scholarly journals Canadian Mining Internationally and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights

Author(s):  
Sara L. Seck

SummaryBetween 2005 and 2011, there was much debate, both within Canada and at the United Nations (UN), over what role home states should play in the regulation and adjudication of human rights harms associated with transnational corporate conduct. In Canada, this debate focused upon concerns related to global mining that led to a series of government, opposition and multi-stakeholder reports and proposals. These culminated in 2010 with the appointment of an Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor and the defeat of Bill C-300, An Act Respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries. Meanwhile, at the UN Human Rights Commission/Council, John G. Ruggie was appointed Special Representative to the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights (SRSG). Ruggie’s work led to the 2008Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rightsand the 2011Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights(the latter designed to “operationalize” the former). While both documents highlight state duties to protect against human rights violations by businesses and the need for access to remedies by victims, the role of home states in this regard was contested. This article compares the developments in Canada between 2005 and 2011 with the work of the SRSG in relation to the home state duty to protect human rights in the transnational corporate context. It also offers reflections on the implications of the inevitability of industry and industry lawyer participation for the development of home state legal obligations.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Peter MUCHLINSKI

Abstract This contribution discusses business attitudes to human rights obligations and how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) have affected them. These are best understood historically through a number of periods. The first, between the mid-1970s and the end of the 1980s, coincides with intergovernmental organization-based codifications relevant to corporate social responsibility. Business representatives were highly defensive towards extensive international legal obligations not only in relation to human rights but to corporate social responsibility (CSR) more generally. This was followed by a period of ‘voluntarism’. By the 1990s, businesses had accepted that there could be a link between their operations and human rights violations but continued to reject binding legal duties. Instead, businesses opted for voluntary codes of conduct based on individual corporate, or sectoral, initiatives. It was out of this period that the UN Global Compact emerged. ‘Voluntarism’ continues into the third period, the era of the UNGPs. The UNGPs can be characterized by ‘institutionalized voluntarism’ achieved through the framework for business and human rights represented by the UNGPs. Each period will be examined followed by a concluding section that considers business attitudes to an emerging fourth period that introduces legal obligations through mandatory due diligence laws.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Andreas RASCHE ◽  
Sandra WADDOCK

Abstract This article presents a review of the literature on the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) for the purpose of situating the UNGPs in the voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) infrastructure. We identify four key themes that underlie the debate: (1) a critical assessment of the UNGPs, (2) their application to different sectors, (3) a discussion of how to embed key aspects of the UNGPs into national and regional contexts, and (4) reflections on the role of due diligence. We discuss these themes and outline some practical and theoretical take-away messages. Our review highlights some similarities and differences to the discussion of voluntary initiatives in the field of CSR, especially the UN Global Compact. Our discussion helps to understand how the UNGPs are situated in the voluntary institutional infrastructure for CSR. Finally, we show how the theoretical and practical discourse on the UNGPs can be further advanced.


Author(s):  
Alvise Favotto ◽  
Kelly Kollman

AbstractThe adoption of the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights by the United Nations (UNGPs) in 2011 created a new governance instrument aimed at improving the promotion of human rights by business enterprises. While reaffirming states duties to uphold human rights in law, the UNGPs called on firms to promote the realization of human rights within global markets. The UNGPs thus have sought to embed human rights more firmly within the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to use CSR practices to improve corporate human rights accountability. In this paper, we explore how this incorporation of human rights into the CSR field has affected the business practices and public commitments British firms have made to promote human rights. We analyse the CSR reports published by the 50 largest British firms over a 20-year period starting in the late 1990s and interview senior CSR managers of these firms. We find that these firms have expanded how they articulate their responsibility for human rights over time. These commitments however remain largely focused on improving management practices such as due diligence and remediation procedures. Firms are often both vague and selective about which substantive human rights they engage with in light of their concerns about their market competitiveness and broader legitimacy. These outcomes suggest that, while firms cannot completely resist the normative pressures exerted by the CSR field, they retain significant resources and agency in translating such pressure into concrete practices.


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


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Buhmann

AbstractThis article analyses the EU Commission's policy-based approach to regulating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the role of international human rights law as a normative source for the regulatory output in two initiatives launched in 2002 and 2006. The article argues as a starting point that the understanding of CSR as ‘beyond law’ tends to shroud the contributions that international human rights law and legal theory based regulatory technique lend to CSR normativity and regulation, not only outside the EU but also within. The EU experience shows that due to power relations and their impact on multi-stakeholder negotiations and their outcome, this potential does necessarily unfold. It also shows that the procedural design of reflexive multi-stakeholder regulatory processes is significant for bringing forth the normative contributions of international law to CSR in public–private regulation. Finally, the article suggests that within the public policy context in which EU CSR regulation is emerging, the normative role of international human rights law which the Commission suggests for CSR in Europe and the application of the reflexive regulatory technique contribute to a substantive as well as procedural juridification of CSR, especially in the formative stage of defining CSR normativity. The latter adds a significant new perspective to the understanding of CSR and its relation to law, although it need not conflict with the understanding of CSR being ‘voluntary’ in the sense of action beyond direct legal obligations.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document