First OECD Complaint Filed Against a European Company for its Activities in Iran

When companies consider the risks associated with doing business in Iran they largely focus on sanctions. Yet this approach misses the increasing normative and regulatory requirements that companies also manage the social and environmental impacts of their activities. While the importance of managing these risks holds for any country, it is particularly salient in the Iranian context due to the scrutiny and politicised climate surrounding investment in the Islamic Republic.

The filing of the first complaint against a European company under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the OECD Guidelines) for its business activities in Iran is a warning for what might lie ahead. Without prejudging on the merits of the complaint, this case is important for any company looking at doing business in Iran because it highlights a type of regulatory policy businesses are mostly unaware of, and because of its implications on the broader political environment to continue an economic opening towards Iran.

The Complaint

On 13 September 2017, three civil society organisations filed a complaint with the Italian Government against Italtel Group S.p.A, a major Italian telecom company regarding its business activities in Iran.

The complainants argue that the technologies and services offered by Italtel to its Iranian partner, the Telecommunications Company of Iran (TCI), breach multiple provisions of the OECD Guidelines by contributing to internet censorship and other rights violations in Iran and help the Iranian authorities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, to suppress political dissent and civil liberties in the country and in cyberspace. The complainants are asking the Italian government whether the company’s actions are consistent with the Guidelines and more importantly are calling for an immediate moratorium on current negotiations and business engagements between Italtel and TCI until the alleged breaches to the Guidelines are addressed.

The OECD Guidelines 

The OECD Guidelines are recommendations addressed by Governments to multinational enterprises operating in or from one of the 48 adhering countries—that includes the 35 OECD countries and 13 additional countries ranging from Argentina to Kazakhstan to Ukraine. The Guidelines provide non-binding principles for responsible business conduct in areas such as employment and industrial relations, human rights, environment, information disclosure, combating bribery, consumer interests, human rights, science and technology, competition and taxation. Their impact has been felt the most extensively in the areas of human rights and labour relations.

The Guidelines, in line with the other key reference instruments on responsible business practices such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on business and human rights and the International Labour Organization’s Core Labour Standards, make clear that responsible business is not charity or philanthropy but about identifying, managing and remediating adverse impacts on social and environmental issues.

As the Guidelines are not legally binding, one might conclude they can easily be ignored. But the most unique feature of the Guidelines is that they require governments to set up “National Contact Points” whose role is to promote the Guidelines and, more importantly, to receive and handle complaints against alleged non-observance of the Guidelines. These complaints are not judicial cases in the classical sense. NCPs offer conciliation and mediation to facilitate consensual solutions to the alleged violation of the Guidelines. Again, it might be tempting to ignore NCPs due to their apparent lack of judicial standing. However, these cases increasingly lead to concrete consequences for companies found in non-compliance of the Guidelines.

As the OECD's own reports show, findings and recommendations of NCPs are increasingly being used by investors in their assessment of companies’ performances, including in decisions of divestment. Governments are increasingly looking at NCP findings and recommendations when and whether extending their support to companies. The most advanced example is probably Canada, which can withdraw its state support for companies in case of an established violation of the Guidelines or a failure to participate in good faith in the NCP process. More broadly, OECD export credit agencies have coordinated their policies to recommend that agencies take into account NCP statements when deciding whether to provide financial support. Individual NCP cases have also resulted in significant consequences for companies such as loss of future contracts.

NCPs have handled over 400 complaints, addressing impacts from business operations in over 100 countries and territories since 2000. Since 2011 there has been a steady increase in recourse to the NCPs, demonstrating growing confidence in the system. This, combined with the breadth of issues covered by the Guidelines and the relative ease of access to the NCP probably explain why civil society organizations decided to use the OECD system. The Italian case may well be a clear signal that NCPs will likely be increasingly used as a tool of strategic (quasi) litigation in the context of business activities in Iran.

Maybe Italtel activities do not amount to a breach of the Guidelines. Maybe they do, but unwillingly or unwittingly. The issues raised by the complaint are complex. Phone and ICT companies are increasingly forced to assess the balance between respecting basic human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy with government requests based on public security. Vodafone came under fire when it was forced to send out pro-government messages and shut down its network by the Egyptian government during the 2011 uprising. BlackBerry, when it was still a thing, faced a ban in India for refusing to provide access to customers' emails. Google left China after its servers were attacked to access information about activists and Apple recently opposed the US Government over users’ privacy.

