Good Honest Dollar $$

Why Olympic sponsors should remain silent about human rights abuses

June 3rd, 2008Human Rights 7 Comments

(Olympic movement flag - image via Wikipedia)

Few sporting events generate as much public attention for their sponsors as the Olympics.

Nowadays, however, not all of that attention is positive. The twelve most prominent sponsors, including General Electric, Coca-Cola and McDonalds Corporation, stand accused of being complicit in human rights abuses in China by (correctly) ignoring calls to speak publicly about such abuses in the lead up to the games.

In April, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted that it has witnessed an increase in human rights abuses in the lead-up to the games. These included violations of media freedom as well as intensifying persecution of Chinese human rights defenders, in addition to the ongoing crackdown in Tibet.

In response, HRW called for Olympic sponsors to take undertake six specific action steps, which are broadly aimed at pressing the Chinese government to address key human rights issues.

Corporate sponsors should act on the second step, which calls on them to certify that their own operations in China do not entail human rights abuses. All twelve major sponsors have made public commitments in support of human rights. They should uphold these commitments and conduct their own business affairs accordingly.

But that is as far as they should go.

To be sure, the Chinese government deserves criticism, and United Nations, foreign governments and human rights organizations should apply pressure upon China to improve its human rights record.

But there are three key reasons why corporate sponsors should refrain from involvement in this activity.

• Corporate sponsors are business entities, not governments or the UN.

They are not elected representatives of the international community and as such, they have no mandate to involve themselves in political issues.

Accordingly, corporate sponsors should refrain from any political engagement unless the issue concerned has a direct impact upon their business operations.

• The Olympics is a sporting event, not a political event.

It is a global celebration of the skill, ability, dedication and commitment of world class athletes.

The role of Olympic sponsorship is to support athletes. It does not entail engagement in political activity of the host country.

• Action speaks louder than words.

The most powerful way in which Olympic sponsors can make a statement is to ensure that the fundamental principles of human rights are upheld within their own operations.

Positive action on the ground says a great deal more about commitment to human rights than mere public criticism of governments.

In summary, Olympic sponsors have a responsibility both to provide full support to athletes and to ensure that their own operations are free from human rights abuses.

But public criticism of sovereign governments is the preserve of others, including the UN, foreign governments and other international agencies.

7 Responses to “Why Olympic sponsors should remain silent about human rights abuses”

Brad Shorr Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Andrew, congratulations on your new blog! You’ve selected a great focus and aren’t throwing any warm up pitches writing about the Olympics, which is the biggest sports-political ethical problem imaginable. No matter what the Olympic sponsors do, they’re going to offend large segments of the public. Ultimately, I think the market will decide whether sponsors made the right choice by participating. Personally, my feelings toward China are so mixed, I wind up feeling neutral about the sponsors. However, if these companies had been sponsoring the Olympics in 1936 in Nazi Germany, my feelings (and purchasing decisions) would have been fully against them. Companies are responsible to their shareholders and stakeholders, and ultimately sponsorship is a financial calculation.
Andrew Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hi Brad,

Congratulations on being my first reader!

You mentioned the 1936 Olympics. I think I read somewhere in my research for this topic that Coca-Cola had been an Olympic Sponsor for about eighty years. I am not certain, but I would say they must have sponsored the 1936 Olympics (I guess they can be forgiven after this time).

I would certainly say that companies should think long and hard about both ethical and financial issues prior to sponsoring the Olympics in a highly controversial country such as China. (However, once they have made the decision to sponsor the event, I think they should stay out of political issues)

In relation to the financial considerations, I think that companies would have been mad to have missed the sponsorship opportunity, notwithstanding the critism sponsorship has attracted from some quarters. The whole world will be watching the Olympics as they draw closer, and this will draw massive attention toward the brands of sponsors.

Not all of the attention will be positive, but I would think that the net overall effect of sponsorship will be very positive from a promotional standpoint.

