UN: Human rights & business: it’s time to act

John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative on Human Rights and Business, released his long awaited report on corporate abuse of human rights that calls for a new 3-pronged international policy framework to govern corporate accountability in the area of human rights by: promoting the State's duty to protect, the corporate sector?s responsibility to respect, and the strengthening of mechanisms for redress for victims of human rights abuses perpetrated by corporations.

The impact of globalisation
Ruggie?s findings, after a consultation and investigative process which began in June 2005, conclude that the ?international community is still in the early stages of adapting the human rights regime to provide more effective protection to individuals and communities against corporate-related human rights harm.? The report adds that ?the root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in the governance gaps created by globalization?.

Lack of transparency
A key point made in the report is the contradiction between how international investment arbitration mechanisms, such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (CSID), which were designed to resolve disputes between States and corporations are at odds with the effective protection of human rights. Ruggie?s substantial research on the stabilization clauses in bilateral investment treaties concludes that such mechanisms are largely closed and non transparent, leaving affected communities without key information about the potential human rights impacts of corporate activity.

Guidelines for multinationals
The report focuses specifically on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, stating that while the guidelines are ?the most widely applicable set of government-endorsed standards related to corporate responsibility and human rights?, ? ?their current human rights provisions not only lack specificity, but in key respects have fallen behind the voluntary standards of many companies and business organizations [and that] a revision of the Guidelines ? would be timely?.

Corporations to adopt human rights policy
As in his previous reports, Ruggie steers the UN away from pressing for binding legislation, which was once conceived under the UN Human Rights Norms for Business, emphasizing that the norms ?define a limited list of rights linked to imprecise and expansive responsibilities, rather than defining the specific responsibilities of companies with regard to all rights?. The norms, and making these norms binding, has been the subject of heated debate amongst States, corporations, and non-governmental groups.

Ruggie instead seeks to steer the UN to his 3-pronged framework and actually goes as far in his report to provide corporations with some concrete recommendations about how they can do better on respecting human rights. He calls for corporations to adopt a human rights policy, conduct impact assessments about the ?potential implications of their activities before they begin?, integrate their human rights policy throughout the company, and track performance.

Protect, respect, remedy
The content and analysis of Ruggie?s report is probably not a surprise for most of the people, institutions, agencies and other organizations, that have followed the multi-year consultation process, and fits well with the format and focuses that the consultation process has followed to date. What is perhaps novel is that Ruggie?s recommendations go straight to the responsible agencies, such as the Human Rights Council, with direct recommendations and a specific three tiered agenda to advance further thinking and work on distinct areas which are of great relevance to the discussion about corporate accountability: the duty to protect, the responsibility to respect and the need for stronger grievance procedures.

Most of the actors involved in the corporate accountability and human rights debate would probably agree that these three areas need much more work from the highest global agencies that protect human rights and guide corporate behaviour. Perhaps one of the most important implications that stems from the report is that a high UN official is making the critiques about an incoherent corporate accountability system, which we often hear from non-governmental and academic groups, but which many states, and corporations are unwilling to acknowledge.

The questions that lie ahead
The question many are probably asking as they read through Ruggie?s report is how the UN will take Ruggie?s framework suggestion forward (if at all) and how States, which were extremely reluctant to engage in a corporate accountability discussion under the previous draft Norms era, will react. And whether Ruggie himself (or someone else) will continue in a similar mandate.

Will the Human Rights Council work towards binding legislation? Will States come together in a collective manner to strengthen national corporate compliance? Will more work be done to bring greater collective harmony and coherence to a highly un-articulate global corporate accountability system? Will Ruggie?s mandate be extended to focus on his proposed areas of advocacy?

Food for thought
Many agree that the mere existence of the mandate keeps the corporate accountability and human rights agenda alive. International agencies like the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and many large private corporations are able (and practically obliged) to work and deepen the human rights debate, simply because the UN has named a Special Representative to work on the issue. Such players don?t want to be left out of the debate as the laws and politics are written.

Ruggie?s report will be food for thought and surely draw different reactions from the various actors which engage in the corporate accountability and human rights debate. Each will define a position with respect to the report and vie for leverage in whatever form or fashion the debate continues. And hopefully it will.

More info

• www.insnet.org
• www.business-humanrights.org