CORPORATE COMPLICITY IN INTERNET CENSORSHIP IN CHINA: WHO CARES FOR THE GLOBAL COMPACT OR THE GLOBAL ONLINE FREEDOM ACT?

B. Major Limitations of the Global Compact

The Compact Progress Report,245 various case studies,246 examples by companies,247 and a report on impact assessment prepared by McKinsey & Company248 document the progress and outreach that the Global Compact has achieved since its inception. But many limitations have also surfaced during this evolutionary journey. These include directional uncertainty, vague principles and concepts, the lax requirement for communication on progress (COP), a lack of verification and independent monitoring, and a misappropriation of the Compact's image.

1) Directional Uncertainty

The Global Compact still faces a directional amorphousness - uncertainty over what it wants to achieve and what it leaves to be achieved by other regulatory initiatives. Despite the express assertions that the Compact is neither a regulatory framework (as a substitute for government regulation or otherwise) nor "positioned to compete with other voluntary initiatives,"249 it in effect does both. The Compact tries to regulate (through a system of voluntary selfregulation), but at the same time seems to dwarf other similar voluntary initiatives.250

One of the Compact's official documents expressly boasts of its comparative advantage vis-à-vis other corporate citizenship initiatives with the following: "The Global Compact's comparative advantage rests in the universality of its ten principles, the international legitimacy and convening power of the United Nations, and the Compact's potential to be a truly global platform with appeal not only in industrialized countries, but also in the developing world."251 Secretary General Annan also emphasized this advantage recently, saying that "the Global Compact has been endorsed by all UN member states, giving the initiative unprecedented access, including in countries where others have difficulty gaining access alone."252 Contrary to the declared non-competitive nature of the Compact, these statements clearly assert why corporations should choose to come under the umbrella of the Global Compact rather than other existing initiatives.

2) Vague Principles and Concepts

In addition to a lack of directional certainty, the Compact's principles and concepts are too vague to provide adequate guidance to corporations about the conduct expected from them.253 U.N. Special Representative on Business & Human Rights John Ruggie notes that many of the Global Compact's "principles cannot be defined at this time with the precision required for a viable code of conduct."254 The ten principles of the Global Compact are basically "one-liners,"255 and perhaps deliberately kept so in order to make the Compact more attractive for corporations.256 At this stage, therefore, the Global Compact at best is an example of a "minimalist code" of corporate conduct.257

The generality and vagueness of the Compact principles is counter-productive from the perspective of both sincere and insincere corporate citizens.258 Insincere corporations can easily circumvent or comply with the principles without doing anything to promote human rights or labor standards.259 A sincere corporate citizen, on the other hand, may find the language too general to be implementable.260 A certain level of generality or flexibility in the guiding principles of any international initiative is a desirable virtue,261 but not if, as in the case of the Global Compact, it can be manipulated to include or exclude anything at the convenience of an individual corporate actor.