Also, in the back of the minds of sponsors may have been their relationship with the Chinese government. China is the fastest growing market for some sponsors. If any of the regular Olympic sponsors had refused to sponsor this event, the Chinese government would probably have taken offense, and that may have had adverse consequences upon business prospects in China for the sponsor(s) in question.

Cheers

Andrew
isabella mori Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 4:34 am
first of all, andrew, congratulations on your new blog, and even more congratulations for taking on such important and interesting topics!

back in 1959, sociologist c. wright mills made the observation that “private pains are the manifestation of public issues.” later, this was expressed in feminist circles as “the personal is political and the political is personal.”

we are all interconnected, and the more connections we make (i.e. a large corporation), the more responsibility this brings. also, the more money is involved, the more politics is involved (that’s why corporations have lobby groups!)

in my view, then, EVERYTHING is political, we all have responsibility for each other, and the more connected and powerful we are, the more responsibility we have.

it follows for me that olympic sponsors have a strong responsibility to do something about human rights. remember, china is a country that mowed down peaceful protesters, and still holds more than 100 prisoners from the tiananmen square massacre.

how they carry out this responsibility – well, there is quite some leeway. there’s nothing wrong with being diplomatic about it.

i personally am very impressed with john kamm’s “third way” of going about corporate responsibility.
drew Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Hi Isabella,

Thanks for your comment.

Wow! I didn’t realize that China was still holding prisoners from Tiananmen Square, that’s downright appalling! Few would doubt that China’s human rights record is poor and the government deserves full criticism over this.

I certainly agree that with greater power comes greater responsibility, and that Olympic sponsors, all whom have made public commitments about human rights, have some responsibility for promoting human rights in China.

But I still think the best way for Olympic Sponsors to do this is to ensure that their own operations in China are fully free of human rights abuses. Action on the ground has a powerful and direct effect upon the people involved.

Political action, on the other hand, does not have a direct impact and would probably be simply ignored by the Chinese government. In addition, political action would severely harm the business interests of the sponsors concerned, all whom have legal obligations to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Cheers, and thanks again for your comment.

Andrew
Examples of Great Blog Post Headlines | Word Sell, Inc. Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
[...] Why Olympic Sponsors Should Remain Silent About Human Rights Abuses Nothing fancy from my blog buddy Andrew, but wow, is this headline effective. It’s packed with emotional words, clearly states the topic, and takes a provocative editorial position. [...]
Karen Swim Says:
June 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Hi Andrew, congratulations on your blog! This is a very thought provoking post. I can’t help but note the irony that big business is called upon to leverage their financial power to denounce China yet in the US human rights abuses are allowed to continue. I suppose that when those abuses are categorized as “domestic issues” or “anti-terrorism” measures it becomes acceptable. I have stood with the global community and put pen and dollar where my mouth is to speak out against atrocities in China, Darfur and many other places but I am equally fervent about not turning a blind eye to my own country’s sins.
Andrew Says:
June 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Hi Karen,

Welcome to my blog.

You do raise an interesting point.

All too often it is easy to talk about human rights or environmental abuses in other countries and then ignore them in our own backyards.

In relation to ‘anti terrorism’ measures, I can empathize with your sentiments about this. I can’t comment on the American situation specifically as I am not familiar with anti-terrorism legislation in the States.

Generally, I do accept that there is a need for the legal framework to enable federal agencies to do whatever they reasonably can to ensure the protection of their citizen. On some occasions, this may involve curtailing, to some extent, the civil rights of some who may be under suspicion.

However, governments must be careful to ensure that anti-terrorism legislation does not unnecessarily violate basic civil rights.

In some defence of Human Rights Watch, the organization making the call on sponsors in this case, they are active in promoting human rights in all countries, including America.

But I do feel that developed countries, including America, should first clean up their own backyards before criticizing other governments.

Cheers

Andrew