Healthy Dose of Capitalism?

The miraculous rescue of 10 miners a week after a cave-in trapped them deep underground should serve as a reminder of the deadly reality of occupational hazards. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) reports that "Each year, two million women and men die as a result of occupational accidents and work-related diseases. Across the globe, there are some 270 million occupational accidents and 160 million occupational diseases each year. The ILO estimates that four per cent of the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is lost due to accidents and work-related diseases." These accidents are despite the existence of over 70 ILO Conventions and Recommendations related to questions of safety and health.

While the search effort for the miners continued, representatives of UN agencies, labour organisations and businesses met at the "Promoting a Health and Safety Culture within the Framework of the Global Compact" three-day conference held in Dusseldorf, Germany to discuss occupational health and safety issues. The conference was held in conjunction with the world's leading fair for all aspects of safety and health in the workplace -- the Dusseldorf Personal Protective Equipment and Occupational Safety International Trade Fair and Congress.

The message, essentially, was that good health and safety standards equals good business. As Manfred Reindle, representing RWE Rhein-Ruhr AG, pointed out, "Companies that do not invest in a healthy workforce cannot survive in these times of change. We have a sickness rate of five per cent which means that 300 workers a day are absent. The loss of work has a direct impact on economic performance, which is why we need a worker-focussed approach."

The issue unfortunately is not as simple as this "win-win" scenario would suggest. "Health and safety must be planned in tandem with poverty eradication, employment transition, pollution control, gender equality and the combating of HIV/ AIDS," argued Lucien Royer, head of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Occupational health is closely related to poverty levels of the working class, its ability to carry out collective bargaining and freedom of expression and democracy in society.

Psychiatrist Lennart Levi explained that poverty and social exclusion "are variables that can be changed. More and better jobs being the key factor. It is that simple and that difficult," Levi said.

In his opening address to the conference, ILO Director Assane Diop said "working environments [should become] a platform for social protection and social dialogue essentially to achieve sustainable development ... Work is the way out of poverty ... It cannot be accepted that hazardous work take its toll on workers and that they must resign themselves because they are poor ... Every accident is avoidable."

Bertil Remaeus, the head inspector at the Swedish Work Environment Authority, stressed that the technology to create safe workplaces does exist. "It is possible to undertake large scale projects without accidents. A large and complex bridge was built in Sweden under very adverse climate conditions yet none of the workers died or suffered serious injury. However, corporate social responsibility in this case would mean using these lessons worldwide."

In its pamphlet Facts on Safe Work, the ILO concurs that "In the course of the century, industrialised countries have seen a clear decrease in serious injuries, not least because of real advances in making the workplace healthier and safer. The challenge is to extend the benefits of this experience to the whole working world."

But because of that divide between developed and developing world, "occupational health" has widely varying connotations. So while the Western Europeans discussed stress-related problems and "protective equipment for minds and souls", as Marion Menge, from the German-based Business Impulse, phrased it, representatives from Africa, Russia and Turkey talked of protection against the loss of life on the job, bondage, slavery and child labour.

Bridging the gap is not an easy task when much of the profit incentive offered by the developing world is cheap labour and lax labour and environmental codes. It is, after all, a brutally competitive international capitalist system. Pelesa Motselisi of the Ministry of Labour in Lesotho did not mince her words: "Poor countries tend to sacrifice human life to be able to compete with developing countries. The companies that come to Africa know everything about safe working environments but they take advantage of the situation."

Motselisi went on to explain that this is compounded by the fact that in Africa while people know about corporate responsibility there is a lack of "safety culture" which means that accidents are not reported and adequate protection is not provided. And while Motselisi is an advocate of social dialogue, she pointed out that "there are cultural differences that make dialogue difficult. For example, investors will come to Lesotho and not bother to learn the language. How can I have social dialogue with someone who does not speak my language and cannot understand me?" she asked during an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly.

Wiking Husberg from the ILO in Russia also points out that as management is reluctant to invest in upgrading working conditions, workers are willing to accept this lack of investment if it means relatively higher wages. The price in human life is shocking. Husberg indicated that every fifth person suffering from an occupational health problem has stopped working before the age of 45. "So while workers do not want lower salaries [high safety and health standards] turn out to be cheaper for business in the long run," he said.

