• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 28 April 2009To the Editors of
Foreign Policy 
:We take issue with statements made by Matthew Russell Lee in his article titled “SomeDisassembly Required”, published in April 2009 on the
Foreign Policy 
website.Likewise, we are surprised that
Foreign Policy 
, as it appears, did not exercise duediligence when fact-checking the claims made in Mr. Lee’s contribution.To begin, Dr. Cheick Modibo Diarra, Microsoft’s Chairman for Africa has never attendedan event organized or hosted by the United Nations Global Compact. Neither has theGlobal Compact provided any platform for Mr. Diarra to meet with “African heads ofstate”, as Mr. Lee claims.The "VIP luncheon" Mr. Lee refers to was the UN Private Sector Forum on FoodSecurity and the Millennium Development Goals held on 24 September 2008 inconjunction with the annual General Assembly debate. Mr. Lee, who attended parts ofthe Forum, should have remembered that it produced several concrete corporatecommitments, as outlined in a comprehensive final report issued by the Global CompactOffice.As far as Mr. Lee’s troubled relationship with facts is concerned, his rant against theUnited Nations
 
is par for the course. Far more troubling is that he fails to understand thefundamental nature of the Global Compact as a platform for critical, yet constructivedialogue and learning. The Global Compact is not a regulatory body. And our doors stayopen, even (or especially) for those that face serious challenges. To some, this may notbe a popular approach, but the vast majority of our stakeholders, including civil societyand governments, agree that it helps lead companies on a path of continuousperformance improvement. Nevertheless, it should not go unnoticed that the Global
 
 Compact has delisted close to 1,000 companies for repeated failure to meet its annualdisclosure requirement.Finally, we wish to clarify the appointment of Mr. Chey Tae-Won of Korea’s SK Group tothe Global Compact Board. Mr. Chey and other new Board members wererecommended by Global Compact country networks, which form a crucial component ofthe Global Compact’s multi-stakeholder governance. These networks were invited topropose nominees to better reflect the Global Compact’s geographic reach. A selectioncommittee of the Global Compact Board (Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman of Anglo-American plc; Mary Robinson, Chair of Realizing Rights: The Ethical GlobalizationInitiative; and Georg Kell) reviewed all prospective candidates.In Mr. Chey’s case, the selection committee was well aware of his conviction andsubsequent presidential pardon (which is not mentioned by Mr. Lee) in connection withviolation of corporate governance laws. The fact that Mr. Chey and the SK Group haddemonstrated much willingness to learn from past transgressions was a key factor in thedecision-making process. By all accounts, the SK Group, under Mr. Chey's leadership,has emerged as a frontrunner in corporate governance in Korea.To the Global Compact, this is highly relevant and a sign of positive change in the spiritof the Global Compact principles. It also reinforces the notion of continuous performanceimprovement. Consequently, the selection committee recommended his appointment.
SincerelyGeorg Kell
Executive DirectorUnited Nations Global Compact
 
 28 April 2009To the Editors of
Foreign Policy 
:We take issue with statements made by Matthew Russell Lee in his article titled “SomeDisassembly Required”, published in April 2009 on the
Foreign Policy 
website.Likewise, we are surprised that
Foreign Policy 
, as it appears, did not exercise duediligence when fact-checking the claims made in Mr. Lee’s contribution.To begin, Dr. Cheick Modibo Diarra, Microsoft’s Chairman for Africa has never attendedan event organized or hosted by the United Nations Global Compact. Neither has theGlobal Compact provided any platform for Mr. Diarra to meet with “African heads ofstate”, as Mr. Lee claims.The "VIP luncheon" Mr. Lee refers to was the UN Private Sector Forum on FoodSecurity and the Millennium Development Goals held on 24 September 2008 inconjunction with the annual General Assembly debate. Mr. Lee, who attended parts ofthe Forum, should have remembered that it produced several concrete corporatecommitments, as outlined in a comprehensive final report issued by the Global CompactOffice.As far as Mr. Lee’s troubled relationship with facts is concerned, his rant against theUnited Nations
 
is par for the course. Far more troubling is that he fails to understand thefundamental nature of the Global Compact as a platform for critical, yet constructivedialogue and learning. The Global Compact is not a regulatory body. And our doors stayopen, even (or especially) for those that face serious challenges. To some, this may notbe a popular approach, but the vast majority of our stakeholders, including civil societyand governments, agree that it helps lead companies on a path of continuousperformance improvement. Nevertheless, it should not go unnoticed that the Global
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...