Distribution Network
Content
The man tasked with finding a way ahead
for the United Nations on business and human rights has asked for an
extra year to finish his work.
John Ruggie, special representative of the UN secretary-general on business and human rights, was asked in mid-2005 to produce a final report this spring on what action the UN might take to address the human rights impacts of multinationals.
Ruggie handed a 26-page document to the UN Human Rights Council late last month, but it contained little in the way of conclusions. Its headline recommendation was that another 12 months were needed ‘to submit clear options and proposals’.
The request will prolong the debate over what role the UN should play in regulating the behaviour of multinational corporations. Ruggie was appointed as special representative after a subcommission of the UN Commission on Human Rights published draft norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations more than two years ago. However, the norms, which would require monitoring of companies’ activities and the prospect of legal challenge as the voluntary human rights standards become accepted practice, proved controversial. The UN has since backtracked on them in the face of opposition from business groups and the US government (EP7, issue 5).
Ruggie, former UN assistant secretary-general, was expected to make an assessment of the likely value of the norms in improving the human rights performance of companies, and if necessary to suggest an alternative way forward.
But the document mentions the norms only once, and comes to no conclusion as to their value. By contrast, his interim report last year described them as ‘highly problematic in their potential effects’. The new report is mostly a summary of the current state of ‘soft law’ relating to business and human rights, such as the OECD’s guidelines on multinational corporations’ responsibilities.
Ruggie has commissioned 24 research papers and consulted with a large number of interested parties around the world in the past 18 months, but says he needs the extra year to develop the ‘views and recommendations’ that he was invited to submit to the UN.
Sir Geoffrey Chandler, founder-chair of Amnesty International UK Business Group, which supports the idea of norms, told EP that the delay was a positive sign. ‘The extent, rigour, and openness of Ruggie’s work has been quite remarkable,’ he said. ‘He inherited a bed of nails after the norms controversy and has wisely recognized that to produce standards at this stage would appear as a reworking of the norms and would simply reignite opposition.’
John Ruggie, special representative of the UN secretary-general on business and human rights, was asked in mid-2005 to produce a final report this spring on what action the UN might take to address the human rights impacts of multinationals.
Ruggie handed a 26-page document to the UN Human Rights Council late last month, but it contained little in the way of conclusions. Its headline recommendation was that another 12 months were needed ‘to submit clear options and proposals’.
The request will prolong the debate over what role the UN should play in regulating the behaviour of multinational corporations. Ruggie was appointed as special representative after a subcommission of the UN Commission on Human Rights published draft norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations more than two years ago. However, the norms, which would require monitoring of companies’ activities and the prospect of legal challenge as the voluntary human rights standards become accepted practice, proved controversial. The UN has since backtracked on them in the face of opposition from business groups and the US government (EP7, issue 5).
Ruggie, former UN assistant secretary-general, was expected to make an assessment of the likely value of the norms in improving the human rights performance of companies, and if necessary to suggest an alternative way forward.
But the document mentions the norms only once, and comes to no conclusion as to their value. By contrast, his interim report last year described them as ‘highly problematic in their potential effects’. The new report is mostly a summary of the current state of ‘soft law’ relating to business and human rights, such as the OECD’s guidelines on multinational corporations’ responsibilities.
Ruggie has commissioned 24 research papers and consulted with a large number of interested parties around the world in the past 18 months, but says he needs the extra year to develop the ‘views and recommendations’ that he was invited to submit to the UN.
Sir Geoffrey Chandler, founder-chair of Amnesty International UK Business Group, which supports the idea of norms, told EP that the delay was a positive sign. ‘The extent, rigour, and openness of Ruggie’s work has been quite remarkable,’ he said. ‘He inherited a bed of nails after the norms controversy and has wisely recognized that to produce standards at this stage would appear as a reworking of the norms and would simply reignite opposition.’
Super Featured
No
Featured
No