Campaigners want big brands to speak out about human rights in China. Companies would be better lobbying their own governments to do so for them

Campaigners want big brands to speak out about human rights in China. Companies would be better lobbying their own governments to do so for them

“We are not a political organisation.” That was how Coca-Cola chief executive Neville Isdell responded to demands from campaigners that his brand should speak out against human rights abuses in China, in the run-up to this summer’s Olympics.

Isdell made his remarks at Coke’s annual general meeting in April in Wilmington, Delaware, in the US. There he faced fierce questioning from Amnesty International, the human rights group, and the journalists’ campaign group Reporters Without Borders. The groups want Coke and other Olympic sponsors, which include Kodak, Adidas and Omega, to speak out on human rights in China.

In theory, Isdell is right. Coke’s job is to make drinks and sell them. The company has no desire or place to become a campaign group. But Coke is a major Olympics sponsor, and the Olympics is that most political of sporting events. Boycotts of the games, and other incidents, as in Munich in 1972, Moscow in 1980 and Los Angeles in 1984, clearly show politics sometimes matters in sport. It is true that recent Olympiads have become less political, but that is largely because they have been held in uncontroversial places at times when governments and campaigners had other priorities.

Activist target

Controversy over the forthcoming Beijing games, which begin in August, has been brewing for years. China’s export boom, poverty reduction success and greater international profile, when placed next to political repression and use of the death penalty, make the 2008 games a juicy target for activist groups. But what Coke and the other sponsors could not have foreseen was the unrest that erupted in Tibet in March.

Campaigners want sponsors to demonstrate their commitment to human rights in China. But how might they respond? Sponsors have several options.

First, and simplest: do nothing. Ride the storm and let it all blow over. Who will remember what happened six months after the games? Another Tiananmen Square style incident is highly unlikely. Consumers have short memories; column inches fade away. This seems to be the approach most of the Olympic sponsors are taking, particularly those most interested in reaching China’s growing hundreds of millions of middle class consumers, who are often nationalistic.

The second option is to become overtly political. Establish a human rights fund, openly lobby home governments and make press statements and appeals to the Chinese leadership to be nicer to their people. This strategy has some history. The Body Shop is possibly the best-known example of a company speaking out on specific human rights, and Yahoo has taken the risky step of calling for the release of dissidents imprisoned in China (see here).

The third option for sponsors is to use their core skills to help advance Chinese economic, intellectual and cultural development. This would mean taking a quiet approach in public on human rights, while expressing concerns behind the scenes with government.

Practical actions that companies might take include improving management capacity in the supply chain and training Chinese managers on a global, rights-based outlook. This is already happening. Companies can also sponsor institutions or programmes that tackle social, environmental and economic issues. Over time, and if consistent, these efforts can make a difference.

In the Shanghai region, for example, a group of western companies has been working with the regional government on health and safety. The focus has not been on imposing western standards but on how officials might best implement Chinese regulations.

Hard lessons

A few hard truths should help companies make the right decisions.

First, responsibility for lobbying for better human rights standards should lie with a company’s host government, not with a corporation. The US State Department commands more respect in China than corporate press releases or well-meaning speeches by wide-eyed chief executives.

Second, the west needs China more than China needs the west. The EU and the US are not as dominant a customer as they once were. To have any influence in Beijing, western countries and companies must be serious, long-term investors in China that the Communist government can trust. Counsel from a trusted partner has more resonance than the shout of a stranger.

This will not be easy. When you consider that China’s government rarely listens to its own corporate leaders, never mind foreign brands, the answer for companies concerned about human rights in China becomes obvious. Steady, carefully planned engagement on specific issues, with the right party at the right time, is the only way to move forwards.

This approach creates less public-relations value and will never appease human rights NGOs. But it is far better than doing nothing. In fact, it is the only way that will work. Great achievements come in small steps.

See special report and Paul French’s last word.