[ad_1]
Two important referendums will be held in Switzerland on Sunday 29 November. The first introduces the responsibility of companies for the social and environmental consequences of their economic activities in the world, the second would prohibit financing for arms manufacturers. A majority of voters and 26 cantons will be needed to pass the initiatives. Next, it would be up to Parliament to draft detailed legislation to implement what is decided by vote. Unlike other referendums (many are proposed and held every year in Switzerland), this time those who support the proposed changes have been actively mobilized: this is a novelty and a signal that could affect participation.
Responsible multinationals
The first referendum is titled “For responsible companies – to protect human beings and the environment” and, as he explained Swiss information, represents the culmination of more than ten years of campaigns in favor of human rights and the environment led by Swiss non-governmental organizations and supported by the left.
The referendum proposes to add an article to the Federal Constitution by virtue of which Swiss companies monitor compliance by their foreign subsidiaries with human and environmental rights established by international law, including with respect to suppliers and business partners, and take measures to prevent and remedy possible infractions.
The referendum also asks that these same companies respond “for the damage that the companies controlled by them cause in the exercise of their business functions, violating internationally recognized human rights or international environmental standards”, unless they prove that they have done everything. the possible “to prevent harm” or if the harm occurred despite your actions. Finally, it stipulates that in case of violations by their foreign subsidiaries, Swiss companies are tried by Swiss courts, in accordance with Swiss law.
Specifically: violations of certain rights by foreign subsidiaries, for example in relation to child labor or emissions harmful to the environment, could be grounds for legal action in Switzerland, where the head office of the responsible company is located. It should be noted that Switzerland is among the countries with the highest density in the world of headquarters of large multinationals: they mainly deal with the trade of raw materials, food and chemical industries.
The federal council, which is the government, and Parliament consider the initiative “excessive in terms of responsibility”, and have drawn up a counterproposal, that is, legislation that would come into force if the referendum were rejected. It establishes a general obligation to hold companies accountable for their actions to avoid violations of human and environmental rights, but, contrary to the referendum, their responsibility abroad will remain limited.
The opposing commissions consider that the referendum initiative is detrimental to Swiss companies and the country’s economy, given that multinationals could decide to move their headquarters due to the risk of legal disputes: “Swiss companies would in fact be doubly affected: by a on the other hand, they would be at a disadvantage in international competition, since they would be constantly exposed to the risk of lawsuits. On the other hand, surveillance and control throughout the entire supply chain would create new loads without guarantee in case of problems Furthermore, they say, it would be an “act of neocolonialism” because “Swiss law and the courts would have de facto precedence. It is an interference in the sovereignty of other states and a contempt for foreign institutions.
But supporters say that, so far, soft agreements and national awareness campaigns have not been enough. They think that for most Swiss companies the protection of human rights and environmental standards is “taken for granted”, that “irresponsibility should not be a competitive advantage”, that some companies will no longer be able to exploit low standards, such as is currently the case. legal or legal issues in some countries on child labor or environmental damage.
They then clarified that the initiative applies to large companies based in Switzerland and not to small and medium-sized companies, and that neither Swiss law nor Swiss standards will be exported: “It is only a matter of introducing the possibility of citing on trial of Swiss companies for violations of human rights or internationally recognized environmental standards People who think they can get a fair trial on the spot will certainly not start a costly and demanding trial in Switzerland.
The ‘yes’ committee on its website also cited numerous examples that would require approval: Glencore, a mining company,’ causes problems in several countries. In Colombia, for example, the multinational has one of the largest open-pit coal mines in the world. The extraction activity causes serious environmental damage and forces entire towns to be evacuated ”. Syngenta, active in the global agribusiness sector, sells pesticides considered highly carcinogenic in many countries, which have been banned in Switzerland for some time.
Supporters include various unions, left-wing parties, more than 100 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Transparency International, Unicef, and Terre des Hommes. Representatives of the two main churches in the country, Catholic and Protestant feminist movements, as well as several Swiss businessmen, academic groups and a committee made up of elected representatives of various right-wing parties also stood out for “Yes”. and center.
Supporters of the initiative, write Swiss information, “They say they don’t have a major sponsor, but they can count on the support of volunteers and thousands of small donations,” while “according to various estimates, opponents are investing around 8 million Swiss francs to fight the initiative” . In addition to the Swiss government and most of the parliament, several business organizations, such as Swiss economyand numerous politicians of the center and of the right.
Financing for arms manufacturers
The other initiative to be voted on on Sunday, November 29 is entitled “For the prohibition of financing the producers of war material”: it asks to prohibit the Swiss National Bank, the foundations and the social security funds from granting loans or investing in companies whose more than 5 per cent of the annual turnover comes from the production of war material. It would also be prohibited to own stocks and financial products linked to companies that produce war material.
Switzerland manufactures and exports war material such as pistols, assault rifles or tanks and already has a law that prohibits the financing, manufacture and commercialization of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, antipersonnel mines or cluster bombs. However, in 2019, according to the report ‘Don’t bank on the bomb’ by the Dutch non-governmental organization PAX, the Swiss National Bank (SNB), Credit Suisse, UBS and the company Fisch Asset Management, which offers services for banks and institutions. credit, they have invested about $ 9 billion in companies that produce prohibited war material. The SNB finances the American company Raytheon, in which it also participates. And Raytheon produces missiles that, according to New York Times, are used against civilians in the ongoing war in Yemen.
For the opponents – right and center right parties, professional associations, business associations and the SNB – the initiative is detrimental to the economy: it would affect many small and medium-sized companies that produce components, it would limit the Bank’s investment policy. Central Switzerland, by questioning its independence, would reduce the income of the pension funds and represent a direct attack on the Swiss army. The government and parliament, also in this case, have asked for a “no” vote because the referendum “would not guarantee the decrease in arms production, or the number of conflicts in the world.” Furthermore, the economic and financial consequences for Switzerland would be detrimental ”.
The initiative was promoted by the Group for a Switzerland without an army and the Young Greens, and has the support of left-wing parties and various non-governmental organizations and movements. They say this trade is incompatible with Swiss neutrality and peace efforts. Furthermore, the change would go in the direction of making the Swiss banking sector more transparent. The SNB’s independence, they explained, is not absolute: it has to do exclusively with the monetary policy sector, on which the referendum would have no consequences.
[ad_2]
