Group items tagged

No industry or region is fully insulated from the social deficit which has emerged from the rise of the modern global economy.

Given the influence and impact that multinational corporations have, there is significant scope for corporate leaders to champion reform and action in this area.

However, the ILO estimates that 44% of those working in forced labour are also victims of trafficking (pdf).

The fight to eradicate the scourge of forced and child labour, sometimes referred to as modern-day slavery, has re-emerged as a defining issue in this century

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that almost 21 million people are currently working in some form of forced labour, with 14.2 million in economic activities such as agriculture, construction, domestic work or manufacturing (pdf).

Beginning in California in 2012, following effective campaigning and lobbying to then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, mandatory corporate disclosure of a company’s non-financial activities has been on the rise.

From US President Obama’s executive order on trafficking and federal procurement, to the UK Modern Slavery Bill’s recent amendment to include supply chain disclosure provisions, to the EU’s adoption of a non-financial reporting directive, compulsory transparency around global corporate practices – including human rights, labour and social impacts and policies – is the latest tool being employed by legislators to place social expectations on corporations.

multinational corporations have grown significantly in terms of size, assets, resource control and revenue, not to mention societal influence.

This growth has been accompanied by growing expectations by society and government.

It is, of course, critical to recognise that the global corporate supply chain can be a force for good.

However, with their multiple levels of subcontracting, particularly throughout impoverished regions where labour laws are non-existent or not enforced, global labour and product supply chains also provide fertile ground for inhumane practices and working conditions.

The United States Department of Labor, for example, has produced a list of 136 goods produced in 74 countries using forced labour, child labour, or both.

Many leading companies already understand that their strategies shape the lives of millions. The most forward-thinking believe that business is an integral pillar of society and recognise that the people they rely on at home and abroad are central to building sustainable and lasting businesses.

And since mandatory disclosure requires all multinationals to take notice and action rather than just the industry leaders, this ultimately helps level the playing field.

Some believe supply chain transparency laws do not constitute any real change from the prevailing corporate-driven model for CSR, while others oppose increased regulation and oversight as unnecessary state intervention, believing that industry led efforts have the best chance of success.

it is a combination of corporate leadership and regulation in this area which will help ensure all market participants rise to acceptable standards.

The trend away from voluntary reports towards mandatory social reporting for global corporations is here to stay and may represent a first step towards increased legislative requirements

No matter where one believes the solutions lie, the ultimate goal is a global economy free from forced labour, trafficking and other abuses. For the millions of victims who go out into the world seeking work in the hope of building better lives, we must commit to seeking the best path forward.

They are trying to do that by eliminating tariffs (taxes on imported goods) and removing what Mr Mullaney called "non-tariff obstacles".

Mullaney said they have "progressed from discussing general approaches to the spadework of reviewing the many proposals that each side has put on the table."

The planned agreement is known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP.

But while trade officials get on with detail, some of the general principles continue to generate vocal opposition.

Perhaps the most controversial area is the provision for foreign investors to go to an international tribunal for compensation if a government breaks the rules in a way that harms the company's interests.

he opposition to this idea has been taken up by the German government, so it remains uncertain whether it would appear in any final agreement.

Other critics are concerned that an agreement will drive down standards of consumer protection and food safety and will cost jobs.

They also complain that the texts that negotiators are working on are not made public.

“the housing market has stabilised and thus risks arising from over-exposure to property are limited”; that “private debt is on the decrease”; that “the corporate deleveraging is taking place in an orderly manner and credit market pressures are limited.”

“trade performance has been positive” and that “the current account balance is in surplus." In particular the Commission also noted that "the export performance of the Maltese economy has been successful".

“The report, unlike the one published last year, is confirming that across various fronts, the Maltese economy and public finances are getting in good shape and are meeting the ambitious targets set by the Maltese Government,”

Surprisingly, a carbon tax would operate much like a diamond tax, for reasons both of demand and supply.

Demand: The wealthy actually consume a disproportionate amount of carbon. Discussions of a carbon tax usually focus on the price of gasoline. One gallon of gas produces about 17 pounds of CO2. One metric ton is 2,204 pounds. So a $100 tax on a ton of CO2 comes to $0.77 per gallon -- a significant cost to low-income commuters and small truckers.

A May 2013 federal study of the Social Cost of Carbon estimated costs of additional CO2 emissions for 2010 to 2050 ranging from $27 to $221 per metric ton in 2050, depending on assumptions.

Demand elasticity for oil is low, about 0.5; so a 1 percent increase in oil price would cause a 0.5 percent decrease in consumption. That makes sense, since in the short run, it's hard for people to cut energy consumption, especially if they must drive to work. But, though numbers are hard to come by, elasticity of supply is much, much lower, for two reasons. First, oil production takes decades and billions in capital investment; producers cannot quickly increase or decrease supply. Second, oil producers form an international cartel, an organized mega-monopoly, which holds down production to drive up prices. Since they're already charging what the traffic will bear, they can't much raise prices to cover a tax.

As economists long ago figured out, buyers and sellers share a tax in inverse proportion to elasticity. Therefore, if supply elasticity of carbon is, say, 0.1, while demand elasticity is 0.5, the suppliers will pay five times as much of the tax as consumers. That reduces that $0.77 per gallon gas tax to only $0.13. Moreover, precisely because most of the tax falls on suppliers, it will generate plenty of revenue to help those unfortunate long-distance commuters and small truckers, to build more public transportation, to invest in renewable energy, and even to cut super-regressive taxes like the payroll tax.

According to Edward Wolff, in 2007, the top 1 percent in the U.S. owned 43 percent of non-home wealth, mostly securities, including of course energy company stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of wealth holders owned 83 percent.

But the very poor don't drive or travel or occupy much space; the rich fly planes, including private jets; drive to low-density suburbs; occupy and heat multiple houses and hotels; and buy lots of stuff. Clearly the rich consume much more carbon per capita than the poor.

So we have good news and bad news. Good news: The cost of reducing carbon emissions will fall hardest on the 1 percent, who consume the most energy and own the energy companies. Bad news: Ditto. Expect a fight!