March 28, 2006
|
Child refugee in Darfur: Many
companies are addressing
human rights issues in their
efforts to help the communities
where they work.
(UN Photo: Eskinder Debebe)
|
Business and Human Rights: A Rapidly Changing Landscape
Where does a government’s responsibility to police human rights end, and a company’s – or the international community’s – begin? With U.S. and other multinationals doing business in ever-more remote parts of the world, areas where good governance may be sorely lacking, global executives and policy makers are increasingly asking themselves that question.
NGOs have succeeded in forcing the issue to the front of the UN’s agenda. Even with the UN’s discredited Human Rights Commission on the verge of being revamped, a proposal to develop binding UN “norms” on company activities threatens to shoulder global business with the primary responsibility for enforcing international human rights standards.
But in a welcome shift, the UN’s ongoing review of business and human rights has taken a more practical and balanced approach. This shift is evident in an interim report released by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special representative on business and human rights, Prof. John Ruggie of Harvard’s Kennedy School, who in February briefed USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee, which has followed the issue closely, on his findings.
In the clearest break with the divisive approach taken by other UN bodies, Prof. Ruggie presents a comprehensive critique of the draft “norms,” describing the draft as having been “engulfed by its own doctrinal excesses” and riddled with “exaggerated legal claims.”
“Prof. Ruggie has developed a thorough and well-researched assessment of the issues, replacing the shrill allegations in earlier UN reports with an objective review of the problems,” noted Adam Greene, USCIB’s vice president for labor affairs and corporate responsibility.
|
Prof. John Ruggie, the UN’s
special representative on
business and human rights
|
Prof. Ruggie’s study also considers the current legal liability of companies for human rights abuses, in particular cases brought under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute. A growing number of companies have been targeted for lawsuits in U.S. courts under this 18th-century statute – originally aimed at curbing high-seas piracy – for alleged complicity in human rights violations in such countries as Myanmar, Colombia and South Africa under apartheid. While recent judicial rulings, including one from the Supreme Court, appeared to limit the statute’s reach, it remains a choice vehicle for activist pressure.
Another wrinkle in the liability debate is the injection of new, largely economic or social needs to the laundry-list of international human rights standards, through the “soft law” of international treaty negotiations to which the U.S. may not even be party, but whose definitions may make their way back via U.S. judicial rulings citing or upholding them.
During his USCIB presentation, Prof. Ruggie indicated that his research found the worst abuses of human rights in countries mired in or recently emerged from conflict, those afflicted with serious corruption, and those characterized by lack of personal and political freedoms. In other words, there is a clear link between the worst human rights abuses and the worst governments.
Prof. Ruggie’s report proposes that the UN and related organizations work collaboratively with the business community to develop a toolkit for companies operating in countries with weak or ineffective government protections for human rights. The International Organisation of Employers and the International Chamber of Commerce, both part of USCIB’s global network, are coordinating the effort to develop a toolkit and began work at a joint meeting on March 22 in Geneva.
Staff Contact: Adam Greene
More information on USCIB’s Corporate Responsibility Committee
