Thought Leader Event with Usha Ramanathan and Surya Deva
Informing human rights agenda - discussion on workers rights, poverty, needs for change by government bodies and the impacts of technology on human rights - particular focus on dispensability, data issues and privacy.
Thought Leader Event with Usha Ramanathan and Surya Deva
Informing human rights agenda - discussion on workers rights, poverty, needs for change by government bodies and the impacts of technology on human rights - particular focus on dispensability, data issues and privacy.
0:07
Well, welcome everyone.
0:09
It's so lovely to see all these faces.
0:14
My name is Shelley Marshall, and I'm
0:16
the Director of the RMIT University
0:19
Business and Human Rights Centre.
0:22
I'd like to acknowledge that
0:24
I'm on the land of the Wurrundjeri people
0:28
of the Kulin nations and
0:30
pay my respects to their elders,
0:32
past, present and future.
0:35
And to introduce this wonderful event,
0:39
it's hosted jointly by the
0:43
RMIT Business and
0:44
Human Rights Centre, and the Public Law
0:47
and Human Rights Forum of City University Hong Kong.
0:49
And Surya,
0:51
one of our speakers, is the Director
0:54
there and what we have tonight
0:57
in our audience is a mixture of the
1:00
PhD students who are attending
1:02
our doctoral symposium that
1:05
runs over three days.
1:08
It's the 2021 Asia and Oceania Business
1:12
and Human Rights Doctoral Symposium that's
1:15
titled 'Informing the Business and
1:17
Human Rights Agenda of the next Decade'.
1:20
It's an online symposium,
1:22
and as I said,
1:24
it's running for three days and we
1:27
are at the end of our first day.
1:30
So it's really lovely to invite
1:33
you to this public session.
1:36
Um,
1:37
this thought leadership event thinking
1:39
about the future of business,
1:42
human rights and what our agenda should be.
1:47
It's also something of a soft-launch
1:50
for the RMIT Business and
1:52
Human Rights Centre.
1:54
So I wanted to take the opportunity
1:56
to just quickly introduce it
1:57
to you if you haven't already
1:59
come across it. We started last year,
2:05
unfortunately,
2:06
at the start of the (COVID-19) pandemic and
2:10
we're located in the College
2:12
of Business at RMIT University.
2:15
We're an interdisciplinary research center
2:18
that brings together legal, accounting,
2:21
business and management scholars.
2:24
And it's the home for research
2:26
on business ethics,
2:27
corporate accountability and social and
2:30
sustainable enterprises at RMIT University.
2:33
And we're really thrilled to be
2:36
co-hosting this inaugural
2:41
Business and
2:42
Human Rights Symposium for doctoral students,
2:45
and we really hope that we all
2:48
continue to organize these annually
2:50
and foster a really strong community
2:53
of scholars who get to know each
2:56
other, who influence each other, who
2:59
collaborate with each other in future years.
3:02
So for our first thought leadership event,
3:06
we're having three of them,
3:07
and this is our public one
3:09
we're really thrilled to bring Usha
3:13
Ramanathan and Surya Deva onto your Zoom
3:16
feed today. And we've asked them to
3:20
give us their views about business and
3:24
human rights to say where they think
3:28
our attention should be.
3:31
And what we might do differently
3:33
over the next decade compared
3:35
with where we've been so far.
3:38
What our priorities are,
3:40
what our concerns are.
3:43
And the way that we're going to
3:46
run this evening is that both our
3:49
speakers will provide a 10 minute or so
3:52
introduction to their thoughts,
3:56
and then correct me if I'm wrong and
3:59
we've decided to do things differently,
4:01
but they will then begin a conversation
4:05
with each other about their ideas,
4:08
the differences between them,
4:10
the similarities,
4:11
and then I will invite you to
4:14
join that conversation as well,
4:17
I invite you, the audience,
4:21
to write questions and comments in the chat.
4:26
Please don't hold back.
4:28
I love an active chat during presentations.
4:31
And if you have questions,
4:36
I'll certainly try to keep an eye on them
4:38
and bring them into the conversation later,
4:41
or I'll call on you to expand on it.
4:45
So our first speaker is Usha Ramanathan,
4:49
who works on the jurisprudence
4:51
of law, poverty and rights.
4:54
She's an Indian human rights activist.
4:56
She was the recipient of the 2019,
4:59
correct me if I'm wrong,
5:01
Human Rights Hero Award for tireless efforts
5:05
to highlight the issues related to Aadhaar.
5:09
Her research interests include human rights,
5:12
displacement, torts,
5:14
and the environment.
5:16
And she's particularly devoted her
5:18
attention to a number of specific
5:20
issues such as the Bhopal gas
5:23
disaster and, correct me, is that how
5:25
the two of you met around that
5:27
disaster? And the Nomada Valley dance
5:31
and the slum eviction in Delhi.
5:34
Usha, thank you so much for
5:36
joining us this evening.
5:37
We're really looking forward
5:38
to hearing from you.
5:43
Oh, and you're muted.
5:48
Thank you Shelley. You know when two Indians meet,
5:51
there are at least ten different routes
5:54
through which we meet, so I think
5:56
this perhaps was one way through which
5:58
Surya and I met,
6:00
but there are many connections so.
6:04
I was thinking of today,
6:06
as you know, I'm thinking of it as what
6:12
are the preoccupations that
6:13
have been dogging us
6:17
through the decades, and what
6:19
is it that's occupying us now?
6:22
So I'll just mention three broad
6:24
areas, and then maybe the rest of
6:26
it can come out in the discussion.
6:28
And so yeah, if it's OK with you, yeah?
6:31
So the first is what's really
6:35
worrying us enormously today?
6:38
And that is the question of technology.
6:41
You know technology that started
6:43
as a very exciting thing.
6:45
Which offered so many possibilities,
6:47
which seemed like it would be
6:50
furthering the cause of human rights,
6:52
has now turned out to be something
6:55
that's very different from what
6:56
it was, and it did begin
6:59
in our lives in the way in which
7:01
it is still about 15-20 years ago.
7:04
And within this short time,
7:06
it's shifted from a great deal of
7:08
excitement, to a great deal of anxiety.
7:11
And, uh.
7:12
We are seeing technology that
7:15
was meant to be facilitating
7:18
communication between people.
7:20
From across the world like
7:23
it's happening now, and
7:25
the idea of information
7:29
which we could get about what is
7:31
happening anywhere in the world at all,
7:33
and with such speed that,
7:36
you know, we would
7:37
go along with the world, time,
7:39
the idea of time itself would change,
7:42
and the idea of knowledge
7:43
would change with this.
7:44
This is the kind of expectation with
7:46
which we entered the world of technology,
7:48
but we've seen that that has
7:51
changed dramatically.
7:52
Today we worry about monopolistic
7:55
data collection by companies.
7:58
We worry about surveillance.
7:59
We worry about the relationship
8:01
between technology companies,
8:03
technology controllers and the state.
8:06
We worry about how technology
8:09
is making subjects out of,
8:12
you know, peoples.
8:13
We worry about the objectification of
8:17
people and the datafication of people.
8:20
We worry that the idea of the
8:23
global is changing so dramatically
8:25
that everybody being on a database
8:27
and everybody being visible
8:29
at any given point in time to
8:31
data controllers and technology
8:33
controllers is boggling our mind.
8:36
It's very difficult to
8:39
understand all of this and to
8:42
be able to respond to all of this.
8:45
We find that the spaces technology has
8:48
created another kind of thing where
8:52
A new form of disintermediation has
8:55
come in, where the relationship between
8:58
administrators and the people is mediated
9:01
through technology and not directly.
9:05
So, this is brought in
9:08
questions other than of
9:10
surveillance of the digital divide.
9:13
And we've seen that in the
9:15
starkness of it during COVID-19,
9:16
where those who are able
9:18
to access technologies,
9:20
who are who are able to
9:21
get onto it and move on,
9:23
at least to a certain
9:24
extent with their lives,
9:25
are a world apart from
9:27
people who are unable to
9:29
get their hands on this technology,
9:31
partly because it costs. Partly because,
9:35
you know, the bandwidth for instance
9:37
doesn't really include places which were
9:39
not relevant for technology providers.
9:42
So the context of technology has been
9:46
one very important thing, and you know,
9:48
it's my hypothesis and a little more
9:51
than a hypothesis that what we need is a
9:55
dramatically different imagination about
9:57
technology and at ground technology.
9:59
And that, you know,
10:01
the the ones who are
10:04
driving this present imagination of
10:06
technology, are those who want a new
10:11
resource to be created, a natural resource.
10:14
And then, a resource that can be
10:17
used by multiple people at the same time,
10:19
unlike land or unlike minerals.
10:23
Which is the idea of data.
10:27
So this is the emergence of
10:30
all paperless data.
10:33
I actually started when I was trying
10:35
to think about what artificial
10:37
intelligence meant.
10:38
It seemed like you know when we were
10:40
children we read about, you know,
10:42
we read stories that were kind of in that
10:44
were relatable to artificial intelligence.
10:45
We read
10:46
"I, Robot" for instance,
10:47
Isaac Asimov.
10:48
It's such a beautiful book.
10:50
And it was so exciting to think that you
10:53
could have rules that would limit what,
10:56
you know,
10:57
robots could do to us and that we
11:00
would be in control, and the robot would
11:02
be the servant and we would be the master,
11:05
you know.
11:05
So you didn't need to be a master
11:07
over another human being.
11:08
You could bring equality among people in,
11:11
make the robot subservient to what
11:13
what you were to you.
11:16
But now we find that this iis
11:19
completely changing, where technology
11:22
is being introduced to us
11:25
as the master.
11:26
To which we have to be subservient.
11:29
It has serious implications
11:31
for human rights.
11:33
It has serious implications
11:34
for the future of the world.
11:36
It has serious implications,
11:38
for instance, with the idea
11:42
of redundancy and dispensability.
11:45
So if you look at one of our
11:48
technology majors,
11:48
I mean the world's technology majors.
11:52
Oh, in one of his speeches he's given a,
11:54
you know,
11:55
an illustration.
11:56
He shows the population graph of the
11:58
world at the beginning of the 20th century
12:01
and at the beginning of the 21st century,
12:03
and then he says,
12:05
you know, it's grown so much.
12:07
And then he says, you know,
12:09
so many people on this world,
12:11
well, we need to worry about it.
12:12
He says,
12:14
when we were
12:17
debating whether
12:18
a vaccine should be given to
12:21
children in Africa.
12:22
We wondered whether it should be done or not,
12:24
because if you vaccinated all
12:25
the children in Africa then they
12:27
would all survive and it would
12:29
add to the burden of the world.
12:31
And then we we felt no, no, no baby.
12:33
That's not the way to think about it.
12:35
If we vaccinate them, then because
12:37
the children will
12:39
survive, will live on, parents may be
12:42
disinclined to have very many more children,
12:45
so it's not about
12:46
the answer that they found,
12:48
but the question that they asked that
12:50
they could even think in terms of
12:52
saying that some people are redundant,
12:54
and maybe they shouldn't even properly
12:57
live, and such. It's a very serious moment.
13:01
I don't want to be... I don't want to sound
13:05
like I'm seeing the end of the world,
13:07
but I'm definitely seeing the end of a
13:09
certain way in which we know the world.
13:11
Unless we are able to step in now
13:12
and figure out what to do about it,
13:14
it's not too late,
13:16
but I don't think it would be wise
13:18
to wait very much longer.
13:20
And the second part of this is that
13:23
the Bhopal gas disaster which Shelley
13:24
said I, you know, had worked
13:26
on, many people have worked on the
13:28
Bhopal gas disaster, it used to be
13:31
a conversation stopper at every
13:32
business and human rights meeting.
13:34
Because once you say Bhopal,
13:35
there is really,
13:36
you know nobody can justify it.
13:38
Nobody can defend it.
13:39
And for those who don't know, the
13:42
Union Carbide had a factory in
13:44
Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh, in central India.
13:47
And they had decided that they
13:50
wanted to shift it out of here,
13:52
it's a pesticide
13:54
making factory, and they had metal
13:58
isocyanide being stored there in.
14:00
You know, much more than should have
14:03
been stored, and there was a leak.
14:04
The leak happened because the company,
14:07
only on a maintenance you know
14:10
they were only maintaining the
14:12
plant, and they were not really
14:14
working the plant at that time
14:15
and they were making a decision
14:17
about where they should,
14:18
whether they should relocate and where.
14:20
And.
14:22
You know MIC went out into the atmosphere
14:25
around it was an industrial shantytown.
14:27
Large numbers of people died, and when
14:29
I say large numbers it's like over
14:31
the years it's over 20,000 people,
14:32
but immediately between 3 and 8000 people.
14:35
And it's significant that I see
14:37
between three and eight because,
14:39
you know,
14:39
it was so bad that people couldn't even
14:41
keep count of how many people were
14:42
actually dead. And large numbers of people.
14:45
I mean,
14:45
it's the one disaster that has
14:47
produced phenomenal,
14:48
like an orphan's colony and widow's colony.
14:52
And yet, the kind of remediation
14:54
and the kind of remedies for
14:57
people has been so...
15:02
So marginal. That it's shocking
15:05
that a thing like this can happen
15:07
at the world can let this you know,
15:10
the toxicity of these industries
15:12
continue, and all they had to do
15:14
was pay out of their insurance when
15:16
finally the money had to be paid.
15:18
So it's a- the Bhopal gas
15:20
disaster happened in 1984.
15:22
In December 1984, it's something that
15:25
is in our minds and hits all the time.
15:28
I mean, everybody remembers
15:30
it and for good reason.
15:33
So that's another major point from
15:35
where we took off when we were
15:37
discussing business and human rights,
15:39
and it's not something that has disappeared,
15:40
so we need to keep it on the map.
15:43
And just the last thing, that
15:45
called the corporatization
15:48
of resources,
15:50
has produced extremes of inequality.
15:54
But it has also produced another
15:56
phenomenon of philanthropy.
15:58
And the same people who are you
16:00
know who inequality is benefiting
16:02
by making them extremely rich,
16:05
then come back to us as philanthropists.
16:07
And there are all kinds of
16:10
implications for this,
16:11
so it is no longer only about
16:13
the ethics or the legality.
16:18
I mean what how this should be reflected
16:20
in law, about how they function as
16:23
business and corporate enterprises.
16:25
But also what happens when they
16:27
become become philanthropists.
16:29
You know, the the the big thing
16:31
is the relationship that changes
16:33
between the people and the state
16:35
and the state and the corporation.
16:37
With this kind of inequality and
16:39
this kind of money in a few hands,
16:41
the influence that these companies
16:43
have over the state is extraordinary.
16:45
So where earlier people would go
16:48
to the state and ask the state to
16:50
make laws, or to provide protections
16:52
of various kinds, or ask them,
16:54
you know the classic thing of respect,
16:57
protect and fulfill human rights.
16:59
Now that is getting broken because the
17:02
relationship is much stronger between
17:04
the state and the corporation.
17:08
And people become, you know, it's like
17:12
a battle that you can't even begin.
17:15
So that's where I see
17:16
our position now.
17:17
So I want to find at least
17:19
one nice thing to say.
17:20
I think for the next 45 minutes
17:21
and maybe come up with something,
17:23
but I'm sorry right now.
17:24
This situation is not really
17:26
very optimistic,
17:26
which is what makes it
17:27
exciting in one sense,
17:28
because there's lots of work to do.
17:36
Thank you so much for depressing us
17:40
with those really important thoughts.
17:44
Uh, Surya. Over to you.
17:48
And then we'll come back together.
17:51
Thank you, thank you very much,
17:53
Shelley and thank you Usha for joining us
17:56
and sharing those thoughts. And we
17:59
did not, Usha and I did not share
18:03
precisely what we're going to say.
18:06
We just exchanged broadly what we
18:09
should say and how to structure it,
18:12
but I think as I put down my notes,
18:15
I think you will see some common
18:17
connections between the three issues
18:19
that Usha highlighted and what I
18:21
am going to say.
18:22
So I think you will see that connection.
18:25
The overarching point that I would like
18:27
to propose for the consideration of
18:29
all of us is this - the next decade
18:32
of business and human rights
18:35
will be very critical.
18:36
I think it will be very critical
18:39
because it will define whether
18:41
BHR will become a new CSR.
18:44
Or it can trigger transformative
18:47
changes in the world.
18:51
And I'm not very optimistic.
18:53
That it will bring transformative changes.
18:56
So my feeling, or the temptation is
18:59
is that BHR might become
19:02
a new kind of CSR.
19:06
Or as I called recently in my chapter,
19:08
it may be called
19:10
perhaps in future, the
19:12
business of human rights.
19:14
Rather than business and human rights,
19:15
so that is my fear. And I think I share
19:19
those apprehensions that Usha highlighted
19:21
in concrete terms in terms of technology.
19:24
Or the corporate edition of
19:27
resources and everything.
19:29
But let us say, the progress that we
19:31
have made in the last 20 years or
19:34
30-40 years in this particular field.
19:36
To me, the most significant progress
19:39
is that there is a wide consensus
19:42
now amongst all these stakeholders
19:45
that businesses have a responsibility
19:48
to respect international human rights.
19:52
I think there's a wide consensus on
19:55
this amongst all the stakeholders.
19:57
To me that is a significant progress.
20:00
So we don't have even companies
20:02
openly saying it now, that we have no
20:05
responsibility but to maximize profit.
20:07
I recall when I was in Sydney,
20:10
James Hardie was a big case study
20:13
in Australia.
20:14
And I remember, still, the
20:16
chief executive officer of
20:17
James Hardie then,
20:18
she openly said that 'we have also
20:20
responsibilities to our shareholders,
20:23
so we cannot just give money to these
20:25
people who may have suffered because
20:27
of exposures to asbestos' and all that.
20:29
So I think, increasingly we have
20:31
crossed that bridge that businesses,
20:34
at least publicly,
20:35
they are not challenging this idea that
20:38
they have human rights responsibilities.
20:42
But I would like to say, and here
20:44
I disagree with Professor John
20:46
Ruggie, that this consensus is thick.
20:48
He has argued that the consensus
20:49
for you and guiding principles,
20:51
is thick. I say it is wide but thin,
20:54
not thick.
20:55
Because if it was a thick consensus,
21:08
OK, I think someone muted me, so that
21:10
shows the power of technology as well.
21:12
So technology can become so powerful
21:15
that we can become voiceless very easily,
21:19
something that Usha
21:20
was highlighting earlier.
21:22
But let me continue.
21:23
So I was saying that I will try
21:26
to make a distinction between wide
21:28
versus thick consensus.
21:30
And Professor Ruggie has argued the UN GP's
21:32
are based on thick consensus.
21:33
I say a wide consensus,
21:35
but it is very shallow and thin.
21:38
Because if it was thick, then we
21:41
don't need to have this symposium.
21:42
We don't need to have these discussions,
21:44
and so many courses and literature on BHR,
21:47
because then businesses would have
21:49
done what is needed and the states would
21:51
have and what is needed in the last 10 years.
21:54
And there's tremendous amount of evidence
21:57
whether it is Australia, India or Europe,
21:59
or anywhere in the world.
22:01
That they have done very little
22:03
in last ten years in terms of
22:05
implementing the UN guiding principle,
22:07
they are saying they're committed
22:09
to implement them.
22:10
They're saying they're supporting
22:11
the UN guiding principles,
22:12
but they are not doing ABC to implement them.
22:16
I think that is my struggle and that's
22:18
why I say the consensus is very thin.
22:21
And I think it is-
22:22
It is a matter of worry.
22:24
I consider
22:25
Bhopal Gas disaster and the cases
22:29
studied as it touches stone to assess
22:32
the progress that we have made.
22:35
So that is, that is about 35 years now.
22:41
How much progress we have made?
22:43
I think it should be assessed
22:45
with reference to the challenges
22:47
that Bhopal posed to us in 1984.
22:49
Have we overcome those challenges?
22:53
And if I ask this question myself,
22:55
I struggled to find a positive
22:57
answer because most of the challenges
22:59
that Bhopal posed in 1984 have
23:02
not been overcome now.
23:04
Whether it is about the doctrine of forum
23:06
non conveniens,
23:07
whether it is about holding
23:09
a parent company accountable.
23:11
Whether it is about the issue of different
23:15
standards in terms of health and safety.
23:18
Whether it is the state business Nexus,
23:21
I don't think we have made tremendous
23:24
progress in overcoming those challenges.
23:26
Let me give a concrete example.
23:29
When Union Carbide agreed
23:31
to compensate the victims,
23:33
this settlement expressly mentioned
23:35
that Union Carbide does not take any
23:38
responsibility for the gas disaster.
23:41
23:42
The agreement was not confidential,
23:44
but the company expressly said that we
23:48
don't own any responsibility for this.
23:52
Fast forward 2021.
23:54
Early last month,
23:56
Vedanta agreed to settle a case.
24:00
The settlement is confidential,
24:02
but we know that Vedanta says we
24:05
do not assume any responsibility
24:07
to these farmers in Zambia.
24:10
So companies are giving pittance or
24:13
compensation, this is not justice.
24:15
This is not accountability.
24:17
And I think we are not making
24:19
progress because here, company is
24:21
saying we are not responsible but
24:23
because we have the money.
24:25
And because we think this ongoing
24:27
litigation is risky for us, businesses,
24:29
we are giving you X amount
24:31
of dollars and let
24:32
us move on.
24:33
But we are not responsible for that.
24:34
What has happened? To me,
24:36
this is not access to remedy to me.
24:38
This is not access to justice.
24:39
To me, this is not progress that we
24:42
have made in the last 35 years.
24:45
What need to change, this is my final part.
24:49
And I would challenge all of us,
24:52
and give four concrete ideas in terms
24:55
of four R's that needs to change.
24:57
The first is we need to reinstate rights.
25:01
That is my first R, reinstating
25:04
rights in business and human rights.
25:07
The second is recover the state.
25:10
That is the second R, recovered the state.
25:12
The third is reduce the
25:15
tweaks in terms of the reform.
25:17
And my fourth R is reimagine the economic model.
25:22
Let me quickly unpack these
25:24
four R's and I will
25:26
stop with that.
25:30
Now this time, business and human rights,
25:32
of course includes human rights,
25:36
but our rights, really rights in the
25:39
business and human rights field,
25:41
when businesses do not have legally
25:43
binding and enforceable obligations,
25:45
and if there is a breach,
25:46
victims are struggling to seek remedies.
25:50
And I'm not talking about merely
25:52
who are countries in the global South?
25:54
The countries where there's a
25:56
weak governance or rule of law?
25:57
I'm talking about almost
25:59
any country in the world.
26:01
Which country in the world
26:03
is able to provide
26:05
access to effective remedy to the victims
26:09
of corporate related human rights abuses.
26:12
I think we have a very difficult situation. NOTE Confidence: 0.888594132857143
26:14
So in my view,
26:16
we need to rethink business and human rights.
26:20
And make rights, and rights holders central.
26:26
We need to do what is needed
26:27
for the rights holders,
26:29
not what is acceptable to businesses.
26:32
I mean there is significant difference.
26:34
Businesses say this is not viable for us.
26:36
This is impractical.
26:38
All the progress is significant.
26:41
We always talk about glass
26:42
half full or half empty.
26:44
So businesses always say
26:46
the glass is half full.
26:48
But where are the rights holders who
26:50
may not even have a glass to hold?
26:53
Forget about the glass being empty.
26:56
Right? So I think those are the real
26:59
situations that we need to consider.
27:01
Second point is recover the state.
27:04
I think we have created this significant
27:07
paradox that we are asking the state
27:10
to protect our human rights.
27:12
And this state has completely been lost.
27:16
It is lost because of this corporate
27:18
capture of the governance institutions.
27:21
Politicians are businessmen,
27:22
businessmen are politicians, almost everywhere.
27:25
And we're talking about democracies,
27:27
we're talking about autocracies,
27:28
we're talking about
27:29
semi-democracies, look anywhere.
27:32
There are different models and variations.
27:34
But the state business nexus is so deep.
27:39
There is not much difference in
27:41
terms of who is regulating whom.
27:44
Then the other difficulty is
27:47
significant democratic deficits.
27:50
Because of which the governments
27:53
are governing only for 10%
27:56
of people in a society.
27:58
So even if they contest election on a
28:01
particular political party manifesto,
28:03
they're not even serving
28:04
that political party.
28:05
Forget about the entire
28:06
society or entire country.
28:07
They're only working to serve X percentage
28:10
of people on the top of the pyramid.
28:14
Otherwise,
28:14
we do not have the kind of inequality
28:17
that we have at this point of time.
28:19
On other challenges that we have.
28:22
My third are is that we need to reduce
28:25
changes which are merely tweaks,
28:28
and I think this is an obligation of
28:31
scholars and especially scholars.
28:34
And I would really encourage you to
28:36
think that and challenge rather than
28:39
accept those reform options which
28:42
are merely superficial changes.
28:44
And they're not trying to address
28:47
the systemic
28:49
challenges and systemic problems that we
28:51
have at this particular point of time.
28:54
And the final point is about
28:57
reimagining the economic model.
28:59
I think Usha also talked
29:01
about reimagining the technology
29:02
and I think I agree with her,
29:04
but I would expand it to reimagine the
29:06
entire economic structure that we have.
29:10
I mean, there's a lot of growing
29:12
literature about the stakeholder
29:14
capitalist reimagining capitalism,
29:16
or reforming capitalism or humane capitalism.
29:20
But can we really reform it?
29:22
Or is it beyond repair?
29:25
I think this is a legitimate question
29:27
we should be asking, because the
29:30
current model that we have is a
29:33
perfect recipe for inequality.
29:35
Exclusion and destruction of
29:38
the environment and of course,
29:40
causing the entire climate
29:42
change that we have.
29:44
So let me conclude by saying that I
29:46
don't know whether people from New
29:48
Zealand and Australia will consider
29:50
themselves as part of the global South.
29:52
But I would ask,
29:54
especially the global South scholars,
29:59
do not accept the narrative on business and
30:03
human rights that have been set elsewhere.
30:06
Rather, we should be influencing.
30:09
We should be articulating what people need,
30:11
what is needed for the global South to work.
30:15
So we should not be recipient
30:18
of the standards and the
30:20
principles set somewhere else.
30:23
Which are not based on the experiences
30:27
and diverse circumstances
30:28
of the global South.
30:31
We should not be also merely participants to
30:34
those consultations done by elsewhere, people
30:36
elsewhere, and they are articulating those
30:39
those standards, because we have
30:42
participated in those consultations.
30:44
That is merely legitimately exercise.
30:47
Rather, we should be able to
30:51
articulate standards and principles
30:53
that will serve the needs of the people
30:56
on the ground in the global South.
30:59
And the four R's that I have suggested,
31:01
it's just a small attempt to to
31:03
challenge all of us collectively,
31:06
to think of some radical solutions.
31:08
Thank you very much once again,
31:10
and happy to discuss further these points,
31:14
but I'll stop here for now.
31:15
Thank you.
31:17
Wonderful thank you so much.
31:20
So we said that we would now open up a
31:24
conversation between you Surya and Usha.
31:28
And,
31:29
I wanted to provide a prompt and please
31:37
feel free to take it somewhere else,
31:39
but I'm wondering about what are
31:42
the movements, what are the social
31:45
movements or the tendencies within
31:48
the current moment within the
31:51
systems that we're looking at,
31:55
which give rise to optimism,
31:58
or which you think could be written
32:02
on or could be assisted, that would
32:05
help to bring about the kind of
32:08
change that you're both calling for.
32:19
Oop, you seem to be muted.
32:21
OK, would you want to start with that?
32:23
No, I think you start and I'll
32:25
because I had I missed a part of
32:27
it because of bad connection.
32:28
So I just moved and I hear you.
32:30
And then I'll come to repeat the question.
32:32
Then yeah, I will repeat it.
32:34
I just I wondered if you would be
32:37
interested in saying something about
32:40
contemporary social movements
32:42
that you know of or involved
32:46
in or witnessing, or tendencies and
32:50
contradictions within the systems
32:52
that you have both commented on
32:55
which give you cause for hope
32:57
and which you think we could,
33:00
we could help to push forward.
33:05
That would be the things that you're both
33:08
talking about in terms of objectives.
33:11
OK, so I'm happy to start
33:13
Surya if it's OK with you.
33:16
OK, so see the idea of social movements
33:20
in the context of human rights
33:22
has been not just very important,
33:25
it's also been very interesting.
33:27
Because there has been a,
33:30
you know, there's been a clear distinction
33:33
between NGOs and movements.
33:35
And it's been interesting to see
33:37
how over the years there has been a
33:41
collaboration between movements and NGOs.
33:43
And academics stepping in because
33:45
you know there was a time when we
33:47
used to ask who is an academic?
33:49
I mean, is an academic who comes
33:50
in to do the post-mortem, you know,
33:53
as an academic someone who's seeking
33:55
a footnote, is an academic someone
33:56
who is seeking to be a footnote.
33:58
And then you know.
33:59
So if you need to be relevant,
34:01
you really need to engage with
34:03
what is happening on the ground.
34:05
And many people find it difficult
34:07
to reach the ground.
34:08
So then they do it through movements
34:11
and they do it through NGOs.
34:13
So it's a... this collaboration that
34:16
has emerged over these past thirty,
34:18
40, 50 years has been a very important
34:21
and multiple movements have come in.
34:23
For instance,
34:24
in India you know there have been-
34:25
There's the civil liberties movement,
34:27
democratic rights movement,
34:29
women's movement, pallet right movement.
34:30
You can keep,
34:31
You know, we could keep on.
34:33
There are a large number of movements,
34:34
but they are also very-
34:36
They've learned over the years
34:38
to be collaborative.
34:39
And the learning therefore is across,
34:42
uh, across issues, so it's not being.
34:47
It's not only being,
34:48
you know,
34:48
within the someone working on child
34:50
rights will also know what the
34:52
death penalty movement is saying,
34:53
because you know harm done to a child.
34:56
Child is very often used by the state to
35:00
describe the death penalty and
35:01
then you have the child rights
35:02
movement and the human rights.
35:04
You know the death penalty,
35:04
move anti death penalty movement working
35:07
together so we've seen a number of these.
35:09
What I find now and I mean I do obsess
35:12
about technology a lot these days,
35:15
even while I work on the other things
35:18
and I find for instance that you know
35:21
a whole conversation that can happen
35:23
on business and human rights without
35:25
mentioning an Edward Snowden or
35:27
Julian Assange, is deeply distressing.
35:29
Because it means that we are not seeing,
35:32
you know-
35:33
Are we asking for martyrs in the cause of
35:36
you know, of our futures?
35:37
Or are we looking at
35:39
taking responsibility for people
35:41
who have spoken up and taken,
35:43
you know,
35:44
and done what they needed to for us.
35:46
I think Snowden is such a classic
35:49
case where you know the young man
35:51
comes out and he says that I watched
35:54
what is happening within and all
35:56
technology majors are collaborating
35:58
with the state to violate every
36:01
human right that you have.
36:03
And especially the human right,
36:04
you know, the right to privacy.
36:06
And that surveillance is becoming
36:08
a norm, and that mass collection
36:10
of data is becoming the norm,
36:12
and people don't even know it.
36:14
So you know we've entered an arena
36:16
where we don't even know that
36:18
our rights are being violated.
36:20
In India, we were a little luckier if I
36:23
may use the word in a slightly sardonic
36:25
sense, in that the government went to
36:28
the court and told the court in the
36:30
context of a technology identity project,
36:33
that the people of this country
36:35
don't have a right to privacy.