The Chinese Deputy Director General of the Industries Federation Chen Ying also indicated that meeting acceptable occupational safety standards meant investments that are in most cases beyond the ability of businessmen involved. "Most companies work with machines that date back to the 1950s and businesses simply do not have enough money to upgrade." And while that is no doubt a serious impediment, perhaps some of the solutions she advocated in dealing with the situation are worrisome. "In China we have environmental protection laws that set a standard even higher than that of the European standard. We worked to get the government to lower that standard so that business could comply."

Hence the Global Compact (GC) -- a UN initiative. It was first proposed during an address by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the World Economic Forum in January 1999. According to the UN, "Through the power of collective action, the GC seeks to advance responsible corporate citizenship so that business can be part of the solution to the challenges of globalisation. In this way, the private sector -- in partnership with other social actors -- can help realise the secretary-general's vision: a more sustainable and inclusive global economy."

In an interview with the Weekly, Anton Stadler from the GC office explained that, "There were fears expressed by emerging economies at the beginning of the launch of the GC that this measure would reduce the investments in a given country. That fear has gone away. The GC has been implemented in much of Asia and governments have come to recognise that compliance with these standards does not stop investments. Transnational companies are eager to produce under conditions compliant with international law. And in India, China and the Philippines we have seen that companies want to remain subcontractable by large companies, hence an incentive to comply."

The Compact is a network, the focal point of which is the Global Compact Office and four UN agencies -- the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Environment Programme, the ILO, and the United Nations Development Programme. Standler explained to the attendees that the Compact is a "non-threatening label to make global agency pro-poor. In export-oriented economies -- and especially in these times of low growth -- we need to understand that a good citizen is an asset and not a liability."

In his pitch to the conference, Stadler noted that the GC is not legally binding, costs no money, and that companies who join are requested to present an annual communiqué on progress "to protect against free-riders".

But while many companies may adhere to high occupational health standards within developed countries, the attitude in developing countries may differ. "The best contribution to development [in developing countries] is doing business," argued an IKEA representative. "The best contribution is that they get jobs." Her argument was that if a country's labour codes, for example, did not allow for collective bargaining, that was not IKEA's problem.

Which was exactly the point made by Gilbert Mhangwa from the National Social Security Authority in Zimbabwe. "The standards talked about today [in relation to business in developed countries] are totally different than what we see in our country. I was shocked at how different the attitude is. In our countries, export-oriented zones are given all types of benefits. Poverty and unemployment undermine any attempts to improve conditions."

But it is specifically discussions such as these, within the framework of the GC, that Stadler argues can lay the groundwork for a positive future. He acknowledged that, "Advancement will not happen in a year, especially in areas such as the environment. What we are saying is that by signing up we can work towards a better standing. If for example some companies adopt the GC in Egypt [where it is expected that GC will be launched in February] and produce positive results others will be encouraged to follow suit."

Stadler added that the UN "needs to make the idea [of the GC] mainstream. We are still behind in the US, Japan and the Arab region. Signing up does not change the world." But then it just might be a start.

And the stakes are high. As Roger put it: "We need real dialogue, not to check things off the list and come to conferences such as this one. Not only for the protection of our civilisation but for the emancipation of the human species."

Occupational health and safety: facts and figures

- An average of 5,000 people die as a result of work-related accidents or diseases daily.

- Workers suffer approximately 270 million occupational accidents each year (fatal and non-fatal) and there are some 160 million incidents of occupational diseases. In one third of these cases, the illness causes the loss of four or more working days.

- There are some 355,000 on-the-job fatalities each year. It is estimated that half of them occur in agriculture, the sector with half the world's workforce. High-risk sectors are mining, construction and commercial fishing.

- The loss in GDP resulting from death and illness in the workforce is 20 times greater than all official development assistance to developing countries.

- Each year, 12,000 children are killed on the job.

- Hazardous substances kill 340,000 workers annually. Asbestos alone claims about 100,000 lives.

- An estimated 11 million workers world-wide are monitored for exposure to ionising radiation.

- In some jobs, as many as 5,000 injuries requiring first aid treatment take the place of every fatality in high-risk occupations.

- Cancer is the biggest cause of work-related death, responsible for 32 per cent of fatalities.

- Studies suggest that between 50 and 60 per cent of all lost working days in Europe are related to stress at work

The nine principles of the Global Compact:

1. Businesses are asked to support and respect the protection of international human rights within their sphere of influence; and

2. Make sure their own corporations are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour:

3. Businesses are asked to uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

4. The elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

5. The effective abolition of child labour; and

6. The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment:

7. Businesses are asked to support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;

8. Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and

9. Encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally-friendly technologies.