The United Nations has long been involved in the debate on when, where and how businesses should trade and invest.
Later this month, the UN Global Compact will celebrate its 10th year of defining and promoting corporate citizenship around the world. Founded on the principles of human rights, anti-corruption, and labour and environment protection, the compact is now a voluntary association of 6,000 companies - up from 40 a decade ago. At a leaders' summit in New York, the compact will unveil protocols on corporate involvement in conflict zones. The guidelines are a welcome extension of the compact's engagement with some of the most difficult issues facing companies.
Through economic sanctions, the UN has from time to time placed selected parts of the global society off-limits for business. Its leading member, the United States, regularly uses embargoes as a foreign-policy tool. Typically, target states are governed by rights-violating regimes.
However, while sanctions are good at expressing moral condemnation of rights abusers, they have a poor record of promoting desired change. More often than not, the target regime is affected only minimally. It is thus high time for a reassessment.
In any debate, some will insist on taking a strict moral position - never do business with rights-violating regimes. Others will argue not in terms of moral absolutes, but rather on pragmatic grounds. Both are fine, provided they are adhered to consistently. There is little evidence, however, that they are.
Just looking at Asian cases, few voices now condemn corporate involvement with China or Vietnam. Yet a chorus of disapproval rains down on proposals for business engagement with Burma or North Korea. All four are authoritarian states with long histories of gross human rights abuse.