"To know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived, that is to have succeeded."
—Ralph Waldo Emerson, Philosopher

 Prudential Offers HIV Positive Life Insurance

Now you too can own a piece of the rock. As remarkable as it may seem, PruProtect is offering HIV-positive people ten year term life insurance for up to $500,000. The policies are available for 7% of those testing positive for HIV and will gradually expand to 20%. The insurance is higher cost, shorter term, and lower coverage. But better something than nothing, supporters say:  According to Kevin Carr, the director of protection development at PruProtect, "We are pleased to be the first mainstream insurer to provide life cover for people living with HIV. I believe it is better to provide some cover for some people than nothing at all."

Business & Human Rights Resource Center Reports:

Insurer offers life cover to people with Aids virus

Prudential is to become the first mainstream insurer to offer life cover to people with HIV, the virus that causes Aids…The policy – from PruProtect, a joint venture between Prudential and a South African firm – will offer policyholders up to £250,000 of life cover for a maximum of 10 years…The Terence Higgins Trust said: "We welcome this move…and are glad to see an insurer that recognises the reality of living with HIV in the UK in the 21st century. We hope this will be the start of a wider move to offer appropriate financial products to people with HIV."
 

Return to top

European Leaders call for a Shared Economic Revolution

At this year’s (2009) World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for “a shared revolution in common action to deal with real problems.”  Brown stated the current global economic crisis was concrete proof that “national supervision is inadequate." He called for an international solution to global market regulation as a “matter of urgency.”

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel called for the establishment of a United Nations Economic Council that would serve as “the guardian of economic and social order.” Her plan called for the G20 nations including the emerging industrial powers of Russia, India, Brazil and China to create a global economic charter to oversee financial markets.

Merkel stated that while free markets are vital to the vibrancy and productivity of the international marketplace, “unfettered capitalism…runs enormous financial risks.”

Davos representatives of the United States economy, whose “bad business practices” of selling unsecured financial products contributed greatly to the current global economic breakdown, rejected the idea of global regulation.

American investment bankers continued their industry denial of the need for overseeing the markets. Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P. Morgan, the originator of the lethal credit derivative product Credit Default Swaps (thought to be a major contributor to the current crisis), attributed the global economic crisis to the overspending of America consumers. Ironically, the banking chief blamed U.S. policymakers for not putting limits on banks issuing consumer credit. Dimon’s J.P. Morgan Chase is one of America’s largest issuers of consumer credit.

Throughout 2007 and 2008, J.P. Morgan was forced to write-down billions of dollars worth of “bad assets” and poorly underwritten subprime mortgage securities.  J.P. Morgan Chase received 25 billion in U.S. government emergency aid; the firm also received another 25 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money with the purchase of failed banking giant Washington Mutual, one of the largest issuers of subprime mortgage loans in the U.S.

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, did acknowledge Wall Street’s part in the debacle, yet rejected the idea of global or national regulation. Goldman Sachs was reportedly one of AIG’s largest trading partners of Credit Default Swaps, trading billions of dollars of the unregulated products “off the balance sheet.”  Goldman has also written-down billions of dollars in swap and securities losses and has received $25 billion in bailout aid from the U.S. government.

Goldman Sachs’ former CEO and U.S. Treasury Secretary (2006-2008) Henry Paulson lobbied successfully in 2004 to remove limits on leverage under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules.  The push to deregulate had been spurred by the overseas market competition and the threat of more European Union market regulation. The EU agreed not to enforce any more regulation if the SEC committed to overseeing the five investment banks’ risk management. The EU’s trust fell on deaf ears as the SEC under the deregulating Bush administration failed to honor that promise.

Leverage for U.S. investment and commercial banks after the April 28, 2004 deregulation ruling tripled.  Two of the world’s largest financial institutions, U.S. based securities firms Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, were believed to be leveraged at 35 to 1 of capital to assets at the time of their respective 2008 collapses. The fall of these two banking giants is said to have been a catalyst to unraveling the global marketplace.

