Business and human rights in 2008: news
A momentous year: 2008 sees the release of a new framework by the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights and the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Business and human rights in 2008: progress and challenges
Today business increasingly recognises the importance of human rights. Over 4,000 companies across 120 countries are signatories to the UN Global Compact and have committed themselves to the Global Compact’s ten principles, including the six on human rights and labour standards. More than half the FTSE 100 listed companies have now adopted a human rights policy. Meanwhile, a study of major Chinese companies has also found growing levels of commitment on workplace and community human rights issues. At an industry level too, more and more companies are active in human rights-related initiatives, such as the Equator Principles, Ethical Trading Initiative, Fair Labor Association, and the Voluntary Principles.
Despite the progress and leadership shown by businesses in the area of human rights over recent years, human rights governance gaps arising from the rapid pace of globalization persist. Within the challenging operating environments that weak governance generates, companies continue to face allegations of human rights wrongdoing or find themselves embroiled in disputes with employees or communities that occasionally arise out of governments being unwilling or unable to regulate and meet their international human rights obligations.
In 2005, to help bridge these governance gaps and satisfy demands for greater UN leadership on business and human rights, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed Harvard University Professor John Ruggie as his Special Representative on Business & Human Rights. The mandate emerged out of an earlier, contentious attempt to develop a set of UN norms to guide business human rights behaviour. The two-year mandate (later extended to three) demanded that Ruggie, among other things: identify and clarify international standards on the human rights responsibilities of companies; elaborate the role of States in regulating and adjudicating corporate human rights behaviour; and develop materials and methodologies for undertaking human rights impact assessments.
Professor Ruggie released a set of recommendations on business and human rights in April 2008 in the form of a conceptual policy framework. The framework has generally been well received by business, governments and civil society and merits attention by all relevant actors.
Ruggie’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy” business and human rights framework
Based on extensive research and a series of consultations with business, governments and civil society conducted globally over a three-year period, Professor Ruggie’s framework aims to anchor the business and human rights debate. It comprises three core principles:
• the duty of States to protect individuals against human rights abuses by third parties, including business;
• the responsibility of business to respect human rights;
• the need for more effective access to remedies.
1) States: a duty to protect human rights
Ruggie asserts that States – not companies – have the fundamental role in protecting individuals against human rights abuses, including those committed by third parties such as companies. Ruggie warns governments not to assume that they are helping business if they fail to provide adequate human rights-related regulation, and calls on governments to do more to encourage responsible business behaviour, including by:
• incentivising firms to adopt appropriate compliance mechanisms,
• requiring companies to commit to sustainable reporting,
• inducing a rights-respecting corporate culture within state-owned enterprises, and
• developing a consistent and more coherent approach to human rights across government departments, e.g. trade, foreign investment, development and foreign affairs, and within export credit agencies.
Ruggie recommends that States share information about best practice around business and human rights, and work together to achieve greater international consistency. Special attention is given to home and host State duties to protect human rights in conflict zones.
If States follow Ruggie’s recommendations, companies can expect home and host governments to take a more active interest this area, possibly leading to new regulation and reporting requirements.
2) Companies: a responsibility to respect human rights
Ruggie recognises that it is not the role of business to act as the guardians and protectors of human rights, nor does his framework impose new obligations on business. Ruggie however believes that because companies can have an impact on the full range of human rights (not just on a few rights), they have a responsibility to respect human rights, or avoid “doing harm”. To discharge this responsibility, Ruggie is urging companies to put in place due diligence processes that include:
• adopting a human rights policy,
• undertaking – and acting upon – a human rights impact assessment,
• integrating the human rights policy throughout the company, so that it is embedded throughout the company’s operations and across all functions, and
• tracking human rights performance, by monitoring and auditing processes to ensure continuous improvement.
Ruggie argues that companies can avoid charges of complicity in human rights abuses by employing due diligence of this kind.
Ruggie’s due diligence menu is mirrored in the 8-step processes encompassed within the IBLF/IFC Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIA) and A Human Rights Framework poster . Engaging in the HRIA road-testing process offers a way for companies to respond to Ruggie’s due-diligence call. For details please contact Desiree Abrahams on firstname.lastname@iblf.org
3) Access to remedy
Ruggie’s framework asserts that both States and businesses need to do more to ensure that victims of human rights abuses have greater access to remedy. Ruggie asserts that an effective grievance mechanism is part of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and suggests that companies aim to identify and address grievances early, before they escalate. He highlights six principles needed to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of a grievance mechanism.
A second Ruggie mandate: 2008-2011
In June 2008 the UN Human Rights Council welcomed Ruggie’s framework and for the first time officially recognised that business has a responsibility to respect human rights. The Council also agreed to extend Ruggie’s mandate for a further three years, and called on him to elaborate upon his existing recommendations and provide concrete guidance for companies and States on their respective human rights responsibilities. In particular Ruggie has been asked to liaise with the UN Global Compact’s human rights working group in identifying and promoting company best practice.
What the Ruggie process means for business
As IBLF works to enhance the contribution that companies can make to sustainable development through responsible business practice, we believe that Ruggie’s approach goes some way towards helping companies define the extent of their human rights responsibilities. In practice, many human rights issues are already being addressed by business, through health and safety standards, consumer protection and environmental requirements. With the extension of Ruggie’s mandate for a further three years, companies can expect greater clarity of expectation and more detail on the due diligence framework.
For details of IBLF’s campaign around the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and menu of activities to help corporate partners meet Ruggie’s call for specific human rights due diligence click here.
