abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

11 Aug 2008

Author:
Alyson Warhurst, Business Week

Engagement vs. Divestment

Multinational corporations operating in such countries as Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and China are easy targets for critics who accuse them of supporting totalitarian regimes. Of course, business should be accountable. But it is a mistake to undermine a responsible company's reputation through ill-informed "trial by media." In fact, forcing companies to divest their holdings in these countries could ultimately harm the very people who most need help. Private enterprise is one of the best ways to lift people out of poverty...Companies, if they stay, can become part of the solution by following these recommendations...[refers to Anglo American, Tesco, Waitrose (part of John Lewis Partnership), Sainsbury's, Rio Tinto, Standard Chartered, Unilever, Adidas, Levi Strauss & Co., Premier Oil, Total, DHL (part of Deutsche Post), General Electric, Honeywell, United Technologies, IBM]