36:37
So, some of these- and the reason they said
36:39
it was not just that they didn't like us.
36:41
I mean maybe they don't,
36:42
but that wasn't the reason.
36:43
The reason they said it was that
36:46
these technologies cannot survive.
36:48
With, you know, with the right to privacy.
36:51
So you have to kill the right to privacy
36:53
for these technologies to survive.
36:55
So I think the end, with all the
36:59
other movements, like when we've had,
37:00
say, the land against against land
37:04
being taken away and displacement
37:06
against slum demolition,
37:08
these have all been- they've been visible.
37:11
They you know,
37:12
there is a tangible element to them,
37:15
and so, you know, kind of working,
37:18
working with it and around it
37:19
has had very different meaning.
37:22
But with technology,
37:23
so much of it is hidden.
37:25
Until it suddenly bursts in our faces
37:28
and by which time, mostly for instance,
37:29
the mobile phone.
37:30
The mobile phone which started
37:32
as you know everyone excited
37:34
about being able to walk around.
37:36
I can never understand why
37:37
I'll confess, walking around with
37:38
the phone in their hands and to be,
37:40
you know that they can contact
37:41
people at anytime they want
37:43
and be contacted.
37:44
Now that has slowly evolved from being a
37:46
phone to being a feature phone to being
37:48
a smartphone, where we are constantly
37:50
told that the smartphone is actually
37:53
a fundamental tool for surveillance.
37:55
And we don't know what to do about it.
37:58
You don't know how to deal with it.
38:00
So I think the, you know, for social
38:02
movements to be able to incorporate
38:04
some of the new problems that are
38:06
coming in, is not proving to be as
38:08
simple as-
38:09
Not that creating the movement was
38:12
simple, but recognizing what was being,
38:16
you know, what was the basic issue that the
38:19
movement was dealing with was tangible.
38:22
That which is intangible today,
38:24
you know, for instance,
38:27
inequality was far less
38:29
obvious and visible awhile ago,
38:30
and you kept feeling like OK,
38:32
you have corporates.
38:33
38:33
Everyone can't be the same, but
38:35
look at the levels of inequality
38:37
now and we're seeing it at,
38:40
you know, it's like scary.
38:42
It's like most part of humanity
38:45
has become completely redundant.
38:47
And they will have no place in either
38:50
either profit or in policy or even
38:53
in the establishing of principles.
38:56
That's what we're up against,
38:57
and that's the kind of
38:59
effort we need to put into
39:02
take the experience of uh,
39:05
movements and of, you know, civil
39:08
society actors of various kinds.
39:10
But to go beyond
39:12
and see what is not so obvious to be seen.
39:16
I think actually much of this is
39:18
obvious if we just read a permanent record,
39:20
you know, Snowden's permanent record?
39:22
We get quite a lot, and we go back to see
39:24
who were the companies who are all involved.
39:26
We get quite a lot.
39:27
We don't seem to have got there yet,
39:29
and I think we need to do that.
39:34
Thank you, if I may add two more points.
39:37
Shelley, I think social movements.
39:39
Personally I believe they really
39:41
gave the hope in this difficult time.
39:44
All over the world I'm sitting in Hong Kong,
39:47
so before COVID, people in
39:50
Hong Kong were fighting.
39:52
People in Myanmar,
39:53
I was looking at some videos
39:55
they are fighting.
39:56
Uh, I mean it has happened elsewhere as well.
39:59
Black Lives Matter
40:00
issue that unfolded in the US.
40:02
You can see all over the world.
40:04
There are different variations
40:06
of these social movements,
40:07
so I think they definitely give me,
40:10
personally, the hope and I think all of us
40:13
should believe that we have a role to play.
40:15
Human rights are not something
40:18
which we can think of
40:21
Oh, we already have these rights and
40:23
others will protect it for us - No.
40:25
Each one of us
40:26
would have to do something
40:28
to protect those rights,
40:30
and I think that is where the social
40:32
movements coming together become relevant.
40:33
But I have two issues here
40:35
that I would like to flag.
40:37
One is the use of technology
40:39
for social movements.
40:40
I think the technology could be
40:42
used in a positive manner as well.
40:45
To make connections among social movements,
40:49
not just within a country,
40:50
but also across the world.
40:53
But can we create such technologies
40:56
which can be trusted?
40:58
Ah,
40:59
can there be some actors in
41:00
society who can invest on creation
41:02
of those kind of technologies?
41:04
I think that is a question that
41:06
the BHR world should be asking.
41:08
The second issue is how to differentiate
41:11
between social movements that I gave
41:13
the examples, whether they are in Hong Kong,
41:15
Myanmar,
41:16
in the US or elsewhere.
41:18
With other movements which may
41:22
promote or try to promote
41:25
anti-human rights agenda.
41:29
Because we had protesters
41:31
supporting Trump as well.
41:33
We have thousands and millions
41:35
of people who are willing to
41:38
support the Chinese ideology of
41:40
human rights and development.
41:42
So they may also claim that
41:44
we are social movements.
41:45
So I think that differentiation,
41:49
and the question of legitimacy
41:51
that what is a principled social
41:53
movement and what is not a principle
41:56
social movement.
41:57
I think those issues will become quite
41:59
relevant going forward in my view.
42:01
Thank you.
42:04
Usha, I wanted to ask you whether there is,
42:08
if you could maybe tell us a little bit
42:11
about the farmers movement in India and
42:13
how you see that being a relevant or
42:16
what we can learn from and in relation
42:19
to the inter business and human rights.
42:23
Uh. The farmers movement is fascinating
42:28
for a range of reasons.
42:30
One, if there has been a fundamental
42:33
shift in the meaning of rule of law
42:36
uh, here, so it's been
42:38
happening over a period of time,
42:41
but I think it's crescendoed now.
42:44
Basically it is the state saying
42:46
that the state can make a law to
42:49
enforce it on a people.
42:50
But law doesn't apply to the state.
42:53
We've seen that happening
42:54
over the period of time.
42:56
For instance, I mean to give you a
42:57
it's a legally technical issue,
43:00
but the idea that bills can be
43:02
passed in Parliament as money bills,
43:04
which basically means that we have two
43:07
Houses of Parliament and the Upper
43:09
House of Parliament will have no say
43:11
in whether the bill should be passed or not,
43:13
so it's giving short shrift
43:15
to the procedure of making the law.
43:18
In this case,
43:18
in the farmer's case, they they first
43:21
introduced it as an ordinance,
43:23
which basically means it was
43:25
executive lawmaking.
43:26
And then they passed it in Parliament
43:29
into an act without any consultation.
43:33
Now when such major laws come in, normally,
43:36
it is referred to a standing
43:38
committee of Parliament.
43:39
People can represent before it and
43:41
then after considering all of that,
43:43
they will give an advisory opinion which
43:46
has to be considered by Parliament.
43:48
So there's a whole process.
43:50
And in India we've been battling
43:52
for what we call the pre-legislative
43:54
process, that you don't just introduce
43:56
a bill you don't give it only to your,
43:58
you know, to your parliamentarians,
43:59
you give it to the people. And
44:01
everybody should be able to understand
44:04
what law is, before it
44:05
you know, before it's even sent to Parliament.
44:08
None of that.
44:09
I mean, it doesn't happen normally.
44:11
In this case, it certainly didn't happen.
44:13
And the logic of the state is,
44:16
you know,
44:16
the explanation that they give
44:18
or the justification for this is
44:20
that this is good for the farmers.
44:22
And the farmers are saying never mind,
44:24
we don't want it. And we are, and it's a
44:28
it's also a very interesting
44:30
time because in Punjab,
44:32
which is which has been one of
44:33
the hotbeds of this agitation
44:35
against the laws, you've had,
44:37
the farmers have come out
44:39
to say that this is merely about
44:41
handing over all our resources to
44:43
corporates, and allowing them to
44:45
dictate what we should grow and
44:47
who we should sell it to at what
44:50
price, and where we might actually
44:52
be dismissed off our lands.
44:54
So they have,
44:55
they've identified two companies as
44:57
being the target companies which
44:59
are being supported by the state.
45:02
As the farmers see it, and they
45:04
have created zones
45:05
of boycott of these companies.
45:07
So you have Reliance and Adani,
45:09
which are two major companies
45:11
which are supported by the state.
45:13
And both of them are being boycotted,
45:16
so they they do-
45:18
Punjab is a very interesting example.
45:20
In fact there's a lot of learn
45:21
from the way they function.
45:23
So when truck loads of
45:25
material would be taken,
45:27
say of Reliance, into one
45:29
of the cities in Punjab,
45:32
they would stop them at the entrance to
45:34
the city, and there will be a driver and
45:36
a cleaner, so they will be taken of
45:38
the truck, will be taken
45:39
away, and they'll be fed
45:40
then they'll be taken care of. And
45:42
the message will be sent to the
45:43
company saying 'take this back because
45:45
this is not entering our city'.
45:47
So it's very humane with people
45:49
who are working for the companies,
45:51
but completely, you know,
45:53
unaccepting of the company
45:54
itself being there.
45:56
And it's also interesting to see the
45:58
response that came in. With Reliance,
45:59
you know,
46:00
coming out with a public statement
46:02
saying that 'we are with the farmers,
46:04
we would never do anything
46:05
to harm the farmers interest'.
46:07
And you know, this is not-
46:09
Not going into the law at all,
46:11
but just saying that, you know, we
46:12
are good guys and we are with you.
46:14
You know we are there because we like
46:16
the farmers and the farmers give us food and,
46:18
you know,
46:19
Whatever.
46:20
And you have Adani coming out
46:21
and saying actually what was
46:23
discussed a little while ago,
46:24
saying that you know our
46:26
shareholders need not worry,
46:27
we are not doing any harm to the farmers.
46:29
All this is just an agitation
46:31
being done by somebody else.
46:33
So our shareholders and our
46:36
investors need not worry about this
46:38
because we are not actually part
46:40
of the harm that's being caused,
46:41
and there is no harm being caused.
46:43
So it's speaking to different
46:46
audiences and saying different things,
46:48
but none of it is within that
46:50
idea of the rule of law.
46:52
These are just, you know,
46:53
advertisements in the sense of that
46:55
they're trying to stem the problem
46:57
that they have with the farmers.
46:59
The farmers have been remarkable
47:01
because it's the one, as they see it,
47:04
this is the last bastion.
47:06
Which may fall to corporate interest,
47:08
and they say that we cannot
47:10
allow this to happen because not
47:11
only will we die with this,
47:13
we will perish as a community with this,
47:16
but food insecurity will come in
47:18
because you're going to corporatize
47:19
all of this. And the way they read the
47:22
laws makes sense to a lot of people.
47:24
The farmers agitation is also
47:26
become very important because it
47:28
has a legitimacy and a strength.
47:30
Also, because of,
47:31
you know because of where they belong,
47:34
and the kind of validation of
47:35
the farmer that has happened in our
47:38
quality over the years, over the decades.
47:40
So it is,
47:41
you know we say 'Jai Jawan Jai Kisan' like
47:44
'Hail to the soldier, and Hail to the
47:46
farmer' so you can't treat them like you
47:49
would treat minorities, for instance.
47:51
Where you know you can villainize minorities,
47:54
it's very difficult to villainize the farming
47:57
community. And a lot of movements therefore,
48:00
are hitching themselves to that wagon,
48:03
and both supporting the movement but also
48:06
creating spaces for themselves within that
48:09
movement to see where legitimacy lies.
48:11
So it's a- and the state. It's a state where
48:15
it's a very masculine state,
48:17
and it doesn't believe in backing down.
48:20
So they say, OK, we will make 13 out
48:21
of the 14 amendments that you ask.
48:23
We will do everything you say,
48:24
but we will not repeal the law.
48:26
And the farmers are saying repeal
48:28
the law and talk to us.
48:29
And then we'll decide what kind
48:31
of a law we want.
48:32
So it's not like we don't want reform.
48:34
We've been asking for reform,
48:35
but this is not what we want.
48:37
So it's a fascinating, you know.
48:41
Fascinating,
48:41
except that it's scary because
48:43
when you see the images the past
48:45
few days of what's you know of the
48:48
farmers protests just outside Delhi.
48:50
Uh, it's not a pretty sight.
48:55
Surya, do you want to add anything
48:57
to that or do you have a question or
49:01
intervention in relation to anything
49:04
that Usha said earlier as well?
49:07
I think Usha put it quite rightly,
49:08
and she is close to the reality.
49:11
I mean, so I think it
49:13
it relates back to the issue of democratic
49:16
deficits that I was trying to highlight.
49:19
I would just add, if people are aware
49:22
of the Indian democratic developments,
49:25
we had an emergency in the mid 1970's.
49:28
So Mrs Gandhi declared emergency.
49:31
I was a small child then, uh,
49:33
I have no idea what it must have been,
49:36
but I say
49:38
that Modi in India is behaving like
49:42
he has imposed emergency in India.
49:46
So if you can
49:48
have all those powers, without declaring an
49:52
emergency that creates a unique challenge.
49:55
Because then our typical devices of
49:58
rule of law, separation of powers,
50:00
free media, all these things exist,
50:03
everything is there.
50:04
But there is a tremendous amount of
50:07
concentration of power and behaving like
50:09
what would be in an emergency situation?
50:12
And I think we need to find our refine
50:15
our tools to counter this kind of a
50:18
concentration of power in normal times,
50:20
in a democratic country like India.
50:23
But I want you to react to, I was
50:25
looking at the chat box and I wanted
50:28
to react very briefly this point
50:30
about technology, Alan and Andy.
50:32
And I think I personally do not
50:35
consider the technologies are
50:37
inherently anti-human rights.
50:39
I mean,
50:40
look at this webinar right, so
50:42
if there was no technology we
50:44
could not have done this right?
50:47
So it is possible to use technology
50:49
in a way to promote many human rights,
50:52
and I think it is also good for the
50:54
climate change, that we are not traveling
50:56
from different parts of the world.
50:58
And just joining it one city of the
51:01
world to have this conversation.
51:04
But I think what is absolutely critical
51:06
is that if the company which is providing
51:09
this technology is able to share
51:11
the personal details of Usha and me
51:13
to China or the Indian government
51:16
without telling us,
51:18
that is part of the problem.
51:20
Or if someone records what we
51:22
are saying we are saying we are
51:24
believing that we are saying is in
51:26
confidence that it won't go out.
51:28
And what if someone is recording us and
51:30
passing on those critical comments to
51:32
the relevant government authorities?
51:34
Then I think so.
51:35
I think we need to manage those
51:37
side effects of technology.
51:39
And I think that is why I
51:41
was suggesting that,
51:42
because we human beings
51:45
like free things,
51:46
so we like all these free apps
51:49
that we download in our smartphones,
51:51
right?
51:51
But no app you can download for free
51:54
or no email that you can use for free
51:57
without compromising your human rights.
52:00
So can we create technologies
52:02
which are more compatible with human
52:05
rights or for which we have to pay?
52:08
I think to me that that is the way to
52:11
go forward in my view.
52:13
But I'm happy to take more questions.
52:16
Comes back to the question that, um,
52:18
Upa asked at the very start,
52:21
which I think kind of pushes us to
52:24
consider the limits of a business
52:26
and human rights agenda. He says.
52:29
Do you think that high tech is
52:31
inherently a threat to human rights?
52:32
Or perhaps is the failure of tech
52:34
businesses in a simulating human rights
52:37
norms and operation of the issue?
52:39
I think it a pushes us to ask,
52:43
is it- would it fix the problem?
52:47
If companies adopted human rights norms?
52:51
Or is there something more
52:53
fundamentally problematic?
52:56
Usha, looks like you have a view about that.
52:58
Yeah, I've got a very strong
53:00
view about this, Shelley.
53:02
See, if you look at the business and human
53:05
rights discourse over the past 50 years,
53:07
45 years.
53:08
We find that every time
53:11
it is like international law
53:13
and standards have to be made
53:16
so that businesses are comfortable with it,
53:18
they're easy with it, that it doesn't
53:21
really incommode them too much and we
53:23
have to take their permission to make any
53:25
law that will bind them in any kind of way.
53:27
In fact,
53:27
it shouldn't bind them at all,
53:29
it will just be a code of conduct.
53:31
And if they breach it,
53:32
you know they'll say sorry sometimes,
53:34
or you know they may not say
53:36
they may not acknowledge you.
53:37
That's the kind of culture from which
53:38
we come when it comes to companies.
53:40
Companies have never allowed
53:42
themselves to be bound by the law,
53:44
and they don't want laws that are being made.
53:46
I mean,
53:47
it's a classic kind of thing where
53:49
they say you know it's so broad
53:51
and it's so wide that we can't
53:53
understand what you're saying.
53:55
Tell us precisely what you want us to do,
53:57
and then we'll think about it -
53:59
like it's a favor to the world
54:01
community that they will,
54:02
you know, they will conform to some norms,
54:06
so I think this idea
54:07
that we can work with with the companies
54:10
and that they will be then following
54:13
human rights, is like asking for a
54:15
lot because actually like I'm saying
54:17
a while ago, companies bank on certain
54:21
rights being taken out
54:24
of the human rights discourse.
54:27
Take the case of identity.
54:28
I mean,
54:29
it's something I've worked
54:29
on for a while now,
54:30
and they brought in an identity
54:32
project into India where they said
54:34
everyone give your biometrics,
54:35
give your, give all your information and
54:37
you know we produce this identity. Then
54:40
World Bank adopts these kinds of models,
54:42
takes on board the person who was in
54:44
charge of the identity project in India,
54:46
which is causing huge problems for us.
54:49
And then makes that a condition
54:51
for every kind of grant that
54:53
they give to any country,
54:54
anywhere in the world.
54:58
Now this identity project
55:00
is a step after digitization,
55:03
you have an ID project and then
55:05
you have the datafication of
55:07
the person. The idea of
55:09
you know, it's absurd,
55:11
but voluntary, they said.
55:12
It's voluntary.
55:13
You can come and take it, if you want.
55:15
You can enroll if you want.
55:17
It was just a step.
55:19
It's not even a hop and step,
55:20
it was just a step away to saying no,
55:23
it is mandatory if you don't get it.
55:25
So from being inclusive, it becomes
55:28
'I'll exclude you from all systems
55:29
unless you're going to be in on this'.
55:32
So we've had and you have a technology major
55:34
who's doing this because he's looking,
55:37
the whole world is now looking, at
55:40
the possibility of going cashless.
55:42
What is cashless? Cashless is
55:44
about leaving digital footprints.
55:46
Cashless is about having handing over control
55:50
entirely because if you don't eat with cash,
55:52
you have some control over,
55:53
you know, how much you have and
55:55
who can take it away from you.
55:57
You don't have any control at
55:59
all when it's digital.
56:00
And then they talk about presenceless.
56:03
It's an extraordinary phenomenon.
56:04
You know we have faceless income tax,
56:07
uh, whatever.
56:08
And then we have presenceless.
56:11
So it's cashless, paperless, presenceless.
56:13
Every one of which is
56:15
whittling down our rights.
56:17
I just want to say one more thing,
56:19
which is that, you know, the way
56:21
human rights is being talked about
56:22
now, and after in the technology
56:24
age is being talked about even
56:26
more in these terms, is to say
56:29
that your human rights end where
56:32
the other persons begin.
56:33
So you have to give up your human-
56:35
Now we've gone one step further and said
56:37
you have to give up your human rights
56:39
to the community.
56:40
So the individual right exists so that
56:42
you can contribute to the community.
56:45
And why has this become important?
56:47
Because they need our personal
56:48
data as the resource which will go
56:51
towards increasing GDP and difficulties.
56:54
And only corporations can do that,
56:56
only technology.
56:57
And it's not only technology majors.
57:00
Technology majors of you know Amazon
57:02
and Google and Microsoft and whatever
57:04
produce problems of monopoly.
57:06
And you know,
57:07
potential global control in a sense.
57:09
But every technology provider
57:11
and every technology company has
57:14
been taught these ambitions.
57:16
And whittling down, so the idea of innovation.
57:20
It's very clear they say we can't
57:22
innovate if there are rules.
57:24
So we will innovate and then we create
57:27
the rules to fit the innovation.
57:30
This is where we are poised, so you
57:32
know if the fight back isn't immediate,
57:35
uh, it's- you can't tame these corporations.
57:38
I mean, if you're looking to tame them,
57:39
I think that's not going to happen.
57:40
We have to shut them down.
57:41
For instance,
57:42
I honestly I'm a believer that we
57:44
need to do away with social media.
57:46
The kind of poison it's producing it,
57:49
it gives us a little advantage
57:51
somewhere, and makes- uses that as an
57:53
argument for continuing something
57:55
that has become vicious and poisoned
57:57
entire humanity. I think, you know.
58:00
So when I say we need, and I agree
58:02
with you Surya, when you say
58:04
we needed you imagination.
58:05
But I think it's also important
58:07
to imagine the unimaginable.
Collaboration and Networking with Poonsap Tulaphan and Shelley Marshall
Discussions on working in diverse groups and ensuring dignity and respect for individuals and workers in business, negotiation, collaboration and government bodies.
Collaboration and Networking with Poonsap Tulaphan and Shelley Marshall
Discussions on working in diverse groups and ensuring dignity and respect for individuals and workers in business, negotiation, collaboration and government bodies.
0:09
Khru-Poonsap, hi!
0:14
Hi Hi Hi Shelley! How are you?
0:16
Hi Michelle, I can see you're there
0:19
but just your
0:20
logo, thanks for
0:22
starting the meeting for us.
0:27
So, it's so nice - oh
0:31
Michelle no need to start recording yet,
0:33
I think just record a bit later.
0:40
0:44
0:47
So long since I've seen you khru-Poonsap!
0:51
Oh yes, yes yes. How are you?
0:53
How is the situation on COVID-19
0:56
in your country?
0:59
Yeah, it's very good.
1:03
We had a very long lockdown last last year.
1:09
And it managed to bring the cases down
1:12
to zero again in Melbourne and they
1:14
were already zero in the other states.
1:17
And now we're really just,
1:19
living a normal life.
1:21
OK OK OK, but yeah it's not OK in Thailand.
1:25
We have a the second wave
1:28
similar to December up to now.
1:33
Uh, in fact it's not not locked down,
1:36
but, uh, we have to.
1:40
Be careful all the time, right?
1:42
Is everybody wearing masks everywhere?
1:46
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah,
1:48
But there's some still,
1:52
in the Migrant workers
1:57
communities.
2:01
In the one province there
2:02
are lots of migrant workers,
2:04
but they stay in the same room,
2:08
so it's not easy also to control that.
2:13
2:19
Shelley, can I ask you one thing?
2:23
The first question,
2:26
what you mean by the first question?
2:29
The first one? Yes.
2:31
Ah, just it's about how good you are at
2:34
being a leader and bringing people together.
2:37
And the reason I suggested you as the
2:41
speaker for this session, is because
2:44
you know I watched how good you are
2:48
at bringing together people who are
2:51
from different organisations they may
2:54
be from business, or they're workers and
2:58
they don't have the same perspective,
3:00
but somehow you bring them together.
3:03
Uh-huh. Yeah,
3:11
That's the question, is how do you bring
3:14
people together with different interests,
3:16
like thinking about the work
3:19
that we did together.
3:20
The people that you bought together
3:22
had such different interests,
3:23
but you somehow have such long
3:26
relationships with them and,
3:28
you, yeah, you bring them all together.
3:31
That's my question.
3:35
Yeah, OK, OK, I try my best.
3:39
Yeah and then. The second question is,
3:43
well, you'll remember.
3:44
You said 'we must practice deep listening'
3:47
and I want to know what you meant by that.
3:51
And why you find it so important
3:55
to practice deep listening?
3:58
And then I'm also interested in,
4:00
you know, we were gonna talk about your
4:03
style of collaboration, but what do you...
4:08
Are there any other examples of people
4:10
that you see that you think of as
4:14
being really fantastic collaborators?
4:16
And what did they do differently from you?
4:20
Uh-huh, that's the third question
4:24
question number 3.
4:25
Question number 4 is.
4:29
About you know there's the work
4:31
you do in Thailand,
4:32
and obviously there's not
4:33
only one culture in Thailand,
4:35
but it's a little easier.
4:37
But when you're working across different
4:39
countries and with such different cultures,
4:41
you know, you and me
4:44
have such different
4:46
cultural backgrounds.
4:49
4:50
How do you do that?
4:55
And Khru-Poonsap, I'm just joining
4:59
people from the waiting room now.
5:02
So we have some new people! And as
5:06
you join, could I ask you to introduce
5:10
yourself 'cause we didn't get to
5:12
do that in the first session but we
5:15
absolutely have time for that now.
5:17
Nana, would you like to start?
5:19
Sure. Hi everyone,
5:21
my name is Nana Frishling, and I am a
5:25
final year, I would say almost
5:27
hopefully final few months,
5:28
candidate, at UNSW in Sydney
5:33
and my research focuses on
5:37
multistakeholder initiatives, and how they
5:39
regulate or don't regulate global
5:42
supply chains, and I'm really excited
5:44
to be here with all of you today.
5:47
Great! Suzanne,
5:48
would you like to introduce yourself next?
5:53
Sure hi, I'm Suzanne,
5:54
and I think I share a supervisor
5:57
with Nana and I'm also at UNSW,
6:00
but unfortunately I'm only in my
6:02
second year of my candidature
6:04
so a long way to go, and I'm researching
6:06
the accountability of corporations
6:08
for violations of human rights abuses
6:11
caused through international arms trade.
6:17
I'm still trying to get my elevator
6:18
pitch on it, so it's not quite good yet.
6:24
Uhm, and Okwudili, I hadn't got to
6:27
really meet you in the last session,
6:30
so it's great to meet you now.
6:32
Please introduce yourself.
6:34
Alright, good afternoon everyone.
6:36
My name is Okwudili Onyenwee,
6:39
I am from City University of Hong Kong.
6:43
I'm currently in my second year and
6:46
my focus is on the accountability of
6:49
multinational oil companies in Nigeria,
6:51
most especially for their activities of
6:54
gas flaring and how they can positively,
6:57
you know, contribute
6:58
in terms of taking,
7:01
Uh, in terms of, you know,
7:04
taking positive actions by
7:08
you know, kind of economic restoration,
7:10
restoration to alleviate the
7:14
harms that they have committed
7:16
to the victims within the region.
7:19
Alright, thank you very much.
7:21
Thank you, now is it Dalilah or Delilah?
7:27
Hi Shelly and yeah,
7:28
I'm Dalilah but it's also fine if
7:30
you call me Delilah, it's all good.
7:32
I was just concerned because under
7:34
two minutes before we should start
7:36
and you had started already.
7:38
Or is it correct? We haven't.
7:43
We just ask everybody to introduce
7:46
themselves as they joined. Yeah, OK great.
7:51
We're running early so we have time for it.
7:53
Yeah,
7:53
great thank you, I'm not worried anymore.
7:56
So I'm doing my PhD at Wollongong University
8:00
and however right now I'm in Palestine.
8:04
I'm accompanying my husband,
8:05
who is a peace worker.
8:06
Generally, I'm from Germany and Greece,
8:09
and my PhD thesis is about applying
8:12
the nonviolent action framework
8:15
to multinational corporations,
8:16
so targeting
8:19
multinational corporations.
8:20
Thank you, wonderful thank you. Uh, Jasmine.
8:25
Or are you Yasmin or you Jasmine?
8:29
I say Jasmine,
8:30
but respond to Yasmin.
8:34
Could you introduce yourself?
8:36
Sure, I'm Jasmine.
8:37
Good afternoon slash
8:39
I guess morning for me.
8:40
I'm based in Sweden doing a PhD
8:44
at the University of Gothenburg,
8:47
where my PhD looks at the ethical
8:49
and moral obligations of lawyers
8:52
advising clients
8:54
with regards to ethical impacts
8:57
and business human rights concerns.
8:59
Great,
9:00
9:01
I decided since khru-Poonsap
9:04
doesn't know any of you, and I haven't
9:07
got to hear your introductions yet,
9:10
I thought I would ask you as you
9:13
joined to introduce yourselves.
9:15
Then we all know each other a
9:17
little bit and then I'll introduce
9:19
the session. Andy!
9:21
Would you like to introduce yourself?
9:24
So hi everyone,
9:25
I'm a fourth year, just
9:28
starting my 4th year PhD at UNSW.
9:30
I'm being supervised by Justine Nolan,
9:32
and Chris Michaelson.
9:33
I'm looking at some of the factors
9:36
that lead corporations to engage with
9:38
rights norms and I'm focused
9:41
within the extraction industry in South America.
9:45
Great thank you. Is it FiFi, is
9:47
that how you pronounce your name?
9:57
You can see your unmuted now if you
10:00
could come it's FiFi or FeiFei.
10:03
Could you introduce yourself now?
10:09
Not sure if you can hear me,
10:11
so I'm going to move on to Zetty,
10:13
Would you introduce yourself?
10:16
Hi, I'm sorry I've just missed that bit, so
10:18
I'm not sure what else was supposed to say.
10:20
Everybody is just saying their name,
10:23
where they're from, and just a quick
10:25
sentence about what they're working on.
10:28
Hi, I'm Zetty. I'm from Sydney and I'm a
10:30
PhD student with the University of Sydney.
10:33
My research looks at modern slavery
10:36
and social movements, and how social
10:38
movements contributed to the passing of
10:41
modern slavery legislation in Australia.
10:44
Wonderful. Ruchika, NOTE Confidence: 0.84254949
10:46
you made it, well done.
10:50
Hey yeah, kindly thank you.
10:54
Yeah I'm Ruchika I'm from India.
10:56
I'm working on the interface between patents
11:00
and competition law and human rights.
11:02
I'm doing my PhD from the National University
11:05
of Juridical Sciences in Calcutta, India.
11:09
Wonderful. Fiona,
11:10
we haven't heard from you yet
11:13
have we? No, hi everybody, Fiona.
11:15
I'm a part-time candidate at UWA.
11:19
My day jobs at UNSW in Sydney, and
11:21
I'm working on how transnational
11:25
advocacy networks engage with
11:27
Freedom of Information and rights
11:30
around access to information,
11:31
particularly in terms of the the digital era.
11:35
Great, Sara.
11:38
Hi, my name is Sara.
11:39
Sorry for dropping in slightly late.
11:41
I'm a PhD candidate at RMIT university
11:44
and I am doing my research on women
11:47
garment workers in Myanmar which is
11:50
particularly interesting at the moment.
11:53
Yeah.
11:54
Thank you. And, Lee-Anne.
12:00
Good afternoon, my name is Lee-Anne Sim.
12:02
I'm at the Australian National University.
12:05
My PhD is looking at
12:07
how can we think about addressing some
12:10
of the institutional barriers to using
12:12
the financial system to promote social
12:14
goals, such as socioeconomic human rights.
12:18
Wonderful, I think that's everyone.
12:21
Is there anyone that I missed?
12:24
June, I missed you sorry!
12:27
It's OK. Hello everyone, my name is June
12:30
actually, I'm doing the second PhD hopefully
12:33
with the first one at La Trobe University,
12:35
and this one is just
12:37
my leisure activity.
12:39
I'm looking at the transition of skilled
12:42
migrants from non-English speaking
12:44
background countries to Australia.
12:46
So basically people often look at
12:48
or see migrants as a problem.
12:50
I want to look at them as human being,
12:54
as someone the same like others.
