Estudios de diferenciación en osteoblastos

The UNGPs and other business and human rights frameworks refer to the responsibility of businesses to provide transparency and accountability in their supply chain, as part of their due diligence responsibility. The UNGPs state that “business enterprises whose operations or operating contexts pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them.” 321 _{This requires, amongst other things, that companies provide “a measure}

of transparency and accountability to individuals or groups who may be impacted and to other relevant stakeholders, including investors” (UNGP 21). 322 _{To this day however, the coal supply}

One of the objectives of the Dutch Coal Dialogue was to improve the transparency of the coal supply chain. The Dutch NGOs and trade unions wanted to achieve public disclosure of the exact origin of the coal imported by each individual energy company. 323 _{However, this was a}

step that the energy companies were unwilling to take, and, in the end, the members Essent, in 2010 and 2011. 324

individual energy companies.

in the Netherlands in 2011 originated from the Cerrejón mine, Drummond’s La Loma mine, and Prodeco’s Calenturitas mine. The heading ‘other’ (43%) presumably comprised mines that supplied relatively smaller quantities. These may have included coal from Drummond’s El Descanso and Prodeco’s La Jagua operations. It may also have included Colombian coal procured through screen trade on the spot market. The energy companies have not revealed this information however.

The energy company Nuon/Vattenfall presented its own document mentioning only the most important coal exporting countries that supply the Dutch market. The document also lists the most important export mines. Nothing was revealed about the Colombian share in the total quantity of coal used by Nuon/Vattenfall. 325

In summary, the information released by the energy companies does not lead to transparency energy company. Dutch consumers have accordingly been deprived of the right to precise information and therefore of the opportunity to choose an energy provider that imports no coal from certain controversial mines.

What arguments did the energy companies put forward to justify the lack of transparency? German energy companies have put forward the arguments of the ‘complexity of the coal trade’ and ‘competition law grounds.’ The reasons given were neither elaborated nor substantiated. 326

The arguments are largely consistent with the reasons given by the Dutch energy companies. this information commercially sensitive. Moreover, the coal bought through screentrade cannot always be traced back to the mining operation or mining company of origin as this is not known at the time of the purchase.” 327

disadvantages. Indeed, the utility companies are not required to disclose purchase prices, or information from which price information might be derived. In order to clarify the origin of the coal, consumers would only need to know who the 10 key suppliers (coalmines) of each energy company are. The statistics for neighbouring coalmines of the same mining company can be aggregated as one source;

and Descanso mines can be added

Calenturitas mines. It would not be necessary for the energy companies to disclose the relative purchase quantities, as they can list the names of the mines that supply coal alphabetically. Finally, this information could be released after a considerable delay, whereby the information would have lost most of its commercial relevance. In our opinion, this means that the

85

PAX ! The Dark Side of Coal

Bettercoal

In February 2012, a number of leading European energy utilities, Dong Energy, EDF, Enel, E.ON, GDF Suez, RWE, and Vattenfall, launched their European business-led initiative, called Bettercoal. The companies Fortum and GasNatural Fenosa joined Bettercoal later. The initiative encompasses a considerable part of the European energy market. Its mission is to “advance the continuous improvement of the ethical, social and environmental performance of coalmines,” and it aims “to generate improvements at the mine level.” 328 _{The initiative developed}

an assessment protocol for auditing mines that supply coal to Europe.

However, PAX is of the opinion that Bettercoal offers no prospect for effective solutions to the problems surrounding the mines in Colombia. The reasons for this are:

! Bettercoal is an initiative by and for energy companies and is not multi-stakeholder.

It is a technocratic solution to a problem that, as experience has shown, can only be solved with the participation of all stakeholders, especially the groups whose rights are at risk or have been violated.

! Bettercoal does not guarantee individual energy companies’ accountability

because it will not report, internally or externally, on the purchasing decisions of its members.

! Bettercoal does not provide transparency in the coal supply chain. The

information released by Bettercoal makes it impossible to determine from which mines each energy company is sourcing its coal. Consumers are therefore deprived of the information needed on which to base a responsible choice.

! Bettercoal takes a forward-looking approach to social responsibility, sidestepping

the responsibility of mining companies to remediate victims of past human rights violations.

! Bettercoal is working towards an assessment of the mines, but it is a ‘fox

guarding the chickens' initiative. Bettercoal members, all of whom have commercial interests in maintaining good relations with individual mines, select and instruct the auditors and determine the timeframe. It is unclear to what extent the affected groups will be involved in the assessment, and moreover the assessment

! The outcomes of the assessments are not binding, and it is up to the individual