Response to Prof. Ruggie by Misereor and Global Policy Forum Europe Aachen/Bonn, 13 June 2008 We would like to thank Prof. Ruggie for his prompt response to our paper “problematic pragmatism”, which per se reflects an interest taken in our work on corporate accountability. However, the response contains several errors and misunderstandings, which we would like to clarify: 1. The response complains about our paper criticizing, that Prof. Ruggie only made recommendations that were “feasible and politically expedient”, and asks ”what purpose would be served by making recommendations that aren’t feasible“. We fully agree that there would be no point in making recommendations which are not feasible. But, unfortunately, his quote from our paper was not complete. The correct quote is as follows: “Ruggie’s self-restriction to solutions which he deems feasible and politically expedient in the short term prevents him from addressing the gap he notes with adequate governance solutions.” And in our view, much more would be feasible to close the governance gap in global business regulation in a mid- and long-term perspective. 2. Prof. Ruggie accuses our paper of implying that he takes his “marching orders from the US government”. However, neither does the paper say this directly, nor does it imply it indirectly. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to insinuate this. What the paper does is to quote the US government and point out that their strong and publicly stated opposition to the development of any internationally binding legal framework was a clear signal to the future Special Representative: i.e. to any future Representative, no matter who he or she was. 3. According to Prof. Ruggie’s response, our paper stresses that he was one of the “spiritual fathers” of the Global Compact, but it doesn’t mention that he also ”introduced the Millennium Development Goals”. In his oral statement at the side event of civil society organizations in Geneva on 4 June 2008, Prof. Ruggie himself underlined his key role in designing the Global Compact by mentioning that he wrote the speech given by Kofi Annan at the World Economic Forum in Davos 1999. We note with great interest that he played a similar important role in the context of the MDGs, and we will be glad to quote Prof. Ruggie’s statement that he ”introduced the Millennium Development Goals” in future publications on this subject. However, in order to keep our paper on the report of the Special Representative focused, we decided to include only a few background information items which are directly related to the report’s theme, i.e. to corporate responsibility and accountability. 4. There is no “voluntary vs. mandatory line” in our paper, as Prof. Ruggie’s response criticizes. Rather, the paper argues for a “voluntary plus mandatory” framework on corporate accountability. Higher voluntary company standards can be a useful complement, if they come on top of a mandatory legal framework. The key problem is that there is a lack of mandatory corporate rules at global level, which could provide a level playing field for all companies – and not only for those who are willing to implement the “due diligence” concept on a voluntary basis. 5. During the discussions of the report of the Special Representative in Geneva in the week of 2 to 6 June, we learned that his strong arguments against the development of an international treaty on corporate accountability are not necessarily fundamental but related to the present situation. We understood that he is against a binding treaty only for the time 1 being . The question whether he could envisage and support such a regulatory framework to be developed and effectively implemented at a later point in time remains to be answered. As soon as there is a corresponding public statement, we will be glad to quote it. During the discussions of the report of the Special Representative in the Human Rights Council, many governments supported the proposed framework of “duty to protect”, “responsibility to respect” and “access to remedies”. However, several delegates underlined that companies have not only the “responsibility” but also the “duty” to respect human rights. They asked the Special Representative to also outline the long-term goal of the whole undertaking, in addition to the next steps in the process outlined so far. A few delegates mentioned the need for international legally binding standards for corporations as the long- term goal. Our analysis of the report of the Special Representative supports this position, which is shared by hundreds of civil society organisations. Victims of corporate human rights abuse need better protection and effective access to justice at national and international levels. The report of the Special Representative notes at the end that the United Nations “must lead intellectually and by setting expectations and aspirations”. We could not agree more. Elisabeth Strohscheidt (Misereor) and Jens Martens (Global Policy Forum Europe) 2 .