12:56
So I look at the bright side, why
12:58
they can't get over the struggles and
13:02
enter the labor market.
13:05
Wonderful, is there anyone else that I missed?
13:09
Alright, well thank you everybody
13:12
for joining this session.
13:14
I am really,
13:15
really happy that we're
13:17
running it and I am so thrilled
13:20
to have khru-Poonsap with us today.
13:22
And all of you can read her official
13:25
biography on the website and you
13:28
would have been able to see that now,
13:31
the RMIT Business and Human Rights website.
13:34
If you click onto events and you
13:36
click on to the symposium, you
13:38
can see all of the biographies
13:39
of everybody.
13:40
But I wanted to tell you my own personal
13:43
reason that I asked khru-Poonsap to
13:45
come and speak to you all today.
13:48
So I... About three years ago
13:52
khru-Poonsap,correct me if I'm wrong,
13:56
I was asked by the
13:59
International Labour Organization to go to Thailand
14:02
to work with HomeNet, who khru-Poonsap leads,
14:05
and the Thai Department
14:08
of Labor Protection,
14:11
which is part of the Ministry of
14:14
Labor to advise them about how to
14:17
implement UM labor laws
14:20
that had already been passed.
14:22
Laws that have been passed to protect
14:25
home based workers, so vulnerable workers
14:27
in complex supply chains within Thailand.
14:31
And I was fortunate enough to come to
14:35
meet khru-Poonsap in that process.
14:39
And I watched her incredible skill
14:44
at bringing together really so many
14:48
people for this really long process of
14:52
action research that we carried out.
14:55
People with very diverse
14:57
interests and normally kind of,
15:00
I would say, conflicting interests
15:03
from business, from government,
15:05
academics,
15:06
people who don't necessarily agree,
15:10
came along
15:11
For this two year ride, where we went
15:15
together and we visited the homes
15:18
of workers. And I really felt
15:22
that it was because of khru-Poonsap
15:25
that the process worked.
15:28
And at times I was so frustrated personally,
15:31
and she kind of guided us through
15:35
bringing together these- making
15:38
people who weren't necessarily
15:40
who you would imagine to be allies.
15:43
15:43
But through the kind of gentleness of
15:47
her personality and allowing them to
15:50
find a way to act as allies in this
15:55
process of improving the conditions
15:58
of vulnerable and precarious workers.
16:02
So, that's why I invited her.
16:06
I've really never seen anyone
16:10
bring together people in that way
16:13
to create alliances. And as
16:16
well as the work
16:18
that I've seen her do within Thailand,
16:22
I'm also aware of the work
16:24
that she does internationally,
16:27
and bringing together groups who
16:31
work on organizing home workers
16:34
from around the world.
16:37
But in particular from
16:40
across HomeNet Asia.
16:43
So that was the reason for inviting her,
16:47
and I'm so thrilled to see her
16:50
because I haven't been in Thailand
16:52
now I'm working with her, and the other
16:56
women from HomeNet for over a year.
16:59
So what we're going to do
17:02
is have a conversation.
17:04
I'm gonna ask her some questions, and
17:07
then I'm going to invite you to ask
17:10
whatever questions you like. And you
17:13
should feel free that just as questions
17:16
come to you to write them in the chat.
17:20
I'm really fine with that.
17:21
Or you can hold on to them and
17:24
I'll call on you at the the end,
17:27
depending on how much time we have.
17:30
So I wanted to start, khru-Poonsap,
17:35
by just repeating what a skilled
17:39
and astute collaborator you are and
17:42
how ingenious you are at leading a
17:46
large network of informal workers.
17:49
I don't know what how many workers
17:51
are now part of your organization,
17:54
but I know it was in the thousands,
17:57
the last time I I saw you.
18:00
So I wanted to ask you, what's your
18:03
number one most important piece of
18:05
advice about how to bring together
18:07
people with different interests
18:09
around a single course, and how to
18:12
keep motivating them to be there,
18:15
because I see the way that you kind
18:18
of hold people together over many,
18:22
many years.
18:28
Khru-Poonsap, I can't hear you right now.
18:31
I wonder what happened?
18:32
No, I didn't- Ah there we go, great.
18:35
Yeah, Shelley, thank you very much.
18:38
In fact, Shelly is really good in this,
18:41
not me. She is very good to work
18:44
with people, and she also teach me.
18:49
By her practice to work with the people,
18:54
uh, in fact,
18:56
I would like to have a short
18:58
introduction of myself.
19:00
I work with Foundation for Labour and
19:04
Employment Promotion for HomeNet Thailand.
19:07
We organize informal workers in Thailand,
19:11
especially home-based workers,
19:14
domestic workers,
19:15
street vendors and motorcycle taxi drivers.
19:19
Nowadays we also organize, like, beauticians
19:24
and massage service workers.
19:30
And there are more than 20,000 come together
19:35
at the Federation of Informal Workers.
19:39
Um, from Shelley's question,
19:44
I think that I myself,
19:49
I'm not the study much,
19:52
but I work a long time with the
19:56
workers for more than 30 years.
19:59
I work with them.
20:00
So what I want to say is a simple thing.
20:07
That, we practice
20:10
to work together because, as you know,
20:14
there are a variety, or there are different persons,
20:17
we also organize and at the same time
20:20
we try to do a lot of policy advocacy.
20:24
So during working on policy
20:27
advocacy, you need to
20:29
sometimes you need to collaborate,
20:32
not sometimes,
20:33
you NEED to collaborate
20:35
with the government at the same time
20:38
as some issue you need to against.
20:41
So I think,
20:45
from Shelley's question, uh,
20:47
I would say that,
20:51
for me myself, NOTE Confidence: 0.51654947
20:54
the expectation is very
20:57
important because everyone
20:59
works on doing their duty, so
21:03
they have their agenda to work.
21:07
But they are in different sectors,
21:10
in different environments.
21:12
Someone acts as a government officer,
21:15
someone as an NGO, someone acts as the workers.
21:20
So they have different knowledge
21:24
and experience.
21:26
We need to respect their knowledge
21:28
and experiences.
21:33
I really saw -
21:36
really saw you doing that,
21:38
khru-Poonsap,
21:39
I really saw the respect that
21:41
you treated everybody with,
21:43
regardless of whether they were
21:46
at the time of a negotiation,
21:49
disagreeing with us completely or
21:51
whether they were a worker who was
21:55
really desperate and asking for our help.
21:58
I saw the way that you treated
22:00
people with respect and,
22:01
what a difference it made in
22:05
their willingness to listen and their
22:08
willingness to engage because of the
22:11
respect that you showed them.
22:15
I remember one time we were
22:20
in a meeting with the director
22:22
from a government body,
22:24
I'm not gonna say which one.
22:27
And he was talking and talking, and he
22:30
was telling us in some detail his
22:33
problems and disagreements with the
22:35
joint work that we were conducting.
22:38
And I came out of that meeting...
22:42
angry and really frustrated, and you said
22:47
to me, 'we must practice deep listening'.
22:52
And I wanted to ask you,
22:55
'cause I didn't ask you at the time.
22:57
I wanted to ask you, what did you mean?
23:00
When you said 'we must practice
23:02
deep listening'.
23:09
Khru-Poonsap, I think you're muted again.
23:11
I think deep listening mean that you
23:15
listen with intention. Listen to them
23:20
with intention, this means that you can hear
23:25
the message that they want to send to you.
23:29
They want to talk to you.
23:31
Then you can understand their limitation
23:35
or understand their perspective clearly.
23:39
Nowaday people didn't listen to each other,
23:43
so we try to send our messages,
23:47
but we didn't like to receive
23:51
the message that others tried to inform you.
23:55
I think that in terms of
23:58
everyone, we are in different
24:02
situations so we may have a
24:05
different way of thinking, and
24:08
different perspectives so,
24:10
how can you understand them?
24:12
You need to listen,
24:14
carefully listen with intention.
24:16
This is - I know sometime like I also
24:20
get angry like Shelley said.
24:22
But because maybe they spend a lot of time.
24:26
Uh, but,
24:27
in the beginning we need to show them that
24:30
we listen to what they want to talk to us.
24:37
After you've done the deep listening,
24:39
then what next?
24:42
I think understanding is
24:45
the most important.
24:48
If we understand each other,
24:51
maybe it's a long message,
24:54
but the main message
24:56
is only some words,
24:59
the main message.
25:02
But if you understand it
25:04
clearly, then you can understand
25:09
their limitation or their objective.
25:11
Then you can try
25:16
to find a way to match with
25:23
their objective, with
25:29
their need, that they
25:32
want to work with us something
25:35
like this.
25:37
Or if they are misunderstanding
25:39
what we want to tell them
25:43
and they tell us all this,
25:46
and when we understand him clearly,
25:50
we understand them clearly.
25:52
It means that you can explain,
25:56
or you can clarify that maybe he make a
26:00
misunderstanding on what we want to say.
26:03
So listening and really,
26:07
deeply listening, on what he talked
26:10
to us is really important.
26:15
I really noticed that some people,
26:20
when they're organizing and when they're
26:23
mapping out their collaborations and
26:25
trying to work out who their allies are,
26:27
they only work with people that they
26:30
know already have the same view as them,
26:34
but you seem to be able to find people
26:38
who maybe only have this much overlap,
26:42
and I was wondering how you do that and
26:45
therefore is do you think that's the key
26:48
to bring together diverse networks of people?
26:54
Uh, we have to accept this.
26:57
People are diverse and
27:01
they have different ways of thinking.
27:05
And if we need collaboration,
27:07
if we need cooperation,
27:10
I think that nowadays it's
27:13
proven that co-operation is the key.
27:17
If you can work with the people
27:20
who have different ideas,
27:23
this is the most important thing because,
27:27
like when you work with the government,
27:29
you want to change the government.
27:31
You want to change the policy.
27:34
You need to work with them.
27:36
If you always blame if you always disagree,
27:42
and are against them all the time,
27:45
how can you build co-operation?
27:48
So is very important that
27:51
we need to try to find
27:54
anything that you have that's the same,
28:00
the same ideas, the same views and at the
28:05
same time in terms of organizing.
28:07
We work a lot on organizing.
28:11
In organizing,
28:12
organizing is the most difficult part.
28:15
When you work or try
28:20
to push the workers demand.
28:24
Organizing means that the workers
28:26
have to tell their needs
28:29
and their problem by their own.
28:31
They have to raise voice for themselves,
28:33
but they are different, so we will
28:37
list down that if you try to organize,
28:40
there are people who have the same idea,
28:43
so it's not difficult.
28:44
It takes a short time to work with them,
28:48
and there are some people who
28:51
are likely to understand.
28:53
So we spend more time to work with
28:56
them, and the first one is the person
28:59
who is against - and this takes a long time.
29:03
So we we have to try to find
29:05
a way to approach them.
29:08
This is what, uh,
29:09
we work in, in terms of organizing
29:11
and at the same time,
29:13
if you want to change the government,
29:15
29:16
if you want to push in terms
29:18
of policy advocacy,
29:20
you need to have allies.
29:24
So you need to find a way to
29:27
co-orporate to, uh,
29:30
co-ordinate with others.
29:32
So this is, I think it's really
29:37
important nowadays that we come together
29:39
and try to help each other to push.
29:45
Otherwise,
29:45
in the world there will be a gap.
29:50
The social gap will be very high.
29:52
How can we narrow this gap?
29:55
So we have to come together.
29:57
This is my belief on this.
30:01
Yeah,
30:01
I think one of the things that amazed
30:04
me when I was watching you is that
30:07
you have a way of listening and
30:09
collaborating without ever giving
30:11
up the integrity of your own beliefs
30:15
or without ever giving up on that.
30:18
You know,
30:18
on your kind of core mission of
30:21
representing workers interests
30:23
and organizing workers interests,
30:26
and that's really what was amazing for me.
30:31
So we
30:32
talked a bit about how you collaborate
30:35
and I wanted to ask you
30:40
what are different styles that
30:42
you've seen or
30:44
what else have you seen that's been
30:47
effective in your many years
30:50
as a worker organizer?
30:55
I'm not clear on your question, Shelley.
30:58
I might come back to it then, and
31:02
ask my next question which is about,
31:07
'cause I think it might be relevant.
31:10
So we talked about the work that you do
31:12
within Thailand, and I wanted to ask you -
31:15
I know you work internationally and
31:18
you collaborate with many
31:20
allies and bring together HomeNet Asia,
31:23
which is, ah, home-worker
31:27
organizations across Asia and
31:29
then also you work with
31:32
Wego, so you work across the world.
31:38
How do you manage that?
31:39
How do you find energy for that,
31:41
and why is it important?
31:45
It's very important for the small person, for
31:50
the wonderful person like informal worker,
31:53
you know if you want to change
31:57
their well-being, the way that the
32:02
business and government treat
32:04
them, because they are invisible.
32:07
And even though they have a,
32:11
like, uh, in terms of number,
32:13
informal workers in Thailand is more.
32:16
It's about two-thirds of the workers against
32:20
employed persons,
32:21
but the government has no policy on that.
32:25
So you have to come together.
32:27
This is very,
32:29
very important and in terms of the
32:32
international, you also have to come together.
32:35
We have to have unity,
32:38
otherwise you cannot fight
32:40
for your right. So in terms of HomeNet,
32:44
we are part of the core network.
32:46
We are part of the Wego members.
32:49
Right now, we try to-
32:51
We have a working committee that we
32:55
try to form HomeNet International
32:59
to work together, uh,
33:01
in terms of international policy.
33:04
This is very important and in terms of
33:09
33:09
HomeNet International, you have
33:12
to work with the
33:15
Home-based worker in different
33:19
regions like South Asia,
33:22
Southeast Asia,
33:24
Latin America, Africa.
33:26
In African countries,
33:29
we are quite different.
33:29
You know, like in terms of Latin America,
33:32
you can see that they also fight.
33:36
At the same time,
33:38
the home workers, home-based workers
33:40
in African countries,
33:43
they are still not so organized.
33:46
South Asia has
33:49
different characters, huh?
33:52
Southeast Asia is another character,
33:55
and because we are under different circumstances,
33:59
we form our groups differently.
34:02
Some trade unions lie in South Africa,
34:07
and in Latin America they would
34:10
talk about trade union in South Africa.
34:13
South Asia,
34:14
they also talk about trade union,
34:16
but in Southeast Asia because of the
34:19
labor laws in our country are not so
34:23
strong, and we are not interested much
34:26
because we are from agricultural countries,
34:30
agricultural backgrounds.
34:33
So even though we are changing, but, uh,
34:36
we aren't so smart on labour issues,
34:40
so we are quite quiet
34:43
in terms of trade union.
34:46
But if you want to come in as
34:49
HomeNet international,
34:51
how do you manage this difference?
34:54
This is very important, so we try to
34:58
start with the Constitution, you know.
35:02
A Constitution that can cover
35:05
everyone in this organization.
35:10
Normally we must,
35:14
ah
35:15
organize or set up, like in Thailand,
35:18
we set up the organization first.
35:21
Then the organization
35:23
develops the Constitution,
35:26
rules or regulations. But uh,
35:30
in terms of international,
35:32
we started with the Constitution first.
35:37
That Constitution will cover others,
35:40
and then we form the organization.
35:43
And during discussion on constitution,
35:47
we have a lot to exchange
35:49
and share in differences.
35:51
So we try to develop the Constitution
35:54
that can cover everybody like
35:57
this, and I'm pleased to say that
36:02
we will launch the virtual
36:04
Uh,
36:07
we will have virtual forums on
36:10
HomeNet International on this one
36:12
on February 23rd and 24th.
36:15
You're welcome to join.
Influencing law and policy reform with Justine Nolan
Further discussion on understanding BHR research impact and connecting BHR research with others
Influencing law and policy reform with Justine Nolan
Further discussion on understanding BHR research impact and connecting BHR research with others
0:07
So all of you, I'm sure, know Justine's work,
0:11
and you've been able to read her biography,
0:15
but what might not be apparent from
0:18
that is the large number of government
0:22
committees that Justine sits on, has sat on,
0:27
and the incredible influence that
0:30
she has as an academic on policy.
0:34
We wish she had more influence, but,
0:37
certainly she's a
0:41
really powerful advocate
0:43
around business and human rights.
0:46
So it's a real pleasure to
0:48
have her present to you. Justine,
0:50
how do you want to do this?
0:53
How I well, I thought following your lead,
0:55
I might speak,
0:56
give an introduction to my own background,
0:59
and then I really just wanted
1:02
to cover two questions.
1:04
One is, you know,
1:06
what do you think your research is for?
1:08
1:09
What's the purpose of your research?
1:10
And the second one is,
1:12
1:13
how do you connect your research with others?
1:16
Um, which should take us no more than 15 minutes?
1:18
And then we could have questions
1:20
and discussion?
1:21
Does that work with you?
1:22
Wonderful, over to you.
1:26
OK,
1:26
so in terms of my background, and
1:28
I think that's probably partly why
1:30
I've ended up in the way, in terms of
1:33
being quite a practical researcher,
1:35
is that half of my career has been
1:39
spent not working in academia,
1:41
so like Jeff,
1:42
sort of, I had a career before here
1:45
and I started off out of law school as
1:49
a corporate lawyer in a big firm in Sydney.
1:52
Didn't last there that long,
1:53
but then I went to a public
1:55
interest Community legal center.
1:58
After that, I went to Graduate
2:01
School in Berkeley and I started
2:03
to think more about what
2:04
direction I wanted to head in.
2:06
And then after that I got a job
2:08
with an international human rights
2:10
organization in the United States, and I
2:13
ended up staying there for about eight years.
2:16
And then it was only when I came
2:19
back to Australia, about 15 years ago,
2:22
that I entered academia. And you know,
2:25
to be fair,
2:26
when I look at all of your resumes
2:28
and CVS and your skills,
2:30
I wouldn't get a job if I was
2:31
competing against you guys now.
2:32
15 years ago it was a better time
2:35
to be in the market for academia,
2:38
so I'm glad you're not my competition.
2:41
I had realized that when I was
2:44
coming back to Australia that
2:46
what I wanted to do was working human rights,
2:49
but I didn't want -
2:50
I hate the fund raising side of
2:52
things, and a lot of the smaller
2:54
organizations I looked at in Australia,
2:55
you had to spend so much time
2:57
raising money, because they were so
2:59
small and always focused on how
3:00
they're gonna fund the next project.
3:02
The people that I knew in Australia
3:04
that we're doing some really
3:05
interesting human rights work
3:06
were actually academics, and they
3:07
were doing a lot of this other,
3:09
you know, this other work on the side.
3:11
So when I was working for the human
3:13
rights organization in US,
3:14
I got a job basically
3:16
setting up their business and human
3:19
rights program, and so this was in 1998.
3:24
The field didn't really exist
3:26
as such, there were probably only
3:29
about 5 to 10 people around the
3:32
world actively working in that
3:34
niche, and we all knew each other.
3:36
And there wasn't really an -
3:38
I wouldn't say there was a strong
3:40
academic field at all in that
3:42
area at that time.
3:44
And I came into the organization to
3:46
basically look at apparel companies
3:48
and their manufacturing supply chains.
3:50
So the really big brands like Nike,
3:53
and Reebok, and Adidas, and Gap, and
3:56
Levi's, and how they were dealing
3:58
with their supply chains.
4:00
So I started to work
4:01
with those companies through the NGO
4:03
and that led into, around that time,
4:06
we saw the development of the very first
4:09
sort of iteration of the UN Norms document.
4:11
And so I was working on that
4:13
document as a sort of human
4:16
rights lawyer for an NGO.
4:18
And so I sort of was having a dabble,
4:20
I guess, in academia by looking at that,
4:22
but very much from an NGO perspective.
4:24
But I knew that by the time I
4:26
finished that job that that was
4:27
the field I wanted to stay in,
4:29
I found the area of interest.
4:31
So when I came back to Sydney and
4:34
managed to get a job at UNSW and
4:36
I had just the good luck,
4:39
that basically they needed human rights person.
4:42
And I could
4:43
basically,
4:43
you know,
4:44
teach what I want and designed
4:45
a new class around business and
4:47
human rights, which we offered
4:49
I think, for the first time in 2004.
4:51
So I was very lucky, in that I sort
4:53
of have always managed to be able
4:56
to teach and research in my field.
4:58
And now I've taken over the role
5:00
of Director of the Australian
5:02
Human Rights Institute.
5:04
Just, you know,
5:05
for about a minute since last week.
5:07
So now I'm looking at how again very much,
5:10
it's a research institute at the university,
5:12
but what we're interested in
5:13
is applied research,
5:14
so how that, you know, practical
5:16
works in the field.
5:17
So that's my sort of background
5:20
and that probably explains why
5:21
I tend not to be a
5:24
strong theoretical lawyer.
5:25
5:26
I'm interested in 'what are the problems',
5:28
5:29
'how do we approach them from
5:31
quite a practical sense?' with it.
5:32
So the question is,
5:34
Shelly sort of said the session was on
5:36
how do you apply your research, and how do
5:39
you impact policy reform and social policy?
5:42
I guess I had two questions for you
5:45
to think about - and the first one was,
5:48
when you think about your
5:49
research that you're doing,
5:50
which you're doing now with your PhD -
5:53
what do you think about WHY you're doing it?
5:56
What's it for? What's your end
5:58
goal other than to get your PhD?
6:00
Is it something that you would like
6:02
to use and translate to basically
6:05
take law in a different direction?
6:07
Like develop, you know, what the
6:08
thinking is around this subject,
6:10
so a more
6:11
purely academic purpose.
6:12
Or is it also something that you
6:15
would like to perhaps use for that,
6:17
but then move into say 'I actually
6:19
want to change the way business
6:20
works' or 'I want to change the way
6:22
government thinks about this'.
6:24
So there's sort of a joint purpose
6:26
for what you do.
6:29
And with the work I've been doing,
6:30
I think I would divide how I've
6:33
thought about impact in my own work.
6:35
It started very much with a very
6:37
international focus, and started from
6:38
the early days of, particularly UN Norms
6:41
developed, that it was all you know,
6:43
and I was living overseas,
6:44
so it was all internationally
6:46
focused and it was the time the UN
6:48
was starting to really dip its toe
6:49
into this area for the first time.
6:51
And it's only much more recently
6:53
that I've taken a national focus,
6:55
and that I've ended up, you know,
6:57
with talking to governments,
6:58
the Australian Government
6:59
in particular about
7:00
how they approach business
7:02
and human rights issues.
7:03
So for me I started to think about
7:05
'who's my target', and initially my target
7:08
was mostly the civil society sector.
7:10
So they were the groups I was
7:12
most closely connected from my
7:14
previous job, and they were the
7:15
ones I started working with early.
7:18
So I worked with groups like the ESC I met,
7:21
which is like a a group based in US
7:23
but has tentacles all around the world.
7:25
All these you know, economic,
7:26
social and cultural rights NGOs.
7:29
I started working in the early days
7:31
With ICAR, The International Corporate
7:33
Accountability Roundtable.
7:34
And when I say working with, what
7:36
I meant was that sometimes I would
7:39
be formally involved in a project.
7:41
Sometimes I might just be trying
7:43
to write a blog for them,
7:44
or I might be giving a training for them.
7:47
So I was starting to try and think
7:49
about how do I get to connect,
7:50
particularly in my initial focus
7:52
with civil society.
7:54
And so it was through other groups
7:56
that I either got an introduction to,
7:59
I already had an existing relationship with,
8:01
that I started to do little bits
8:03
and pieces of work which would
8:04
translate my own research into
8:06
something that was useful for them.
8:08
And then later in my career I
8:10
would develop those relationships.
8:11
So I might write a paper for them,
8:13
or I might help them with strategy.
8:15
Or I might, you know,
8:16
be involved in a formerly funded
8:18
project that they've got.
8:20
But my initial target was very much
8:22
expanding my civil society connections,
8:25
and at the same time I was very
8:27
interested in business because
8:29
in this particular field I thought
8:31
unless I talked to and convinced
8:32
business to change the way they think,
8:34
we're never going to get anywhere.
8:35
We could have government policy,
8:37
we could have, you know, naming
8:38
and shaming, we can have reform.
8:40
But I need to figure out how to get
8:43
access to business. And in the early
8:45
days when I was working for an NGO,
8:47
I had that access because I was a member
8:49
around the table that was sitting with
8:51
them talking about what they should
8:53
talk about with their supply chains.
8:54
And I had that access through the
8:56
NGO I was working for. And later
8:58
when I wasn't working for an NGO,
9:01
sometimes I got that access through
9:03
other NGO's, or I started to have
9:05
pre-built relationships with some
9:08
businesses in relation to that.
9:10
And businesses like to talk to you
9:12
when they hear of you from someone else,
9:14
or they see something that you're
9:17
speaking at, and they're much more
9:19
interested in the sort of the oral
9:21
and the visible, rather than your
9:24
20,000 things that you've written.
9:25
They tend to, you know,
9:26
react more to a visceral,
9:28
have more of a visceral reaction.
9:30
And then finally my third stage was
9:33
getting connections with government, and
9:36
that came partly because of seniority.
9:40
I think by that stage in my career,
9:42
I had spoken at a lot of things,
9:45
I'd published, and it was
9:47
around the same time the Australian
9:49
Government was starting to develop,
9:51
you know, thinking around business
9:53
and human rights and new laws.
9:55
So I managed to
9:57
basically, you know,
9:58
parlay that relationship
9:59
into formal committee
10:01
membership and et cetera.
10:02
And so, government tends to be more
10:04
than reaching out to you a bit,
10:06
but at the same time early on
10:08
when I was working in this area,
10:11
I did reach out to certain
10:12
members of government.
10:13
I knew to basically say,
10:14
'hey, you know,
10:17
I know you're interested in this,
10:18
This is what I've written recently.',
10:20
because there are always those
10:22
intellectual policy people in
10:24
government who want support for
10:26
their work and what they're doing.
10:27
So that was sort of in a very general
10:30
sense how I started to think about about
10:33
those relationships, and the question
10:35
which merged into that one was also you know,
10:39
how do you make these connections?
10:41
And for me it was a combination of measures.
10:44
One I think it was really important to me was
10:47
finding someone, particularly in academia,
10:50
who acted as a,
10:51
you know,
10:52
even an informal mentor forming.
10:53
But it was 'a someone', and for
10:56
me that was David Kinley,
10:57
who is at the University of Sydney.
11:00
We knew each other through our, well,
11:04
going way back when he was at ANU,
11:06
but then when I was working
11:07
with an NGO in the US,
11:08
we would often connect through my
11:10
work because he was interested in
11:11
this field. And then when I became an
11:13
academic and I was obviously then a
11:14
much more junior academic than him,
11:16
he'd been in the field for a
11:17
very long time. He invited me to co-author
11:21
papers with him, and that way that helped
11:23
build up a publishing track record of
11:26
places that wouldn't necessarily always
11:28
just want me as a junior academic,
11:31
but would invite him and then
11:32
he would bring me along
11:34
with that.
11:36
And he was always very helpful
11:38
with introductions.
11:39
If there was someone
11:41
that was that was useful,
11:43
but he also definitely gave me
11:45
a leg up in the early days,
11:47
particularly at publishing.
11:48
And I think an academic mentor,
11:50
whether formal or informal or
11:51
someone you can bounce ideas off,
11:53
or someone who can give you
11:56
introductions, is really useful,
11:57
and they don't have to be
11:58
at your own university.
11:59
Mine wasn't,
12:00
but it might be someone you know
12:02
around the world,
12:03
and to be honest,
12:03
most people -
12:04
If someone came to them and said
12:06
'I'm just starting in this field,
12:07
I'd really love your guidance
12:08
and I'd love your help',
12:09
Most people in this field
12:11
particularly would be quite honored,
12:12
and I find in the human rights
12:14
field in particular,
12:15
it's all about who you know and
12:17
connections and people realize
12:18
that's how other people get
12:19
ahead andget jobs.
12:21
And and most people are very,
12:22
very helpful with it.
12:24
So I think that was a useful for me to
12:27
start to figure out how to make connections.
12:29
The other thing that academics
12:32
don't often push is teaching.
12:35
I have always loved teaching, and
12:37
I've found teaching a real asset
12:40
because you meet such interesting
12:42
people who are the students.
12:44
So sometimes it's at undergraduate level,
12:46
sometimes it's at postgraduate level,
12:48
but several of the relationships that
12:51
I've built over time have been with
12:53
students and now I have students in you know,
12:56
senior positions at the UN,
12:59
UN Women in New York,
13:01
in other places,
13:02
in other companies around the
13:03
place, and the government here.
13:05
And I would never have known
13:08
those people other than having that
13:10
teaching relationship and being
13:12
open to listening to their career
13:14
and helping them with their career.
13:15
But in the end,
13:16
you know they also help me now.
13:19
So,
13:19
you know,
13:20
teaching can often be looked
13:21
at as such a nuisance,
13:22
but particularly when it's hopefully
13:24
somewhat within your field,
13:26
you always should be open to the mind
13:28
that the people you're meeting now
13:29
are really gonna be maybe in your
13:31
life 10 years from now and be really,
13:32
really helpful to both of you
13:35
in that that relationship.
13:37
13:37
13:37
The other thing I would say in
13:40
terms of connections, is that
13:41
often as a junior academic you're
13:44
pushed into conferences,
13:45
and 'what should I do?',
13:46
and 'I need to get to conferences' and
13:47
you do need to get to conferences,
13:49
but I think there's a value in
13:50
being quite targeted with the
13:52
conferences that you do.
13:53
And also a mix of doing the academic
13:55
conferences, where you may get a
13:57
paper and, you know, publish that.
13:59
But also things like the UN Forum that
14:01
the UN Working Group runs, because that is
14:04
this massive group of 2,000 to 3,000 people
14:07
networking, and that word is so you know,
14:10
awful in so many ways.
14:12
And I always get so daunted by the
14:13
idea of thinking about networking.
14:15
And if you think more about
14:17
someone introducing you to someone
14:18
who can have a chat,
14:19
it becomes much less formidable about that.
14:22
And so it's also thinking about.
14:24
where are there going to be pockets
14:26
of people who are in my field,
14:29
and they may not be at all academics.
14:31
They might be, you know,
14:33
someone from an accounting firm,
14:34
a consulting firm, a law firm,
14:36
or you know,
14:38
the infrastructure firm,
14:39
along with civil society,
14:41
then try and use those opportunities to
14:44
meet people to do with that.
14:47
And I guess my other fourth connection was
14:49
what I mentioned earlier was that, at
14:52
times I've proactively reached out.
14:55
So when I publish something, then I might
14:58
occasionally, or I should always, send
15:00
that to someone and basically with a
15:02
link or with a copy of the paper and say,
15:05
'hey,
15:05
I see you're interested in this'.
15:08
And you know,
15:09
say that it's someone in industry
15:10
and I've just written a paper on
15:12
auditing or something like that.
15:13
I'll say 'this is a pretty technical paper,
15:15
but here are my three takeaways
15:17
from this that I think might
15:19
be relevant to Westpac' etc.
15:21
And those types of things, you
15:22
might never hear back from them,
15:24
but there's targeted,
15:26
almost marketing of yourself,
15:29
which I think is useful because the key to
15:32
the really good academics is duplication.
15:35
It's like we say the same thing all
15:38
the time in three different ways.
15:40
Three slightly different ways,
15:41
so you write a research paper where
15:43
you're trying to get published
15:45
in a traditional academic,
15:46
you know, circle and 20.5 people
15:49
read that paper,
15:50
but you had that paper.