In any case, it is fully in the interest of the company to use the opportunity of the NCP case to clarify the situation. NCPs focus on problem solving. It represents in the end a relatively easy way to reach a consensual and non-adversarial solution to its alleged challenges.

Responsible Economic Relations

The importance of the OECD Guidelines can also be felt at a very different level highlighted in a recent feature on Bourse & Bazaar. The feature discussed the question of whether Iran is a “good country” as essential for business leaders and governments as they try to justify market entry plans to board members, shareholders, and their national constituencies while critics of the Iran nuclear deal claims more forcefully than ever that investing in Iran will further enable the “bad behavior” of the Iranian state

This good/bad approach might seem simplistic but it reflects a very real dimension of the broader political environment surrounding companies and governments developing business and economic ties with Iran. They must be mindful of the heightened impact of negative headlines alleging that European businesses are harming people and the environment in the country just like irresponsible foreign investors risk compromising internal support in Iran for opening economic ties.

In this context, responsible business offers an additional tool to demonstrate that investments in Iran are “good” when they respect people and the environment. Reinforcing this perception, based on actual performances, will be crucial to strengthening broad acceptance of economic and business relations with Iran. Said differently, it is in the interest of investors, companies as well as governments in Europe and Iran to respect, support and implement concretely and convincingly the OECD Guidelines and more broadly responsible business practices in Iran.

Photo Credit: Wikicommons

Why Tech Companies Get Iran Wrong

Iran has been touted as the greatest untapped market on earth for multinational technology companies. Bar a couple of exceptions like Samsung and HTC few of the international giants have an official presence in the country. 

Articles commonly tout a handful of key demographic facts when describing Iran's potential: 

Sanctions have kept 77 million Iranian consumers from Western goods and services for decades. And Iran’s population is young (two-thirds of the population is under 35), smart (the highest share of engineering graduates in the world), tech-savvy (the highest internet penetration in the Middle East) and relatively wealthy (the world’s 21st largest economy in 2013, despite sanctions, and a GDP higher than India’s).

But what do these young, smart, tech-savvy, and wealthy consumers really expect from consumer electronics? 

Western consumer electronics have been sold in the Iranian market in large quantities since the mid-1990s, in step with the digital revolution. In recent years, the Iranian uptake of the iPhone demonstrates the tendency of Iranian consumers to both adopt new technology quickly, and to develop creative trade connections to ensure supply, sometimes purchasing the latest devices directly from factories in China and elswhere.

For example, I once discovered a Motorola Moto smartphone – a phone made at the time in the United States – in a Tehran store display cabinet brandishing the factory-applied logo of American carrier AT&T. 

Items like this imported smartphone show how sanctions hinder both multinational manufacturers and the Iranian consumer. With these grey market imports, Motorola simply cannot gain any real data on Iranian purchasing patterns nor can it understand the local mobile telephone market. It competes in a market in which it has no direct contact with its consumers. 

On the other hand, the Iranian consumer is also shortchanged. Their chosen phone lacks company support or warranty and they pay a hefty premium on each device. 

In this unusual status quo, American companies, most hindered by sanctions, fare the worst. Their corporate researchers, anticipating the eventual opening of the market, rely on second, third or fourth hand information regurgitated in the media coverage of Iran's commercial potential. This coverage creates a warped view of the domestic Iranian market. Moreover, with the inconsistent and sometimes contractionary market reports produced by Iran's domestic media, this problem is only exacerbated. 

But even the absence of many major multinational still doesn't fully explain why so much data on Iran is duff. For that you need to get to the finer points of publicly available reports and then it all starts to become clear.

The onus rests on the international market research firms which produce reports on the Iranian market. These firms use a myriad of unorthodox tactics to gather market data on the domestic Iranian market.

In many instances they simply use fluent Persian language speakers based abroad to read and monitor news reports about specific industries. For more granular information, they might also sometimes cold call Iranian households to ask survey questions about product preferences. These piecemeal methods unfortunately leave big gaps when the finalized data is published.

It is only with on the ground analysis and street-level market reporting that it becomes possible to decipher why certain consumer electronics companies do well in Iran, or why a given device or operating system is the most popular.

