Business & Human Rights



International Olympic Committee response to Triple Pundit article on IOC role regarding corporate human rights abuses related to 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics

24 February 2014

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited International Olympic Committee (IOC) to respond to the following item:

- «Why the IOC’s Choice of Sochi Violates UN Guiding Principles on Business and

Human Rights», Michael Kourabas, Triple Pundit (USA), 10 February 2014

 

In response, IOC sent the following statement:

The International Olympic Committee appreciates the opportunity to respond to the points raised by Mr. Kourabas. Of course, we agree with Mr. Kourabas on the question related to the selection of Russia to host the 2014 Olympic Winter Games. However, we believe that his effort to draw an analogy between the IOC and a commercial company is deeply flawed.

The IOC’s “product” is far different from a laptop or a smartphone. Our product is a set of values symbolized by the Olympic rings. Our engagement with a host nation is not a transactional relationship. In addition to providing a global platform for the world’s best athletes to bring Olympic values to life, the Games are designed to bring lasting benefits to the host city and nation. The revitalization of East London as a result of the 2012 London Games is a prime example. The legacy plan for Sochi seeks to transform what had been a regional summer resort into a year-round international destination. In addition to leaving behind a host of infrastructure improvements, including new sports facilities for use by the community as well as elite athletes, the Sochi Games have helped raise awareness of environmental issues, accessibility for people with a disability and other social issues.

We agree with Mr. Kourabas that the IOC has a responsibility to defend human rights in Games-related cases. That is precisely why the IOC repeatedly sought assurances from Russian authorities that the Olympic Charter’s prohibition against discrimination would be respected for all participants at the Games. We also met our responsibility by intervening in the Games-related cases that Mr. Kourabas has cited. For instance:

On issues related to migrant workers at Olympic venues, the IOC benefited from an ongoing relationship with Human Rights Watch (HRW). We raised Games-related issues that HRW brought to our attention with the Sochi Games Organising Committee, which subsequently raised them with local authorities.

We have received notification from Sochi 2014 that following an investigation of more than 500 companies  - more than 8 million dollars in unpaid wages have now been paid to some 6,175 workers. The IOC has asked for official confirmation of this information.

The IOC followed a similar process to address the issue of the illegal dump that was cited by Mr. Kourabas. It was subsequently closed, cleared of debris and rehabilitated.

We have also shared our concerns about some Games-related evictions and met with some of the relocated families. We were assured by authorities that proper legal procedures would be followed and appropriate compensation provided.

It should be acknowledged that the IOC is not equipped to conduct its own investigation into allegations of human right abuses. We are not a supra-national parliament or government that can change or influence national legislation or legally challenge court rulings in cases where we have no jurisdiction or legal standing.

The IOC is first and foremost a sport organisation. We must rely on information provided by NGOs and by government authorities in the host nation. Nevertheless, we take our obligation to defend human rights in Games-related cases quite seriously and will continue to meet that obligation to the best of our ability.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download