15:52
And then you think,
15:53
how can I use this paper that it
15:55
might be relevant to an NGO Group, or
15:57
a business group or an industry group.
15:59
And there might be a shorter blog
16:01
that you think 'is the Business
16:02
and Human Rights Resource Center
16:04
interested in publishing
16:06
this blog?' or someone else like that,
16:08
and they often are,you know.
16:09
They're always looking
16:10
for those sorts of inputs.
16:12
Or is there some, you know, big
16:14
newsletter like Thomson Foundation
16:16
or somewhere like that?
16:17
That would be interested in a
16:19
short piece I have, or try and get
16:21
something in the conversation which
16:23
is that hybrid between academic
16:24
and the real world?
16:26
And then your research that you did
16:28
get another outlet, and so you
16:31
should always think about when you
16:32
write a piece, that you basically
16:34
use it for more than one purpose.
16:36
I mean,
16:37
in the the really brilliant
16:38
academics you know,
16:39
just really just reshape that
16:41
article and then publish it somewhere
16:42
else with three new thoughts.
16:44
But you know, 'cause everybody is sort of
16:46
doing that in in a slightly different way,
16:48
but for you, when you're thinking about
16:51
social impact, you have to think about
16:53
who is your target audience, and at
16:55
the start it might be quite disparate.
16:57
It might be civil society,
16:58
but then you think drill down
17:00
in my particular area,
17:01
say socially responsible investing who
17:03
are the two or three key NGO's that work
17:06
on this issue, and that's who you send it to. NOTE Confidence: 0.930719130625
17:09
So you sort of don't want this mass marketing
17:11
in a way, you want to try and target it,
17:14
and if it's a particular area that
17:15
you know people are interested in,
17:17
then think OK,
17:18
'Well who in business might
17:19
be interested in that?'.
17:21
So they're my general thoughts
17:22
and I'm conscious of the time,
17:24
so let me stop there and have a discussion.
17:28
And obviously Shelley and Surya,
17:31
obviously their work is so focused on
17:33
social impact and legal reform as well,
17:35
'cause they both take a very
17:37
pragmatic approach to academia,
17:39
so I'm sure all three of us can jump
17:41
in with discussion or questions.
17:46
Great, thank you so much.
17:50
I'm going to start
17:52
with a question, and then
17:55
I'll turn to other questions
17:58
so feel free to just use,
18:01
you know, the hand up function.
18:03
If you're feeling shy write it in the
18:06
chat, but otherwise speak up.
18:08
I wanted to ask; what the tensions
18:11
are for you in terms of being
18:15
on government committees or,
18:17
have there ever been times when
18:20
it's felt restrictive
18:22
to be playing that role?
18:25
Yeah, I think particularly in government
18:27
it can be tricky,
18:28
and Surya would tread
18:31
this line very finely with his work
18:33
with the UN. And he's more of a
18:35
diplomat than me, so he can handle it better.
18:39
I think that in my career, and
18:42
often government committees
18:43
come later in your career,
18:44
it's harder to do that earlier on and,
18:47
and so I think by that stage they
18:49
might know what they're getting.
18:51
You know,
18:51
in terms of who of who they
18:53
are appointing to a role.
18:55
But I always tend to think about why am I on,
18:57
why they put me on this committee,
19:00
and usually my role on the committee
19:02
is often to be a bit more of a
19:04
disruptor. Because if they want a committee
19:05
just to go through and smooth,
19:07
go through smoothly,
19:08
then they're not going to appoint me
19:10
to that committee.
19:11
And so, at the same time,
19:14
while it can be quite
19:15
frustrating - and disruptive,
19:16
doesn't mean like, you know,
19:17
yelling at everybody and
19:18
walking out of the room -
19:20
it's thinking about 'OK, they're,
19:22
you know, I can get them to this point,
19:23
and I want to get them up here'.
19:25
And maybe, you know,
19:26
somewhere in the middle
19:27
is a meeting point.
19:29
So I might start to say,
19:30
'Well,
19:30
you know you've said that,
19:31
but here are all the reasons why
19:33
that's not going to work'.
19:34
And then they push back, and you try
19:37
and have a rational discussion.
19:38
But I think
19:40
there is always a bit of a tension
19:42
with that, and there's probably
19:43
a point to where you think
19:45
'Am I on here and it's serving no purpose?'.
19:49
And so, at this stage of my
19:51
career I had the luxury then
19:52
of getting off that committee.
19:54
But early in your career,
19:55
you don't really have that luxury because
19:57
you want to build your career,
19:59
build your brand around that.
20:02
But I think you have to basically
20:04
hold your own personal line about
20:06
thinking about why they put me on here,
20:08
it's obviously for some critique
20:10
or some rational discussion.
20:12
They're clearly not going
20:13
to do everything I say,
20:14
but are there people in the
20:16
room that I think it's worth,
20:18
you know,
20:19
putting this out. And the classic
20:20
example right now is the
20:22
Australian Government's Modern
20:23
Slavery Expert Advisory Group.
20:25
So the story behind that group was that
20:27
they called for applications from,
20:29
you know, everybody who could be on it.
20:31
And the way that we
20:33
thought that they would do it, as they've
20:34
done it in the past, is they would have a
20:36
selection of people from civil society,
20:37
business and academia in this small
20:39
group of like 12 people or whatever.
20:41
The government decided really
20:43
that they just really wanted business
20:45
and some other people there.
20:47
A couple of academics on it, and not
20:50
really I would say, civil society rep.
20:53
And so then we you know,
20:54
along with Shelley,
20:55
we sort of created some drama about.
20:57
That's not a great idea if you were trying
20:58
to have a multi stakeholder conversation,
21:00
you need to have everybody on it.
21:03
And so then I'm now on the committee.
21:06
And literally on that committee there'd be,
21:10
you know, some of the original
21:11
members don't say anything,
21:12
you know. The the business sits
21:13
there and sort of very happy to
21:15
see what the government set, and
21:17
all the new people who are mostly
21:18
in civil society and academics, tend to
21:20
be a bit more of the disruptors.
21:22
And we're not achieving, you know,
21:24
I'm not going to ever take them
21:25
in a direction that I fully want,
21:27
but I feel like there's people on that
21:29
call that it's valuable to hear what we say,
21:32
that that we have this argument,
21:35
you know?
21:35
And it's sort of pretty new,
21:36
21:37
so I think
21:37
in a few months after a
21:39
few more meetings we can reassess
21:40
to see is it worth our time or not?
21:42
But there is that fine line I think in these.
Thought Leader Event with Kalpona Akter and Kate MacDonald
Discussions on activism and advocacy for worker solidarity, economic freedom and worker safety in India by Kalpona Akter.
Discussion on strengthening obligations for international human rights impacted by business activity using non-regulatory systems by Kate MacDonald
Thought Leader Event with Kalpona Akter and Kate MacDonald
Discussions on activism and advocacy for worker solidarity, economic freedom and worker safety in India by Kalpona Akter.
Discussion on strengthening obligations for international human rights impacted by business activity using non-regulatory systems by Kate MacDonald
0:07
Welcome everybody to the second
0:11
thought leader series for business
0:14
and human Rights doctoral symposium.
0:17
Today we are very,
0:19
very happy to be joined by Kalpona Akter,
0:22
who's in Dhaka in Bangladesh and also
0:25
Kate McDonald who is here in Melbourne.
0:29
Before we start, I would like to
0:33
pay my respects to the Wurrundjuri
0:36
People of the Kulin nation,
0:39
on whose land I'm sitting and pay
0:42
my respects to their elders, past,
0:45
present and emerging and to acknowledge that
0:48
this land was never ceded by them.
0:52
So I'll like to start by introducing
0:55
our guests for this evening.
0:58
Well, this evening in Melbourne,
1:01
Um, so we have Kalpona Akter
1:05
will speak first.
1:07
She is an executive director of the
1:10
Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity.
1:13
She campaigns for worker safety,
1:15
fair wages and the right to join
1:18
and organize in labor unions.
1:20
She's been a key player in urging
1:22
Western brands to sign onto the Bangladesh
1:25
fire and building safety accord
1:27
following the Rana Plaza disaster in
1:30
2013, and her US Congress testimony
1:33
helped frame legislation against
1:35
slave labor conditions for clothing.
1:38
She began working herself in
1:41
garment factories at the age of 12.
1:44
And was a troublemaker in the factory
1:48
starting to organize and unionize,
1:51
and since 2000 she's devoted
1:53
herself to trade unionism, well,
1:55
earlier than that I think,
1:56
to train trade unionism and
1:59
activism for textile and garment workers.
2:02
Kalpona has been instrumental in
2:04
engaging stakeholders from UN agencies
2:07
to brands like Inditex and H&M, to
2:10
demand respect for garment workers.
2:12
In 2016,
2:13
Kalpona was awarded the
2:16
Human Rights Watch Allison Des Forges Award
2:20
for extraordinary activism,
2:23
and I can attest to the fact that
2:25
she is an extraordinary activist.
2:27
We also are very pleased to have
2:31
this evening, Kate MacDonald.
2:34
Kate is an Australian Research Council
2:37
future fellow and a faculty member
2:39
at the University of Melbourne
2:43
School of Social and Political Sciences.
2:46
Kate's research focuses on transnational
2:48
governance and accountability systems,
2:51
especially in relation to transnational
2:53
business regulation and accountability
2:56
in the International Development sector.
2:59
She's conducted highly influential
3:01
research and consultancy
3:03
work for a range of Australian
3:06
and international organizations,
3:07
including the Forest Stewardship Council,
3:10
Amnesty International, ActionAid,
3:12
Oxfam and the UK's Corporate
3:15
Responsibility Coalition.
3:16
She is currently on the Advisory
3:19
Board of the Jubilee Australia
3:21
Research Foundation, so please join
3:24
me in welcoming our guest speakers.
3:27
We are going to
3:30
start first of all, with Kalpona.
3:34
Thank you, Kalpona. Yeah, thank you Daisy.
3:38
Hello everyone,
3:39
it is so wonderful to join with
3:42
all of you today and this evening.
3:45
It is afternoon here.
3:47
But it's wonderful to join.
3:50
At least you know this pandemic couldn't
3:52
stop us doing our activism that we do.
3:56
So Daisy, you know everything
3:58
Daisy said that the only one thing I liked -
4:00
I am the troublemaker.
4:02
Seriously, I am.
4:04
This is how I should do interviews.
4:06
Yeah
4:07
I worked in the factory.
4:09
I got,
4:09
you know,
4:10
joined with Union.
4:11
I got fired and blacklisted which
4:13
I consider is a wrong decision has
4:16
been taken by the manufacturers.
4:19
They shouldn't have fired me.
4:21
OK. So, uh, let's,
4:23
let's take you to now Dhaka in Bangladesh.
4:27
In the garment factories where
4:30
we have around 4,000,000 workers
4:32
are working across the country.
4:35
And these are young female workers at
4:40
most 70%, at around 70%, are young women
4:43
workers working for this industry.
4:45
Most of them they came from
4:48
countryside with a big dream that
4:50
this will make their life change.
4:53
They will be seeing the economic freedom
4:55
they will be seeing the empowerment to
4:57
their voice will be heard in the family.
5:00
They will be having purchasing power, but
5:03
soon they start these jobs not necessary
5:06
that all of these dreams come true.
5:09
Because they are ending up
5:11
with a poverty wages.
5:13
The minimum wage is 8000 Taka a month,
5:18
which is equivalent to 95 U.S dollars.
5:22
5:22
And it is not one person full month cost here,
5:26
let alone if she has two children at home.
5:30
And from this amount of money
5:32
she needs to spend, or he needs
5:34
to spend, over 30% for the housing
5:38
and it's not a dream house that
5:40
where you have private bathroom,
5:41
kitchen and living room.
5:44
It's a, you know, 10 x 10
5:46
concrete room which sometimes it
5:48
doesn't have windows so these
5:51
are the workers life, you know,
5:53
that are living here.
5:57
You know, how about when
5:59
they raise their voice?
6:01
Or try to join with union? They're
6:04
traded, beaten, forced labour chores and
6:07
forced to leave the community.
6:08
This is a very common,
6:11
you know, scenario in here when
6:13
workers try to join and this is
6:15
happening because of the business
6:17
collusion with the politics.
6:19
In our Parliament, we have over
6:23
20%, or more than that now,
6:25
who own a group of garment factories.
6:29
Very important ministry like Commerce,
6:33
Shipping, Foreign Ministry.
6:35
All those you know we have the factory
6:39
lead by the factory owners.
6:41
So when our legislator is our factory owner,
6:44
our voice really begins shrinking
6:47
here, so we cannot do much.
6:49
So very common problem that our workers-
6:53
I mean, we are facing from the business
6:56
that the you know not enforcing the law,
7:01
not enforcing the branch code of conduct
7:03
in a full face on a transparent way.
7:05
The business principle are not enforced
7:08
in the factory, factories or workplaces.
7:11
The government hasn't done
7:14
you know that much to you know,
7:18
working through or improving
7:19
working conditions using
7:21
all these business principles.
7:24
So this is one way that we
7:27
have been facing for many years.
7:29
But in the same time we had
7:32
these amazing faces of women,
7:35
amazing strong workers,
7:36
who you know who for years are
7:39
fighting and trying their best to
7:42
make changes despite all the orders.
7:44
Uhm, the workers you know,
7:46
working
7:47
long and cheap hours
7:47
still they come
7:49
to the Union offices or center
7:52
like us to learn the law, to
7:54
learn how they can fight collectively
7:57
with their factory owners,
7:59
how they can negotiate, so
8:01
many of them got success.
8:03
But many of them still defeated.
8:05
But they fight back.
8:08
But during this, COVID has, you know,
8:12
has made many things black and white.
8:15
Like for years we saw there is a so
8:17
much promises from the business in
8:20
international as well as in national
8:23
that they do care about these workers.
8:26
They do want to improve the condition
8:29
they really think about these women,
8:31
those are making clothes for
8:33
them or making profit for them.
8:35
But what we found is all empty promises.
8:40
Soon as this pandemic
8:42
started, these businesses
8:44
like branded retailers,
8:46
They started,
8:47
either you know,
8:49
canceling the order or postponed
8:51
or denied to pay the bill that
8:55
they ought to the manufacturers.
8:57
It has, you know,
8:59
the pandemic has- it is a reality for anyone,
9:02
but the consequences is different, right?
9:04
For a brand they will be losing
9:07
a fraction of their profit,
9:09
but not the establishment.
9:11
The manufacturers.
9:12
Yes,
9:13
there will be not profiting but
9:14
not losing the establishment.
9:16
But for workers it is so true and dire that
9:20
that they don't have job, means they
9:22
don't have money, and no money means no food.
9:25
It is that practical for them because
9:28
our workers are not protected with
9:31
any kind of social protection or any
9:34
kind of insurance that they will be
9:36
getting money when there is no job for them.
9:39
There is no unemployment insurance in the
9:42
country nor their Social Security program.
9:44
So when workers lost their jobs,
9:47
they were like literally in the street.
9:49
You know their landowner was
9:51
denying to keep them in their those
9:54
houses because they cannot pay it.
9:56
It was that practical.
9:58
And we have to raise the campaign
10:01
nationally as well as globally asking
10:04
or naming and shaming these businesses,
10:07
the brands, to pay the workers
10:09
the legal wages, they owe to them,
10:11
pay the bills like we have to
10:14
work with all unlikely allies,
10:16
only to get the bills so the manufacturers
10:19
can keep continue paying these workers.
10:22
And manufacturing here,
10:23
manufacturers are in here
10:26
they were extraordinary.
10:27
Since the very beginning of the pandemic,
10:30
they started out playing that if
10:32
government don't give any business,
10:34
you know, stimulation package.
10:36
They will be not able to pay the workers.
10:40
This industry here we have for three decades
10:43
and they couldn't take responsibility
10:45
for three weeks of workers salary.
10:48
This is not done.
10:49
This is not how the business
10:52
should be, locally and globally too.
10:55
So what I emphasize out of this,
10:58
that the business models need to
11:01
rephrase the big business model
11:04
need to rewrite.
11:06
It should be,
11:07
you know,
11:08
protect workers - doesn't matter what
11:10
happens because these are the
11:12
workers who made profit for
11:14
them for years, who ensured them
11:17
they have a lavish life.
11:18
When we need them most,
11:20
they just run away and left
11:22
our workers starving.
11:23
This should not be the business
11:25
model. So we need
11:26
to, you know, working in our countries, in
11:29
the production country, and in the same
11:31
time in the sourcing country as well.
11:33
So there should be a
11:35
due diligence law which makes these
11:38
branded retailers, or any business
11:40
you know, bring them in the accountable
11:42
for their whole supply chain,
11:44
not for their country only.
11:47
So at this moment during this
11:49
pandemic in midst of health crises,
11:52
we are fighting, like locally we
11:54
are fighting to saving our workers
11:57
jobs to keep organizing workers.
12:00
The workers are, you know,
12:02
in my 30 years of career experience,
12:05
I never seen that workers are in this
12:08
fear just to lodge a complaint of the retaliation.
12:11
Or you know,
12:12
the illegal activities that are
12:15
happening in their factories, or
12:17
un-enforcement of the law, or
12:19
gender based violence they've been
12:21
facing in the factory.
12:22
And workers, you know,
12:23
they're not even agreeing to even lodge the
12:26
complaints because if they do,
12:28
they were losing their jobs and they
12:30
cannot afford losing their jobs now.
12:32
So our point is that labor
12:35
movement cannot take a break.
12:38
If we do,
12:39
then many things will be pushed back.
12:42
This pandemic already pushed us
12:44
back for one decade at least,
12:47
so we cannot wait.
12:48
So we keeping fighting and here
12:50
we are organizing workers.
12:52
We are telling them that we need
12:54
to fight otherwise you know we'll
12:56
be losing what we achieved.
12:58
And in order to do that as an organization,
13:01
we also facing the retaliation and reprisal.
13:04
But we'll be dealing with that,
13:06
but we need to keep fighting and keep
13:09
continuing Universal workers voice.
13:11
So,
13:12
this is what we are doing in here
13:15
like secure worker job and you know
13:17
increasing them to join union fighting
13:19
to eliminate gender based violence.
13:22
Campaigning nationally to get
13:25
ILO convention C192 ratified by the
13:28
government working with brands locally
13:31
as well as with manufacturers.
13:33
How business principles can secure
13:36
or make better or work places,
13:39
you know, fighting with government
13:41
for a stimulation package.
13:42
Also all the you know the money has
13:45
given for workers that should be
13:47
disseminated, and international platform.
13:49
We are giving our voice to,
13:52
you know, to pay to ask the
13:55
business, branded retailers, to take
13:57
responsibility and pay up their
13:59
workers, not to just cut and run.
14:02
Just, you know come to some
14:06
discussion that can be either a call
14:08
to action, or a grant to fund their talk.
14:11
Where we are talking to our global
14:13
union or a global, you know,
14:16
granted fund that ITC is working on
14:18
so the production country workers
14:20
at least have an unemployment
14:23
insurance as well as they are
14:25
protected with the Social Security.
14:27
So these are like fights we are
14:30
doing and before the pandemic we
14:32
were in a campaign we are about to
14:35
launch a campaign on, you know,
14:37
living wage because the living
14:39
wage is so important for us,
14:41
the jobs we have in the production country,
14:44
including in my country, the workers,
14:47
yes, we do have jobs,
14:48
but these jobs are not dignified because
14:51
we get minimum wage, not a living wage,
14:54
our voices not being heard.
14:56
The factories are not gender
14:58
based violence free.
14:59
Yes, factories are a little safer
15:01
after a code started working in here.
15:04
But a code is not anymore
15:06
in here, we have RSC,
15:08
RMG Sustainability Council,
15:10
which is majority of the board members
15:13
are manufacturers and the brand.
15:15
So when it is you know power imbalance,
15:18
you cannot,
15:19
you know accept- expect that there will
15:22
be better improvement because their
15:25
union, they're minority in the board.
15:29
So these are the whole thing
15:31
that we are pushing now and we
15:33
believe that when pandemic didn't
15:35
get like in little control,
15:37
when people are not vaccinated
15:38
so will be coming again with the
15:42
demand and campaign on living.
15:43
wage because it is so so important for us,
15:48
we wanted to make sure that the jobs we
15:51
have that we have with dignity. Until a
15:55
dignified job exists, women cannot say
15:59
I am empowered,
15:59
women cannot say
16:01
I have purchasing power.
16:03
Women cannot say that, you know, my voice are
16:07
heard in my family or an economic freedom.
16:10
So at this moment the situation in here,
16:13
like through this pandemic,
16:15
over 300 workers,
16:17
lost their jobs only from garment sector,
16:20
let alone any other sectors we have.
16:23
So majority of these women who lost
16:26
their job, just think about them-
16:29
Who just started to knowing
16:32
that, you know,
16:34
what is the economic freedom means?
16:35
She just went to the Ground Zero
16:38
because there is no other market
16:40
where she can get a job and you know,
16:42
keep continuing and
16:45
establish my rights so
16:47
that is not there anymore,
16:49
so we are also you know back and forth
16:51
with government that how they can
16:54
start alternative job market for these
16:56
women so they can come back and adopt.
16:59
But we really don't know that how
17:01
far government will go with it.
17:02
But this is the scenario is
17:06
that the women who came with the dream,
17:09
worked for awhile, now lost their jobs and
17:12
had to go back. And from very practical
17:16
you know, experience I wanted to share.
17:18
It is very fresh,
17:19
like day before yesterday I was in the field.
17:22
I was walking through the street in
17:25
industrial belt and I saw that there
17:27
is hundreds of workers in every factory gate,
17:29
they're waiting and I pick
17:31
like one of them.
17:33
Hey,
17:33
what happened?
17:34
17:34
Why you guys are waiting? Because you know the
17:37
manufacturer says they are hiring the worker.
17:40
Government says that workers are
17:41
not coming to the factory gates
17:43
but the reality is different.
17:45
It's a hundreds of workers,
17:47
men and women who are waiting
17:49
just to get hired in the factory.
17:51
So I just randomly pick one
17:53
woman and stop her and say,
17:55
hey what happened to you?
17:57
and she said I lost
17:58
my job 10 months ago and then I
18:01
ask that do you have children and
18:03
how you will be running your life?
18:04
She said that you know it is so difficult
18:07
these days that my husband also lost
18:09
their job and we have to achieve two
18:11
children at home and I left them
18:13
starving at home and looking for job.
18:15
So situation is that bad and it is not
18:18
that one story, it is the story of thousands.
18:22
You know women, those are working
18:24
in the garment and other sector and
18:26
why they are facing this? Because
18:29
the business is not responsible.
18:32
So business need to be responsible for
18:35
coming days and the model needs to be re
18:39
write and it should be considered level,
18:41
and human rights and women rights on it.
18:45
I think I wanted to stop here and I'll
18:46
be happy to answer any question you have
18:48
further, thank you.
18:50
Thank you before we, before I
18:54
move to questions and answers.
18:56
It's a couple more minutes.
18:57
I guess I'd be interested to hear,
19:00
given you know the audience for
19:03
a symposium or our participants are,
19:06
you know, writing their PHD's.
19:09
Some of them are already researchers.
19:11
Could you share with us some ways
19:13
in which you think,
19:15
like into the future for the next
19:17
thinking ahead to the next 10 years
19:20
how do you think that researchers can
19:23
support workers in their movement
19:25
for justice and to hold companies
19:28
more accountable?
19:29
You know, it is amazing to me to
19:31
all of you all the PhD
19:33
you know students, and I really don't
19:35
know which industry you are going on,
19:38
which organization you are joining,
19:40
but wherever you go take
19:44
responsibility, try to know more,
19:46
you know beyond the research paper you read.
19:48
Beyond that, things are in the book ok?
19:52
So meet the people.
19:55
Meet the human faces and I think
19:57
that will make difference.
19:59
The human stories will give you a
20:02
different light than they thing you read,
20:05
so if you are with any even agencies
20:08
so UN have like a lot of
20:11
organization who deal with the labels.
20:14
I'll deal with the labels.
20:15
There is a portion like business and
20:18
human rights principles also can
20:21
help you know the labels across the globe.
20:25
If you are joining with any business
20:27
company be you know be try to
20:30
be a responsible business group
20:32
try to change your institution or
20:34
organization or business industry.
20:36
If you're in with a, you know.
20:38
With a little movement group or
20:41
with the trade union? OK, just.
20:44
Help the flow to goals.
20:48
Help that you know this is struggle
20:51
need a lot of like resource persons
20:54
like you can help a lot like we
20:56
we are the people.
20:57
I mean we are the fields people
20:59
we try to organize.
21:01
We try to fight in the field but there
21:03
are many ways that that you research
21:06
or you experience can also help the
21:08
trading union movement in the in
21:10
that NGOs or liberal movement do
21:14
across the globe or especially
21:16
in the production country.
21:18
So wherever you are, I would say that.
21:21
Meet with people and that will give
21:24
a lot of experience to, you know,
21:28
in your journey what you can do.
21:31
Thank you so much.
21:32
We're going to have an opportunity
21:35
to ask questions to Kalpona,
21:37
but for now we'll go on
21:39
to Kate and then we'll come back
21:41
to your questions for Kalpona.
21:43
Thank you.
21:45
Thank you so much and
21:46
thank you so much from me too
21:48
to Kalpona for those really thought
21:52
provoking ideas, and to the organizers
21:54
as well for organizing this event.
21:56
I was just saying to them
21:57
before we all got on it.
21:58
Looks like a really amazing schedule
22:00
you know I wish I had something
22:02
like this when I was doing my PhD.
22:04
So I hope people been getting a lot
22:06
out of it and thanks to thanks to all
22:08
of you guys for being here as well.
22:10
So, OK.
22:11
There's obviously a lot of talk
22:13
in debates around the international
22:16
human rights agenda on how we
22:19
can search for ways of
22:21
strengthening making more
22:23
binding the obligations associated
22:25
with international human rights
22:27
norms like that the UNGP'S.
22:30
And there's a lot of focus on legal
22:33
regulation and ways that we can use
22:35
law to harden up those obligations.
22:37
You know,
22:38
whether through extraterritorial
22:39
forms of regulations.
22:41
Whether through international
22:43
treaty and so on,
22:44
this is a big focus.
22:45
Now, these sorts of discussions and
22:47
debates are obviously of crucial
22:49
importance in figuring out how
22:51
better to protect people from adverse
22:53
human rights impacts associated
22:55
with business activity.
22:56
And I'm sure you've been talking
22:58
about them already throughout
23:00
throughout the workshop.
23:01
But what Shelley's asked me
23:03
to talk about today
23:04
which sort of maps onto what my own
23:06
research as a political scientist
23:08
tends to focus on, is a range of
23:11
non legal regulatory systems
23:13
that are really widely used around
23:14
the world to try and hold business to
23:16
account for their impact on human rights.
23:20
Now what I'm going to suggest in the time
23:22
that I have now is these these mechanisms.
23:24
I mean, they're they're limited in
23:26
kind of obvious ways as a result of
23:28
the fact that they're non binding,
23:30
but nonetheless, I think it's really
23:32
important for us to understand
23:33
how they work because they are in
23:35
fact the site of a lot of activity
23:37
around implementing the UN GP's.
23:40
So it's important for us to understand
23:42
them and how they work and to really
23:44
scrutinize what they can and cannot
23:46
do to help us protect and promote
23:48
human rights in this kind of area.
23:51
Now in a nutshell,
23:52
just to give you a sense of where
23:54
I'm heading,
23:54
what I wanna basically suggest.
23:58
I want to say that these are,
23:59
look on the one hand I want
24:00
to say you know we need to
24:01
look at these mechanisms.
24:02
We understand that they are
24:04
potentially influential.
24:05
They have some potential value
24:07
under some circumstances to
24:09
contribute to promoting the
24:10
business and human rights agenda.
24:12
But at the same time they do come with
24:16
significant risks of corporate domination,
24:18
even sort of corporate capture
24:20
and of de-politicization of the
24:23
business and human rights agenda.
24:25
And while, personally,
24:26
I don't think that means that we should
24:28
abandon these aproaches,
24:28
'cause actually I think there's
24:30
a lot of activity going on that
24:32
has the potential to be valuable
24:33
if it's handled in the right way.
24:36
What I do think is that what we need
24:38
to be doing as a sort of business and
24:40
human rights international community is
24:42
really to be putting a lot more emphasis,
24:44
not just on how we can strengthen
24:47
legal regulation
24:47
'cause obviously everyone is
24:49
talking about that anyway as well,
24:51
but also what can we do to actually
24:53
strengthen and empower the worker
24:55
and community groups that are
24:57
struggling for human rights?
24:58
Basically, the troublemakers like you Kalpona!
25:01
How can we support you better, to
25:03
do what you're doing and to actually,
25:05
you know,
25:06
take control of the business and
25:08
human rights agenda in general,
25:09
but also more specifically of these
25:11
kinds of non legal mechanisms that I'm
25:13
going to focus on, and try and use them.
25:16
You know they're never going to be perfect,
25:17
they're never going to solve
25:18
the problem for us,
25:19
but to at least try and harness
25:21
them and use them as more meaningful
25:24
tools of corporate accountability.
25:26
That's basically sort of
25:27
where I went ahead with this.
25:29
So it's a sort of a somewhat going
25:31
in a couple of different directions,
25:33
but that that's sort of where
25:35
I'm trying to get to in the end.
25:37
So perhaps I should just say
25:39
something briefly to start off with
25:41
about what I'm talking about,
25:42
'cause there are a lot of very
25:44
different kinds of examples when I'm
25:46
talking about non legal mechanisms
25:48
and I'm sure many of you are
25:50
very familiar with many of them.
25:51
Some of you may even be working
25:53
on them for your PhD projects
25:55
or other work that you do.
25:57
Let me just mention a few examples
25:58
of what I'm talking about,
26:00
so one really important category
26:03
of these sorts of non legal
26:07
Business and Human rights regulatory
26:09
systems, would be multi stakeholder
26:11
standing standard setting systems of
26:13
different kinds which bring together a
26:15
whole range of different stakeholders,
26:17
businesses and NGO's in particular.
26:19
But sometimes also government actors
26:21
are involved to set standards around
26:24
human rights and often around a
26:26
whole bunch of other social and
26:28
environmental issues associated
26:30
with business activity,
26:32
production processes and
26:34
then often to have some kind of
26:36
accountability or compliance
26:37
mechanism associated with that
26:39
So I'm sure most of us would be able
26:41
to think of a bunch of different examples.
26:43
There are so many of these things out there.
26:47
Examples that come to my mind that I think a
26:49
lot of people would be familiar with
26:50
would be the Fair Labor Association
26:52
in the apparel and sportswear sector
26:54
or the Ethical Trade Initiative
26:56
in the UK. A lot of commodity
26:58
single commodity roundtables.
26:59
So the roundtable on sustainable
27:01
palm oil or Forest Stewardship
27:03
Council instead of timber products.
27:05
Marine Stewardship Council for seafood,
27:08
etc. Right, so a lot of these are going
27:10
to be going to be familiar to you.
27:12
Now, they're all really different.
27:13
Some of them work in a particular sector
27:15
or on a particular issue, you know.
27:17
Revenue transparency or whatever
27:19
it might be.
27:20
Some of them work across sectors
27:23
like the ETI.
27:24
Some of them are quite broad in their
27:26
standards and try to capture a whole
27:28
range of social and environmental
27:30
sustainability issues including
27:31
human rights and labor rights.
