The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: soft law or not law? (original) (raw)
Related papers
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a corporate code of conduct
Business Ethics: A European Review, 2002
Peter Frankental, Head of Business Networks, Amnesty International, explores the role of The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a corporate code of conduct. Frankental observes a changing business context, which overall increases the risk to business of dealing with other parties, including countries, subcontractors, joint venture partners and their stockholders. The paper proceeds to examine the barriers to integration of human rights, and identifies dilemmas that firms need to resolve. While in the author’s view ethical behaviour does not confer competitive advantages in the short run, companies that base their codes of conduct on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are likely to find themselves in the stronger position to protect their reputation, brands and assets in the longer term.
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Companies
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012
It is increasingly accepted now by diverse interests groups-from corporate executives to shareholders, institutional investors, states, international organizations, academics, trade unions, civil society organizations and consumers-that companies have certain social responsibilities that extend beyond maximizing profit for shareholders within the narrow compass of the 'rules of the game'. 1 There is less agreement, however, on the nature or scope of these responsibilities. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs)-drafted by Professor John Ruggie, the former UN Secretary General's Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations (SRSG) 2-seek to provide some clarity on the human rights responsibilities of companies. On 16 June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) endorsed the GPs. 3 This article aims to examine the implications that the GPs, as well as the 'protect, respect and remedy' framework (hereinafter 'Framework') on which the GPs are based, have for companies. Before elaborating such implications, I will explain the background and context in which the GPs were drafted and adopted. This will help in understanding the significance of GPs for companies. Moreover, since the GPs have been widely applauded (to the extent of being labelled as an equivalent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the business), 4 it is natural to examine their usefulness in guiding the behaviour of companies in market conditions. In order to promote the implementation of the GPs, the HRC has established a five-member Working Group for a period of three years. 5 The Working Group is tasked with a number of responsibilities, including developing a regular dialogue with governments and all relevant actors (such as the UN bodies/agencies, companies, national human rights institutions, representatives of indigenous peoples, civil society organizations) and guiding the work of the annual Forum on Business and Human Rights. 6 2. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A CONTEXTUAL AND CRITICAL INTRODUCTION This part offers a contextual and critical introduction to the GPs in three stages. I begin by outlining the background and context in which the SRSG drafted the GPs. This will help in analysing the GPs in the context of an ongoing quest to develop the human rights responsibilities of companies. I then move on to describe the Framework which the SRSG proposed in 2008. 7 Considering that the GPs are rooted in this Framework, an understanding of the relationship between the two is critical. Finally, I will encapsulate those GPs that do not directly target companies but have implications for them. The GPs directed specifically to companies are examined in Part III of this article.
The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: A Status Review
Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss a wide range of significant developments that have emerged in the wake of the UNs endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) in June 2011. In particular, the paper offers a preliminary assessment of how the GPs’ corporate responsibility to respect human rights has been interpreted and to what extent it has been operationalised through government action, business behaviour and the praxis of other social actors. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of a number of key developments related to Pillar 2 of the GPs – concerned with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. More specifically, the paper considers a range of elements relating to corporate human rights due diligence, including: establishing a corporate human rights policy; the undertaking of human rights impact assessment; integrating findings of impact assessment, and; corporate human rights reporting. Findings – Based on the assessment of recent developments and initiatives, the paper suggests that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as expressed in Pillar 2 of the GPs, embodies the culmination of significant progress in the sphere of corporate accountability. In doing so, the paper documents a plethora of innovations in regulation and praxis, led by actors in government and the corporate sector, civil society organisations, labour unions and others, in the areas of human rights due diligence, impact assessment and reporting. Yet overall, change is slow and partial and the results achieved are still unsatisfactory. Severe business-related human rights abuses remain endemic in many industry sectors and in many countries. Research limitations/implications – The implementation of the GPs is at a key stage of development, with a multitude of initiatives and actors attempting to develop and influence new forms of corporate governance. This paper provides an overview and assessment of these key developments. Originality/value – This paper provides an important assessment and synthesis of key developments related to corporate responsibility for human rights. Keywords - Human rights, Supply chain, Impact assessment, Due diligence, Corporate accountability, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Paper type - Conceptual paper
Toward a Corporate Duty for Lead Companies to Respect Human Rights in Their Global Value Chains?
