APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA, OIL INVESTMENT AND FRAGILE MNC OPERATIONS PART 2 the
way the four principles were included amongst the draft article to
give the South Africans a bigger basket of social and economic
bargain. This resolution again different from the previous one seems
to be taking note of the economic and social progresses made to date.
Its first demand is direct and unconditional. Its second demand is
even more diplomatic as the government is given 24 months to comply
with the resolution draft article. After which period, it has
proposed a final withdrawal. (Timothy 1971)
The timing of this resolution is particularly important
as other foreign oil suppliers from outside South Africa seemed to be
in the middle of their supply embargos. Therefore Tutu knew that
somehow the apartheid government would crack under social and
economic pressure. As history has witnessed petty apartheid died
following these moves. (Timothy 1971)
Proposed Texaco and SoCal management responses to the
three resolutions.
On the first resolution vote to terminate the Caltex
business operations in South Africa, the Texaco and SoCal managers
responded quite well as they opted to be part of the solution rather
than be part of the next complex problem that would have arisen had
they pulled out their investment. They were more moderate and seem
to have the black plight at heart. They seem to have met their part
of the Sullivan’s Principal bargain and all was generally in fair
economic hopeful progress. (Nickel, n.d)
On the second resolution that required them not to sell
oil to the police and the military, they argued that it would be
illegal as per the prevailing laws. Companies, and especially if they
are of foreign posture are normally expected to comply with the law
as it is rather that the law as it ought to be. This is part of their
commitment when they moved into S. Africa, to abide by the governing
laws. So following there earlier point to remain in S. Africa to
continue to support the black’s plight if they engaged in
illegality they would be either fined heavily or asked to close down.
This again was a moderate move to protect both sides. (Timothy 1977).
The third resolution asking the implementation of the
Tutu’s resolutions together with other points, the Texaco and SoCal
management did not implement the resolutions.
The companies were
experiencing economic hardship and there was more violence going on
that was affecting the general business activities. Perhaps they were
protecting the company bottom line by that move. (Timothy 1971)
Management responsibility in matter
of business returns vs. the business law
In all business whether local or foreign investment, the
management have duty beyond the economic and financial gains for the
shareholder. Beyond the requirement that businesses must be
sustainable, and free from high inflation, the management must also
ensure that they look at the legal environment such as workers
safety, freedom of association via unions, provision of minimal
government legislated wages, pro labor laws, and embrace of market
competitions. (Investor Responsibility 1986)
Socially the managers must ensure that workers are provided
with education and training pertaining to work, abide by labor laws
that define family days off / leave, reciprocating wealth to the
local community, equal work opportunities to all and the rights to
compensations for work related accidents. (Investor Responsibility
1986) List
of references:
Investor
Responsibility Research Center, Inc., U.S. Corporate Activity in
South Africa, 1986 Analysis B, 28 January 1986 Jack
Magarrell, "U.S. Adopts Stand on Apartheid: Backed on Many
Campuses," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 March 1979
Nickel,
"Doing Business in South Africa," p. 64
Timothy
Smith, "South Africa: The Churches vs. the Corporations,"
Business and Society Review, 1971, pp. 54, 55, 56. Timothy
Smith, "Whitewash for Apartheid from Twelve U.S. Firms,"
Business and Society Review, Summer 1977, pp. 59, 60