27:33
as part of that.
27:34
So they're all very different.
27:35
They all work in really different ways,
27:37
sort of lumping them together in
27:38
this in this one category of sort of
27:41
multi stakeholder regulatory systems,
27:42
but most of them have a few key elements.
27:45
The negotiation of some kind of standards.
27:47
Often they you know they bring
27:49
different stakeholders together
27:50
in some kind of dialogue process.
27:52
Often they have some kind of
27:54
compliance mechanism.
27:54
Monitoring, auditing,
27:57
sometimes certification, Et Cetera,
27:58
27:58
and many of them also have grievance
28:01
handling mechanisms of some kind,
28:03
for when there are allegations that
28:05
violations of the standards of
28:07
human rights abuses have occurred.
28:08
As one really important category
28:10
of these non legal mechanisms.
28:13
Now in addition to that,
28:14
there's a whole sort of group of
28:17
other voluntary standard systems
28:20
which is intergovernmental.
28:22
Typically the examples that I have in mind,
28:24
so that would include
28:25
the OECD guidelines
28:27
on multinational enterprises,
28:28
but again,
28:29
I'm sure many of you are familiar with.
28:32
I'm also thinking here of the
28:35
IFC's performance standards,
28:36
which the World Bank Group uses
28:39
to set standards for companies
28:41
that are taking their loans.
28:42
But those standards are then also used as
28:45
a reference point for a whole bunch of
28:47
other International Development banks.
28:50
Private sector banks through the equator
28:52
principles and so on around the world.
28:54
So again they have,
28:55
they're all set up very differently,
28:58
but they usually have some kind of standard,
29:00
some compliance system,
29:01
some kind of complaint handling system that
29:04
people can use when violations have occurred,
29:08
so they're all very different,
29:09
right?
29:09
But what they share in common is
29:12
that they've got standards around
29:14
human rights and related issues.
29:16
They've got compliance systems
29:19
of some kind.
29:21
And they're voluntary, they've
29:23
all got different incentive structures or
29:25
apply to different groups of mechanisms.
29:26
But whether or not they involve governments,
29:28
29:29
they're not legally binding,
29:30
and they don't apply it to
29:32
everyone in a particular jurisdiction.
29:35
So they're being really important mechanisms,
29:39
despite their limitations, there's
29:41
there's been a lot of action around
29:44
trying to implement international
29:45
human rights standards through
29:47
these lots of mechanisms,
29:48
and it's not really surprising
29:49
in the sense that you know,
29:51
particularly earlier on in the process
29:54
of the UN GP's being developed.
29:55
There was a lot of interest,
29:57
a lot of enthusiasm, quite broad
29:58
based around the potential of these
30:01
kinds of non legal regulatory
30:04
and grievance handling mechanisms.
30:06
And although I think it's fair to say
30:09
that a lot of that enthusiasm has
30:11
faded at least amongst certain groups,
30:13
certain stakeholders more
30:15
recently, nonetheless
30:17
there's no question that these
30:18
mechanisms did get a lot of emphasis
30:20
from Ruggie and his team throughout
30:22
the process of developing the UN GP's,
30:24
and they do appear quite prominently
30:27
quite explicitly within some
30:28
aspects of the guidelines,
30:30
so you know they're
30:31
important in that sense.
30:32
But they also remain
30:34
practically quite important.
30:36
Not least just in a simple sense
30:38
that at the same time that really
30:40
like the majority of national
30:42
governments around the world,
30:43
are really doing very little
30:45
to sort of implement the UN
30:47
GPS through legal mechanisms
30:49
of the kind that many people would
30:51
like to see. And at the same time the
30:54
debates are continuing about that
30:55
implementation through these kinds
30:57
of non legal mechanisms, is going on
31:00
all over the place and actually has,
31:03
although they're they're limited necessarily
31:05
in scope,
31:06
in very significant ways, nonetheless,
31:08
some of them have quite extensive
31:11
reach throughout supply chains,
31:13
but you know inspectors all over the
31:15
world just give us a couple of examples.
31:17
I should have looked at what time
31:18
I started talking here so I can
31:20
see how I'm tracking.
31:20
How long have I spoken for?
31:21
Daisy? That's OK.
31:22
You got about 10 minutes. Oh cool?
31:24
OK, no, that's good.
31:25
I just don't want to take too long
31:27
talking about these things in general,
31:29
given the background.
31:30
OK,
31:30
so let me just give a couple of examples.
31:33
So the OECD guidelines
31:35
are an example which is mentioned
31:38
quite often where there's
31:40
explicit reference to the UN GP's
31:42
which has been incorporated under
31:44
a number of different dimensions,
31:46
that particularly,
31:47
you know the the focus on promoting
31:49
responsibilities for risk based
31:51
due diligence and so on which
31:52
has got a lot of emphasis and
31:54
implementation in many areas.
31:56
The IFC Performance Standards and
31:59
the Equator Principles which are
32:01
related, sort of derived from them,
32:04
also incorporated several
32:05
aspects of the UN GP's
32:08
directly and then again,
32:09
there's sort of multiplier effects every
32:12
time one of these influential standard
32:14
systems incorporates aspects of the UN GP's,
32:17
'cause that then flows through
32:20
into the supply chains into,
32:22
you know,
32:22
the companies who are connected to
32:24
those funding chains and so on.
32:26
and similarly with the multi
32:29
stakeholder standards,
32:30
there are a lot of examples
32:32
of direct implementation,
32:33
some multi stakeholder initiatives
32:35
from thinking of the example of the
32:38
Roundtable on sustainable palm oil,
32:40
which is one that I'm personally
32:42
particularly familiar with,
32:43
which quite extensively
32:46
implemented aspects of the UN GP's
32:50
in their standards but also through
32:52
significant revisions to their
32:54
grievance handling systems to try and
32:56
come into alignment with the UN GP's
32:59
in key ways. And even the the multi
33:02
stakeholder initiatives that haven't
33:04
really been so engaged or haven't had
33:06
pressure put directly on them to do it.
33:08
Again, the sort of the indirect
33:10
ways in which the multiplier effects
33:12
of this channel of implementation
33:13
flow through is interesting,
33:15
so I seal that sort of quite an
33:17
obscure body that probably many
33:18
of you wouldn't be familiar with,
33:20
but it's sort of the umbrella body
33:23
come under which a lot of the prominent
33:26
sustainability certification schemes,
33:28
so that would include the commodity
33:30
roundtables that I've mentioned
33:31
but you know, Fair Trade,
33:33
Rainforest Alliance,
33:34
all these sustainability certification
33:36
schemes that you'd be familiar with.
33:39
Uhm, they're members of ISEAL,
33:43
And ISEAL, they kind of
33:44
regulate the regulators.
33:45
They set what they call 'credibility
33:48
principles' and then only the certification,
33:52
the private regulatory systems that meet
33:54
those standards can be a member and
33:56
claim that there are credible private system.
33:58
That's the idea,
33:59
right?
34:00
And so ISEAL has incorporated certain
34:03
aspects of the UN GP's, not very extensively,
34:05
but in certain ways they've incorporated
34:08
that into their credibility
34:09
principles, and that means that even
34:11
the multi stakeholder initiatives
34:13
that are not that engaged or that
34:15
aren't under direct pressure to
34:16
do it, still kind of need to do it
34:18
at least a little bit to bring
34:20
themselves into alignment with that
34:22
overarching set of principles.
34:24
So I mean,
34:25
those are just some examples of the reach of,
34:29
you know,
34:29
sort of how far through all these
34:31
different mechanisms and supply chains
34:33
that the UN GP's are sort of going
34:35
on being implemented in these ways.
34:37
You know, even as a lot of the attention
34:39
perhaps and the visibility
34:42
is - sorry, Siri thinks now
34:44
I'm talking to it.
34:45
If you hear a little mechanical
34:46
voice in the background, ignore it
34:49
going on in the background.
34:51
So there's a lot of action
34:52
there that I think it's important
34:54
for us to be to be aware of,
34:55
UM, and you know in some ways
34:58
that's kind of valuable in its own right
35:00
insofar as it enables large scale impact.
35:03
Although these standards are voluntary.
35:05
What they do have the capacity to
35:07
do is to directly implement the
35:09
standards on the ground, insights,
35:11
production, to the extent that there
35:13
are compliant mechanisms of course
35:14
to create the incentives or
35:16
the sanctions for that to happen,
35:18
but nonetheless.
35:19
It does have quite significant reach.
35:22
UM, you know,
35:23
there's so there's contributions
35:25
to potentially to small amounts of
35:28
changes in business behavior
35:29
through that mechanism,
35:30
you know.
35:31
And there's also the potential for other,
35:33
more indirect use to be made of
35:35
these sorts of mechanisms through,
35:38
you know,
35:39
through raising the visibility of
35:41
some of these human rights issues,
35:43
through creating forums in which
35:45
you know groups working on these
35:47
issues can can get some voice.
35:49
You know, there's various examples that
35:51
I'll say a bit more about later,
35:53
where some of those indirect processes
35:55
can occur, and sometimes these mechanisms
35:57
can actually be used to help people
36:00
get at least some kind of redress.
36:02
And again, we could talk more
36:03
about the limitations of that,
36:04
but there's a few things
36:06
that they can do, right.
36:07
But, although I'm sort of arguing
36:09
on that side, that actually there's
36:11
a lot going on in this space,
36:13
and that I think you know,
36:15
it's important for us to be
36:16
scrutinizing that and to be and to be
36:19
aware of of how that's playing out.
36:20
The other side of that
36:22
is that of course,
36:24
these systems remain really limited
36:26
in obvious ways and also
36:28
perhaps in less obvious ways,
36:30
so some of the obvious limitations that
36:32
I've mentioned, the scope of coverage,
36:34
so the fact that you know these these
36:36
sorts of standards are not addressing
36:38
all businesses in a particular
36:40
sector or in a particular jurisdiction.
36:42
That's just the ones that join up,
36:43
or the ones that get their financing from
36:46
a particular source or whatever it may be,
36:48
so you've only got these
36:49
things operating in certain
36:50
sectors you know,
36:51
certain supply chains and companies
36:53
who are exposed to the pressure
36:55
by stakeholders who actually care
36:57
about this stuff in the first place.
36:59
So limiting scope in very significant ways,
37:01
and then obviously they're
37:04
limited in enforceability and stringency,
37:06
37:06
since they are at the end of
37:08
the day completely voluntary,
37:11
so they're kind of obvious limitations,
37:13
I think.
37:15
But the other thing which I don't know,
37:17
which again it's probably obvious,
37:18
but perhaps we don't talk about it as much,
37:22
is the ways in which
37:25
these kinds of mechanisms as a way of
37:29
contributing to business and human
37:31
rights agenda is just limited
37:33
by the huge power differentials
37:35
between workers and communities.
37:37
And you know this is important not
37:40
just because of the way that it
37:42
prevents marginalized,
37:43
vulnerable groups who are actually the
37:46
ones who need to be using these mechanisms,
37:48
who they ultimately targeted at from
37:50
really being able to use them effectively.
37:52
Being able to get redress, and so on.
37:56
But what it also means is that
37:58
often these processes,
38:00
both in terms of the content
38:01
of the rules and procedures,
38:03
and all of that,
38:03
but also in terms of the discourse,
38:05
the way people talk about them,
38:06
the way people represent these schemes
38:09
and what they can and can't do.
38:11
Is often controlled in really important
38:14
ways by by business actors you know,
38:17
and in some cases also by,
38:18
by governments who have flex links
38:20
to the business actors and sort of
38:22
share a very market focused economic,
38:23
growth focused sort of ideological
38:26
agenda and so on.
38:29
And so when those ideas and ideologies
38:32
in those particular actors control the
38:35
agenda and control the regulatory systems,
38:39
it sort of tends to
38:40
pull them in a direction
38:41
apart from, again, obvious limitations
38:42
or not wanting to make it enforceable
38:44
and so on on it. It has an effect on
38:48
sort of pulling the UN GP's in the
38:50
business and human rights agenda.
38:52
You know, sort of technocratic,
38:53
deep politicized,
38:54
and ultimately therefore quite status
38:56
quo kind of business friendly
38:59
way, that that shuts down
39:01
questions about, you know,
39:03
bigger systemic problems of exploitation
39:05
or shuts down the troublemakers you know,
39:09
and sort of more confrontational
39:11
agendas of corporate accountability,
39:13
and therefore either deliberately
39:14
or unintentionally
39:15
or perhaps sometimes both, undercuts efforts
39:19
to give more meaningful power and voice to,
39:22
you know, to people who this
39:24
really should be targeted at.
39:26
Which is the people whose
39:28
human rights are being impacted.
39:29
And we could think, and we can talk about
39:31
sure, everyone would be able to
39:33
think of examples of that kind of
39:36
tendency towards deep politicization.
39:38
I mean,
39:38
in some respects you know I would think
39:40
of that as being reflected in discourses,
39:43
that are just constantly
39:44
going on about the business case.
39:46
You know for risk management and so on.
39:49
You know assumptions that we've
39:51
always got to be focusing on
39:53
collaboration and talking nicely
39:55
together through dialogue and
39:57
in doing so, to avoid talking about
39:59
conflicting interests you know, fundamentally
40:02
conflicting interests or profound
40:04
power disparities between different groups,
40:06
or both of those things together,
40:08
which is you know where where it
40:10
really gets dangerous and which
40:11
actually just you know,
40:12
defines all of these sectors and
40:14
and underpins the problem,
40:15
right?
40:15
So the more that we're just talking
40:17
about the business case and it's
40:18
win win and let's all collaborate,
40:20
the more we're not talking
40:21
about these things.
40:22
And again, you can sort of two minutes.
40:24
OK?
40:24
Again we can see this reflected in the
40:27
way that implementation and someone's
40:30
rolled out, it's often led by experts.
40:32
We have technical guides on
40:34
good practices and so on.
40:35
Rather than prioritizing empowerment
40:37
and voice and representation to affected
40:40
people in leading these processes.
40:43
So I think these processes
40:45
of depoliticization they're,
40:46
I mean, in some ways they're in our faces,
40:48
but in other ways there perhaps
40:50
quite insidious.
40:51
And you know,
40:52
if they're not called out and then
40:55
they do have the potential to undermine,
40:58
you know, the potential that I do think
41:00
some of these voluntary mechanisms,
41:02
in particular in the in UN GP's,
41:04
in general to spearhead
41:06
brought up broader processes of change,
41:09
you know, and I think there are
41:11
there are a lot of ways in which
41:14
affected people and groups that are
41:17
supporting them can be can sort of
41:19
rest back control of the agenda,
41:21
and I alluded to some of these before,
41:23
you know,
41:24
the way that strengthened standards,
41:25
even if their voluntary can be used
41:28
as the basis for accountability politics.
41:31
To sort of point out the distance
41:33
between the normative discourse
41:34
and an established practice,
41:35
and so on to increase pressure
41:37
for real change,
41:39
you know if these forums can be used
41:41
as a way of supporting mobilization,
41:43
bringing different groups together,
41:45
giving them voice, giving them visibility,
41:47
giving them credibility to their claims,
41:49
you know, and so on.
41:50
We can talk more about about different,
41:51
what this might look like,
41:53
but I think there are ways of doing it,
41:55
but they're hard.
41:56
They're really hard,
41:57
and the reason they're hard is
41:59
precisely because the problem,
42:00
the underlying
42:01
problem, is
42:02
the underlying huge power imbalances and
42:04
in many cases structurally conflicting
42:07
interest amongst the different groups
42:10
involved and there's a real dilemma here.
42:11
If I could just have a pincher
42:13
couple more minutes here,
42:14
Daisy, just to sort of
42:16
finish off the thought process here.
42:19
It creates really significant dilemmas.
42:21
I think real real dilemmas
42:24
for those who are pushing the
42:26
business and human rights agenda.
42:28
Because on the one hand,
42:29
you know 'cause you want to get buy in,
42:30
right?
42:30
You want powerful actors to buy in.
42:33
You want businesses to be
42:35
signing up, to be endorsing these
42:37
sorts of systems and standards.
42:39
You want powerful government governments,
42:41
likewise to be supporting it.
42:44
But of course,
42:44
they're going to be more willing to do that
42:46
if their interests and values,
42:48
and their power are not threatened,
42:50
so there's a, there's a real dilemma there.
42:52
There's a real tension there,
42:54
and it's you know anyone who's
42:56
involved faces that tension and has
42:58
to make difficult choices about
43:00
you know how much to compromise
43:02
to sort of take things forward,
43:04
or sort of how much to push back
43:06
and to politicize these processes.
43:10
OK,
43:10
I was gonna say something about
43:12
how I think Ruggie tries to deal
43:14
with this and his reflections on
43:16
the guiding 'cause I won't say that
43:17
'cause I haven't got time
43:18
but I can talk about-
43:19
I think he tries to sort of get
43:21
around it and I'm not not really
43:23
convinced that it works, but
43:25
anyway the basic message is-
43:27
Practically, I think,
43:27
and this is where it really resonates
43:29
with Kalpona's talk, is I
43:31
think from a practical point of view
43:34
as I said,
43:35
we really need to focus not just
43:37
on legal institutional rules and
43:38
processes and how they can be strengthened.
43:42
That's really important,
43:42
but we also need to be talking
43:45
more and doing more to empower
43:47
the troublemakers to help them
43:49
organize more effective.
43:50
And that's hard because it
43:52
means talking about politics.
43:53
It means talking about conflicting
43:55
interests and power and all the things that
43:57
powerful governments and business
43:59
desperately don't want to talk about,
44:01
but you know,
44:02
I just think that if we really
44:03
want to have meaningful affective
44:05
processes of corporate accountability
44:06
and to be able to use these kinds
44:08
of mechanisms and standards and
44:10
norms to that end,
44:11
then that's where we need to put
44:13
more of that emphasis on empowering
44:15
the troublemakers on not on
44:17
empowering effective people.
44:18
Thank you so much,
44:20
Kate.
44:21
That was really excellent.
44:23
Yeah, and I just, you know,
44:24
I really reflect on your point.
44:28
Both of your points,
44:30
which is that multi stakeholder initiatives
44:33
like for example the Bangladesh
44:35
Fire and Building Safety Accords.
44:38
Those types of initiatives must
44:41
have the voices of people who are
44:43
on the groundm who see what is
44:46
really happening and what is really,
44:48
really needs to needs to be
44:50
done to improve conditions.
44:51
And if there isn't also real change
44:55
happening in those initiatives,
44:57
then they're just a waste of time.
45:00
For most people, and um,
45:03
so that's absolutely a critical place.
45:07
And just on the issue of
45:09
inequality and power,
45:11
I could not believe I still
45:14
cannot believe that someone
45:16
like the owner of Zara,
45:20
who you know would make a
45:22
lot in Bangladesh as well.
45:23
His net worth is
45:29
$71 billion. 71. Billion.
45:31
Dollars, like that's U.S. dollars.
45:34
Meanwhile, the women that Kalpona
45:37
speaks to and works with, when
45:40
they lose their jobs because they
45:42
haven't and never earnt a living wage
45:44
they literally go from, you know,
45:47
having a job to then not being paid to
45:49
then having starving children.
45:51
So that is the kind of reality
45:54
that our global system perpetuates.
45:56
And it's difficult to stay
45:59
polite and support those
46:02
power structures,
46:03
when that is the reality of the gross
46:05
inequality that people are faced.
Global Business Ethics and COVID
Discussions on the ethics and BHR issues surrounding vaccines, global pandemics and the global governance of COVID-19 response with Dr Rebekah Farell, Prof David Heyman, Dr Kim Mulholland & Tom Buis (Wemos).
Global Business Ethics and COVID
Discussions on the ethics and BHR issues surrounding vaccines, global pandemics and the global governance of COVID-19 response with Dr Rebekah Farell, Prof David Heyman, Dr Kim Mulholland & Tom Buis (Wemos).
2:18
Penny can you unmute?
2:22
No? it's OK, here we know it's here good,
2:26
good, good OK starting
2:29
Are we starting now? OK.
2:37
Hello everybody, good afternoon or
2:40
good morning, depending on where
2:41
you are in the part of the world.
2:43
My name is Professor Penelope Weller
2:45
from the RMIT University Center
2:47
for Business and Human Rights.
2:49
I'm BHRIGHT's lead on Health,
2:51
and you have joined the seminar
2:54
on Global Vaccine Inequality.
2:56
I'd like to begin this session by
2:59
acknowledging traditional owners of
3:00
the unceded land on which RMIT stands.
3:03
The Woi Wurrung and the Boon Wurrung
3:04
language groups of the
3:06
Eastern Kulin nations, and I pay my
3:08
respects to elders past,
3:09
present and emerging and any indigenous
3:12
people who have joined us today.
3:14
I recognize indigenous
3:16
knowledges have been produced,
3:17
exchanged and applied for thousands
3:19
of generations, and that the
3:21
inclusion and relationship of these
3:23
knowledges contributes to and extends
3:26
the mission of the university.
3:28
I would also like to acknowledge
3:29
the indigenous people from lands
3:31
wherever you may be joining us today.
3:33
In my case,
3:34
I acknowledge the Palawa people of
3:37
Lutruwita, and recognize the ongoing
3:39
legacy of black wars in this state.
3:42
So now, I turn to today's topic.
3:46
Referring to global vaccine inequality,
3:48
the Director-General of the
3:50
World Health Organization,
3:51
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,
3:54
warned earlier this year that
3:56
the world was on the brink of a
3:59
catastrophic moral failure, and that
4:00
the price of the failure would be
4:02
paid with lives and the livelihoods
4:04
of the world's poorest countries.
4:07
Also of the poor within developed countries.
4:11
With me today we have a panel of
4:14
experts who will help us think
4:16
through some of the issues raised
4:18
by vaccine global inequality.
4:20
I'm very pleased to be able to
4:23
welcome Professor David Heymann,
4:24
Professor Kim Mulholland,
4:26
Tom Buis and Dr Rebekah Farrell.
4:29
4:30
I thank all of you most sincerely
4:32
for your generosity in agreeing
4:34
to speak with us today.
4:36
In terms of the format of the seminar,
4:38
Rebekah is going to begin
4:41
with a brief introduction,
4:42
followed by presentations from Professor
4:45
Heyman and Professor Mulholland,
4:48
and then we will have an opportunity
4:50
for a questions session.
4:52
Both professors need to leave
4:56
after that time,
4:57
so please post your questions
4:59
in the chat and we will answer
5:01
as many of them as we can.
5:03
After that, we will hear from
5:05
Tom Buis, and we're going to have
5:08
another opportunity for question
5:09
time with Tom and Rebekah.
5:14
So now we begin, and I have the
5:17
great pleasure of introducing our
5:19
first expert, Dr Rebekah Farrell.
5:23
Dr Farrell is manager of the Legal Policy
5:26
at the Law Institute of Victoria.
5:28
She is an expert on clinical
5:30
trials and global governance.
5:32
She completed her PhD on that topic at RMIT,
5:36
but she was also the inaugural
5:39
Managing Director of BHRIGHT.
5:40
So she was instrumental in the beginning
5:43
of BHRIGHT and shaping our early time.
5:46
So we are absolutely honored
5:49
to welcome Dr Rebekah Farrell
5:51
to be our first speaker today.
5:58
Thank you, Penny. I wish to convey
6:00
that any opinions I express are
6:02
my own and do not reflect those
6:05
of the Law Institute of Victoria.
6:07
I am joining you from the country of the
6:10
Wurrundjeri People of the Kulin nation, and
6:12
I pay my respects to their elders past,
6:14
present and emerging.
6:15
Thank you so much,
6:17
Associate Professor Shelly Marshall,
6:19
Director of Business and Human Rights
6:22
Center and Health lead, Penny Weller, for
6:25
including me in this important BHRIGHT event.
6:28
I am humbled to be part of our most
6:31
esteemed panel and to provide the
6:33
theoretical and critical foregrounding
6:35
for what promises to be a very
6:38
informative set of presentations.
6:39
So I'm going to start us off
6:42
with this big question;
6:44
'How do we solve the world's wicked problems?'
6:48
And when I say 'wicked',
6:50
I'm referencing the work of Webber.
6:53
But before you think you're you
6:55
might be in the wrong seminar,
6:56
not Andrew Lloyd Webber,
6:58
the famous composer - and not Wicked,
7:01
the long running Broadway musical.
7:03
I refer instead to the work of the
7:05
1970s theorists Webber and Rittel,
7:08
who introduced the term to describe
7:10
some of the most challenging
7:12
and complex issues of our time.
7:14
Things like climate change,
7:16
biodiversity loss,
7:17
persisting poverty,
7:18
food insecurity,
7:20
all of which threaten human health.
7:24
The global ethics and inequity of
7:26
COVID-19 vaccines is a wicked problem.
7:30
Partly because it's comprised
7:31
of a number of problems,
7:33
as our speakers will talk about this evening,
7:36
but also because it stems from the pervasive
7:39
issue of health and global health inequality.
7:44
The challenges associated with COVID-19
7:46
vaccines may feel like new challenges,
7:49
but global health inequality has deep roots.
7:52
15 years ago I started a research project
7:55
into unethical offshore clinical trials.
7:58
These are trials that are conducted
8:00
by pharmaceutical companies
8:01
in offshore locations,
8:03
predominantly developing countries,
8:04
and they can be conducted
8:07
in an unethical manner,
8:09
meaning that they don't meet
8:11
the required ethical standards
8:12
as set out in the international
8:14
instruments and guidelines.
8:17
There may be issues of lack of
8:20
informed consent, lack of oversight,
8:22
inappropriate use of placebos,
8:24
no post-trial access
8:25
to treatment, to give
8:28
you just a few examples.
8:30
I came into contact with this problem
8:32
when I was working on a community
8:34
development project in a marginalized
8:36
area of northeast Thailand.
8:38
I observed young children in a village
8:41
there being vaccinated for polio with a
8:44
vaccine that was not deemed appropriate
8:47
for administration in Australia.
8:50
The vaccine was causing in the
8:52
children acute Flaccid paralysis.
8:54
Further research led me to understand that
8:57
this was not in fact an isolated event.
9:00
There have been cases documented
9:02
in which people in developing
9:04
countries have been severely harmed
9:06
by pharmaceutical companies when
9:08
conducting clinical trials, and the
9:10
terrible facts of some of these
9:12
instances have been proven in
9:14
impartial and well respected courts.
9:16
Clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines
9:19
have raised ethical concerns.
9:21
Most critically,
9:22
violations of the well established and
9:25
fundamental principles of profit sharing
9:28
- pardon me - benefit sharing
9:31
and post trial access.
9:34
We have seen examples where trials
9:36
have been conducted in developing
9:38
countries, and those countries have
9:40
not yet gained access to the vaccine.
9:42
So for example, despite hosting a clinical
9:45
trial for the Astra Zeneca vaccine,
9:47
the South African government was
9:49
unable to secure a fair pricing
9:52
agreement, and had to pay double the
9:54
price or double the amount per dose
9:57
compared to European Union countries.
10:00
This is just one aspect of the global
10:02
ethics and equity problem around COVID-19
10:04
vaccines, and we'll hear more on this
10:06
and other aspects of our problem - of the
10:09
problem from our guest speakers tonight.
10:11
So back to this question of how do we
10:13
solve the world's wicked problems?
10:15
Well, wicked problems require
10:19
wicked solutions.
10:20
And this time, I use the term wicked
10:22
in a much more contemporary sense.
10:25
The way I hear it used when I take my
10:27
daughters to the local skate park,
10:29
we need solutions that are creative, that
10:32
are clever, that have the input of multiple
10:35
disciplines and that bring
10:37
together disparate experts.
10:39
So to explore this,
10:40
I'm going to take us through some
10:42
critical theory around global governments
10:44
in addressing global problems.
10:46
To date,
10:47
much attention has been given to the
10:48
role and responsibilities of governments,
10:50
particularly those in the global North
10:53
to rectify global vaccine inequity.
10:56
We have seen government efforts hampered
10:58
and undermined by vaccine nationalism,
11:01
an example we're all probably familiar
11:03
with was the Australian government
11:05
securing Pfizer stock from the global
11:08
Vaccine Sharing Initiative, COVAX.
11:10
This accords with contemporary
11:13
governance theory.
11:14
We know that in trying to solve
11:18
increasingly complex transnational problems,
11:20
the state-centric approach doesn't work
11:23
and there are a number of theories
11:24
that I could draw upon to support this,
11:26
but I feel it's only appropriate
11:28
given that this is a Business and
11:30
Human Rights Centre event, and given
11:32
his sad and recent passing last
11:33
week, that I draw upon the work of
11:36
eminent Professor John Ruggie.
11:38
Ruggie considered the hierarchical
11:39
old governance models of States and
11:42
intergovernmental organizations,
11:44
along with their mechanisms and
11:46
treaties, to have limited utility
11:48
in dealing with many of today's
11:50
most significant global challenges.
11:53
The State,
11:54
while still being an important actor,
11:57
is too political and too parochial
11:59
to meet the world's problems.
12:02
This is evidenced by the fact that
12:04
traditional forms of international
12:06
legalization and negotiation
12:07
through universal consensus based
12:09
institutions are stagnating.
12:11
It's a phenomenon that is being
12:13
described by the late Professor
12:15
David Held as gridlock,
12:17
wherein the features of the old
12:19
governance regime combined with
12:21
economic and political shifts have
12:23
ground governance responses to a halt.
12:26
And I believe that's exactly what we're
12:28
seeing with the WTO TRIPS agreement
12:31
waiver where negotiations are stalled
12:33
by the interests of developed nations.
12:36
We need to adopt contemporary thinking
12:39
around global governance, thinking
12:41
that embraces the shift away from
12:43
the highly integrated international
12:45
system to a decentralized polycentric
12:47
global governance approach that
12:49
witnesses a critical engagement
12:51
of both state and non state actors
12:54
to address global problems.
12:56
In central to
12:57
this is an understanding of the
12:59
role of the Pharmaceutical industry,
13:01
how they can and should be addressing
13:04
global health inequality. Little attention
13:06
seems to have been given to the
13:09
Pharmaceutical industry with
13:10
regard to COVID-19 vaccines,
13:12
though it's long accepted that business
13:15
has responsibility for respecting
13:17
human rights alongside governments.
13:19
That being said,
13:21
you must also consider the
13:23
governance space is beyond a
13:25
simple state commerce dichotomy.
13:27
I find it helpful to think of
13:29
the business and human rights
13:31
scholar Professor Cesar Rodriguez
13:33
Garavito's conceptualisation of global
13:35
governance spaces as ecosystems.
13:37
Where a multiplicity of different factors,
13:40
regulatory models and political
13:42
strategies coexist.
13:43
In my own research with Professor
13:46
Paul Battersby,
13:46
I termed the phenomenon the
13:49
transnational legal space.
13:51
When I wanted to understand the problem
13:53
of unethical offshore clinical trials
13:54
and how these could be addressed,
13:56
I started asking questions of the experts,
13:59
doctors, lawyers,
14:01
advocates, regulators,
14:03
academics. And true to the governance
14:06
theories of Ruggie, Held and Rodriguez Garavito,
14:09
I found private and public actors from legal,
14:12
regulatory,
14:13
medical,
14:13
academic and investigative sectors
14:16
committed to addressing global health
14:19
inequality, and working collaboratively
14:21
to do so.
14:23
I am delighted that three of those
14:25
experts that I met during my
14:27
research are speaking at this event.
