A boycott is a very British form of protest. It is action through inaction. Over the decades, they have been used to express distaste in the behaviour of countless governments, regimes, individuals and companies with great effect. The boycott of apartheid South Africa has a sort of folklore status as having contributed to the demise of a violent, racist system. Many a brand or government – from the Burmese junta to Nestlé – has felt the force of pound power over the years.
It is hardly surprising, then, that speculation about an imminent announcement from the government about the criminalisation of certain kinds of trade boycott by public authorities – including bodies as diverse as the NHS and student unions – has provoked consternation. Such legislation could have enormous consequences on the ability of Britons to wield this power.
At the very least, any such legislation will undermine the ability of public bodies to pursue ethical procurement policies. That would be in direct conflict with an EU public procurement directive that expressly requires member states to take into account the widest possible range of social and environmental considerations when buying goods and services for the public sector.
No matter how the government frames this proposed legislation, it is bound to have a chilling effect on public officials who have to take these purchasing decisions. They will err on the side of caution to avoid running the risk of committing a criminal offence or facing legal challenges from companies that are excluded because they fall below certain standards of conduct.
At a time when there is so much public concern about the impact of unethical business practices, it is more important than ever that companies be held to account by denying contracts to those that fall short of international standards. Otherwise the government is creating moral hazard whereby responsible companies may be denied business opportunities by rogue companies that undercut them.
If that were not enough, these new measures are likely to fly in the face of the government’s existing policies and legislation – such as the recent Modern Slavery Act, which requires companies to publish the steps they are taking to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from any part of their business. The whole point of this provision is to enable purchasers to take decisions on the basis of the actions that companies are taking on slavery. It doesn’t make any sense for public sector organisations to be prohibited from taking such decisions.
Amnesty International has documented a number of cases in which companies headquartered in the UK have caused or contributed to human rights abuses in other countries. By failing to take effective action, and by tying the hands of public bodies to prevent them making ethical decisions about whom they buy goods and services from, the government is facilitating a situation where multinational corporations operate to unacceptably low standards. Especially in countries where the rule of law or national enforcement is weak.
While the government’s motivation may be to protect trade with certain countries, such as Israel, and certain industries that have been the subject of boycott calls, such as arms manufacturers, there is a risk that this draconian measure could actually undermine the rule of law by deterring local authorities from giving effect to international standards that the UK is, in principle, committed to.
For example, according to the statute of the international criminal court, Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in the West Bank is illegal. Continued settlement activity violates international law, entails daily violations of human rights and humiliations for Palestinians, and sabotages prospects of reaching an equitable and enduring resolution to the conflict between the Israeli military and Palestinian armed groups. The government should be engaging with such realities rather than preventing public bodies from doing so.
Yet again this is an intervention by this government that limits the proper expression of concern and the ability of public bodies to speak out on behalf of ordinary people. Never mind “big society”, these days it is big business that calls the shots.