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
Opinion

21 Sep 2016

Author:
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Andy Hall’s case shows the best and worst of corporate behaviour on civic freedoms

See all tags

So the brave human rights defender, Andy Hall, has been effectively silenced by the Thai courts for the next two years. After exposing alleged abuses by Natural Fruit in its Thai pineapple production including illegal low wages and excessive overtime, the company did not respond to the allegations, but rather started legal proceedings against Andy Hall for defamation. The judgment on the criminal cases for defamation and computer crimes came out yesterday with Andy Hall found guilty and given a three year prison term, suspended for two years.

The case highlights the best and worst of corporate behaviour to defend civic freedoms and human rights defenders, and practice due diligence to remove the curse of modern slavery in global supply chains.

When Andy Hall, contracted by FinnWatch to conduct the research, first made his allegations, they were regarding Natural Fruit and two Thai tuna companies. The two tuna companies responded positively, refuting some allegations and promising to investigate others that concerned them. Natural Fruit immediately took an aggressive stand and legal action. Nevertheless, the Thai Frozen Foods Association (TFFA) and Thai Tuna Industry Association (TTIA), amazingly in a period of military dictatorship, provided bail as a show of support for Andy Hall’s work as a labour rights defender. The TTIA stated publicly that, “TTIA and TFFA are committed in our ethical standard policy to work with responsible NGOs like Finnwatch based on good faith and transparency… We shall support and assist the Finnwatch team in Thailand being able to work independently and efficiently with the objective to enhance and improve the migrant labour conditions in the tuna and shrimp industry in Thailand." The associations should be lauded for their support for human rights defenders, human rights reporting and advocacy.

Then a Finish cooperative retailer, S Group, which had at some point purchased pineapples from Natural Fruit, publicly supported the work of Andy Hall, explaining that while they did their own due diligence to eliminate human rights abuse in their supply chain, this can never be perfect, and the work of on-the-ground human rights defenders is a crucial complement to their own efforts. Their boss flew to Thailand to testify in defence of Andy Hall. S Group’s efforts deserve significant applause: it takes courage to be honest about abuse in your supply chain, it takes far more to support the activist that exposed it.

Of course, Natural Fruit’s legal tactics have made them a global name in the modern slavery debate, and the discussion on some companies’ attempts to close civic freedoms. A notorious position in both these areas is perhaps not the best place for a company that seeks to sell internationally.

The consequences for Andy Hall are nasty and frustrating, but those in forced labour in Thailand will likely face further abuse through the lack of this voice for humanity in business, and the chilling effect the ruling will have on the work of many brave Thai organisations involved in the same work.

This ruling highlights the dangers that so many human rights defenders run daily to promote a world of shared prosperity and security, and prevent the worst of abuse. Frontline Defenders reports that 156 human rights defenders were killed or died in detention in 2015. Global Witness reports that 185 environmental defenders, whose work is usually intimately related to the rights of poor communities and forest peoples, were murdered for their work in 2015.

Many of these cases involve difficulties with major private investment: from labour abuse, to dispossession of poor people’s land, to major pollution events and public health.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and numerous other organizations are seeing threats to civic freedoms and human rights rising to unprecedented levels, and too many irresponsible companies colluding with governments to shut down reasonable dissent, and opposition to abuse. An increasing number of governments and companies appear to cast human rights defenders as "economic saboteurs", "anti-development", and "foreign agents" (if they are beneficiaries of cross-border philanthropy).

In March this year, Berta Caceres, the indigenous leader in Honduras who opposed a hydroelectric dam, was shot dead in her bed by unknown assailants. Dutch and Finnish investors have pulled out in protest, but the project continues. In September 2015, Sergey Nikiforov, an indigenous leader in Siberia was sentenced to five years in prison for ‘bribery and fraud’. Sergey led opposition of his people to a major new mining operation on their ancestral lands by UK-registered gold mining company Petropavlovsk. On June 21 this year, the body of human rights defender Nilce de Souza Magalhães was found by a dam in Porto Velho, Brazil. Nilce had protested the forced displacement of her fishing community to a barren area with no running water to make way for a hydro-electric dam.

The good news is that a rising number of responsible companies with global supply chains reject violence and threats as a means to maximize profits, and see that good companies thrive in an open environment where abuse gets exposed, and where there is reward for good business practice that pays for land, respects communities, and creates decent work.

In 2014, major apparel companies sourcing from Cambodia condemned the government for its violent crackdown on striking garment workers that resulted in deaths and injuries - this helped bring an end to the violence. In 2013 in Peru, six US textile firms urged the Peruvian Government to repeal a law that condoned labour rights violations, making it difficult for them to implement their own sourcing codes of conduct. In 2015, three jewellery companies released statements calling on Angola to drop charges against Rafael Marques, a journalist on trial for defamation after exposing abuses in the diamond industry. Last year, 379 businesses and organisations submitted a public statement to the US Supreme Court in support of marriage equality. The renewable energy sector has also received increased attention to keep human rights on top of mind as illustrated by  over a dozen recent allegations as well as positive steps. Just this month Statkraft reached an agreement with a Saami village on a wind energy project affecting land rights. These are all welcome examples and we need many more.

This is why the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, with the International Service for Human Rights, FUNDAR, Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC) and the West African Human Rights Defenders Network (WAHRDN), are implementing a programme to support human rights defenders, alongside Frontline Defenders, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, CIVICUS, and many others; and are also engaging responsible business around the world to encourage their voice for civic freedoms. As Mark Lagon of Freedom House said last month: “Partnering with civil society around the world can clearly be a boon to corporations headquartered in the United States and other leading democracies. Conversely, allowing civic groups to be stifled does significant harm. Given the global trend of increasing pressure on NGOs by autocratic regimes and illiberal democracies over the past decade, the multinational business sector should waste no time in coming to civil society’s defence.”