Shareholders Pressure Internet Companies on Human Rights

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Paris-based international media watchdog, joined representatives from two American investment firms on Monday to unveil a landmark statement in support of freedom of expression on the Internet.
Shareholders Pressure Internet Companies on Human Rights
11/13/2005
Updated:
7/5/2015

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Paris-based international media watchdog, joined representatives from two American investment firms on Monday to unveil a landmark statement in support of freedom of expression on the Internet.

The statement, co-signed by 25 U.S. and international investment firms representing over US$21 billion in holdings, pledges strong support from shareholders for an increased commitment to freedom of information by major Internet and technology companies.

The backdrop for the afternoon’s conference was a recent incident wherein Yahoo’s Hong Kong branch supplied information about an e-mail sent through its servers to the Chinese communist government. The e-mail–sent overseas by Chinese journalist Shi Tao–outlined new media restrictions imposed before the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. The Chinese government charged Shi with “divulging state secrets abroad” and sentenced him to ten years in prison on April 30.

“Information supplied by Yahoo led to the conviction of a good journalist who has paid dearly for trying to get the news out,” an RSF press release stated. The company was apparently under no obligation to cooperate with mainland Chinese authorities.

Julien Pain of RSF’s Internet freedom desk underscored Yahoo’s complicity in filtering its search engine in China.

“Basically, Yahoo has been censoring its search engine in Chinese for more than three years. If you type ‘human rights China’ [in Yahoo’s Chinese search engine] you get no results, or if you get results, [they’re] coming from an official web site which will tell you that human rights are wonderful in China.”

Another technology giant under RSF’s scrutiny is San Jose, California-based Cisco Systems Inc., whose products and technology form most of the Internet infrastructure in China. The company argues that it cannot be held accountable for the use of its technology.

Pain argues that selling directly to the Chinese state security apparatus–which openly uses the technology to suppress its people–is indeed a human rights issue.

“Well, they can say [they] sold the same equipment to the French police,” he said. “But we all know that the Chinese police is [part of] a repressive regime. I think it makes a difference to sell weapons to China and to sell weapons to France.”

Shareholders Speak

Joining Pain at the press conference were Dawn Wolfe, a Social Research Analyst at Boston Common Asset Management LLC, and Adam Kanzer, Director of Shareholder Advocacy at Domini Social Investments LLC. Both firms are “socially responsible” investment firms, meaning that their investments must meet a minimum standard of social responsibility in areas such as workers’ rights and environmental impact. Wolfe and Kanzer discussed why companies should care about human rights and how doing so affects their bottom lines.

“On the broadest possible level, democracy provides the best possible environment for investment,” Kanzer said.

Wolfe maintains that filtering and stifling Internet traffic runs against a good Internet business model.

“Internet traffic creates demand for IT infrastructure networks. So, any activity that serves to quell Internet traffic threatens the long-term viability and growth opportunities of IT infrastructure and networking companies.”

Boston Common was the first investment firm to sign the letter prepared by RSF, and Domini soon followed. The two firms–both own stock in Cisco–have also drafted a shareholder resolution to be voted on at Cisco’s next general assembly on November 15. The resolution asks Cisco to assess human rights issues entangled within its technology deals with known repressive regimes.

Kanzer pointed out that although the media and the U.S. State Department have noted the issue of U.S. Internet companies’ dealings with repressive regimes, shareholders themselves have been absent from the discussions.

“We felt that because they [corporations] are speaking on behalf of us [shareholders], and they haven’t asked us what we think about this, that we have an obligation to step forward and make our position clear,” Kanzer said of the resolution.

Cisco’s management has asked its shareholders to vote against the resolution, claiming that it already has proper mechanisms in place to deal with human rights.

“We regard human rights issues seriously and strive to promote, among other things, the worldwide improvement of working conditions, personal freedoms, and diversity,” a company statement in opposition to the proposal said.

Cisco was instrumental in constructing the “Golden Shield”–China’s national Internet censorship and monitoring system–and remains a major supplier of equipment to China.

Pain stressed that RSF’s measures grew out of the companies’ sheer unwillingness even to talk about the ramifications of their practices.

“I don’t know if it’s going to be successful in the end,” Pain said. “I don’t know if, at last, Google, Yahoo, and Cisco will contact us and start talking about it. What we want is to raise the issue; we want them to, at least, discuss it with us.”