Human rights in China: Olympic sponsors in a dilemma

Human rights groups criticize the international Olympic sponsors. They call on corporations like Allianz, Airbnb and Coca-Cola to denounce human rights violations in China. But in reality the opposite happens.

A demonstration in mid-January in front of the Allianz branch in Berlin-Adlershof. Tibetan and Uyghur activists in particular are protesting that the company is providing financial support for the Winter Games in Beijing as part of its Olympic sponsorship.

“Our specific demand is that Allianz does not support the Olympic Games in Beijing and withdraws its sponsorship money,” says Tenzyn Zöchbauer from the Tibet Initiative association. In an interview with the Reuters news agency, she complains that Europe’s largest insurance company is not clearly distancing itself from human rights violations in China.

“We don’t think it’s justifiable that a German company like Allianz, which advertises insurance and safety for life, doesn’t manage to position itself clearly on the human rights situation in China,” says Zöchbauer.

Allianz does not respond to criticism

When asked about the criticism of the sponsorship of the Olympic Winter Games in China, the Allianz press office sent a written statement. The group does not address the accusations made by the activists. “For us as an IOC sponsor, the values ​​of the Olympic movement – excellence, friendship and respect – and the achievements of the athletes come first,” it says. “That’s why athletes are at the heart of our campaigns and programs.”

This deliberate disregard for criticism from human rights groups is typical of the top Olympic sponsors. In addition to the German DAX company Allianz, these also include the consumer goods group Procter&Gamble, the car group Toyota and the watch manufacturer Omega.

“You already knew what was going on in China”

Business ethicist Alicia Hennig from the International University Institute (IHI) Zittau criticizes the fact that most of the corporations that help finance the highly controversial Winter Olympics in China seem to duck when they are asked questions about the oppression of the Uyghur minority in China or the situation in Tibet and Tibet Hong Kong.

“You already knew what was going on in China. The companies could actually estimate in advance that (such sponsorship, Note d. editor) will not go down well in their home markets,” says Hennig.

Criticism also of Coca-Cola, Visa, and Airbnb

The criticism of the top Olympic sponsors in the USA is particularly loud. Five of the 13 so-called “Olympic Partners” come from the United States: in addition to Procter & Gamble, the beverage company Coca-Cola, the credit card provider Visa, the booking website Airbnb and the chip manufacturer Intel.

A hearing by the US Parliament last summer dealt with the responsibility of these companies when it comes to human rights. Andrea Fairchild from the credit card provider Visa also spoke at the time. “We are against genocide wherever it happens,” said Visa’s PR manager. She didn’t put the word “China” in her mouth.

“Unable to judge”

Earlier, US Senator Tom Cotton asked representatives of all American sponsors whether they would describe what is happening in the Chinese region of Xinjiang as genocide. “Our company does not see itself in a position to judge that,” said the visa manager.

The US Senator then lost his composure. Republican Cotton said it was the “most pathetic and disgusting hearing” he had experienced in the past eight years. Apparently, all company officials have been instructed not to say anything that could hurt China’s communist leadership.

Self-image versus wishful thinking

The fear of the corporations being punished by China’s leadership after supposedly critical statements is obviously great. After all, there is a lot of money at stake in the huge Chinese market.

For the business ethicist Hennig, the squeamishness of the top international Olympic sponsors when it comes to human rights fits into the picture. “There is always an extreme gap. Of course, companies always want to present themselves as if they are all super open, diverse et cetera, trallala,” she says.

But the reality is fundamentally different. “Just because a company presents itself openly to the outside world, I wouldn’t believe it one hundred percent. The self-image and the ideal image that is presented to the outside world does not necessarily have to reflect reality,” says Hennig.