Does the group’s initiative help African farmers or not?

Does the group’s initiative help African farmers or not? That’s what economists say

The voting controversy also revolves around the question of whether the group’s initiative makes sense in terms of development policy. Opponents argue that the initiative would harm those it is supposed to help. What is it about

doris kleck / ch media

One of the staunch opponents of the corporate responsibility initiative is Green Liberal National Councilor Isabelle Chevalley. This is particularly interesting because Vaudois has been involved in Africa for 20 years. Burkina Faso is his second home and he has held a diplomatic passport from the West African country for three years. So he decided to “clean up the continent”: waste is his big problem. It is launching specific projects, for example in Burkina Faso, where women transform plastic bags into cloth to sew them. In the referendum campaign, he now warns that the initiative will increase poverty for African farmers.

The logic behind this: the initiative provides for causal liability for violations of human rights and environmental standards, even for economically controlled suppliers. Opponents of the initiative argue that it presents legal risks for Swiss companies operating in developing countries. The result will be that companies will invest less or withdraw entirely. Chevalley put it in an interview with the newspaper “Le Matin Dimanche”:

Paul Hälg, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sika construction chemical group, said it similarly in an interview with this outlet. The initiative would have to take into account a high legal risk when investing in Africa, for example, says Hälg:

Development economists are irritated by these statements. Fifteen professors from seven different Swiss universities state in a joint letter that the initiative is a suitable instrument to ensure that the activities of Swiss companies promote development rather than hinder it. In doing so, they do not question the importance of business in the fight against poverty. On the contrary: “The private sector is a decisive engine for development and the fight against poverty”, write the economists. However, only if fundamental human rights are guaranteed and there are no serious violations of the natural living environment, so that people’s income opportunities are not significantly affected.

From a development perspective, Katharina Michaelowa from the University of Zurich believes that it is necessary for victims to be able to sue in Swiss courts:

In their own country, people would never have the opportunity to assert their rights. The professor does not believe that Swiss companies will reconsider their investments in developing countries due to increased legal risks. On the one hand, because many things can be achieved in developing countries with economic measures, for example to improve the environmental situation. However, relocation generates high costs. On the other hand, because companies simply depend on the extraction of local raw materials and cannot simply postpone their economic activities.

Consequently, companies that actually violate human rights and environmental standards would make adjustments in the future to comply with the laws. With this statement, Michaelowa is of course targeting big commodity companies like Glencore, which are at the center of the voting controversy. Michaelowa believes that liability must also apply to economically controlled suppliers: “This is an anti-circumvention clause. Otherwise, companies could simply change legal structures to avoid liability. “