With so much hypocrisy in place, it is no wonder the European Union Leaders Merkel and Brown are currently for a “shared revolution.” Although some U.S. financial market leaders fail to see the need for oversight and regulation, the new American president Barack Obama sees it differently. During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly called for an overhaul of regulation for the United States financial markets.

The European leaders are no longer leaving their economic security to vows of faith or unenforceable promises from voluntary U.S. programs. Merkel, Brown and other international leaders may find in the new U.S. president a sympathetic and cooperative ear for the establishing of a new world economic order that insures a global crisis of this magnitude may never occur again.

 Return to top

THE "GENOCIDE" OLYMPICS                        

Do human rights and business mix like oil and water? Many business people would echo an emphatic "yes!" Business is about profits and need not be concerned with the rights of individual human beings. That’s for governments and activist groups—certainly not business. Right?

Wrong. Business is created and sustained by human beings. A company employs people to sell products and services to other people. It operates in communities where people live. People are business. Profits are not represented by numbers on the page, but by human lives.

The close of the 20th century signaled the death nell for the profit-at-any-cost mantra: “it’s not personal, it’s business.” 21st century is the era of personal responsibility in business. The modern requirement for companies, global and local, is to honor the fundamental rights of the people hired and served, and the communities they operate in. The world’s suffering has landed at the doorstep of 21st century business and the business community can no longer look the other way.

One of the companies currently taking a lot of heat on the issue of human rights and business is Coca-Cola. Neville Isdell, Chairman and CEO, states “We believe that an unwavering commitment to human rights is fundamental to the way we conduct our business."  This laudable commitment by the giant global corporation is represented by its clean water initiatives in developing nations. The sticky part of the debate revolves around Coke’s sponsorship of one of “the world’s most prominent human-rights abusers -the government of China,” according to the Economist.

Labeled the “Genocide Olympics” by activist groups, NGOs (including Human Rights Watch) are launching global campaigns against Olympic sponsors. Although China is accused of many human rights violations toward its own people, one of the major concerns outside of the nation is its indifference to the atrocities in Dafur. CEO Isdell claims his reasoning for continued sponsorship of the Beijing's games is two-fold. Firstly, Coca-Cola believes it is doing its part in Darfur by helping the Red Cross supply clean water and health care to refugees. Secondly, CEO Isdell believes that supporting the Olympics is a “force for good.” In an open letter on Coca-Cola’s website, Isdell claimed the "Olympic truce…allows nations with disparate points of view to come together in free and open sporting competition.” Coca-Cola is not alone in this position. Other sponsors like General Electric echoed a similar view.

Isdell seems to be a moral business man with an active global conscience. The socially responsible initiatives he created on behalf of Coca-Cola brought the aged corporate behemoth into the 21th century. Coca-Cola and Isdell should be applauded for these efforts to relieve human suffering “on the ground” in Dafur and clean water elsewhere around the globe.

Yet let’s face it, the country of China, with a population exceeding one billion, is a big customer. This is where the issue gets sticky. Sponsoring the Olympics is big business for Coca-Cola and the Chinese government. It poses a tough question. What exactly is the personal responsibility of a global corporation like Coca-Cola?

Isdell emphasizes that “direct statements” will not help the people of Darfur any better than his relief efforts. True enough. Words may not necessarily change China’s stance on Darfur. Words also may not change China’s continued suppression of free speech, and the oppression of the Tibetan people. Yet if words are the human expression of ideas then those of Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, sum the issue up best: “Today, more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of Universal responsibility.”

Good business is not always simple, nor easy. Sometimes profits and conscience collide. Modern business has more nuances to grapple with than its less evolved predecessors. Universal responsibility is a new concept to business, yet one that is as pertinent to companies as it is to individuals. It brings to mind more words, these by Martin Luther King: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Human life matters. Staying silent on genocide and human atrocity matters too. Just ask anyone who lived to tell the story of a Germany after World War II.

Return to top