14:29
It would be cliche of me to
14:31
finish by saying that to solve
14:33
the world's wicked problems,
14:35
we need wicked people,
14:36
but you certainly do need
14:38
to have the right people,
14:40
the greatest minds from medicine,
14:41
law, academia,
14:43
advocacy and government.
14:45
And we are fortunate to have
14:47
those people here with us tonight.
14:49
I'm now going to hand over to one
14:51
of the most pre-eminent thinkers and
14:53
leaders in the global health space who
14:56
headed The WHO global response to SARS,
14:58
Professor of Infectious Disease
15:00
Epidemiology at the London
15:01
School of Hygiene and Tropical
15:04
Medicine, Professor David Heyman.
15:09
Thank you very much Rebekah,
15:11
for that kind introduction.
15:13
It's really a pleasure to be with
15:16
you today and as we discussed
15:18
when we set up this meeting,
15:20
it might be useful first to just
15:22
go through a little understanding
15:23
of what vaccines can really do.
15:25
And I think back to smallpox,
15:27
which was a disease which in 1967 was
15:31
killing 2.7 million people each year.
15:34
Today that disease is eradicated and
15:37
we no longer have to worry about
15:39
treating it or these other
15:42
problems that it causes.
15:44
So going through a set of slides,
15:46
I hope that I can show you how
15:49
vaccines can best be used.
15:51
Next slide, please.
15:54
Vaccines are certainly used for
15:57
disease control, and this is
15:58
just a non specific term for the
16:00
reduction of disease prevalence,
16:02
morbidity and mortality.
16:03
And as we know, childhood immunization
16:06
programs are very important. Next.
16:11
This shows you the World Health
16:13
Organization's proposed schedule for
16:15
vaccinations for children, and what's
16:18
important is that this shows what
16:20
there is a global consensus about.
16:22
But then countries take this and
16:25
adapt the vaccination schedule
16:27
to their own epidemiology, next.
16:30
And this just shows you what happens
16:32
with vaccines when they're properly
16:34
used at the top you see two lines,
16:36
one red, one blue,
16:38
which your estimates by WHO and UNICEF
16:41
on the vaccination coverage in the world,
16:45
and what you see at the bottom is the
16:47
cases of pertussis, whooping cough,
16:50
that have decreased dramatically
16:52
since vaccines were introduced.
16:54
Probably no GP,
16:55
no General Practitioner today
16:57
in industrialized countries is
16:59
dealing with this.
17:00
And does not have to use antibiotics.
17:03
So vaccines are very powerful, next.
17:06
And what they do is they decrease morbidity.
17:09
They decrease mortality,
17:10
they decrease the use of antibiotics
17:13
and the problems associated with
17:15
anti microbial resistance and
17:17
they decrease hospitalizations.
17:19
So control is a very important
17:23
benefit of vaccines, next.
17:25
But vaccines can also be used for
17:28
elimination of transmission and that
17:30
means reducing the incidence of infection,
17:32
reducing the numbers of cases that are
17:35
occurring regularly to a level that's
17:38
more acceptable and more able to be
17:40
dealt with within a health system, next.
17:45
WHO has a strategy for the elimination
17:48
of measles using a very powerful
17:50
vaccine and that is to strengthen
17:52
routine immunization systems and
17:54
at the same time conduct measles
17:57
vaccination campaigns in countries where
17:59
there's an increase in transmission,
18:01
especially during the rainy season.
18:04
So this is the elimination
18:06
strategy for measles, next.
18:08
And what you can see is that as
18:11
measles vaccinations have increased
18:12
in the top two lines again,
18:14
measles annual reported cases
18:17
have decreased, next.
18:21
But these programs are often very
18:24
sensitive to anti vaccination movers,
18:26
and this shows you an article
18:29
that was published about measles vaccine
18:31
talking about the way that it caused
18:35
autism in children, and it was peer
18:37
reviewed and published in The Lancet.
18:39
But in the end it was found that
18:41
it was not a valid article and
18:43
it was retracted by The Lancet,
18:45
but already that had caused a great
18:48
amount of difficulty within the world
18:51
and gave fodder to the anti vaccines, next.
18:55
And this is the the way that the
18:57
anti VAX years have taken this article
18:59
and moved it forward within their
19:01
circles to discourage vaccination with
19:04
a vaccine which saves lives, next.
19:08
And this is what happens when
19:10
these anti-vaxxers begin,
19:13
there's an increase in information
19:15
on the web not only being sought by
19:18
people but also by being reported by
19:20
people so that we see that there's a
19:23
very sensitive relationship between
19:26
the anti vaccination movement and
19:30
the Internet, next.
19:32
And this is what happened when
19:35
those Internet anti vaxxers began
19:37
to advocate for no vaccination.
19:39
Measles which was under very good control,
19:43
began to increase again globally, next.
19:48
The benefits of elimination of
19:50
viral infections are, however,
19:52
that they decrease morbidity, mortality.
19:54
They decrease the use of antibiotics
19:57
for super infections and therefore the
20:00
decreasing problem in antimicrobial
20:02
resistance decrease in hospitalizations,
20:05
but they are sensitive to anti-vax
20:08
rumors, next.
20:11
Now, vaccines are also used for
20:14
eradication, and eradication
20:16
is the permanent reduction to zero of
20:19
a specific pathogen as a result of
20:22
deliberate efforts such as vaccination
20:24
and then you can go on to certify
20:27
that and finally have extinction.
20:29
And the only human disease so far,
20:31
next, it's been eradicated, is smallpox.
20:35
And smallpox isn't -
20:36
is a very specific disease which
20:39
was very amenable to eradication.
20:42
Because every infection was clinically
20:44
expressed in the same manner,
20:47
every person infected had the same
20:49
clinical signs and symptoms and
20:51
you can see those on this patient.
20:53
There were superficial and systemic
20:56
bacterial infection lesions that
20:58
required antibiotics so that
21:00
they didn't cause septicemia and
21:03
death from bacterial infection.
21:05
But even so,
21:06
there was a 20% to 40% case fatality rate
21:10
for smallpox, and 100% facial scarring
21:13
on those people who were infected.
21:16
There was droplet transmission face to face by
21:19
direct contact and no animal reservoir.
21:21
So all of these factors contributed to the
21:26
successful eradication of smallpox, next.
21:29
But the smallpox vaccine, next, was
21:32
a very important tool in this.
21:35
The vaccine was a vaccine
21:37
which could be lyophilized,
21:39
is dried out,
21:40
desiccated,
21:40
and kept at 37 degrees for a period
21:43
of up to a month.
21:45
And it was still active when
21:47
reconstituted with the diluent.
21:49
The bifurcated needle that
21:51
was used to vaccinate against
21:53
smallpox was very appropriate, next,
21:56
because it was a fork-like tool
21:58
which was dipped into the vaccine,
22:00
a drop between the two prongs on
22:03
that tool, and then that drop was just
22:05
deposited on the surface of the skin
22:08
on clean skin and there were twenty
22:10
punctures with those fork points
22:12
through that vaccine into the skin,
22:15
and a vaccination occurred, next.
22:19
It was very easy to identify
22:21
smallpox using cards,
22:22
because remember every case was
22:25
clinically expressed in the same way, next.
22:28
And vaccination did not have
22:30
to be mass vaccination.
22:31
It was just vaccination
22:33
around cases that occurred,
22:35
either vaccinating their contacts
22:37
or a ring vaccination in the
22:39
communities where they lived,
22:41
and smallpox was successfully
22:43
eradicated, next.
22:46
So the benefits of eradication -
22:48
No more morbidity and no
22:50
more mortality from this.
22:51
And remember 2.7 million people were
22:54
estimated to have died in 1967 from smallpox.
22:58
No use of antibiotics,
23:00
and those benefits, no hospitalization,
23:02
and it was very cost beneficial, next.
23:07
So which strategy for COVID vaccines,
23:09
control, elimination or eradication? Next.
23:14
Well, in order to understand
23:16
how vaccines can be best used,
23:18
we need to undo a lot of misunderstanding
23:22
for what's going on with COVID.
23:24
Herd immunity has been talked about and
23:27
people seem to be just waiting for immunity
23:30
as a magic solution to COVID. Well,
23:32
Herd Immunity is very simple to understand.
23:34
What you see at the top is a person
23:38
infected, and there's a reproductive
23:40
number of four for that infection,
23:42
which means that four people can be infected
23:44
from that person etc.
23:46
You can go on and infect others ad infinitum.
23:50
But if there are people who
23:51
are immune on the bottom,
23:52
those in blue,
23:53
you can see that a herd immunity
23:56
effect already begins when population
23:58
immunity begins in the community and
24:01
there's less transmission already
24:03
when people begin to become immune,
24:06
either from natural infection or vaccine.
24:08
If there's a vaccine available, next.
24:12
Now herd immunity definitions.
24:13
Herd immunity is the indirect
24:16
protection of susceptible individuals
24:17
from infection when a sufficient
24:20
portion of the population is immune,
24:22
and herd immunity effect begins immediately
24:25
when people begin to get infected.
24:27
Even before there was a measles vaccine,
24:30
Herd immunity developed during
24:31
epidemics and then the year after
24:34
people were protected against measles.
24:37
The herd immunity threshold
24:39
is the point at which the proportion
24:41
of a population that is susceptible,
24:43
falls below the level needed for
24:46
transmission and the average number
24:47
of secondary infections is what the
24:49
reproductive number is, so next.
24:52
So herd immunity threshold concept is
24:55
very easy to understand. For Rubella
24:58
and Measles which have vaccines
25:00
which produce lifelong immunity,
25:02
the Herd immunity effect or the Herd
25:06
immunity threshold is above 90%, or above 85%.
25:09
That means that when you reach set
25:11
vaccination coverage in the population,
25:14
transmission will automatically
25:16
stop because there won't be enough
25:18
susceptible people to transmit the
25:20
infection and you can then begin to talk
25:23
about eradication, next.
25:26
But some general concepts of herd
25:28
immunity that are important to
25:30
consider are that infection generally
25:32
provides a herd immunity effect,
25:34
but duration depends on the duration
25:37
of protection against infection
25:39
and unacceptable levels of morbidity
25:41
and mortality may occur, and we've seen
25:44
what happens when populations which are
25:46
at greatest risk of COVID serious illness,
25:50
for example,
25:51
become infected.
25:52
They become hospitalized,
25:53
they die. At the same time,
25:56
it's important to
25:57
understand that strict non-pharmaceutical
25:59
invent interventions such as lockdowns,
26:02
decrease the ability to create herd
26:06
immunity from natural infection.
26:09
Next. And vaccination with long lasting
26:13
immunity is the most sure way to
26:16
attain and sustain full herd immunity
26:18
with minimal morbidity and mortality.
26:21
So those are some important
26:23
points to consider as we
26:26
move on to the next slide,
26:28
which talks about estimating herd
26:31
immunity threshold for SARS,
26:33
for Coronavirus too. Estimates of herd
26:36
immunity threshold by modelers
26:39
have used various assumptions
26:41
for reproductive number and
26:43
various rates of contact.
26:45
And they assume that infection provides
26:48
lasting protection against reinfection,
26:50
which does not occur,
26:52
and they also assume that this
26:54
equates to 200 million people in the
26:56
US and 5.6 billion people worldwide.
26:59
So various estimates of herd
27:02
immunity have been from 50% to 75%,
27:06
using some tenants and some variables which
27:09
are really not reasonable to use for COVID,
27:12
as you'll see in the next slide.
27:15
What you see here is that with COVID,
27:18
there's uncertainty about the immune response
27:21
after naturally occurring infection.
27:23
What is the risk of reinfection?
27:25
We know it occurs and how long does
27:28
protection against serious illness upon
27:30
reinfection induration occur and restoration.
27:33
About vaccines, we also have uncertainties,
27:35
duration of protection,
27:36
how long is it that it protects against
27:39
serious illness and death and as
27:41
protection against infection and,
27:43
and how long is that duration?
27:45
If it does occur?
27:47
So next population immunity
27:49
develops and modifies these.
27:51
So can SARS CoV2 be eradicated
27:54
using current vaccines?
27:55
Well, let's take a look.
27:57
Remember this slide from smallpox, next.
28:02
And looking at that slide, smallpox,
28:05
there was a vaccine that was heat stable,
28:08
inexpensive to manufacture,
28:10
and easy to administer,
28:12
and it caused lifelong immunity.
28:15
Can this occur with
28:17
SARS coronavirus 2, next?
28:19
Probably not, because the vaccines
28:22
don't protect against infection,
28:23
although they do protect some against
28:25
infection for a certain period of time,
28:27
but it's not lifelong.
28:29
Clinical diagnosis is easy,
28:31
not so easy with SARS coronavirus2
28:34
transmission mainly face to face,
28:36
yes, the same for coronavirus.
28:39
Immunity permanent, next, no carrier state.
28:41
No. Immunity doesn't- isn't
28:44
permanent after natural infection,
28:46
and we know that there is a
28:48
carrier phase even after
28:50
vaccination. And finally,
28:51
is there an animal reservoir
28:53
for SARS coronavirus2 or is
28:56
there human infection only?
28:58
We know that minks had an outbreak among them,
29:02
the minks in Denmark,
29:03
and it had become endemic
29:05
in minks and they were culled.
29:07
But is this a long term possibility?
29:09
We just don't know, next.
29:12
So COVID-19 vaccines in the pandemic.
29:16
We have to be very appreciative that
29:18
they prevent sickness and death,
29:20
especially important in
29:23
vulnerable populations.
29:24
They contribute to population
29:27
immunity that modifies infection.
29:29
They are greater safety-
29:31
There's greater safety enclosed
29:33
in outdoor populations,
29:35
and they provide for safe for travel
29:37
and prevention of importation,
29:39
and they decrease the risk
29:41
of development of variance.
29:42
Therefore,
29:43
we need to make sure that these
29:45
vaccines are accessible to all
29:47
people who need them. Next.
29:54
Next OK, so thanks very
29:58
much for listening to me.
30:00
I think what I've tried to show you is
30:03
that the vaccines that we have for SARS
30:07
coronavirus2 are very important,
30:09
but they don't prevent infection
30:11
at all people, they only modify
30:13
infection and make it less serious,
30:16
which we should be very grateful for.
30:19
And we hope that that effect will be long
30:21
lasting despite the evolution of variance.
30:24
So thanks very much back to you, Penny.
30:28
Thanks very much David and
30:30
thank you for walking us through
30:33
the very important technical
30:35
background to this particular debate.
30:38
Thank you so much.
30:40
So now I'm going to invite our next speaker,
30:43
Australian professorial fellow,,
30:46
Professor Kim Mulholland.
30:48
He's a member of the WHO's Strategic
30:51
Advisory group of Experts on Immunization.
30:54
Thanks very much,
30:55
Professor Mulholland.
31:01
Thanks Penny.
31:04
I've taken the broad view to look
31:07
at equity and COVID-19 vaccines.
31:11
I would also like to pay my respects
31:13
to the indigenous people of this land.
31:16
Equity and health is very much an issue
31:20
for indigenous people in Australia.
31:22
I also thank David for that
31:25
fascinating presentation.
31:26
I think the description of
31:28
herd immunity and the, um,
31:30
the nature of what Paul Fine would
31:33
refer to as population immunity
31:35
would came across very clearly, is
31:38
something which is going to wax
31:40
and wane according to combinations
31:42
of exposure and vaccinations.
31:45
So vaccination is part of the game and
31:48
exposure to the virus is part of the game.
31:51
Today I'm not going to describe the
31:54
difference between equity and equality,
31:58
except that I think this picture shows
32:00
it fairly clearly and probably shows it
32:02
more clearly than I could explain it.
32:03
And I think it's probably helpful for
32:06
us to remember that some individuals,
32:09
some communities,
32:10
and some countries need more
32:12
help than others.
32:13
Sadly, in the international area,
32:15
as far as COVID-19 is concerned,
32:18
that is not happening.
32:19
Next slide.
32:22
And taking a sort of a, as they say,
32:25
an equity lens and thinking about equity,
32:27
I can see many ways in which COVID-19
32:31
has, to use a sort of political expression,
32:33
driven a wedge within communities.
32:36
And I just listed a few examples,
32:38
here in Australia I'm in
32:41
Melbourne or almost in Melbourne and,
32:45
Melbourne is of course now the city
32:47
with the longest lockdown in the world.
32:50
Not really a thing to be very proud of.
32:52
Now as far as education is concerned,
32:55
for many children, this has been disastrous.
32:58
Which children has it been disastrous for?
33:00
Not the rich ones with an academic
33:04
or professional parents.
33:05
It's the poor ones whose families
33:08
are struggling.
33:08
The people who don't
33:10
have secure employment.
33:11
The children who live in houses
33:13
without Internet access and
33:15
these children, their education
33:17
is going to be seriously damaged,
33:19
so it essentially promotes inequity.
33:25
We have regular meetings with
33:26
colleagues from Indonesia,
33:28
actually, throughout the pandemic.
33:29
We've done this, and we were talking
33:32
about the issue of the impact of
33:34
the pandemic on children and
33:37
speaking about the various issues
33:38
that affect children in Australia.
33:40
Because we're a group of pediatricians.
33:42
And our Indonesian colleagues said yes,
33:44
yes, that's all true in Indonesia,
33:46
but something else is more important
33:48
and it surprised me that they brought
33:51
up the issue of child marriages.
33:53
And said yes there has been a great
33:55
increase in the number of
33:56
child marriages.
33:57
Indonesian children at school who are sent home
34:00
because the school is closed are
34:02
really not likely to go back to school.
34:04
Many of them, especially the ones
34:06
whose parents are struggling,
34:08
and particularly who's parents
34:09
are not educated.
34:10
Those children then enter the workforce,
34:12
and if they're girls,
34:13
they're likely to get married young.
34:14
And it's not only in Indonesia.
34:16
This has been described by
34:18
UNICEF all over the world,
34:19
and it's a terrible trend.
34:22
In general, urban poor have suffered
34:24
enormously from the pandemic.
34:26
When I wrote this particular phrase,
34:28
I was thinking of India and I think we
34:30
all saw what happened in India when
34:33
the lockdowns took place in the big
34:35
cities and all of the the itinerant people,
34:39
or they're sort of,
34:40
you could say homeless people,
34:42
but there many people who were
34:43
actually living in their workplace
34:45
which was either on a rickshaw or
34:47
in a small cafe or something.
34:49
Were basically sent back to their
34:51
villages and they went back to their
34:53
villages quite often with the virus.
34:54
So that was a disaster.
34:56
But more like the subject at this,
35:00
this discussion really is about
35:02
acting and vaccines,
35:03
and I'm saying I'm going to speak
35:04
a little bit more about that.
35:05
Could I have the next slide please?
35:08
Now the picture on the left shows
35:10
you a map that most people are sort
35:12
of familiar with. The fraction of
35:14
the population living in poverty.
35:15
Where are the people living in
35:17
poverty in the world? Well, they're
35:18
in Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia
35:20
for the most part. That's not to say that
35:21
there are aren't impoverished people here,
35:23
but that's where they are.
35:25
So if you impose on the world the
35:29
pandemic and then you create what is,
35:32
in my opinion almost a miracle,
35:34
actually, that we have effective
35:36
vaccines against COVID-19.
35:38
I should say that because we did
35:41
have previous experience with
35:43
coronaviruses and we did not have,
35:47
at least for SARS or even
35:50
for MERS effective vaccines.
35:52
So it really is something we have
35:53
to recognize as being a fantastic
35:55
achievement for those responsible.
35:57
Next slide please.
35:58
However, what about access then?
36:00
The same picture of the map,
36:02
the same map on the left looks like the
36:05
complete inverse of the map on the right,
36:07
which is what it is,
36:09
and that is that the access to vaccines
36:12
and to vaccination is inversely
36:15
proportional to wealth or the poor
36:19
people just don't get it and next slide.
36:23
This is a kind of shocking figure really,
36:25
which shows I really makes a comparison
36:28
of low income countries with high
36:30
income countries and in high income
36:32
countries at the time the slide
36:33
was made a couple of weeks ago,
36:35
over 60% of people have had at least
36:38
one dose of vaccine. In low income countries,
36:42
it's 3%.
36:43
In the country that my wife comes from,
36:45
which is a low income country, it's zero.
36:47
Not one person vaccinated.
36:49
Next slide please.
36:52
But there's another statistic
36:53
which is similar to this which is
36:55
worth thinking more about as well,
36:57
and this is the
37:02
WHO aspiration of 70% vaccination
37:04
of the population,
37:06
and I think this is a reasonable
37:08
target for WHO to take to the
37:10
world and say at least this is
37:12
where we should be starting.
37:14
Now, if high income countries are
37:17
to achieve 70% vaccination,
37:18
which many have, the increase
37:21
in their health care spending
37:23
is around or just under 1%.
37:27
For low income countries, it's over 50%.
37:30
What does that mean?
37:31
They don't have the money,
37:33
it means that other things are not done.
37:34
Basic health care is not delivered.
37:37
People who are working on immunization,
37:39
routine immunization programs,
37:42
are diverted to COVID activities.
37:45
The hospitals are full of patients
37:46
so that the people are dying of
37:48
then things unrelated to COVID, because
37:50
they're not getting treatment or
37:52
they have no access to treatment.
37:53
So the cost in that respect becomes enormous.
37:57
Next slide.
38:01
Returning to Australia just for a
38:02
moment and we always think of Australia
38:04
is the you know the lucky country
38:06
where everybody has a fair go well of
38:08
course everybody doesn't have a fair
38:10
go and if we look at our indigenous
38:12
community we see a group that is
38:15
really disadvantaged, and this has been
38:18
highlighted in this recent Lancet paper.
38:21
But I've just- in this slide demonstrated
38:24
a couple of the key risk factors
38:27
for serious outcomes with COVID-19.
38:30
These are things that will, could
38:32
lead to people having more serious
38:34
outcomes and being more susceptible.
38:36
Diabetes and chronic respiratory
38:38
disease; in both cases in the three
38:41
age groups that are shown there,
38:42
that is 35 to 45,45 to 55 and over 55.
38:47
The incidence or the prevalence
38:49
of those conditions in indigenous
38:51
people is substantially higher,
38:54
and if you add to that poor
38:56
housing even in the remote areas,
38:58
there is a lot of crowding, extreme crowding
39:00
sometimes, and poor
39:02
limited access to health care.
39:05
Then you can recognize that this is a
39:07
group which is at high risk of COVID-19.
39:10
In other words,
39:11
any reasonable government would put this
39:14
at the highest on the highest rank of
39:17
their scale of who should be protected.
39:20
This is a group that definitely
39:21
should be protected. Next slide.
39:25
So what's happened?
39:26
Well,
39:26
this is where we are with
39:28
vaccination of Indigenous Australians.
39:30
At the moment,
39:31
if you look at the two blue lines,
39:33
the pale blue line is for non indigenous
39:36
Australians, and chose the proportion
39:39
that have had at least one dose and
39:41
the dark blue line is the proportion
39:43
that have had two doses of vaccine.
39:45
The orange and Red Line are the corresponding
39:48
lines for Indigenous Australians -
39:50
it's pathetic actually,
39:52
and when we saw the outbreak in
39:55
Western NSW recently and the way that
39:57
the state government responded to that,
39:59
I think you can see why.
40:01
Next slide please.
40:04
So.
40:05
Vaccine inequity is a global problem.
40:08
It's a huge problem for us
40:10
to face immediately now,
40:12
but it's not a new problem.
40:13
It's a problem that's existed
40:14
with other vaccines.
40:15
Next slide.
40:18
The COVAX facility.
40:19
This would be a complex discussion
40:21
to explain all of the detail of this,
40:23
but on the COVAX facility is something
40:27
which was developed as a collaboration
40:29
initially by the what we call CEPI,
40:32
which is a Coalition for Epidemic
40:34
Preparedness and Innovation.
40:36
Collaborating with WHO and GAVI,
40:39
the GAVI Alliance,
40:40
which provides vaccines for the
40:42
poorest countries in the world.
40:44
And they have then been partnered
40:46
by a number of other organisations
40:48
and bilateral agencies,
40:50
and they got the Gates Foundation
40:52
to form COVAX.
40:55
COVAX has deals, as they say.
40:59
They have secured some vaccines
41:02
from the the producers that are
41:05
shown in the box on the right.
41:08
Looks like there are 11 different vaccines,
41:10
but they're not.
41:11
Several of them appear at several times,
41:13
and that's actually an important point.
41:15
The first two vaccines on that list
41:17
are from the Serum Institute of India,
41:20
the largest vaccine producer in the world.
41:22
And Covovax is actually the same
41:27
as the as the Nova vaccine,
41:30
in which it appears as #7, and
41:33
Covishield is the same as the Astra
41:34
Zeneca vaccine, which appears as #9.
41:37
The others mostly licensed.
41:39
Some will be licensed soon.
41:41
Clover, Sanofi-GSK,
41:43
I'm not sure. So those companies
41:45
have made commitments of various
41:48
kinds to this COVAX effort to try
41:51
and provide vaccines for the world.
41:54
But the arrow on the right there
41:55
tells you where we are at the
41:57
moment while we were in August.
41:58
So it's just past August now,
42:00
but you can see 330 million doses.
42:03
Next slide, please.
42:05
But actually at the moment as we speak today,
42:09
just under 6 billion doses,
42:12
vaccines, have been delivered in the world
42:15
so that 330 million is a tiny tiny number.
42:18
Next slide,
42:19
please.
42:21
Now there's been other efforts to
42:23
try and deal with this inequity.
42:24
Some governments, like Australia,
42:27
have given one-off donations.
42:29
the United States has given donations.
42:31
For example, Moderna
42:34
I think 4 million was given to Indonesia,
42:35
a number of Asian countries have received
42:38
one off donations from the US,
42:41
but that's not really a long term more
42:43
sustainable way of dealing with it.
42:45
Next slide.
42:48
There is a question about mixed schedules,
42:51
and, uhm, there's been a problem
42:53
as we know, with some of the vaccines
42:55
not being as effective as others,
42:57
the focus is usually on the two
42:59
Chinese vaccines, Sinovac and Sinopharm,
43:02
which seemed to have less effectiveness.
43:03
I'll come back to that in a second.
43:05
Mixed schedules are a way around that,
43:08
and they enable countries that are using a
43:10
vaccine which they don't think are as good
43:13
as it should be, to get a better outcome.
43:15
There's also options to boost,
43:17
either with a
43:19
fractional dose or with a different vaccine.
43:21
Next slide please.
43:24
And this slide from Thailand demonstrates
43:26
just one of these experiments,
43:29
and if you just look
43:30
on the left there,
43:32
the bar on the left represents individuals
43:34
and these are antibody levels.
43:37
Individuals who have received the one
43:40
dose of the Corona Vac Chinese inactivated
43:43
virus vaccine and the second dose
43:47
they've received the AstraZeneca vaccine.
43:50
And that's a pretty good response actually.
43:52
And if you compare that to people who
43:54
receive two doses of AstraZeneca,
43:56
it's substantially better.
43:57
And so this raises questions,
43:59
and I think people are starting to
44:01
think now that these inactivated
44:02
vaccines may be very good for priming.
44:05
It's a question of how,
44:06
44:06
how to make best use of the things
44:08
we have next slide.
44:12
Uh, I don't have a long
44:13
time to talk about this.
44:14
I'd love to talk more about this,
44:16
but this is a quote from Jonas Salk.
44:19
Jonas Salk was the inventor
44:21
of the first polio vaccine.
44:23
Inactivated polio vaccine.
44:24
He was also the head of something
44:26
called the March of Dimes,
44:28
which was actually set up by
44:30
the Roosevelt's wife, actually.
44:33
Roosevelt himself actually
44:33
was a polio victim,
44:35
and they did a massive trial of this
44:37
vaccine and showed it to be effective.
44:39
And when he was asked by a reporter
44:41
who actually owns the
44:43
intellectual property for this vaccine,
44:45
he said there is no patent.
44:47
Could you patent the sun? Next slide.
44:52
Well, uhm, many vaccine produces since
44:55
then since 1955 have slapped patents
44:57
on their vaccines and some of them
45:00
have become increasingly expensive.
45:02
The ones listed there are almost
45:05
in order of increasing costs.
45:07
Also very valuable vaccines.
45:08
But also now we have a new generation of
45:11
vaccines which many of us have heard about.
45:14
The mRNA vaccines, Adeno vaccines, and some
45:17
Protein vaccines - and they have been made,
45:20
not necessarily by the companies. We go
45:23
right back to the
45:26
vaccines that I've listed above there,
45:29
most of them are products of academic
45:31
institutions. Next slide please.
45:34
And the evaluation of these
45:37
vaccines is quite important.
45:39
The, UM, the COVID-19 vaccines have
45:42
been systematically evaluated
45:44
mostly by the companies concerned,
45:46
and that is a problem because they
45:48
have not used standardized methods.
45:50
I'll go through this quickly next slide,
45:52
please.
45:54
45:54
There are a whole range
45:56
of problems with that,
45:57
and it means essentially that we can't
46:00
make good comparisons between the trials.
46:02
Next slide.
46:04
And we draw some strange conclusions.
46:07
For example, the Sinovac trial was said to
46:10
show that the vaccine was 51% protective.
46:13
I analyzed the data using the
46:15
same methods that were applied
46:17
by one of the American vaccines
46:19
and came to 82% protective.
46:20
It just depends on which
46:21
cases you count, next slide.
46:25
Finally, a couple of words about
46:27
the TRIPS agreement, which I think
46:29
you'll probably talk more about
46:31
further on in this discussion.
46:34
OK, uh, which is basically something
46:37
that was set up in 1995 as a sort of a
46:41
global approach to intellectual property,
46:43
and I just want to-
46:45
I don't want to talk in detail about this,
46:47
except that TRIPS is an agreement
46:50
whereby companies can license
46:51
products with more or less a global
46:54
license that enables them to have an
46:57
exclusive right over that product.
46:59
Now there's been a claim
47:02
against the the use of TRIPS agreements
47:06
for vaccines and therapeutics and
47:08
diagnostics associated with COVID-19.
47:11
South Africa and India
47:13
have challenged that, that was
47:15
opposed by the big the countries
47:19
that big pharmaceutical makers,
47:21
US, UK, European Union, but also
47:25
opposed by Australia, incredibly.
47:27
In May, the US dropped that opposition,
47:30
but it was September before the
47:33
Australians finally dropped that, and I
47:36
can't explain that, next slide please.
47:38
Next slide. So my site.
47:42
This is my- sorry,
47:43
can you go back?
47:45
This is my final slide really, and
47:46
that is to just ask the question
47:48
who really owns any new vaccine?
47:50
I think that it's time that we started
47:53
to regard COVID-19 vaccines that were
47:56
developed in a partnership that
47:59
involves government, academia, companies.
48:01
They are really public goods, and
48:03
they should be treated as such and
48:05
I'm worried by the way that some
48:07
of the companies are behaving,
48:08
but I won't go on about that.
48:10
And I'll stop. Thank you very much.
48:15
Thank you, thank you Kim and uh,
48:18
thank you very much for running us through
48:22
those details about how
48:25
we've arrived at the place we're in.
48:27
I'm going to go straight to a question
48:31
that's come up in the chat for you both,
48:34
which is a question about the idea that
48:38
has come up about third vaccines in
48:41
high income countries, and people are
48:44
concerned that if that is a move, it
48:46
will reduce the availability even
48:48
further for those in poorer nations.
48:51
I wonder if you might comment on that.