Out of all foreign companies it is the South Korean conglomerates which have the best data on Iran, owing to their official precense in the country. They are not likely to share this vital information with their American competition. A recent report on the website of Press TV's– Iran's official English-language international news service–highlights that Samsung in particular is ramping up efforts to strengthen its market position. 

However, Apple has so far outpaced all other manufacturers in terms of appeal. This might be unsurprising given that it is now the world's leading smartphone manufacturer. Yet, the Cupertino firm still doesn't have an official representative in the Iranian capital, nor does it offer warranties by third or even fourth party vendors. The grey market imports available on the market are also unusually expensive. But the appeal of the iPhone 6 and Macbook continues to trounce all the other devices available to Iranian consumers. 

As part of the global battle with their American foe, Samsung has had an uphill struggle against Apple in Iran. Knowing it lacks the same brand appeal, the Korean firm has invested millions of dollars to establish flagship stores across the country, battling sanctions to offer warranties and even creating Iran's most prolific corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy among foreign companies. But despite all these feathers to their hat, they still have to fight the overall brand power of their main American rival.

Bluechip Japanese electronics firms have also struggled in the Iranian environment in recent years. Some industry insiders admit that Sony, for example, spends one-tenth the amount on marketing budgeted by Samsung. JVC, has all but disappeared from the country's high streets with the last remaining stores stocking dated LCD TVs. Panasonic on the other hand seems to be increasing its presence once again. A flagship store on Shariati Street in Tehran recently saw a complete overhaul. 

Yet, massive investment in Iran is no guarantee for success and consumer electronics and technology companies have blundered before. One example can be seen in the case of Nokia in 2009. The Finnish firm reigned supreme among multinationals in the Iranian market, even maintaining a major office on Bucharest Street in Tehran.

However, poorly structured telecommunications deals with their local Iranian partner, misinformation spreading like wildfire, and the firm's general unwillingness to develop a global smartphone strategy quickly put an end to their dominance. No amount of investment could rebuild the tarnished brand in the eyes of the Iranian consumer. 

It isn't just hardware or device manufactures who fall short. Microsoft has also squandered an advantage in the brand appeal of its software. Even though the Obama administration eased sanctions on the sale of electronics in 2013, Microsoft has little engagement of Iranian consumers. 

Microsoft has continuously punished Iranian users for their use of illegal software, forcing nearly the entire country to rely on unreliable pirated editions purchased cheaply in Iran. The lack of official product support is especially vexing for Iranians as the newest updates, patches, and features remain unavailable for all those unable to purchase an official software license. In fact the problem for the American software firm is so great that thousands of Iranians have petitioned Microsoft to offer official support. Again, despite a dominant market share, negative experiences will continue to color the Iranian view of Microsoft products.  

If American, European, and East Asian technology companies want to get a grasp of the Iranian market they are going to need to understand a few things about the average Iranian consumer that data cannot capture. Firstly, as a conversation with any traders or consumers will reveal, the two largest issues for local consumers are warranties and sales support. This is something which foreign manufacturers generally only pay lip service to. For now, it seems Samsung is the exception, having smartly spent huge sums of money on after-sales support. LG comes a close second in terms of support and has also recently stepped up efforts to offer a better consumer experience in major cities like Tehran.

Secondly, rationalization of the shopping experience is a must for most consumers. The traditional bazaar shopping experience continues to this day with many consumers purchasing their electronic items from independent stores, who set inconsistent prices and cannot vouch for the authenticity of their products. This shopping experience leaves a lot to be desired, and often if any problem arises with said items, people have no recourse when something goes awry. The discrepancy between this shopping experience and the carefully calibrated environment of an Apple or Microsoft store abroad must be noted. 

In sum, Iranian consumers' requirements are similar to those found in any developed market. Sanctions have not prevented access to the latest technology, but they have made the overall buying experience more strenuous and costly than in perhaps any other market. In a post-sanctions environment, the battle will not be to ensure Iranians purchase devices. Rather, multinational firms must vie to offer the best overall customer service and generate positive brand experiences. The most successful companies will be those that focus less on the hard sales data, and focus more on the more intangible needs and preferences of the Iranian consumer.

In a world of apps and product ecosystems, consumer technology is about more than just the device. The same will become true in Iran. 

Photo Credit: Reuters, Raheb Homavandi