The abuses have included exploitation of workers engaged in Olympic construction; illegal dumping of construction waste threatening residents’ health & safety; evictions and displacement to make way for Olympic venues, sometimes without fair compensation; refusal to relocate people whose homes have been severely damaged or affected by the construction; and pressure on and harassment of environmental and human rights activists and journalists who criticise Olympic preparations or the government anti-gay policy. Both state-owned and private companies are involved in many of these abuses. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has tracked the allegations of abuse, campaigns, and responses (also available in Russian). It also features reports of firms sponsoring the Olympics, such as AT&T, who have taken a public stand against Russia’s anti-gay legislation. We are adding new reports & coverage on an ongoing basis.
As part of research for a 2013 report on exploitation of migrant workers engaged in Olympic construction, Human Rights Watch (HRW) sent letters to 11 companies involved in the construction requesting their response to the documented allegations. Five companies provided written responses, claiming that they were not aware of any abuses and complied with human rights principles. For instance, Engeocom Association said that it “regularly undertakes inspections of the respect for rights of migrant workers” and is “not aware of these instances of violations of migrant workers’ rights”. Despite testimonies of 66 migrant workers interviewed by HRW to the contrary, none of the 11 companies acknowledged that abuses did take place.
That reflects a regrettable pattern of neglect and evasion. HRW also urged the main corporate sponsors of the Sochi Games, known as TOP Sponsors – Atos, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, McDonald’s, Omega, Panasonic, Procter & Gamble, Samsung and Visa – to speak out against the rights abuses. Eight of the ten TOP Sponsors provided written responses, saying that they raised concerns with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and some made general public statements against discrimination. However, none of them agreed to urge the IOC to press Russia to repeal the shameful anti-gay law.
Companies might argue that is not their role to press Russian authorities to comply with the Olympic Charter, which includes a non-discrimination clause that is at odds with Russia’s anti-gay “propaganda” law. But workers, and the wider civil society, know what the international expectations of business are. They include complying with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, unanimously adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. These Principles require companies, among other things, to “seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts”. Expectations also include the ILO fundamental principles on freedom of association; the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; and the elimination of discrimination in employment.
The TOP sponsors are not the only companies feeling the pressure now. The NGO Swedwatch has interviewed the Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC) and their sponsors in order to gain their opinion regarding the Olympic movement’s responsibility for human rights situation in host countries. Swedwatch’s study shows that none of SOC’s main sponsors, Nordea, Vattenfall or ATG, have procedures for mitigating the risk for adverse human rights impacts in regards to their sponsoring activities. Moreover, none of the companies have tried to influence the Olympic movement in order to increase its commitment to human rights. Swedwatch concluded that one of the reasons for this situation is that the Olympic movement lacks a human rights policy.
Would sponsors’ behaviour be different if the movement did have a human rights policy? Would have they still been unwilling to speak outstrongly against rights abuses linked to the Olympics preparations if the games were hosted by a country other than Russia, notorious for bullying its critics? Can the Games be hosted in future in countries without human rights guarantees, and an accountable government?
It seems that the policies of the Russian Government play an important role here. Despite the fact that Russia was one of the core sponsors of the UN Human Rights Council resolution endorsing the UN Guiding Principles, the government is somewhat reluctant to implement its duty to protect against human rights abuse by business enterprises. This is probably because major companies in Russia are either supported or owned by politicians in power. They are not interested in taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress abuses by prominent companies. On the contrary, they are inclined to protect business interests because by doing so they are protecting their own interests. As a result, companies operating in Russia are not worried too much about human rights; they know they can get away with pretty much anything.
Criticizing companies involved in Olympics construction would mean criticizing the Russian Government. Criticizing the government is a very risky step for a company interested in entering the Russian market. But sponsoring events, like the Sochi Olympics, which are intimately embroiled in systematic abuse of human rights, may carry great risks to the reputation of the companies caused by consumers’ boycotts or divestment campaigns. So, it’s a matter of choice. AT&T made a choice to publicly condemn Russia’s anti-gay law, setting an example for other Olympic sponsors. It remains to be seen what other companies choose to do.
Ella Skybenko is a Kyiv-based regional researcher at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre covering the region of Eastern Europe & Central Asia. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre is an independent non-profit organization that brings information on over 5,600 companies’ human rights impacts, positive and negative, to a global audience. The center’s international advisory network is chaired by Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former president of Ireland.
