Distribution Network
Content
EP talks to former United Nations assistant secretary general John
Ruggie about his tricky task of devising a way forward for the UN on
business and human rights
John Ruggie is clearly enthused by his two-year role as the United Nations’ special representative on business and human rights, but there are many who are glad not to be in his shoes. As the man charged with trying to find a way forward for the UN on the thorny issue of how to cajole multinational companies into better behaviour on human rights, he has the unenviable task of coming up with solutions that will satisfy a range of conflicting interests, from Amnesty International to the American Chambers of Commerce.
So far the UN Commission on Human Rights has not made an especially good job of steering that middle course. A subcommission of the UNCHR drew up draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights two years ago, but the business world was not ready for them, nor were some governments. That is partly why Ruggie has been called in to provide a detailed report next year on ways the UN can help to set standards for companies on human rights. He began collecting evidence in the autumn and is now travelling the world gathering views through regional consultations and field trips.
As a former UN assistant secretary-general (1997 to 2001), previously Dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and currently a corporate responsibility expert at Harvard University, Ruggie is well qualified to look into the subject. But he will need all his powers of reason and diplomacy to find a way through. Essentially his problem hinges around the fractious debate about whether CSR should be encouraged as a voluntary activity or forced upon companies by regulation – a discussion that has, in an interesting parallel to the UN’s dilemma, dogged the European Commission’s five-year search for a way forward on CSR.
Ruggie, however, feels the voluntary versus regulatory argument is now ‘pretty stale’ and, borrowing a phrase from Bennett Freeman, managing director of corporate responsibility at Burson Marsteller, says there is ‘more interesting stuff going on in the “sparkling grey zone” between the two extremes’.
While he is not specific on what this may throw up, he sees the heart of his mandate as being ‘the question of identifying and clarifying standards of corporate responsibility and accountability’ – hinting, perhaps, that his final report may suggest some kind of non-binding but forceful UN standard on corporations and human rights in the vein of the OECD’s guidelines on the behaviour of multinationals.
Pointedly, Ruggie says that one of his main tasks over the next year will be to try to ‘reframe the debate’, claiming that discussion over the past two years, centred on how strong the norms should be, ‘was going nowhere’. In an interim report, delivered recently to the UN, he concluded that the norms were flawed and had sparked ‘divisive debate’ (EP7, issue 11, p2). He won’t be drawn on whether the norms are now dead in the water, and says it is not his place to comment on whether it was a mistake for them to be drawn up in the first place. But he does stress that ‘I am pursuing my own course, drawing on whatever prior work proves useful’.
He is also keen to point out that while ‘in principle’ there is nothing to prevent states, via the UN, from devising a set of binding international rules for corporations, much of the debate about what the UN can do in this area has become mired in legal arguments. ‘The social world is not made up of the legal order alone; there is also the realm of public policy, social norms and expectations, social practices, and the domain of moral considerations,’ he says. ‘A comprehensive response to the challenges of business and human rights surely would want to include all of these.’
Ruggie says that those urging business to behave differently on human rights must not forget that the main responsibility for upholding human rights lies with governments. ‘I think everyone agrees, not only business associations, that governments bear the primary responsibility for human rights. If governments did what they are supposed to do, then the scope of my mandate would be considerably circumscribed and its urgency greatly diminished.’
Despite that, he still believes most states are willing to listen to what he says and rejects the idea that his appointment was a device to delay any decision about what the UN should do. ‘On the contrary, it reflected the desire by governments to introduce some light into a debate that had been consumed by heat, and to lead us toward a common plan of action.’
Don’t, however, expect Ruggie’s ideas to lead to anything very soon, whether they receive the wholehearted support of governments, businesses and NGOs or not. Recent events in other areas amply demonstrate the UN just doesn’t work like that and, as Ruggie points out, ‘these are extremely complex issues that will take time to get right’.
John Ruggie is clearly enthused by his two-year role as the United Nations’ special representative on business and human rights, but there are many who are glad not to be in his shoes. As the man charged with trying to find a way forward for the UN on the thorny issue of how to cajole multinational companies into better behaviour on human rights, he has the unenviable task of coming up with solutions that will satisfy a range of conflicting interests, from Amnesty International to the American Chambers of Commerce.
So far the UN Commission on Human Rights has not made an especially good job of steering that middle course. A subcommission of the UNCHR drew up draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights two years ago, but the business world was not ready for them, nor were some governments. That is partly why Ruggie has been called in to provide a detailed report next year on ways the UN can help to set standards for companies on human rights. He began collecting evidence in the autumn and is now travelling the world gathering views through regional consultations and field trips.
As a former UN assistant secretary-general (1997 to 2001), previously Dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and currently a corporate responsibility expert at Harvard University, Ruggie is well qualified to look into the subject. But he will need all his powers of reason and diplomacy to find a way through. Essentially his problem hinges around the fractious debate about whether CSR should be encouraged as a voluntary activity or forced upon companies by regulation – a discussion that has, in an interesting parallel to the UN’s dilemma, dogged the European Commission’s five-year search for a way forward on CSR.
Ruggie, however, feels the voluntary versus regulatory argument is now ‘pretty stale’ and, borrowing a phrase from Bennett Freeman, managing director of corporate responsibility at Burson Marsteller, says there is ‘more interesting stuff going on in the “sparkling grey zone” between the two extremes’.
While he is not specific on what this may throw up, he sees the heart of his mandate as being ‘the question of identifying and clarifying standards of corporate responsibility and accountability’ – hinting, perhaps, that his final report may suggest some kind of non-binding but forceful UN standard on corporations and human rights in the vein of the OECD’s guidelines on the behaviour of multinationals.
Pointedly, Ruggie says that one of his main tasks over the next year will be to try to ‘reframe the debate’, claiming that discussion over the past two years, centred on how strong the norms should be, ‘was going nowhere’. In an interim report, delivered recently to the UN, he concluded that the norms were flawed and had sparked ‘divisive debate’ (EP7, issue 11, p2). He won’t be drawn on whether the norms are now dead in the water, and says it is not his place to comment on whether it was a mistake for them to be drawn up in the first place. But he does stress that ‘I am pursuing my own course, drawing on whatever prior work proves useful’.
He is also keen to point out that while ‘in principle’ there is nothing to prevent states, via the UN, from devising a set of binding international rules for corporations, much of the debate about what the UN can do in this area has become mired in legal arguments. ‘The social world is not made up of the legal order alone; there is also the realm of public policy, social norms and expectations, social practices, and the domain of moral considerations,’ he says. ‘A comprehensive response to the challenges of business and human rights surely would want to include all of these.’
Ruggie says that those urging business to behave differently on human rights must not forget that the main responsibility for upholding human rights lies with governments. ‘I think everyone agrees, not only business associations, that governments bear the primary responsibility for human rights. If governments did what they are supposed to do, then the scope of my mandate would be considerably circumscribed and its urgency greatly diminished.’
Despite that, he still believes most states are willing to listen to what he says and rejects the idea that his appointment was a device to delay any decision about what the UN should do. ‘On the contrary, it reflected the desire by governments to introduce some light into a debate that had been consumed by heat, and to lead us toward a common plan of action.’
Don’t, however, expect Ruggie’s ideas to lead to anything very soon, whether they receive the wholehearted support of governments, businesses and NGOs or not. Recent events in other areas amply demonstrate the UN just doesn’t work like that and, as Ruggie points out, ‘these are extremely complex issues that will take time to get right’.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No