48:54
Um, David, you want to speak to that first?
48:57
Go ahead.
48:58
Yeah, this is a question.
48:59
This is a question of great concern,
49:02
and WHO is very worried about this.
49:05
There's been a push in America,
49:07
for example, to bring in a third vaccine,
49:09
even six months after the second dose,
49:11
and Pfizer actually, interestingly,
49:12
has been pushing this for
49:14
perhaps for commercial reasons,
49:16
but it's- these are vaccine doses
49:18
that should be going to people who,
49:21
up to now had no vaccine opportunities.
49:23
So I think this is a real problem.
49:25
And we have to see this in terms
49:28
of global fairness and equity.
49:30
You know, as individuals
49:31
of course, you may get slightly better
49:34
protection by having a third dose,
49:36
but I don't see this as being
49:38
a broad solution.
49:39
The exception, though,
49:40
is some very high risk individuals
49:43
and high risk individuals,
49:44
including the elderly,
49:46
may be suitable for getting a third dose,
49:49
and we think a fractional dose.
49:51
Might be enough, and these things
49:53
are currently under consideration.
49:55
I definitely don't
49:56
agree with this idea of giving
49:58
a third dose to everybody, over.
50:00
Yeah,
50:00
maybe I'd just add Penny that
50:03
Kim is right there.
50:04
There's really no evidence to
50:05
show that we need a third dose,
50:07
but a lot of this is due to confusion
50:10
about what the vaccine really does.
50:13
Some politicians don't really
50:15
understand that these vaccines do
50:17
not protect against infection 100%.
50:20
They protect against serious
50:22
illness and death and that's
50:24
what they should be used for.
50:25
And even in Israel,
50:27
where they've begun to give
50:29
booster doses very early,
50:31
the vaccines were still protecting
50:33
against serious illness and death.
50:35
But they saw a decrease in their
50:37
ability to prevent infections
50:38
in people who were vaccinated,
50:41
and so they thought they needed to begin.
50:43
Whereas these vaccines,
50:44
this generation of vaccine anyway,
50:47
is not a vaccine which will help in
50:50
herd immunity as such because of the
50:53
lack of duration of protection or the
50:55
lack of protection even in some people.
50:59
Kim, did you want to add more to that or not?
51:01
Uhm,
51:02
uh not really, I wanted actually
51:05
to address something else which
51:07
has come up from on in the
51:10
chat actually, and it's ahh-
51:14
whether the patent protection
51:15
should be waived.
51:17
This is essentially what people
51:19
are asking and
51:21
and I think it's important to recognize
51:23
that patent protection of vaccines
51:25
is complex, is not a protection
51:27
of the molecule, it's a protection of the
51:29
whole business of producing the vaccine.
51:32
And for some vaccines that especially
51:33
the more old fashioned ones,
51:34
it's relatively straightforward
51:35
that other companies could pick
51:37
up a recipe and make a vaccine.
51:39
But for example, for the mRNA vaccines,
51:42
it's not straightforward at all,
51:43
and it's not just a question of
51:45
patenting the molecule,
51:46
but it's all the processes that go into it.
51:49
I think the companies have to come on
51:51
board here and recognize that they have
51:53
a moral obligation to actually become.
51:55
You know, citizens of the world
51:57
and become part of the solution,
51:58
and I think some have shown signs of
52:01
this, and and some have not actually.
52:07
David, did you wish to add to that?
52:09
No, Kim is right.
52:11
You know, I remember back in the early 2000's
52:15
the World Health Organization tried to-
52:18
they had a commission actually trying
52:21
to understand how intellectual
52:23
property could be replaced by some
52:26
other mechanism which would ensure
52:28
that new developments such as the
52:31
mRNA vaccines could be in the public
52:33
domain from the start. And they really
52:36
didn't come to any solution except
52:38
that governments should invest
52:39
more in research and development.
52:41
But even when that happens,
52:42
is Kim said earlier, ass for
52:45
the mRNA vaccines when governments
52:47
heavily invested in them,
52:50
the company still were able to patent
52:52
them and make it very difficult
52:54
to get them off patent.
52:56
So there needs to be a solution,
52:58
and that solution is not easy to come
53:00
by as we've shown by this commission
53:02
back at WHO in the early 2000s.
53:06
Yeah,
53:06
and just from what you just said David,
53:08
I think my understanding is
53:10
it's more than 20 years
53:11
the development process for mRNA vaccine.
53:13
It wasn't that Pfizer just sort of woke up
53:15
in the morning and got this bright idea.
53:17
It's 20 years of research,
53:19
most of which I think was
53:21
probably within NIH in US.
53:23
53:24
That's right,
53:25
in the NIH uses public funding
53:27
and includes private sector and
53:29
then the patent is taken by the
53:31
private sector as they move ahead.
53:33
So what you said earlier about a
53:36
public good and providing resources
53:38
by governments is absolutely true.
53:42
When governments provide the funding,
53:43
it's taxpayer money.
53:48
Can I respond to the vaccine
53:50
nationalism question?
53:50
Yes please, please do.
53:51
I was gonna go to that next.
53:53
Yeah, no, it's
53:55
it's a term that was raised by
53:58
the WHO DG, Dr Tedros,
54:00
and absolutely right.
54:01
There are a couple of different
54:03
aspects to this of course,
54:04
but one that I think is being referred
54:08
to in this question is not,
54:12
you know. my country first,
54:14
which is one aspect of it.
54:16
But rather the use of vaccines
54:19
in a sense politically.
54:21
And you know,
54:22
people have accused China of this,
54:24
and certainly Chinese vaccines
54:26
have been made available to the
54:28
poorer countries of the world.
54:29
That doesn't mean that they, that
54:32
the Chinese had a bad intent.
54:34
The vaccines that were being made
54:36
available to the poorer countries
54:37
of the world may not have been
54:39
the most effective vaccines.
54:40
But they're the same vaccines that are
54:42
being used on a very large scale in China,
54:44
and I think that we have to recognize
54:47
that,
54:47
you know, there is a kind of sort
54:50
of a grey zone as it were between
54:54
donations that are made for
54:56
let's say, political or other
54:58
nationalistic sort of reasons
55:00
and for humanitarian reasons,
55:02
and I would include in that grey zone
55:06
most of Australia's efforts in this area.
55:12
OK, thank you. David,
55:14
did you want to add to that?
55:15
No, nothing to add to that.
55:18
Kim is right on target with that.
55:20
OK, thank you. So another question from
55:24
the chat and I will just read it,
55:28
in case you haven't had the opportunity.
55:30
Do you think with higher vaccination
55:33
rates, Australia and other countries
55:35
should stop lock down and open up to
55:38
continue to close to normal pre COVID-19?
55:41
Oh, can I please answer this?
55:42
This is- I'm sorry David,
55:44
our politicians have been banging on
55:46
this story for I don't know how long, and
55:49
you know, they unfortunately they got
55:51
some modeling done by our institutions.
55:53
That said somehow it's 70% and 80%
55:55
of all the problem was solved.
55:57
That's fine. NOTE Confidence: 0.90741804
55:58
I live in the city of about 5 million.
56:01
If 80% of people are vaccinated,
56:04
that means 1 million people are
56:06
not vaccinated, and these
56:09
are 1 million adults.
56:10
And if you throw in then
56:12
children who are still too
56:13
young to be vaccinated-
56:14
That's a very large number of
56:16
people for the virus to attack.
56:18
When you think about measles and you know,
56:21
56:21
measles virus can get
56:24
through even with a smaller fraction
56:26
of the population susceptible.
56:27
But there's no doubt that there
56:30
would be a huge epidemics, and what
56:32
I would say to the people who are
56:34
arguing like this is have a really
56:36
close look at a number of United
56:39
States states, and many of those states are
56:42
actually,
56:43
like an object lesson in this
56:46
issue it's not so simple. And the
56:48
this idea of will go back to normal
56:50
and we all go to our bars and you
56:52
know football matches and all the rest of it.
56:55
No, not for a while.
56:56
You know,
56:57
I just- I feel like it's not a
57:00
it's not a black and white thing.
57:01
It's a very slow process.
57:03
And unfortunately with the political
57:04
leaders that we've got at the moment,
57:06
there is going to be a lot of stop start
57:08
because they'll probably go too far.
57:10
And then we'll have to go back.
57:12
And you know, yesterday on The Lancet
57:16
online we published an article,
57:18
a group of us from London School of
57:20
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the
57:23
Singapore School of Public Health,
57:25
about the elimination strategies that
57:27
poor countries had including Singapore,
57:29
Australia and New Zealand.
57:31
And it's very interesting to see how
57:35
these countries are modifying now.
57:37
Their understanding is that lockdowns
57:39
have really possibly decreased the
57:42
population immunity, at the same time
57:45
though they have saved lives and
57:47
it's a very difficult balance
57:49
to walk between those two,
57:50
and you'll see how these countries
57:52
are proposing to get out of the
57:55
lockdowns now and they're
57:57
they're doing it in the right way,
57:59
and you know,
58:00
you can't criticize countries for
58:02
having protected the vulnerable
58:04
against mortality,
58:05
but there might have been other
58:06
ways of doing it
58:08
than just these severe lockdowns. In fact,
58:10
if you look and see what countries in
58:12
like Japan and Singapore,
58:14
did, they had surgical lockdowns
58:16
where they knew where transmission
58:18
was occurring and they shut that
58:20
down rather than entire economies.
58:22
So it's an article that some
58:24
may be interested in reading.
58:26
I'd be happy to forward the hypertext
58:29
if you'd like me to do that.
58:31
OK, thank you that would that
58:33
would be good and so perhaps if
58:36
I could return to the question
58:38
both of you have raised about
58:40
the responsibility of the
58:41
pharmaceutical companies.
58:42
How can they contribute to this?
58:45
The equity and access of COVID
58:48
vaccines or other treatments?
58:50
I think we have to recognize that they are.
58:53
I mean,
58:54
I think we,
58:55
you know we sometimes tend
58:58
to demonize these companies and
59:00
maybe I do as well because
59:01
of the actions that they take
59:03
that seem to be only you know,
59:05
only after the money and greed and so on.
59:08
But the pharmaceutical companies
59:09
are large and complex institutions
59:12
and we know many people in these
59:14
companies that are working very
59:16
hard for really idealistic reasons.
59:18
So within the company there
59:19
are always many different
59:21
forces. The question of
59:22
different companies,
59:24
there are different forces
59:25
that seem to prevail,
59:27
and I'd see different patterns of
59:29
behavior in the different companies.
59:30
I think they can be edged towards more,
59:34
let's say more socially minded policies
59:37
and I think there will be, that's my view.
59:40
Yeah,
59:40
I agree with that and I think
59:42
seminars like this one today are
59:44
very important in putting out
59:46
the real understanding that people
59:48
have about access to the vaccines
59:51
and to other goods as well.
59:53
And you know,
59:54
you can't make this solution without
59:57
sitting down with the pharmaceutical
59:59
companies with the activists with
1:00:01
the people who need the vaccines
1:00:04
and negotiate together because it
1:00:06
just doesn't do right to bash one
1:00:08
sector when everybody has to be
1:00:10
involved in the final solution.
1:00:12
And you know,
1:00:13
until we can replace pharmaceutical
1:00:14
companies with something else,
1:00:16
we won't have new products. We have to
1:00:18
depend on them for these new goods.
1:00:20
So thank you very much,
1:00:22
Penny for all questions.
1:00:24
Thank you very much.
1:00:25
Appreciate you both need to go.
1:00:28
Thank you so much for joining us and
1:00:30
and all the best with the rest of your days.
1:00:33
Thank you very much.
1:00:35
Thank you.
1:00:40
So, very much thanks to Professor
1:00:43
Mulholland and Professor Heyman
1:00:45
for that fascinating discussion.
1:00:48
And to you all for your questions.
1:00:50
So I would now like to introduce
1:00:54
our next guest, Tom Buis.
1:00:57
Tom is a global health advocate at Wemos,
1:01:02
and he advocates for the realization of
1:01:06
equitable access to affordable medicines
1:01:09
and technologies
1:01:13
worldwide, so thank you, Tom.
1:01:16
Please take the floor.
1:01:18
Thank you very much, Penny,
1:01:20
and thank you very much for the
1:01:22
RMIT University and the Business and
1:01:24
Human Rights Center for having me to
1:01:27
speak on this very important topic.
1:01:29
Uhm, Wemos is a global health
1:01:32
organization that has 40 years,
1:01:34
over 40 years, of experience in
1:01:36
access to medicines. And within
1:01:38
the access to medicines program,
1:01:41
we used to have a very much a
1:01:44
focus on Dutch and EU policies.
1:01:48
But with COVID-19 we've had an
1:01:51
increased focus on the global level.
1:01:54
So the World Health Organization
1:01:56
and World Trade Organization.
1:01:58
But within Wemos,
1:01:59
we have other different teams
1:02:01
that work on finance for health,
1:02:03
human resources for health.
1:02:05
So that is a short introduction to
1:02:08
the organization I work with and
1:02:11
today I will try and provide an
1:02:14
overview of the current status of
1:02:18
inequitable distribution of vaccines.
1:02:21
And I would also like to share some
1:02:24
information on the global initiatives
1:02:26
that try and counter this inequity,
1:02:29
and there might be some overlap with
1:02:32
Professor Mulholland's presentation,
1:02:34
but I might be able to build up on
1:02:37
some of the things mentioned by him.
1:02:40
So next slide, please.
1:02:42
So on this first, um,
1:02:46
image that I would like to show you is-
1:02:50
what you can see here is prediction that was
1:02:54
made by The Economist by the end of 2020,
1:02:59
and this was around the time when
1:03:02
the first vaccines were approved by
1:03:04
the regulatory bodies in the European
1:03:06
region and in the United States.
1:03:08
So that's the EMA and the FDA, and the
1:03:12
first vaccines were coming to the
1:03:14
market and they the people that they come,
1:03:17
is predicted when the Corona vaccine
1:03:21
would become widely available to
1:03:22
the population in the different
1:03:24
countries around the world.
1:03:26
And what they estimated was that,
1:03:29
especially for the European region,
1:03:31
the North American region and Japan,
1:03:34
vaccines would become widely available
1:03:37
in September 2021.
1:03:40
1:03:41
And another thing that we can notice from
1:03:44
this map is that the African region,
1:03:48
the Central Asian region and the
1:03:51
Southeast region of Asia,
1:03:56
have had-
1:03:57
or the prediction was that they would
1:03:59
have very late access to COVID vaccines
1:04:02
only in April 2022 or 2023
1:04:07
would they get access to COVID vaccines.
1:04:10
So I would like you to keep in mind,
1:04:13
this map, as we go to the next slide.
1:04:15
Which is one of the images that
1:04:18
Professor Mulholland showed as well,
1:04:21
which is, like he mentioned,
1:04:22
almost a complete
1:04:25
inverse of the relation between
1:04:28
poverty and access to vaccines.
1:04:31
And there's again two things
1:04:33
that stand out that African
1:04:35
region is lagging behind substantially,
1:04:38
with most African countries having
1:04:41
a vaccination grade of around 4%.
1:04:43
Currently, uh the Netherlands,
1:04:46
where I'm from,
1:04:48
we have a vaccination grade of around 85%.
1:04:52
So yeah, it's yeah it's-
1:04:57
It's really troublesome this difference.
1:04:59
So the prediction prediction made by the
1:05:02
people at The Economist became a reality.
1:05:06
A substantial amount of the high income
1:05:10
countries has already administered more
1:05:12
than 100 vaccine doses per 100 inhabitants,
1:05:16
and one of the main drivers of this
1:05:20
unequal access to COVID vaccines is a
1:05:23
lack of local manufacturing. And, uh,
1:05:29
there's two main barriers to this
1:05:34
lack of local manufacturing capacity.
1:05:38
One being the lack of intellectual
1:05:41
property sharing, and the other one being
1:05:43
the lack of know-how sharing.
1:05:46
And the know-how barrier arises because of the
1:05:51
complex biological nature of vaccines like
1:05:54
the previous presenters mentioned.
1:05:57
mRNA vaccines especially are very
1:06:01
complex biological products that
1:06:05
differ substantially from the
1:06:06
old medicines that we
1:06:09
are still using and used to use,
1:06:12
which are called the small
1:06:15
molecule medicines.
1:06:16
They have completely different
1:06:19
manufacturing processes.
1:06:20
And yeah,
1:06:21
those ones for the vaccines
1:06:23
can be quite complex,
1:06:25
and because they are so complex,
1:06:27
there's a relatively small amount
1:06:31
of people that have the knowledge
1:06:34
on how to produce vaccines.
1:06:37
So I would argue that sharing this
1:06:39
knowledge is essential in scaling up
1:06:42
local manufacturing capacity so the
1:06:45
other barrier is intellectual property.
1:06:47
And
1:06:47
I see it as a barrier because it
1:06:51
prevents companies from manufacturing
1:06:54
existing and proven to be safe vaccines.
1:06:59
So even if there is companies around the
1:07:02
world that have the know how to produce them,
1:07:05
they are simply not able to because
1:07:09
of the intellectual property restrictions.
1:07:11
There are some companies
1:07:14
that have licenses
1:07:17
that allow third party producers
1:07:19
to start producing
1:07:22
a COVID-19 vaccines,
1:07:24
but it's simply not enough.
1:07:27
It's like, this map says it all.
1:07:29
There's simply not enough production.
1:07:34
Even if there would be enough
1:07:36
production, fair distribution of
1:07:38
the vaccines is still a problem.
1:07:40
I saw some questions in the chat
1:07:43
that raised this question of
1:07:46
these booster vaccines, right?
1:07:49
It's like mentioned before.
1:07:51
It's Israel that already started providing
1:07:54
booster shots to their population.
1:07:56
the United States has started as
1:07:58
well, and there's various countries
1:08:00
in the European region that are
1:08:03
planning to or have already
1:08:05
started providing these
1:08:07
booster vaccines. And I think it's very
1:08:10
unethical considering that most
1:08:12
African countries are still with
1:08:15
the vaccination grade of under 4%.
1:08:18
But it also poses an epidemiological
1:08:23
problem because
1:08:25
as we
1:08:26
provide booster shots to people that
1:08:29
have already received two vaccine doses,
1:08:33
and not provide these vaccines to
1:08:37
people that have received any dose,
1:08:40
we promote the rise of new mutations.
1:08:44
So I would like to argue that
1:08:46
unequal availability of vaccines
1:08:47
is not only a problem for lower
1:08:49
middle income countries,
1:08:51
it's everyone's problem, as new mutations
1:08:54
might run their vaccines less effective.
1:08:57
Next slide, please.
1:09:00
So there's many different initiatives
1:09:02
around the world to counter in equity
1:09:06
and access to COVID-19 vaccines,
1:09:08
but I would like to highlight just three.
1:09:12
So the first one is COVAX,
1:09:15
which was mentioned previously as well.
1:09:18
So COVAX is funded, is governed by CEPI,
1:09:21
GAVI, UNICEF and the WHO.
1:09:24
And it's basically a funding mechanism
1:09:27
for lower middle income countries
1:09:31
to come to purchasing agreements,
1:09:33
so it's high income countries
1:09:37
taking care of the funding.
1:09:39
Of the purchasing agreements
1:09:41
of low income countries.
1:09:43
And they had the initial goal of,
1:09:46
uh, to administer 20% of the
1:09:49
population in lower middle income
1:09:52
countries with COVID-19 vaccines,
1:09:54
and they've currently
1:09:56
shipped 311 million doses.
1:10:00
We at Wemos,
1:10:01
we do not see COVAX as a structural
1:10:04
solution as it only functions by the
1:10:08
goodwill of high income countries.
1:10:11
At Wemos,
1:10:12
we do see that could be a role for COVAX
1:10:15
in creating access to COVID-19
1:10:17
vaccines in the acute crisis phase,
1:10:20
but it does not provide
1:10:23
structural structural change
1:10:24
that is needed.
1:10:26
It doesn't overcome the
1:10:28
intellectual property barrier.
1:10:30
It doesn't overcome the know-how barrier,
1:10:33
and it maintains the current power
1:10:36
imbalance between pharmaceutical companies
1:10:38
and the low and middle income countries.
1:10:40
So for the the second initiative,
1:10:45
that is the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool
1:10:49
and C-TAP, or it's also called C-TAP's,
1:10:52
so C-TAP is governed by the WHO and
1:10:56
it's partnered by the Medicines
1:10:59
Patent Pool and Unit 8.
1:11:01
It was founded early 2020 when there
1:11:04
were not any vaccines on the market yet
1:11:07
that were proven to be safe and effective.
1:11:11
Uhm, but there were already quite
1:11:14
some experts that warned that if
1:11:17
there would be a vaccine on the market,
1:11:19
1:11:20
the manufacturing capacity
1:11:22
wouldn't be sufficient.
1:11:24
So.
1:11:25
What they proposed in C-TAP is
1:11:30
that governments, universities,
1:11:33
pharmaceutical companies,
1:11:34
they could all pool knowledge,
1:11:38
intellectual property and data,
1:11:41
in return for financial compensation,
1:11:45
so that financial compensation
1:11:48
could come in any shape or form.
1:11:50
It could come in
1:11:52
prize money, it could come in royalty,
1:11:55
a tiered royalty system and that's
1:11:58
actually something that is
1:12:00
also still up for discussion.
1:12:03
So the way you could see C-TAP is
1:12:05
that it matches the knowledge,
1:12:08
or intellectual property, with
1:12:10
global unused manufacturers,
1:12:12
which can produce,
1:12:13
for instance,
1:12:14
a vaccine for their own region.
1:12:18
And at Wemos, we see it as providing
1:12:21
a more structural solution since it
1:12:24
promotes local manufacturing capacity,
1:12:26
making countries less
1:12:28
dependent on high income countries
1:12:31
and pharmaceutical companies
1:12:33
from the richer countries.
1:12:36
The downside of C-TAP is that it's based on
1:12:40
voluntary cooperation from pharma companies.
1:12:43
But this we think at Wemos
1:12:45
that this can be countered with conditioning
1:12:48
public funding for research and development.
1:12:52
Something we might be able to
1:12:53
touch upon in the Q&A.
1:12:55
So for Wemos,
1:12:56
this is the preferential
1:12:59
global initiative that is
1:13:02
around to counter the inequity
1:13:04
and access to COVID-19 vaccines.
1:13:06
Then I would like to finally
1:13:09
touch upon the last initiative
1:13:11
that I would like to summarize,
1:13:13
which is the TRIPS Waiver. So.
1:13:16
The TRIPS Waiver was put forward
1:13:21
by South Africa and India, and they
1:13:24
made a proposal to temporarily
1:13:27
waive all intellectual property
1:13:30
related to any COVID-19 technology,
1:13:32
so that could be treatments for COVID-19.
1:13:35
It could be vaccines,
1:13:37
it could be diagnostic tools,
1:13:39
and most countries in the world
1:13:41
are supportive of this proposal.
1:13:43
Like mentioned before, Biden
1:13:45
switched U.S. position earlier
1:13:47
this year, but only for the
1:13:51
intellectual property on vaccines.
1:13:54
So U.S. doesn't want to support the part
1:13:57
that waives the intellectual property
1:14:00
on treatments or diagnostic tools.
1:14:03
Currently the the negotiations
1:14:06
on the TRIPS Waiver have been
1:14:09
going on for over a year.
1:14:12
Last week it was exactly a year,
1:14:15
and the countries that are opposing this
1:14:18
TRIPS waiver made by South Africa
1:14:21
and India are Switzerland, Norway,
1:14:23
United Kingdom and other countries
1:14:27
in the European Union.
1:14:30
So.
1:14:30
Yeah,
1:14:31
it's very troublesome because I think
1:14:33
if we want to achieve equitable access
1:14:35
we have to overcome three main barriers.
1:14:38
It's the IP and know-how barrier,
1:14:40
it's overcoming the
1:14:41
hoarding of vaccines or
1:14:44
the vaccine nationalism.
1:14:45
And we have to overcome the
1:14:48
dependency that lower middle income
1:14:50
countries experience, as this is not
1:14:53
providing a structural solution.
1:14:56
So we are not reaching the goals that we
1:14:59
have set ourselves as a global community,
1:15:01
and this has all to do with the
1:15:03
attitude and the policy choices
1:15:05
of high income countries.
1:15:06
So I would like to close with
1:15:08
saying that the ball is in our
1:15:10
court, our court meaning
1:15:12
high income countries, we from
1:15:14
high income countries, and we have
1:15:16
to do something about it.
1:15:18
So thank you very much for your attention.
1:15:24
Thank you, thank you very much, Tom,
1:15:27
and thank you for bringing us into
1:15:30
the territory of global governance.
1:15:32
I've got just a little
1:15:34
question of clarification.
1:15:36
Is the C-TAP just for COVID, or
1:15:39
is it also for other vaccines?
1:15:42
Or technologies? So C-TAP is made
1:15:48
just for COVID-19 technologies,
1:15:50
so that can be diagnostic tools
1:15:54
that can be used for COVID-19.
1:15:56
It can be for treatments that
1:16:01
are safe and effective against COVID-19.
1:16:05
There is a similar initiative that is
1:16:11
around for other other diseases as well.
1:16:14
It's called the Medicines Patent Pool.
1:16:17
But the Medicines Patent Pool
1:16:18
is focused a bit more on just
1:16:21
the intellectual property part,
1:16:23
and what sets apart C-TAP is that
1:16:26
it also pulls the knowledge that
1:16:28
is needed to produce the actual
1:16:31
vaccine or treatment.
1:16:33
So it goes beyond just intellectual property.
1:16:37
It also encompasses the knowledge.
1:16:42
OK, thank, thank you very much.
1:16:44
So now with your permission, Tom,
1:16:47
and with Rebekah joining in,
1:16:49
I'd like to open up to a broader
1:16:52
questions from the chat to
1:16:55
broaden out this conversation.
1:16:58
So welcome back, Rebekah.
1:17:01
Happy to have you have you here,
1:17:03
so come the first question I'm going to
1:17:06
ask you is a wish question.
1:17:10
What would both of you like to see in place
1:17:14
before we might face the
1:17:17
prospect of another pandemic?
1:17:19
I know that perhaps is jumping
1:17:21
ahead a little bit, yes,
1:17:22
what do we need in place?
1:17:26
Tell him I'm happy for you
1:17:28
to jump in there. OK thanks.
1:17:31
Yeah I think some of the issues we have seen
1:17:36
during the COVID-19 pandemic is that,
1:17:41
well, it's one of the topics that
1:17:43
we've really worked on over the over
1:17:45
the last years or so before COVID-19 is
1:17:48
that, there is quite a substantial amount
1:17:52
of money being put into medical R&D.
1:17:58
And I think this public funding,
1:18:02
uh, that is being given by
1:18:06
governments around the world
1:18:08
should be conditioned with
1:18:11
pro-public interest conditions so.
1:18:14
If there is a transfer of funding from a
1:18:18
government to a public research institution,
1:18:20
to pharmaceutical company,
1:18:21
I think it would be great
1:18:24
if there would be like,
1:18:27
some guidance on if there would be a
1:18:32
vaccine or treatment resulting from
1:18:35
that funding that that knowledge or
1:18:39
intellectual property would be shared.
1:18:42
And for instance in C-TAP or for
1:18:44
instance in the Medicines Patent Pool,
1:18:47
because then we then we really get
1:18:49
to the core of the issue because then
1:18:51
we can make it a global public good.
1:18:54
And that's what the previous
1:18:56
speakers have mentioned as well.
1:18:58
That's what we need.
1:18:58
We need it to be a global public good.
1:19:01
So I think conditioning public funding
1:19:04
would be a huge win for,
1:19:07
for everyone, basically.
1:19:11
Great thank you, Rebekah.
1:19:12
Did you want to respond?
1:19:15
Thanks Penny,
1:19:15
Thanks Tom.
1:19:16
I think that what this discussion that
1:19:18
we've had today has shown is that the
1:19:21
relationships and the conversations
1:19:22
that have between, that we could have
1:19:24
between different disciplines between
1:19:26
doctors and lawyers and academics and
1:19:29
advocates shows that there's great
1:19:31
collaboration that needs to take place.
1:19:33
And I would like to see a
1:19:35
situation where that collaboration
1:19:37
can happen much more quickly
1:19:40
and more easily so that groups are mobilized
1:19:43
are able to come together and work
1:19:46
together to be able to respond to the
1:19:49
particular nuances of whatever global
1:19:51
pandemic hopefully does not hit us next.
1:19:53
But to have these sorts of relationships
1:19:56
in place that those groups and
1:19:59
those advocates and actors can just
1:20:01
coalesce, and to come into the same room
1:20:03
and to be able to talk about these
1:20:05
issues with the technical expertise
1:20:08
feeding into those conversations.
1:20:10
That can then turn into real
1:20:13
conversations with government, and
1:20:14
with pharmaceutical companies, to
1:20:16
have really positive outcomes.
1:20:19
Thanks. Thank you, and Rebekah,
1:20:22
if I could stay with you,
1:20:23
you raised a very important
1:20:26
point about clinical trials.
1:20:28
Can you tell us if there's any
1:20:30
reform initiatives that are relevant
1:20:32
to that issue that you raised?
1:20:34
Sure, thanks Penny.
1:20:35
I guess the the problem of clinical
1:20:38
trials of the ethics of clearing
1:20:40
clinical trials that we're seeing now
1:20:43
in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines,
1:20:45
and there are limited reports as to what's
1:20:48
occurring in those clinical trials.
1:20:51
But as I mentioned before these
1:20:53
go to issues in terms of lack of
1:20:57
informed consent and lack of beneficience.
1:21:00
Issues around recruitment processes, etc.
1:21:03
And most importantly,
1:21:05
post-trial access to a vaccine
1:21:07
once a person or a community has
1:21:11
been involved in the vaccine trial
1:21:14
process, and this is a
1:21:17
problem that has been going on for
1:21:19
a long time, and we're talking about
1:21:21
decades now that we've uncovered
1:21:23
that there has been ethical issues
1:21:26
raised in clinical trials in
1:21:28
offshore locations. And Wemos is
1:21:31
one of the most important organisations
1:21:32
that have been working in this field,
1:21:34
conducting investigative reports into
1:21:37
clinical trials in offshore locations.
1:21:40
So I think that the fact that
1:21:42
it has sort of gained some media
1:21:44
attention in relation to the COVID-19
1:21:47
vaccines suggests that this is
1:21:49
a problem that that still
1:21:52
continues and still requires further
1:21:55
consideration of how we prevent
1:21:58
what's often termed using
1:22:00
using individuals in the global
1:22:02
South as guinea pigs
1:22:03
for those who receive medicines and
1:22:06
receive vaccines in the global north.
1:22:09
And I think that there's there
1:22:10
are a number of things that we
1:22:13
probably should be looking at.
1:22:14
And most importantly,
1:22:16
it's ensuring that pharmaceutical
1:22:18
companies where they,
1:22:19
when they're conducting clinical trials,
1:22:22
uphold their obligations under the
1:22:24
international instruments that
1:22:27
they're required to do so and and
1:22:29
their own policies that they they set
1:22:32
in terms of their ethical obligations.
1:22:34
Thanks Penny.
1:22:35
Right, thank you. Tom?
1:22:37
Did you want to comment?
1:22:39
No, I think that was that was a great answer.
1:22:42
I have nothing to add.
1:22:43
OK, uhm,
1:22:44
nowI've got a shorter question and
1:22:48
a longer question, so I'm going to
1:22:50
go to the shorter question first.
