Promoting Business and Human Rights Education: Lessons from Colombia, Ukraine and Pakistan

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Anthony EWING

Business and human rights (BHR) has been taught as an academic discipline and field of practice for thirty years.1 Since the first courses at business schools, law schools, and schools of public policy in North America and Western Europe, BHR curricula have proliferated worldwide. BHR course content has expanded to include new international standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs); tools for corporate accountability; 2 and examples from the growing body of corporate BHR practice. BHR pedagogy has evolved to embrace multidisciplinary teaching techniques, from business case studies to legal drafting exercises and experiential role plays.3 BHR teaching is taking place in every region, from Africa and Asia to the Middle East and Latin America. Over 350 individuals teach the subject in some form at more than 200 institutions in 45 countries.4 More than 100 universities have added BHR courses to their curricula in the past decade alone. BHR is also taught outside traditional university settings in dedicated workshops and training programmes for professionals, academics and students.5

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Bernaz ◽  
Irene Pietropaoli

AbstractIn June 2014, the UN Human Rights Council established an intergovernmental working group to elaborate a treaty on business and human rights. In July 2015, the working group held its first session launching the negotiations process—the culmination of a global movement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that over the last four decades have called for greater corporate accountability for human rights violations. The advocacy activities of the Treaty Alliance, an alliance of NGOs that supports the development of the treaty, were pivotal to the tabling of the resolution establishing the working group. These organizations now have the opportunity to engage with the negotiations process, both formally and informally, through consultations, advocacy, and lobbying. This article considers the impact NGOs may have in the drafting negotiations of the proposed treaty. It identifies several lobbying and advocacy strategies that were successful in previous international law-making processes and discusses the extent to which they could be applied to the current negotiations. It presents the benefits of an NGO coalition, of formal and informal lobbying strategies, and of the development of a common NGOs and friendly states framework. It analyses the reasons for Western states’ opposition and suggests lobbying strategies that may overcome it. Recognizing the unique subject matter of this treaty, it also focuses on lobbying corporate actors, and explores the complementarity between the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the treaty and the need for NGOs to support both. The article concludes on the necessity to compromise on essential points if a treaty is ever to emerge.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 568-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingru Li ◽  
John McKernan

Purpose – The United Nations Guiding Principles locate human rights at the centre of the corporate social responsibility agenda and provide a substantial platform for the development of business and human rights policy and practice. The initiative gives opportunity and focus for the rethinking and reconfiguration of corporate accountability for human rights. It also presents a threat: the danger, as we see it, is that the Guiding Principles are interpreted and implemented in an uncritical way, on a “humanitarian” model of imposed expertise. The critical and radical democratic communities have tended to be, perhaps rightly, suspicious of rights talk and sceptical of any suggestion that rights and the discourse of human rights can play a progressive role. The purpose of this paper is to explore these issues from a radical perspective. Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses insights taken from Jacques Rancière’s work to argue that there is vital critical potential in human rights. There is an obvious negativity to Rancière’s thought insofar as it conceives of the political as a challenge to the existing social order. The positive dimension to his work, which has its origins in his commitment to and tireless affirmation of the fact of equality, is equally important, if perhaps less obvious. Together the negative and positive moments provide a dynamic conception of human rights and a dialectical view of the relation between human rights and the social order, which enables us to overcome much of the criticism levelled at human rights by certain theorists. Findings – Rancière’s conception of the political puts human rights inscriptions, and the traces of equality they carry, at the heart of progressive politics. The authors close the paper with a discussion of the role that accounting for human rights can play in such a democratic politics, and by urging, on that basis, the critical accounting community to cautiously embrace the opportunity presented by the Guiding Principles. Originality/value – This paper has some novelty in its application of Rancière’s thinking on political theory to the problems of critical accounting and in particular the critical potential of accounting and human rights. The paper makes a theoretical contribution to a critical understanding of the relationship between accounting, human rights, and democracy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adel I. Abdullin ◽  
Alexey A. Sinyavskiy

"Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” are the first universally recognized global international standard in the field of human rights and business. In accordance with them, transnational corporations and other enterprises are obliged to comply with the national laws of states and respect internationally recognized human rights while carrying out their business activities. On 16 June 2011, the Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guidelines in its resolution 17/4, “Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Enterprises,” setting a universal standard for protecting human rights from the adverse effects of transnational corporations and other enterprises. However, in accordance with the doctrine of international law, corporations do not have an international legal personality and their obligations to respect human rights are only voluntary in nature, and therefore, the main obligation to ensure the protection of human rights lies with states. One of the ways to implement international standards in the field of business and human rights in practice is the development by States of National Action Plans. This paper is devoted, firstly, to a summary of the main ideas of the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” as an international legal standard in the field of human rights. Secondly, to consider the role of National Action Plans in the implementation of the Guidelines in EU countries. Thirdly, a review of existing practices for the implementation of these principles by EU states using National Action Plans


Author(s):  
Nadia Bernaz

Abstract This article conceptualizes corporate accountability under international law and introduces an analytical framework translating corporate accountability into seven core elements. Using this analytical framework, it then systematically assesses four models that could be used in a future business and human rights (BHR) treaty: the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights model, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights model, the progressive model, and the transformative model. It aims to contribute to the BHR treaty negotiation process by clarifying different options and possible trade-offs between them, while taking into account political realities. Ultimately, the article argues in favour of the BHR treaty embracing a progressive model of corporate accountability, which combines ambitious development of international law with realistic prospects of state support.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sital Kalantry

Acid attacks occur in many countries, including Uganda, Ethiopia, Colombia, the United States, India and many other South Asian countries. India has high incidence rates of acid attack violence with 225 attacks against women reported in 2016. Acid violence is gender-based violence and, as such, international treaty obligations require that the Indian government prevent and redress acid attacks. Non-state actors, such as corporations and businesses, also can and should play a role in preventing and addressing gender-based violence, particularly if they are involved in the supply chains that lead to human rights abuses. In 2011, the United Nations released its Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which explain the role that businesses should play in preventing and remedying human rights violations. This Chapter claims that producers of acid and businesses that use acid in their operations also have a responsibility under these Guiding Principles to take measures to prevent acid violence and to assist victims with adequate remedy.


Author(s):  
Michael Bader

AbstractCorporations, in their quest for the highest profit margin, have violated human rights, labour rights and environmental standards for decades, with little to no accountability. In recent years, the fight for corporate accountability under the banner of “Business and Human Rights” has come to dominate civil society’s engagement with the “question of the corporation.” This chapter aims to critically examine the political objectives underpinning the broad-church project of Business and Human Rights in its world-making aspirations, taking the Legally Binding Instrument currently under discussion at the UN Human Rights Council as a case study. Using a historical narrative approach, this article first situates the evolution of Business and Human Rights within neoliberal globalisation and, against this backdrop, attempts to think through the “dark side” of this particular strand of human rights activism. By bringing critical legal scholarship on the corporation and human rights into closer conversation with Business and Human Rights, the article aims to excavate the latter’s structural flaws, namely that it leaves the asymmetries in the global economy and the imperial corporate form unchallenged. By problematising Business and Human Rights’ presupposition of business as fact and its uncritical embrace of rights as positive change-makers, the article presents an invitation to rethink strategic political objectives vis-à-vis corporate rights abuses.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginie Rouas

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) can contribute to economic prosperity and social development in the countries where they operate. At the same time, their activities may directly or indirectly cause harm to humans and to the environment. However, MNEs are rarely held accountable for their involvement in human rights abuses and environmental damage. In recent years, activists have challenged corporate impunity by introducing innovative claims seeking to hold parent companies directly liable for the harm caused by their group’s activities. They have also strategically used this type of litigation to trigger corporate accountability reforms at international, regional, and national levels. Using national litigation experiences as a starting point and focusing on European civil-law countries, the book evaluates the extent to which litigation against MNEs has been effective in achieving access to justice and corporate accountability. It also considers whether ongoing regulatory developments, such as the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence norms and the negotiations for a business and human rights treaty, can contribute to the realisation of access to justice and corporate accountability in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document