Business and Politics, 2020
The corporate responsibility to respect human rights was formally introduced in 2011 with the unanimous endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the UN Human Rights Council. It is grounded in social expectations and forms part of the companies' “social license to operate.” This paper argues that this responsibility is progressively turning into a legal duty for lead companies to respect human rights in those types of value chains which are characterized by a high level of control by a lead company over its business partners. Our argument rests on two recent legal developments. Firstly, the article analyzes the judicialization of the corporate responsibility to respect in the case law on parent company liability in various jurisdictions, which, we argue, is highly likely to have some implications in relation to certain types of value chains so as to trigger the liability of lead companies for the human rights harms arising out of the activi...
Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Governance Gap
The decade 2015--25 will probably see fairly sustained pressure for the adoption of measures to narrow the ‘governance gap’ between corporate influence and accountability, including with regard to business respect for human rights. This regulatory gap is not a vacuum and a range of standards do already apply. However, uncertainty about the future of the ‘business and human rights’ (BHR) agenda explains the need for more guidance on wider trends for policy-makers, legal advisers and others. Moves to advance the BHR agenda will continue to gather momentum, both in its own right and as one aspect of wider trends on responsible business conduct. Market incentives are shifting so that there is no necessary trade-off between being competitive and being responsible; indeed, in some sectors proven social responsibility may increasingly provide a competitive edge. Intergovernmental processes and activists are focusing on access to remedy, but progress will be slow and piecemeal. Some legislative and business actors are focusing on prevention issues, and Europe shows an emerging trend towards more mandatory due diligence and disclosure requirements for corporations. Big business in major economies will not necessarily resist some legislation on due diligence, if only to reduce prevailing regulatory uncertainty. Yet any legislative moves will be patchwork in global terms, and may be less significant in prevention terms than self-regulatory initiatives by the business and financial sectors. The international legal framework on BHR issues is not evolving as fast or as fully as some experts maintain. In particular, there is insufficient evidence behind claims that a general international law duty now exists on states to regulate the human rights impacts of corporate nationals abroad. It remains easy to overstate levels of awareness and activity around BHR issues and the 2011 UN Guiding Principles (GPs) on Business and Human Rights. Most firms lack sufficient awareness, capacity or incentives in this area. Pressures on governments to narrow the governance gap will not necessarily see the GPs receive greater global priority. The BHR agenda is about much more than national-level uptake of the GPs, and is not simply a legal or legislative project. Yet the ideal scope of the BHR narrative remains debatable. Wide framings of the BHR debate could affect how readily it is able to gain a transformative degree of traction as a legal, policy and business strategy issue. With the focus on procedural due diligence requirements, one emerging risk is that the BHR narrative becomes primarily about narrow issues of technical compliance and reporting. If so, it will lose its power to drive broader, transformative strategic and commercial thinking. Comprehensive, just, effective and predictable future BHR frameworks at any level will require both public law grounding and widespread positive business engagement. An ideal strategy cannot be limited either to top-down state ‘command’ regulations or to voluntary business-driven initiatives alone.
Hasanuddin Law Review, 2018
As a global principal, corporations have the obligation to comply with national and international hard law of human rights, respect soft laws and global standards. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) of 2011 were unanimously endorsed by the Human Rights Council and are respected as a global standard that stipulates that corporations should respect human rights when conducting their business activities. The purpose of this paper is to examine the scope and focus of National Action Plans (NAPs) by comparing the Netherlands NAP on Human Rights (2013) is compared to the UK’s updated NAP of 2016 with the aim of providing ideas and good examples of a NAP for Indonesia. This study used normative legal method. It is considered to be a valuable lesson both for developed and developing countries that for practical matters it is highly important to create and implement a NAP for the implementation of the GPs. Fortunately, Indonesia in June 2017 has launched...