1:22:52
So there is a question that's asking,
1:22:55
and Tom you were talking about
1:22:57
the your preference for
1:22:59
supporting local production
1:23:02
in your solutions,
1:23:05
is it possible in African nations that
1:23:08
they do have the capacity to produce
1:23:10
vaccines, should that be the case?
1:23:14
Yeah, thank you.
1:23:15
Yeah,
1:23:15
I think that's a very relevant
1:23:17
question and actually one of
1:23:19
our partner organizations,
1:23:20
Knowledge Ecology International,
1:23:22
has done research into this and they
1:23:26
found that there's globally 140
1:23:30
potential COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers.
1:23:34
And there's also potential
1:23:37
manufacturers in the African region, so.
1:23:42
Yes,
1:23:43
vaccines can be very complex
1:23:45
biological products,
1:23:46
but yes,
1:23:46
there is knowledge available in the
1:23:49
African region, in the Asian region,
1:23:51
in the South American region, all over
1:23:53
the world that are able to produce
1:23:55
at least a part of the vaccines.
1:23:57
So it could be a fill and finish facility.
1:24:01
It could be a facility that produces
1:24:04
the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
1:24:06
But yes, there is knowledge
1:24:09
available in these countries.
1:24:12
And,
1:24:13
where knowledge is lacking,
1:24:15
I would like to say that C-TAP
1:24:17
could play an essential role,
1:24:19
right?
1:24:20
It's the broker that matches the
1:24:22
knowledge and the intellectual property
1:24:25
that big pharmaceutical companies
1:24:27
have with the production facilities
1:24:30
in lower middle income countries so.
1:24:33
That's why we think that Cetap
1:24:35
could play such an
1:24:38
important role in this discussion.
1:24:41
OK, thank you and and coming back to the
1:24:44
question of human rights responsibilities.
1:24:46
Uh, do you think that pharmaceutical
1:24:49
companies have changed their
1:24:50
practices in response to their human
1:24:53
rights due diligence requirements?
1:24:55
Or perhaps even of legislative
1:24:57
changes at the national or even in
1:25:00
the European Union for Human Rights
1:25:02
due diligence?
1:25:02
Is that having an impact on on the companies?
1:25:09
Should I take this question
1:25:12
Rebekah? Please go ahead.
1:25:14
OK, yeah, I think that's
1:25:17
very difficult to really say.
1:25:21
Also because that differs quite
1:25:23
a bit per pharmaceutical company.
1:25:25
So what we can actually see is
1:25:28
that for instance, AstraZeneca
1:25:31
delivers a lot of vaccines to COVAX,
1:25:34
which is quite the opposite to Moderna,
1:25:37
which, if I'm not mistaking,
1:25:40
hasn't delivered any vaccines
1:25:42
yet to COVAX.
1:25:44
So there is actually something I would
1:25:48
like to point out that there is this
1:25:52
foundation in the Netherlands,
1:25:54
it's called the Pharmaceutical
1:25:55
Accountability Foundation,
1:25:56
which has scored different
1:25:59
pharmaceutical companies on business
1:26:02
ethics, and I think the
1:26:07
UN GP's human rights is
1:26:10
part of the scorecard.
1:26:13
It's called the GCCP and I will
1:26:16
forward the link that you
1:26:18
can send to all the attendees,
1:26:20
so I think yeah,
1:26:22
have a look at that and there's a
1:26:24
whole scorecard of all the different
1:26:27
pharmaceutical companies that get
1:26:29
scored on their human right actions.
1:26:32
OK, great, thank you and Rebekah.
1:26:36
Thanks, Penny. I think it's,
1:26:39
I think it's really important that
1:26:41
you mentioned or you're talking
1:26:43
about the human rights aspects
1:26:46
to this debate and I believe it's
1:26:48
important that we're framing this as
1:26:51
a business and human rights issue,
1:26:53
or at least in one respect a
1:26:55
business and human rights issue.
1:26:57
And the human rights
1:26:58
due diligence is an important part of that,
1:27:01
and we've seen a number of different
1:27:03
legislative frameworks being introduced
1:27:05
across a number of different countries,
1:27:07
1:27:08
Australia included, as to how companies
1:27:11
including pharmaceutical companies
1:27:13
are required to ensure that they
1:27:16
them or their subsidiaries or not
1:27:18
in breach of human rights obligations,
1:27:21
and I think it's probably
1:27:24
bigger than that.
1:27:25
And we can really turn to the
1:27:27
United Nations guiding principles
1:27:29
along with the OECD guidelines
1:27:32
on Business and Human Rights.
1:27:34
As I said before,
1:27:36
we know that business does have a
1:27:38
responsibility to
1:27:40
respect human rights under the UN GP's
1:27:42
1:27:43
and in particular principle 12 requires
1:27:45
the minimum standards for respecting
1:27:48
human rights,
1:27:49
and in this context that's the right to life.
1:27:51
The right to health.
1:27:53
The right to a decent standard
1:27:55
of living, and again just making
1:27:58
note of Professor John Ruggie's
1:28:00
very important contribution to the
1:28:02
UN G's and the legacy that he
1:28:05
liked that he leaves behind there.
1:28:08
But we're also we're also talking there,
1:28:10
I guess, about this sort of shift from
1:28:15
the idea of shareholder primacy
1:28:19
towards stakeholder governance and from
1:28:22
that concept of the legal separate
1:28:25
entity to parent company responsibility,
1:28:27
and so I think we need to be not to
1:28:31
say that this is, that we should be
1:28:34
looking at some sort of litigious action.
1:28:36
But I think that we need to look back
1:28:39
at our UN GP's, look back at our OECD
1:28:41
framework and look back at the
1:28:45
human rights diligence,
1:28:46
due diligence frameworks, and test
1:28:49
them in this space.
1:28:51
Test them in light of, or in the context
1:28:54
of a global emergency and see what
1:28:59
what the rights and responsibilities of
1:29:02
pharmaceutical companies really are.
1:29:04
So I think that there's a lot to be
1:29:06
done in this space from the perspective
1:29:08
of business and human rights,
1:29:09
and I know that there are a number of
1:29:12
business and human rights people in
1:29:13
this audience, so we have a lot of work
1:29:16
ahead of us.
1:29:18
OK, thank you and thank you both for
1:29:21
your willingness to move into some
1:29:23
of the deeper and stickier issues
1:29:26
in this second part of the talk.
1:29:28
Thank you very much.
1:29:29
I'm going to ask you both to make
1:29:32
some final comments before it's
1:29:34
time for us to close,
1:29:37
so perhaps I'll ask Tom if you have
1:29:42
a final comment you would like to make.
1:29:45
Yes, thank you Penny.
1:29:46
Yeah,
1:29:46
I think I would just really like to
1:29:49
stress again with the
1:29:51
last sentences in my presentation
1:29:53
that the ball is really in our court
1:29:56
and the the inequity of COVID-19
1:29:59
vaccines is not a problem
1:30:02
that is just for low and in lower
1:30:04
middle income countries.
1:30:05
It's our problem as well, and I think
1:30:07
that is an argument that needs to be
1:30:10
repeated with all the policymakers
1:30:12
in high income countries.
1:30:13
So I think that's,
1:30:15
that's my definitely my take.
1:30:17
It take home message.
1:30:19
Thank you very much Tom. Rebekah?
1:30:22
Uh,
1:30:23
I just like to note the important
1:30:25
role that's being played in this
1:30:27
space by a number of civil society
1:30:29
organizations and advocacy
1:30:30
organizations and Wemos is
1:30:33
really one of those very important
1:30:35
organizations who are doing
1:30:37
some great work in this space,
1:30:38
but others, including Public Eye,
1:30:40
Public Citizen, Human Rights Watch,
1:30:42
Amnesty International,
1:30:43
many others who are really trying
1:30:47
to educate and advocate and lobby so
1:30:49
that we do see some positive reform.
1:30:52
Particularly in those global north countries,
1:30:55
but I just I think that this has
1:30:58
been a fantastic session to have
1:31:00
these these discussions and I really
1:31:03
look forward to more discussions
1:31:05
like this in the future.
1:31:07
Thank you, thank you, Rebekah,
1:31:08
and thank you Tom, and thank you for
1:31:11
leaving us with with that very clear
1:31:13
message that we need to keep taking
1:31:16
action on this important issue.
1:31:18
I thank you both for your comments
1:31:21
and your time.
1:31:23
We're now out of time so thank you.
1:31:25
I'd like to thank all of the
1:31:28
audience for joining
1:31:29
us today. It's been a pleasure having
1:31:32
your questions and responding to them.
1:31:35
You can contact BHRIGHT
1:31:36
on the slide here,
1:31:39
please get in touch if you have any
1:31:42
questions on our page you will see
1:31:44
more events from BHRIGHT and you can
1:31:48
follow us on LinkedIn or on Twitter.
1:31:51
Looking forward to hearing from
1:31:53
you and and seeing you all again.
1:31:56
Thank you so much everybody.
Social Media for Influencing with Andy Hall
Providing access and protection to illegal workers with Andy Hall.
Social Media for Influencing with Andy Hall
Providing access and protection to illegal workers with Andy Hall.
0:07
But yeah, I focused my
0:09
My research was looking at
0:11
criminal responsibility for
0:12
occupational accidents and deaths.
0:14
And then that took me to
0:16
Thailand, and when I was in Thailand
0:18
I started to see a lot of workplace
0:20
accidents and diseases that were
0:22
suffered by migrant workers who
0:24
were essentially irregular workers.
0:25
So they're coming in illegally
0:27
from Myanmar because there was no
0:28
formal channels for them to come in,
0:30
and they couldn't access Social Security,
0:32
and they couldn't access work access
0:34
benefits and and things like that for
0:36
their disabilities and their diseases.
0:38
And so I have to just, you know,
0:40
take on the Thai Government to
0:41
try to get them access to this,
0:42
these schemes using like a
0:45
lot of cases in the court, you know,
0:48
anti-discrimination clauses
0:50
using the UN mechanisms.
0:51
For instance,
0:52
the Committee on Racial Discrimination.
0:55
And so my focus for a long time
0:57
was on human rights and migration.
0:59
So it was trying to link the abuses
1:01
that workers were suffering with
1:03
concepts of human rights, and trying
1:05
to advocate with the Thai Government.
1:07
To basically develop policies and
1:10
practices that respected human rights.
1:12
As you know,
1:12
depending on what,
1:14
what treaties they were they were party to,
1:16
but also the Treaties that they
1:17
were bound by in international law.
1:19
And so I focused a lot on this
1:20
human rights issue.
1:21
So I used to spend a lot of time,
1:22
for instance in Geneva at
1:24
the UN Human Rights Council.
1:25
Actually, once once Thai government
1:27
actually paid for me to go to Geneva
1:29
to listen into the migrant committee and in Geneva.
1:32
1:35
And yeah,
1:35
I focused a lot on that kind of thing and.
1:38
And I used to do a lot of press
1:40
statements and legal challenges,
1:42
but it was all focusing on the law,
1:44
human rights and migration.
1:47
And then in
1:50
2011 I think, 2012,
1:51
I became quite good friends with a diplomat,
1:53
a Thai diplomat, and he was basically
1:56
advising me that, you know, my
1:58
work was really exceptional and
2:00
and really good and positive,
2:02
but it wasn't really hitting home because
2:05
I was only focusing on theories and
2:08
concepts of human rights, and he kind
2:10
of introduced me to this issue of
2:12
business and human rights instead,
2:13
you know, well if you link the abuses
2:15
that are happening to migrant workers
2:16
in Thailand, with the global supply
2:18
chain and with the business issue,
2:19
then maybe you will be more
2:21
effective in the work you are doing,
2:22
because in Thailand just focusing on
2:24
human rights when it's not a country
2:26
that really respects basic human rights
2:27
according to international definitions,
2:29
it's not really going to be very effective.
2:31
So we linked to business and supply chains
2:33
and consumers and international markets,
2:35
maybe you'll have more effect, so, uh.
2:37
At the same time I was invited by Finnwatch,
2:40
which is a you know,
2:42
in the Nordic countries they
2:44
Finnwatch and Danwatch,
2:46
Germanwatch, Swedwatch...
2:49
Yeah.
2:49
And then there's another one,
2:50
there's a couple of them
2:51
and they all focus their -
2:52
they're basically organisations that are
2:53
consumer watchdogs, and they do a
2:55
lot of work on supply chains and
2:57
stuff, and they asked me to do some
2:59
research on pineapple and tuna, and
3:01
how they were produced in Thailand.
3:02
So I did that research, and to
3:04
cut a long story short,
3:05
I mean, the research was quite
3:07
important but it wasn't actually
3:09
powerful in terms of the media influence,
3:11
and we did a press conference in
3:12
the Thai Correspondents Club,
3:14
Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand,
3:15
and then there was a few media there,
3:17
but it didn't really get much media
3:19
interest, and it was only when I
3:22
was actually prosecuted for my role
3:24
in the research.
3:25
So actually because I did that research
3:26
my name was on the front of the report,
3:28
I was actually prosecuted for computer
3:30
crimes and criminal defamation
3:31
and all these other things.
3:33
And then,
3:33
once I was prosecuted it became
3:34
more of a big issue.
3:35
But from that time I've really
3:36
focused on business and human rights.
3:38
So I've looked at poultry and
3:40
tourism, and you know construction
3:42
projects and recently rubber gloves
3:45
with the (COVID-19) pandemic, and seafood and
3:47
all these things, and I've linked
3:49
the abuses that migrant workers
3:50
are suffering with the global supply
3:52
chain, and starting to look
3:54
a lot more at investors,
3:55
the role of investors,
3:56
the role of buyers,
3:58
you know, US legislation on forced labor.
4:01
So I've tried to put the work and the
4:03
abuses that are being suffered on the
4:04
ground in the context of a business and human rights theory,
4:05
and then I
4:08
campaigned on those issues to try to
4:10
get positive results for workers.
4:12
So I mean really,
4:13
my life has been a shift from one
4:15
focusing on principles and law,
4:17
to one really bringing in
4:19
the principles of business and
4:21
human rights and really applying
4:22
them on the ground to concrete
4:24
situations with concrete cases.
4:26
So it's not really a policy discussion
4:27
about theoretical discussion,
4:28
it's really taking real cases
4:30
of abuse and linking them in
4:32
through the business and human rights
4:34
perspective to take action.
4:38
Right, thank you so much.
4:39
It's really fascinating.
4:41
The work that you've done,
4:43
how you how you've done the research
4:46
and linked it to the particular abuses.
4:49
And I'm, I'm sure later on you'll also
4:52
talk about how you've collaborated
4:54
with local organizations and others to
4:57
undertake that research and advocacy.
5:00
We're interested to hear a little bit
5:05
more about specifically what you,
5:08
what type of social media
5:10
have you chosen to use,
5:11
and you know what do you find
5:14
are the strengths and weaknesses
5:16
of using social media,
5:19
particularly in trying to amplify, you know,
5:23
your research findings and,
5:26
and yeah, if you could talk us through a bit,
5:28
a few of the different aspects
5:30
you have experienced with social media.
5:34
I mean here in here in Australia,
5:36
we are currently in a battle with
5:40
Google and they're actually threatening
5:41
to withdraw all their services,
5:43
which it's incredible how everything
5:46
is connected now through Google.
5:48
So it's an interesting experience
5:50
we're having at the moment here.
5:52
But yeah,
5:53
I'd love to hear about how you've used
5:56
the different platforms and how you found it.
5:59
Yeah,
5:59
that could potentially flow onto some of,
6:01
you know,
6:02
talking about through some other
6:03
risks that you've experienced as well.
6:05
Yeah, I mean I just wanted to say I
6:07
mean the research that I've done.
6:08
I mean,
6:09
it's been very controversial,
6:10
you know,
6:10
because I mean actually getting
6:12
access to workers who have been
6:13
abused and who are victims of
6:15
forced labor and other things,
6:16
it's incredibly difficult,
6:17
you know,
6:18
because who are you to contact them?
6:19
And and often they're in factories which,
6:21
you know, they can't get out of easily.
6:23
Maybe you have to do remote monitoring
6:25
using social media, using Facebook Messenger,
6:27
using using other chat functions,
6:29
and it's really hard to get access and
6:32
and, you know, we're doing this in the
6:34
context of social auditing, you know.
6:35
So for instance,
6:36
there's many social audits that are
6:37
done on companies in the conditions
6:39
of workers, and most famous has been,
6:41
you know,
6:41
the failures
6:42
of social auditing that we saw.
6:43
For instance,
6:44
in Bangladesh during the
6:45
Rana Plaza incident and other things.
6:46
And these social auditors have
6:48
access to the factory,
6:49
they have access to the workers
6:50
they spend many days there,
6:51
sometimes not many days at all,
6:52
but they they should spend many
6:53
days there, and they have access
6:55
to all the workers to do their
6:56
research. And then also you,
6:57
of course, you have a company - the
6:59
company has access to all the workers
7:00
because the company is in control.
7:02
But as an activist or as a Unionist or
7:04
whatever, you have access to a limited number
7:06
of workers,
7:06
and so my research is, really I would
7:09
say it's activist research you know.
7:11
And once I was in a court, and the court
7:13
you know,
7:13
actually the court that convicted me,
7:15
I was,
7:15
I was acquitted at the Supreme Court level.
7:18
But the judge said to me,
7:19
you know, "I want to see the written
7:21
transcripts of your interviews with
7:23
workers in the pineapple factory.".
7:24
And I said, "Well,
7:25
I don't have any transcript",
7:26
and I gave him a sheet of A3
7:28
paper with scribbles on it, and it was
7:30
it was separated into 12 different
7:32
columns, and it was twelve workers
7:34
that I interviewed and it was just
7:35
scribbles, and he said "Well is that
7:37
your research notes?" I said
7:38
"Yeah," I said "that's my research notes.".
7:39
He's like "So, you based the whole international
7:41
campaign on this one page of scribbles?".
7:43
I said "yes" and he said,
7:44
"but I want to see like the affidavit,
7:46
I want to see a signed, you know,
7:48
consent from the workers that, you know, you
7:50
you've done an interview with them.
7:51
You've described, transcribed the interview.
7:53
You've given them the transcription,
7:55
they've checked through the transcription,
7:56
You've translated the transcription,
7:57
You've edited the transcription,
7:59
and then they've signed it." and I said,
8:00
"well, it's not the way it works.".
8:01
You know, I'm doing activist research,
8:03
so I think it's important to put
8:04
that in context that you know my
8:06
research is very much activist.
8:07
And I would never claim
8:08
that it's 100% accurate.
8:09
I would never claim it's it's, uh,
8:12
the reliability, or the generalised reliability.
8:14
But,
8:15
but I believe in the truth of my
8:16
own research because of my own
8:18
methods of doing the research.
8:20
So I mean, once you know,
8:22
once you do this research and again,
8:25
research as I say,
8:25
it can mean many different things.
8:26
You know for me,
8:27
I mean,
8:27
I remember when one of my supervisors
8:30
was a witness in my trial, and she
8:32
stood up in the court, and she said
8:34
"doing one interview with one migrant
8:36
worker is research", you know.
8:37
So and they were trying to
8:39
argue that I needed to interview
8:41
like 50% of the work population to
8:43
make sample statements, and things
8:52
is enough. So when we talk
8:53
about campaigning when we talk,
8:54
it may well be
8:55
that is based on you know.
8:57
scraping the Internet or it may
8:58
well be that it's based on more
9:00
academic research that goes on
9:01
with a with a with an organization
9:03
over a long period of time,
9:04
or it may well be like one of these
9:07
watchdogs that I work with and we do
9:08
reports together. So you know, there's
9:09
many different things and the
9:11
way in which you're gonna use social
9:12
media will adapt, you know.
9:14
I mean often, you know, one of the...
9:17
I think in the past especially,
9:19
I mean, you know whenever
9:20
you had something to say,
9:21
you would say it through a
9:22
press statement, you know.
9:23
So you would basically prepare whatever
9:25
you wanted to say into a press statement,
9:27
and then you would launch that
9:29
press statement via email.
9:30
And I mean even the past actually,
9:31
you would even
9:32
launch the press statement via fax,
9:34
you know,
9:34
so you would fax it to everybody
9:36
and you would have all these media
9:37
numbers, and you would go through them
9:38
one at a time and you would find the
9:39
number and then you would fax it.
9:41
And then within a few years, the
9:43
fax is kind of finished and then
9:44
you turn to email, so you would
9:46
then email the statements.
9:47
And the statement,
9:48
I mean the document itself,
9:50
a statement is a very short,
9:51
you know, document.
9:52
It can usually be one page, two pages.
9:54
The less professional you are,
9:55
maybe three pages or four pages and
9:57
then attached to the statement.
9:58
You may well have a question
9:59
and answer sheet,
10:00
or you may well have a
10:02
more expansive sheet.
10:03
You know, it's kind of like a research
10:05
report that has an executive summary
10:06
and has a full report because
10:08
you know media are not generally,
10:09
unless it's an investigative,
10:11
you know element,
10:11
they're not gonna read the full report,
10:13
they're just going to read
10:14
an executive summary.
10:15
And then as the years have gone on,
10:17
you know, even a press statement is too much.
10:21
For most media.
10:22
So you know,
10:23
actually,
10:24
we've gone from one page or two
10:26
page that press statement.
10:28
With a lot of, you know, references
10:30
and reports that you can read,
10:33
if you want more information.
10:35
And what we've essentially come down
10:36
to over the years is like, 146
10:38
character tweet, you know.
10:39
So I mean, whilst a research report
10:42
was a fax,
10:43
or was a press statement, has
10:44
now become a tweet, you know.
10:46
And so, you know, media and those
10:48
people who are often influenced
10:50
by campaigning, will often - the
10:53
only chance you're going to get
10:55
their attention
10:56
is through a tweet, you know?
10:59
And it may well be that, you know, they
11:01
may not even read the attachment.
11:03
You know you can put a link to
11:04
your tweet,
11:05
or you know, it's the same. I use,
11:06
I use Twitter. I use Facebook.
11:07
You can make a Facebook post.
11:09
I use LinkedIn.
11:10
You can make a LinkedIn post. And
11:11
I'm sure there's lots of others.
11:12
I know some people use Instagram and some
11:14
people use different other platforms.
11:16
And then I also use WhatsApp.
11:18
And I also use Line, you know.
11:22
And some Viber, and some other
11:24
you know, programs people are using.
11:25
Some people are moving to telegram and to,
11:27
what's the other one?
11:28
Signal now also,
11:29
but you know often when you're campaigning,
11:32
the only chance you get to get someone's
11:34
attention is a very short message, you know.
11:35
So you're gonna send a
11:37
message to them with a clear,
11:39
you know, something that really grabs
11:41
their attention. And then you're gonna
11:42
have a link, you know, from which
11:43
they can get further information.
11:45
So, that's what a lot of the campaigning
11:47
comes down to these days really,
11:49
is grabbing peoples attention.
11:50
And yes, you know you can still -
11:51
I would always start a
11:53
campaign with a with an email.
11:55
I would always send out an email
11:58
with the with the overview of
11:59
the issue that I'm campaigning
12:00
on, or that overview of the
12:02
the issue that I want to present, and
12:04
I would have a I would have an email.
12:05
I would have a a press statement.
12:07
I would also have a
12:08
detailed like question and answer, or
12:10
some kind of supplementary document.
12:13
But actually, in reality,
12:15
most people would never pay
12:16
any attention to that,
12:17
but once I put the the the the
12:18
press statement out there or
12:20
I sent the email out there,
12:21
I would then start to use social
12:23
media to some limit now to try
12:25
to get people's attention.
12:28
And I want to move to questions.
12:32
Uh, sorry, you've frozen for me.
12:35
I'm not sure if it's for everyone.
12:37
I'm just waiting for you to.
12:39
Come come back online,
12:41
it's a, it's a challenge.
12:42
And I mean certainly Twitter,
12:44
very often they do like man,
12:45
you know people they like,
12:46
get like notification and people do.
12:47
Yeah sorry, there's a little delay.
12:51
Oh yeah, it's OK now.
12:52
Yeah, yeah all good.
12:55
I might just, if it's OK, I might just move
12:57
on to a couple of the risks that you've
12:59
experienced with social media, and then
13:01
I'd love to hear from our participants,
13:04
who I'm sure might have
13:05
some questions for you.
13:06
You know, many of you know,
13:09
obviously, doing a PhD,
13:10
there's a very rigorous way that
13:12
people are conducting their interviews,
13:14
and they're going through all
13:16
those checks and balances that
13:18
you were talking about before.
13:20
So could you could you sort of,
13:23
13:23
wrap up by talking us through, like, some
13:25
of the risks that you've experienced
13:27
both to yourself, but also to maybe
13:30
participants or workers in the use of
13:32
13:33
different platforms, including
13:34
social media and how you've
13:36
gone about protecting yourself?
13:38
Yeah,
13:38
can you hear me OK?
13:39
Yeah.
13:43
Yeah it's OK, so I'm, yeah, I mean,
13:46
obviously, it's a lot of litigation
13:47
that goes on these days, you know,
13:50
especially to people on the ground.
13:52
So international organizations are somewhat
13:54
immune to this kind of litigation,
13:56
but people actually working on the
13:57
ground in countries at risk. They can,
13:59
they can face a lot of we call them 'SLAP',
14:01
you know,
14:02
'Strategic Litigation Against
14:03
Public participation' lawsuits.
14:05
Or you know,
14:06
judicial harassment, so you know,
14:07
anything that you're putting out
14:08
publicly it has to be,
14:11
you have to be careful, you know,
14:12
and I mean, I come from a legal background.
14:13
I studied law,
14:14
so when I make statements I try
14:16
to make them in a very general way.
14:19
You know,
14:19
like I will accuse a company
14:20
of forced labor without saying
14:22
what elements are forced labor,
14:23
they satisfied. Or I will make general
14:25
statements and I will try not to
14:27
be too specific, because the more
14:29
specific you are in your statement,
14:31
the more likely you are to fall
14:32
foul of this kind of strategic
14:35
litigation, because you know,
14:36
as I said you know, the information
14:37
that you're sharing is not 100% true
14:39
'cause you haven't had access to
14:40
all the workers and blah blah blah.
14:41
I mean,
14:42
you're trying to do your best, so
14:43
you know, it's important not to
14:44
be too specific unless you have
14:45
the real evidence to back it up.
14:47
Which of course some journalists do.
14:48
I mean,
14:48
they will write the story on an
14:50
incredibly specific issue, because
14:51
they want to be specific and they
14:52
want to focus on that issue.
14:54
But it can be a risk,
14:55
and so sometimes it's good to be general.
14:57
I mean,
14:58
obviously the work that I've been
14:59
doing in rubber
15:00
gloves. Some of my main
15:02
whistleblowers have been found out,
15:03
and they've been dismissed and
15:05
they've been deported or terminated.
15:07
I mean, we've always because
15:08
of the pressure that we have,
15:09
we've always ensured that workers
15:12
can get compensation for this kind
15:14
of thing and so, you know.
15:16
Because, I mean the work that I do,
15:18
you know, that there's huge dynamics going
15:19
on in this area of corporate kind of
15:22
responsibility and corporate
15:23
liability and forced labor and stuff.
15:25
There's a lot of dynamics going on,
15:27
and you have to realize that you're
15:28
not in control of things, you know,
15:30
like when something happens,
15:31
you have government actors,
15:32
you have buyers, you have investors,
15:33
you have, you know, corruption.
15:35
You have so many different aspects
15:36
that are that are involved, and
15:38
you also have politics.
15:38
You have like 'this is the COVID crisis',
15:40
whatever - you have to accept that
15:42
when you put things out there,
15:43
you're not going to be in control
15:45
and you really have to assess
15:46
the risks of the situation.
15:47
You know, because you want - you don't
15:48
want to make anything worse for the workers.
15:49
And I think, you know, in my experience,
15:51
I mean,
15:52
I've never,
15:52
I never feel that I've campaigned on
15:54
an issue which has had a negative
15:56
impact on workers in the long run,
15:58
and there's been a few cases where
16:00
they've been hit quite hard for a couple
16:01
of weeks or even a couple of months.
16:03
But things have generally improved,
16:05
and it's important because it's
16:06
often you know you can't actually get
16:08
the informed consent from a lot of
16:10
workers to do these kind of campaigns.
16:11
You know, it's it's not,
16:13
you know you can try to get it,
16:15
but it's very difficult, so you have
16:16
to campaign in a way that's not
16:17
going to have a negative impact.
16:18
So for instance,
16:19
in the gloves issue, I've been able to
16:21
come back so strongly on this simply
16:23
because the world needs gloves at the moment,
16:25
and there's a big shortage of gloves,
16:26
so I know that anything that I
16:28
campaigned on is not going to have
16:29
a negative impact on the workers
16:30
themselves at a time when they
16:32
desperately need money,
16:33
because there's no way that the
16:34
company is going to lose its business.
16:35
You know,
16:36
it may well be that producers in
16:37
China starts buying the jobs in,
16:38
or Russia start buying the gloves
16:40
instead of the UK and Europe,
16:41
so it may well be that the social
16:43
protection is not as strong.
16:44
But still I really tried to focus as
16:46
much as I can on ensuring that, you know,
16:48
there's no negative impact and you do
16:50
have to be very, very careful on that.
16:52
And, you know, you also need to
16:54
think carefully before you put
16:55
anything out there publicly.
16:56
I mean,
16:57
Twitter is also a bit difficult
16:58
because you can't edit tweets, you know.
17:00
So I mean yeah,
17:01
if something, if something,
17:03
you know, if something
17:04
goes viral and you know, then you
17:06
have to actually delete it,
17:07
and then it kind of looks bad.
17:08
So especially for Twitter,
17:10
you have to be a bit careful. And the
17:11
more that you use social media, or the
17:13
more that you use social applications to
17:15
communicate, then there's more risk.
17:18
I mean, it's even like these days -
17:19
you know. For instance,
17:20
WhatsApp and all these functions,
17:21
now they have a an auto delete or an
17:23
unsend button, because people are becoming
17:25
more and more speedy, and they're
17:27
doing things more and more reactively.
17:28
They're doing things more
17:30
and more impulsively,
17:30
and it means that sometimes you're not
17:32
thinking carefully about what you do and,
17:34
and unfortunately,
17:34
if you do send a message to
17:36
somebody and they screen, grab it,
17:37
and then you know it's even
17:39
though you then try to delete it.
17:41
Maybe they it's it's difficult to do so
17:43
you know, with the speed of social media.
17:45
You have to be cautious,
17:46
you know, but that's brilliant.
17:47
Thank you so much
17:49
everybody for joining today's session
17:51
on 'Influencing with social media
17:53
with Andy Hall',
17:54
I'd like everybody to give a little
17:57
like a hand applause in the air for Andy,
18:00
who's clapping?
18:00
I don't think really works.
18:01
Ah yes, that's right,
18:02
and we can also use the emoji doodah,
18:04
which I'm not very good at yet,
18:05
the reaction.
18:06
Thank you so much Andy for joining
18:08
us, and thank you everybody for your
18:10
questions and thoughts, and I will
18:12
hopefully see you all a bit later
18:14
on for our Thought Leader session.
18:16
Uh,
18:16
which I'm really looking forward to as well.
18:18
So thank you everybody, and have a
18:21
little break before we continue.
18:23
Bye bye everyone. OK see you.
18:25
Bye bye.
18:27
Bye bye.