Business and human rights in 2008: progress and challenges
Today business increasingly recognises the importance of human rights. Over 4,000 companies across 120 countries are signatories to the UN Global Compact and have committed themselves to the Global Compact’s ten principles, including the six on human rights and labour standards. More than half the FTSE 100 listed companies have now adopted a human rights policy. Meanwhile, a study of major Chinese companies has also found growing levels of commitment on workplace and community human rights issues. At an industry level too, more and more companies are active in human rights-related initiatives, such as the Equator Principles, Ethical Trading Initiative, Fair Labor Association, and the Voluntary Principles.
Despite the progress and leadership shown by businesses in the area of human rights over recent years, human rights governance gaps arising from the rapid pace of globalization persist. Within the challenging operating environments that weak governance generates, companies continue to face allegations of human rights wrongdoing or find themselves embroiled in disputes with employees or communities that occasionally arise out of governments being unwilling or unable to regulate and meet their international human rights obligations.
In 2005, to help bridge these governance gaps and satisfy demands for greater UN leadership on business and human rights, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed Harvard University Professor John Ruggie as his Special Representative on Business & Human Rights. The mandate emerged out of an earlier, contentious attempt to develop a set of UN norms to guide business human rights behaviour. The two-year mandate (later extended to three) demanded that Ruggie, among other things: identify and clarify international standards on the human rights responsibilities of companies; elaborate the role of States in regulating and adjudicating corporate human rights behaviour; and develop materials and methodologies for undertaking human rights impact assessments.
Professor Ruggie released a set of recommendations on business and human rights in April 2008 in the form of a conceptual policy framework. The framework has generally been well received by business, governments and civil society and merits attention by all relevant actors.
Ruggie’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy” business and human rights framework
Based on extensive research and a series of consultations with business, governments and civil society conducted globally over a three-year period, Professor Ruggie’s framework aims to anchor the business and human rights debate. It comprises three core principles:
• the duty of States to protect individuals against human rights abuses by third parties, including business;
• the responsibility of business to respect human rights;
• the need for more effective access to remedies.
1) States: a duty to protect human rights
Ruggie asserts that States – not companies – have the fundamental role in protecting individuals against human rights abuses, including those committed by third parties such as companies. Ruggie warns governments not to assume that they are helping business if they fail to provide adequate human rights-related regulation, and calls on governments to do more to encourage responsible business behaviour, including by:
• incentivising firms to adopt appropriate compliance mechanisms,
• requiring companies to commit to sustainable reporting,
• inducing a rights-respecting corporate culture within state-owned enterprises, and
• developing a consistent and more coherent approach to human rights across government departments, e.g. trade, foreign investment, development and foreign affairs, and within export credit agencies.
Ruggie recommends that States share information about best practice around business and human rights, and work together to achieve greater international consistency. Special attention is given to home and host State duties to protect human rights in conflict zones.
If States follow Ruggie’s recommendations, companies can expect home and host governments to take a more active interest this area, possibly leading to new regulation and reporting requirements.
2) Companies: a responsibility to respect human rights
Ruggie recognises that it is not the role of business to act as the guardians and protectors of human rights, nor does his framework impose new obligations on business. Ruggie however believes that because companies can have an impact on the full range of human rights (not just on a few rights), they have a responsibility to respect human rights, or avoid “doing harm”. To discharge this responsibility, Ruggie is urging companies to put in place due diligence processes that include:
• adopting a human rights policy,
• undertaking – and acting upon – a human rights impact assessment,
• integrating the human rights policy throughout the company, so that it is embedded throughout the company’s operations and across all functions, and
• tracking human rights performance, by monitoring and auditing processes to ensure continuous improvement.
Ruggie argues that companies can avoid charges of complicity in human rights abuses by employing due diligence of this kind.
Ruggie’s due diligence menu is mirrored in the 8-step processes encompassed within the IBLF/IFC Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIA) and A Human Rights Framework poster . Engaging in the HRIA road-testing process offers a way for companies to respond to Ruggie’s due-diligence call. For details please contact Desiree Abrahams on firstname.lastname@iblf.org
3) Access to remedy
Ruggie’s framework asserts that both States and businesses need to do more to ensure that victims of human rights abuses have greater access to remedy. Ruggie asserts that an effective grievance mechanism is part of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and suggests that companies aim to identify and address grievances early, before they escalate. He highlights six principles needed to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of a grievance mechanism.
A second Ruggie mandate: 2008-2011
In June 2008 the UN Human Rights Council welcomed Ruggie’s framework and for the first time officially recognised that business has a responsibility to respect human rights. The Council also agreed to extend Ruggie’s mandate for a further three years, and called on him to elaborate upon his existing recommendations and provide concrete guidance for companies and States on their respective human rights responsibilities. In particular Ruggie has been asked to liaise with the UN Global Compact’s human rights working group in identifying and promoting company best practice.
What the Ruggie process means for business
As IBLF works to enhance the contribution that companies can make to sustainable development through responsible business practice, we believe that Ruggie’s approach goes some way towards helping companies define the extent of their human rights responsibilities. In practice, many human rights issues are already being addressed by business, through health and safety standards, consumer protection and environmental requirements. With the extension of Ruggie’s mandate for a further three years, companies can expect greater clarity of expectation and more detail on the due diligence framework.
For details of IBLF’s campaign around the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and menu of activities to help corporate partners meet Ruggie’s call for specific human rights due diligence click here.