Hiawatha Bray takes up the story emerging around Cisco's business practices in China - quoting Harry Wu:
'It is quite simple, American business is not allowed to sell or export any equipment related to crime control to China."

He's right: A law passed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown put a stop to such trade.

So, can shareholders be sure that Cisco isn't complicit in state oppression?

Dawn Wolfe hopes to find out. She's social research and advocacy analyst at Boston Common Asset Management, an ethical investment firm in Boston. Wolfe's firm tries to make money for investors who want to put their cash only in firms that respect human rights. Boston Common has long invested in Cisco, but it's having second thoughts. So Boston Common has filed a shareholder resolution, in cooperation with Domini Social Investments. Both are demanding that the company investigate and report on its human rights practices.

''What we want from them is more information about the policies and processes they have in place, to make sure they're not complicit in these abuses," Wolfe said.

Cisco is opposed to bringing the resolution before shareholders. The company already posts a guide to its human rights policies on its website; Earnhardt thinks that's good enough. Cisco boasts of its support for the United Nations Global Compact, a set of principles to guide companies with international interests. Among the principles:


''Businesses should make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses . . . "