A nocturnal gas leak in 1984 took the lives of more than 7,000 people in Bhopal over a three-day span, and a further 15,000 in the years that followed. The leak came from a pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), now owned by Dow Chemical (DOW). The company is still denying its responsibility, and refuses to reveal the toxicological information of the gas, thwarting medical efforts to deliver appropriate treatment to more than 100,000 surviving victims. Should not there be a conscience of the company, which ensures that the Bhopal factory site and its surroundings are promptly and effectively decontaminated, that the groundwater is cleaned up, that the stockpiles of toxic and hazardous substances left at the site are removed, and that full reparation, restitution, compensation and rehabilitation are promptly provided for the continuing damage done to people’s health and environment by the ongoing contamination of the site? Should they not be ashamed of the lack of effective regulation and accountability systems, which have meant that court cases are dragging on, and corporations and their leaders continuing to evade accountability for thousands of deaths, widespread ill-health and ongoing damage to livelihoods?

Of course, our government has the primary obligation to secure universal enjoyment of human rights, and this includes an obligation to protect all individuals from the harmful actions of others, including companies. However, while the government has been frequently failing in regulating the human rights impact of business or ensuring access to justice for victims of human rights abuses involving business, the companies too have been complicit in their human rights abuses. In a democracy, a government will be taken to task for its failure. At the same time, there has also to be a call for the companies to be conscientious and accountable for their activities related to human rights. A few of them claim to engage with human rights responsibilities through voluntary consultations, relief and rehabilitation initiatives. While these have a role to play, such voluntarism can never be a substitute for concrete standards on businesses’ mandatory compliance with human rights. In India, as a minimum requirement, all companies should respect the right to information; free, prior, informed consent; and no displacement without rehabilitation, regardless of the sector, state or context in which they operate.

We all know that India today is marked by a rapid increase in business, trade and investment, facilitated by the government and its institutions, the World Trade Organisation, and regional and bilateral trade agreements. The role of national and international companies as major investors in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and beyond has created a new dynamic, where they have no qualms about moving fast and operating in contexts where contests over human rights issues are intense, and where conflicts over violations form the back-drop to the companies’ activities. Our foray into the field of investment and people’s rights should reflect a wider critical focus on the human rights implications of investment and industrialisation from a broad spectrum of bodies, ranging from national-international laws, UN basic principles and conventions, to peoples’ organisations and pressure groups. Of particular concern is the ad hoc nature in which investment rules are framed, often without reference to other laws (for example, SEZs do not take note of the Panchayat Act or the Forest Rights Act), as well as the lack of transparency on application of these rules, and on mechanisms for resolving disputes. At the heart of our concern is an individual, a village, a community, whose rights are adversely affected by the investment, and who lacks access to justice, and effective remedies for damage caused.

We must have a Right to Information. Put simply, by requiring companies based in India or trading in Indian stock exchanges, their foreign subsidiaries and major contractors, to disclose information on industrial operations, including the MOU with the governments, land requirements, potential employment generation, and rehabilitation. This goes beyond environmental disclosures and public hearings, and includes information relating to labour and human rights practices. This is because there are too many cases where companies are complicit in forced relocations, forced labour, child labour, and a wide range of other unsafe operating practices. There are practical and ethical reasons for empowering communities around the world through right to information disclosure standards. These include standing up for our natural resources, defending people’s health and safety, promoting labour rights, and championing community rights. These are also principled ideas that promote good governance, including a belief in transparency, responsibility, accountability, and fairness.

The key principle for safeguarding people’s rights in industrial development is the establishment of mechanisms that ensure a full and effective participation, and a ‘free and prior informed consent’ (FPIC) of the communities concerned. The companies and the government together must realise that the principle of FPIC is increasingly emerging as a methodology for designing programmes and projects, which either directly or indirectly affect people. Free should imply no coercion, intimidation or manipulation. Prior should imply consent has been sought sufficiently in advance of any authorisation or commencement of activities, and respect time requirements of indigenous consultation/consensus processes. Informed should imply that information is provided that covers (at least) the nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed project or activity; the reason/s or purpose of the project and/or activity; the duration of the above; the locality of areas that will be affected; a preliminary assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impact, including potential risks; and fair and equitable benefit sharing in a context that respects the precautionary principle. For Consent, consultation should be undertaken in good faith. The parties should establish a dialogue, allowing them to find appropriate solutions in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and full and equitable participation. Consultation requires time, and an effective system of communication among interest holders. Indigenous people should be able to participate through their own freely chosen representatives and customary or other institutions. This process must include the option of withholding consent.

Company’s conscience can be driven by different references. In this 60th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human rights (UDHR), we should remind ourselves that every individual and every organ of society, which includes companies and business operations in general, has a duty to protect the interests, health and safety, and human rights of employees and their dependents, of business partners, associates and sub-contractors, and of the communities in which they operate. The eight Fundamental Conventions of the International Labour Organisation, the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, the Human Rights Principles and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, the Global Compact, and many such principles must be translated into operating policies. Taking massive advantage of the growth in foreign direct investments, and the globalisation-liberalisation of international trade in goods and services, companies cannot only restrict themselves to the imperfect national laws and practices, for their advantage. A POSCO-India or Vedanta needs to realise that their plants should come up without the use of state security, force and firearms. Otherwise the results can be fatal. An example is Kalinga Nagar, which is being promoted as an industrial area by the state government-owned Industrial Development Corporation (IDCO). The state government has signed at least 45 agreements to set up various industrial plants in the state. Of these, thirteen major steel plants are coming up at Kalinga Nagar, where more than 100 chrome-washing plants are already in operation. Two years before, 12 adivasis, protesting against their displacement, were killed in police firing at Kalinga Nagar. Today, the companies, including Dow, who are lobbying with the Indian government to allow and guarantee them trouble-free investment in the country, should understand that without a conscience of the company, such conflicts will abound in future. The only effective remedy for these companies is to make respect for people’s rights an integral component of their business, and adopt an explicit company policy based on the principles stated above.