International business rules: who pays the price?

The report argues that the WTO system is biased toward transnational corporations, which use their access to governments and the WTO Secretariat to promote rules that undermine national environmental and health standards. Through case studies, it details how this influence manifests in the push for GMO acceptance, the restriction of essential medicines via the TRIPS agreement, the promotion of water and energy privatization through GATS, and the use of investment treaties to challenge public interest regulations. The authors call for a moratorium on further trade negotiations and an independent assessment of the social and environmental impacts of 'free trade'.

• Transnational corporations and lobby groups, such as Monsanto and the American Farm Bureau Federation, pressure the US government to use the WTO to force the acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the EU, challenging the EU's precautionary moratorium.
• Corporate lobby groups are attempting to ensure that WTO trade rules take primacy over Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), potentially subordinating the Kyoto Protocol and the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to trade interests.
• The WTO's TRIPS agreement, shaped by pharmaceutical lobbying (including Pfizer), protects corporate profits by enforcing 20-year patents, which restricts access to affordable generic medicines for treatable diseases in developing countries.
• Proposed WTO investment agreements and existing frameworks like NAFTA Chapter 11 allow corporations to challenge national environmental and health regulations, creating a 'regulatory chill' where governments fear implementing public interest laws.
• The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is used by corporations like Suez and Endesa to promote the privatization of essential services such as water and electricity, often leading to price hikes and reduced service quality in places like Uruguay and Colombia.
• The 'precautionary principle', which allows governments to restrict dangerous activities based on uncertainty, is being actively undermined by US business lobbies in favor of 'sound science', which would grant corporations more leeway.
• The report highlights specific corporate-led projects that threaten ecosystems and indigenous peoples, such as Shell's LNG facility in Costa Azul, Mexico, and Halliburton's Camisea gas project in Peru.

APA

Sullivan, D., Doherty, A., Hall, R., & Hoedeman, O. (2003). International business rules: who pays the price? Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/businessrules.pdf

Chicago

Sullivan, Damian, Ann Doherty, Ronnie Hall, and Olivier Hoedeman. International business rules: who pays the price? Friends of the Earth International, 2003. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/businessrules.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Sullivan |first1=Damian |last2=Doherty |first2=Ann |last3=Hall |first3=Ronnie |last4=Hoedeman |first4=Olivier |title=International business rules: who pays the price? |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=August 2003 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/businessrules.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{sullivan2003international, author = {Sullivan, Damian and Doherty, Ann and Hall, Ronnie and Hoedeman, Olivier}, title = {{International business rules: who pays the price?}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2003}, month = aug, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/businessrules.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }