but it is of course important that human rights are also Falk, Media are included in our policy. We collaborates with and sponsors position, which can put pressure on important that it addresses questions addressed. Relations assume that everyone’s per- the Swedish Olympic Commit- the global Olympic committee. concerning human rights in a broader sonal integrity and safety will be tee and the Swedish Paralympic sense. guaranteed during the Olympic Committee. We assume, via Games in Sochi via the demands the demands that the IOC has that the IOC has placed on the placed on the Russian organis- Russian organisers. ers, that everyone’s personal integrity and safety will be guaranteed during the Olympic Games in Sochi. ÅF ÅF has an agreement with the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in Sweden, Norway, Finland SAMSUNG Samsung has decided not to respond to the questionnaire that has been sent out. Instead, we would Nyamko Sabuni, and Switzerland. So far, cooperation has focused on environmental questions where the need Malin Rönnmark, like to refer to our general position on the questions that concern human rights issues. As sponsors Vice President for knowledge has been greatest for these particular committees. It is certainly very possible to Communication of the Olympic Games, we believe in the spirit of the Games and its ability to unite the world in a Sustainability, conduct a dialogue with our national partners on human rights. Our policy builds on the UN Global Manager positive and inspiring way. We support the Olympic Movement and hope that as many people as ÅF AB Compact and the ten principles. possible will be able to take part in the Olympic Games. We collaborate with the IOC on this important issue and support their position that sport is a human right and that the Olympic Games should be open for all spectators, athletes, officials, the media and other stakeholders regardless of ethnic- ity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. You can find more information here: www.olympic.org/ news/ioc-statement-on-recent-russian-legislation/206969.

34 (Adecco, Arlanda 1. Do you believe that the 2. Does your company have a 3. Can you as sponsors influence 4. Would it be possible to make 5. If the Olympic Movement increased 6. Should the Olympic Movement Airport/Swedavia, Olympic Movement has a human rights policy? If so, do the Olympic Movement to mini demands in the sponsorship contract its efforts on human rights in the have a programme to manage the Atos, Jet Set Sport responsibility concerning you use it in your sponsorship mise the risk of human rights concerning the Olympic Movement’s countries that host the Games, would human rights impact of the Games? and Viasat have not human rights violations associ contracts? violations at the upcoming work on human rights? this increase your willingness to spon responded.) ated with the Olympic Games? Olympic Games? If so, please sor the Movement? provide examples of how. VOLVO PERSON Yes. We believe that all organi- Yes. Our Code of Conduct is Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. BILAR SVERIGE sations and companies have based on the obligations out- Bjarne Darwall, PR the opportunity to influence lined in a number of conven- and Communication and improve people’s funda- tions concerning human rights, Manager mental human rights should such as the Global Compact, take responsibility to do so. the ILO’s conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ARLA Yes. Yes. No, it is not included in our Yes. To some extent. We only Yes. We could place demands on the Yes. It is currently not relevant for us to Yes. Fredrik Larm, sponsorship contract with the have contracts with the SOC, SOC, since it is this organisation we increase our sponsorship outside the Sponsoring & Event Swedish Olympic Committee, not the IOC. have collaborated with, but not the Swedish Olympic Committee, which is Manager the SOC. We continuously seek Olympic Movement at large. We have the organisation we have a contract for all our suppliers to have contracts with the SOC. with. signed our Code of Conduct for Suppliers. We are also going to review our sponsorship contracts. APOLLO Yes. Our view of the Olympic Yes, our human rights policy I am not sure what you mean Yes. The Olympic Movement perceives Yes. Yes. Kajsa Moström, Movement is based on the is part of our Code of Conduct here. Violations that occur that it works to support human rights. Communication view they have of themselves. that is included in the contracts where? This feels like quite a Manager To feel welcome and for every- we sign. broad question. one to be able to participate. In ancient times, the Olympic Games served as a cultural link between people. They travelled from near and far to Olympia to see the Games. That is the idea of the Olympic Movement even today, to achieve greater understanding between people and reduce conflicts in the world through such exchanges. H&M Yes. H&M supports human Yes. We apply all our policies in Yes. H&M does not sponsor Yes. H&M supports the Swedish Olym- Yes. We do not sponsor the Olym- Yes. We believe that it is extremely Camilla Emilsson rights and diversity and these all our business relations. the Olympic Movement. H&M pic Committee and it shares the same pic Movement, but it is of course important that human rights are also Falk, Media are included in our policy. We collaborates with and sponsors position, which can put pressure on important that it addresses questions addressed. Relations assume that everyone’s per- the Swedish Olympic Commit- the global Olympic committee. concerning human rights in a broader sonal integrity and safety will be tee and the Swedish Paralympic sense. guaranteed during the Olympic Committee. We assume, via Games in Sochi via the demands the demands that the IOC has that the IOC has placed on the placed on the Russian organis- Russian organisers. ers, that everyone’s personal integrity and safety will be guaranteed during the Olympic Games in Sochi. ÅF ÅF has an agreement with the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in Sweden, Norway, Finland SAMSUNG Samsung has decided not to respond to the questionnaire that has been sent out. Instead, we would Nyamko Sabuni, and Switzerland. So far, cooperation has focused on environmental questions where the need Malin Rönnmark, like to refer to our general position on the questions that concern human rights issues. As sponsors Vice President for knowledge has been greatest for these particular committees. It is certainly very possible to Communication of the Olympic Games, we believe in the spirit of the Games and its ability to unite the world in a Sustainability, conduct a dialogue with our national partners on human rights. Our policy builds on the UN Global Manager positive and inspiring way. We support the Olympic Movement and hope that as many people as ÅF AB Compact and the ten principles. possible will be able to take part in the Olympic Games. We collaborate with the IOC on this important issue and support their position that sport is a human right and that the Olympic Games should be open for all spectators, athletes, officials, the media and other stakeholders regardless of ethnic- ity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. You can find more information here: www.olympic.org/ news/ioc-statement-on-recent-russian-legislation/206969.

