Distribution Network
Content
Normative principles are an essential step towards legally defined standards, says Sir Geoffrey Chandler
John Ruggie’s recently submitted final report to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (EP8, issue 11) is – wisely – a staging post and not a destination. To have attempted too soon the first part of his mandate as UN special representative – identifying and clarifying standards of corporate responsibility for human rights – would have plunged the debate back into the quagmire that the publication of draft Norms on the responsibilities of business had left it. NGOs and business institutions stood ready to pounce – the first resenting Ruggie’s criticism of the Norms, the second guarding against their resurrection. But the Norms were dead, by suicide as much as by any other cause, and it was important to move the debate on.
Ruggie’s remarkably comprehensive search for evidence does just this. His report brings together an array of information, painstakingly gathered by consultations, questionnaires, commissioned research and openness of process, which will be grist to the mill of all involved in the subject. That companies impact human rights at many points is no longer in question. The challenge today is to find ways to encourage or enforce behaviour consistent with the values of society. This lies at the heart of the report. ‘Permissive conditions for business-related human rights abuses’, writes Ruggie succinctly, ‘are created by a misalignment between economic forces and governance capacity’.
The exercise of law – governance capacity – is theoretically the way ahead. But international human rights law has yet to be adequately translated into national law, and global treaties are a distant prospect. Moreover, in weak or failed states, a frequent context today for corporate activity, the law may in practice be meaningless. In its place have developed voluntary initiatives, collectively known as ‘soft law’, to encourage responsible behaviour. But they do not cover the whole of business and fail to influence a market dominated by short-term considerations.
In principle, however, they point the way forward. ‘Soft law’s normative role’ says Ruggie, ‘remains essential to elaborating and further developing standards of corporate responsibility’. This is the crux of the matter. Normative principles, a synonym preferable to the oxymoron ‘soft law’, are the essential staging post towards legally defined standards. They could, if adopted by the UN, have an impact on corporate behaviour by providing the market for the first time with internationally validated non-financial criteria for the comparative assessment of corporate performance. It is for this that we need an extension of Ruggie’s mandate.
We do not need further evidence gathering. We now need, from both NGOs and companies, greater statesmanship than either have so far shown and, crucially, participation from governments if we are to harness the influence of the corporate sector in support of human rights. It is in the interests of all to see the task completed.
Sir Geoffrey Chandler was founder-chair of Amnesty International UK Business Group
John Ruggie’s recently submitted final report to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (EP8, issue 11) is – wisely – a staging post and not a destination. To have attempted too soon the first part of his mandate as UN special representative – identifying and clarifying standards of corporate responsibility for human rights – would have plunged the debate back into the quagmire that the publication of draft Norms on the responsibilities of business had left it. NGOs and business institutions stood ready to pounce – the first resenting Ruggie’s criticism of the Norms, the second guarding against their resurrection. But the Norms were dead, by suicide as much as by any other cause, and it was important to move the debate on.
Ruggie’s remarkably comprehensive search for evidence does just this. His report brings together an array of information, painstakingly gathered by consultations, questionnaires, commissioned research and openness of process, which will be grist to the mill of all involved in the subject. That companies impact human rights at many points is no longer in question. The challenge today is to find ways to encourage or enforce behaviour consistent with the values of society. This lies at the heart of the report. ‘Permissive conditions for business-related human rights abuses’, writes Ruggie succinctly, ‘are created by a misalignment between economic forces and governance capacity’.
The exercise of law – governance capacity – is theoretically the way ahead. But international human rights law has yet to be adequately translated into national law, and global treaties are a distant prospect. Moreover, in weak or failed states, a frequent context today for corporate activity, the law may in practice be meaningless. In its place have developed voluntary initiatives, collectively known as ‘soft law’, to encourage responsible behaviour. But they do not cover the whole of business and fail to influence a market dominated by short-term considerations.
In principle, however, they point the way forward. ‘Soft law’s normative role’ says Ruggie, ‘remains essential to elaborating and further developing standards of corporate responsibility’. This is the crux of the matter. Normative principles, a synonym preferable to the oxymoron ‘soft law’, are the essential staging post towards legally defined standards. They could, if adopted by the UN, have an impact on corporate behaviour by providing the market for the first time with internationally validated non-financial criteria for the comparative assessment of corporate performance. It is for this that we need an extension of Ruggie’s mandate.
We do not need further evidence gathering. We now need, from both NGOs and companies, greater statesmanship than either have so far shown and, crucially, participation from governments if we are to harness the influence of the corporate sector in support of human rights. It is in the interests of all to see the task completed.
Sir Geoffrey Chandler was founder-chair of Amnesty International UK Business Group
Super Featured
No
Featured
No