Post by Andy Jeninga
No one is going to say, "18 percent of your work force has got HIV, oh bad luck, have a tissue" -- this plant's got to run, there are trains waiting.
These are the words of John Standish-White, the manager of South African mining giant Anglo American's Goedhoop mining facility. His words reflect the attitude among many managers in regions of the developing world ravaged by HIV/AIDS: the show must go on.
As large multi-national corporations expand further around the world in search of cheap labor, developed world ideologies are beginning to directly confront developing world problems, particularly HIV/AIDS. The August 5th edition of the Globe and Mail provides an excellent overview of HIV programs in the corporate world, with a focus on the ARV programs of Anglo American and Daimler Chrysler.
These two corporations took the lead in realizing that health services are not necessarily best provided by the public sector; rather, the added cost of having HIV-positive employees oftentimes make the corporations themselves the best providers. Death benefits and health expenses may cost five times as much as an employee's salary -- far more than the proper course of ARV treatment. From a business and a moral standpoint, these firms saw it in their best interest to institute the employee ARV programs. According to the article, the results of these programs have been incredible. Sick leave dropped 69% and absenteeism was down 53% at Anglo American one year after the ARV program was introduced. The impact of tuberculosis on the workers, which was once a leading cause of deaths for the company, is now considered insignificant. Dr. Brian Brink, Senior Vice-President for Medical Affairs at Anglo American, said, "The death rates are coming down and I can tell you, it's not due to fewer accidents."
The economic impact is clear and the scope and aim of these programs is encouraging. Hopefully the success of these programs will serve as a beacon for other corporations to see the effect on society and business they hold, maybe even evoke a similar response from numerous other multinationals. But the question remains: how can programs like these best complement the aid initiatives already in place, like PEPFAR and the Global Fund? And are there any other moves that the same major donor initiatives can make to better sustain a complementary relationship?