35 Reports published by Swedwatch

67. Vinets väg från druva till glas – en granskning av System- 30. Vägar till ett bättre arbetsliv (2009) bolagets hållbarhetsarbete (2013) 29. Oädel handel: En rapport om import 66. Play fair – en kampanj för schyssta sportkläder (2013) av tropiskt trä (2009) 65. Fruktade kemikalier på costa ricas plantager – en gransk- 28. Out of Control: E-waste trade flows from the ning av importerad ananas och mango (2013) EU to developing countries (2009) 64. Platinautvinning med risker – Vilket ansvar har svenska 27. En brännande fråga: Hur hållbar är den etanol som företag i Sydafrika? (2013) importeras till Sverige? (2009) 63. Blåbärssverige – En resa bland bärplockare, brutna 26. En exkluderande resa: En granskning av turismens löften och framtidsdrömmar (2013) effekter i Thailand och Brasilien (2008) 62. Global expectations on Indian operations (2013) 25. Ett kaffe som märks: Vilka effekter har certifieringar 61. Starkt fokus på kvinnors rättigheter (2013) för kaffeodlare? (2008) 60. Blåbärsbranschen tar krafttag för bättre villkor i skogen 24. Illegal Ground: Assa Abloy’s business in occupied (2013) Palestinian territory (2008) 59. Arbetsvillkor i blåbärsskogen (2013) 23. Den blinda klädimporten: Miljöeffekter från 58. Skattjakten – Var skattar företag med verksamhet i produktionen av kläder (2008) utvecklingsländer? (2013) 22. Silenced to Deliver: Mobile phone manufacturing 57. Investering utan insyn (2013) in China and the Philippines (2008) 56. Förädlat CSR-arbete (2013) 21. Utveckling på vems villkor? Skanskas verksamhet 55. Cut and Run (2013) i ecuadorianska Amazonas (2008) 54. Utan mark, utan makt (2013) 20. Risky Business. The Lundin Group’s involvement in the 53. Flera steg mot bättre bransch (2012) Tenke Fungurume Mining project in the DRC (2008) 52. Vi konsumerar, de kompenserar (2012) 19. Improving Working Conditions at Chinese Natural Stone 51. Mors lilla Olle III (2012) Companies (2008) 50. Från noll koll till full kontroll? – en ny granskning av Clas 18. Powering the Mobile World. Cobalt production for Ohlson, Jula, Rusta och Biltema i Kina (2012) batteries in the DR Congo and Zambia (2007) 49. A lot of gold a lot of trouble – A study of humanitarian 17. Svenska textilier – ren vinst, smutsig produktion (2007) impacts of the gold industry in DR Congo (2012) 16. Vita rockar och vassa saxar. En rapport om landstingens 48. Mera soja – Mindre mångfald – En uppföljningsrapport brist på etiska inköp (2007) om soja i Brasilien (2012) 15. Bristande miljö – och etikkontroll. En rapport om 47. A lost revolution? – Women in the garment industry in Clas Ohlsons och Biltemas inköp (2006) Bangladesh want more. (2012) 14. Arbetarnas situation på varven i Kina (2006) 46. Vet du vad din middag åt till frukost? En rapport om 13. Sandvik och Freeport – Två företag i konflikten fiskmjöl (2012) om Papua (2006) 45. Allt är inte guld som glimmar – den sanna historien om 12. Chokladens mörka hemlighet. En rapport om den smutsiga guldkedjan (2011) arbetsvillkoren på kakaoodlingarna i Västafrika (2006) 44. Out of Focus – Labour rights in Vietnam’s digital camera 11. The Price of Oil. Nordic participation in violations in Oil factories (2011) and Gas development on Sakhalin in Russia (2006) 43. Mors lilla Olle II (2011) 10. Kaffe från Brasilien — en bitter smak av orättvisa (2005) 42. Rena guldgruvan – AP-fondernas investeringar har en 9. Expansion i låglöneländer med etiska risker smutsig baksida (2011) – Assa Abloy i Rumänien och Mexiko (2005) 41. Mors lilla Olle – så exploateras asiatiska bärplockare i de 8. Lång väg till rättigheter – Trelleborgs försök att svenska skogarna (2011) hindra en fackförening på Sri Lanka (2005) 40. Dyrare kaffe är bra (2011) 7. En vara bland andra? – migrantarbetarnas situation 39. Leksaksföretagen har agerat efter kritiken (2011) och svenska företag i Saudiarabien (2005) 38. Passive observers or active defenders 6. Handelskung med bristande etik – en rapport om of human rights? (2010) Clas Ohlsons inköp i Kina (2005) 37. Konfliktmineraler i våra mobiler 5. Swedish pulp in Brazil – The case of Veracel (2005) (Voices from the inside) (2010) 4. Människor och miljö i fruktindustrin – två fallstudier 36. Namibias uran bakom svensk kärnkraft (2010) från Chile och Sydafrika (2005) 35. Etik för dyrt för svenska kaffebolag (2010) 3. Billig, snabb och lydig–en rapport om kinesiska 34. Mer kött och soja – mindre regnskog (2010) leksaksarbetare och företagens ansvar (2004) 33. Olaglig övertid i mobilfabriker (2009) 2. Svensk handel med Burma (2004) 32. Skoföretag har dålig kontroll på miljön (2009) 1. Fallstudie om pappersmasseproduktion i 31. Hårt arbete bakom barnens julklappar (2009) Indonesien (2003)

37 ISBN 978-91-981365-5-5

9 789198 136555 ISBN 978-91-981365-5-538