Distribution Network
Content
Any realistic prospect of a binding set of United Nations ‘norms’ governing the human rights responsibilities of multinationals was ended last month by the final report of John Ruggie, the UN special representative on business and human rights.
Ruggie, who was commissioned in 2005 by the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to look at how to encourage companies to address human rights concerns, says the UN ‘is not a centralized command-and-control system’, and gives no indication that he supports the concept of formal norms.
The draft ‘Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights’ were drawn up by a subcommission of the UNCHR. The raft of responsibilities and penalties for breaches was received with alarm by business groups, and shortly afterwards the UNCHR appointed Ruggie to resolve the debate.
His final report suggests that the main focus of global human rights effort should not be on companies but on the role of governments, which must avoid fostering a ‘permissive environment’ in which companies operate ‘without adequate sanction or reparation’.
Ruggie says the norms would have given companies ‘essentially the same range of responsibilities as states’ – an unacceptable situation given that they are ‘specialized economic organs, not democratic public interest institutions’.
Instead, he calls on companies to improve their due diligence processes to identify and address adverse human rights impacts.
Another recommendation is to revise the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These would help cover the ‘governance gaps’ that have emerged in recent years, Ruggie says. The guidelines were last updated in 2000, and Ruggie claims their human rights provisions ‘not only lack specificity but in key respects have fallen behind the voluntary standards of many companies and business organizations.’
He also suggests that business-led initiatives such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the Equator Principles relating to project finance are in need of grievance procedures to ‘protect their credibility’.
However Ruggie is careful to clarify that all such mechanisms ‘must not undermine the strengthening of state institutions’, which have a ‘duty to protect against human rights abuses’.
While the UNCHR is not bound to accept Ruggie’s conclusions, it appears likely that it will now try to draw a line under the issue. The UN high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, recently said binding norms would be ‘frankly very ambitious’ (EP9, issue 9, p2), although many civil society groups have welcomed the idea.
Ruggie, who was commissioned in 2005 by the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to look at how to encourage companies to address human rights concerns, says the UN ‘is not a centralized command-and-control system’, and gives no indication that he supports the concept of formal norms.
The draft ‘Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights’ were drawn up by a subcommission of the UNCHR. The raft of responsibilities and penalties for breaches was received with alarm by business groups, and shortly afterwards the UNCHR appointed Ruggie to resolve the debate.
His final report suggests that the main focus of global human rights effort should not be on companies but on the role of governments, which must avoid fostering a ‘permissive environment’ in which companies operate ‘without adequate sanction or reparation’.
Ruggie says the norms would have given companies ‘essentially the same range of responsibilities as states’ – an unacceptable situation given that they are ‘specialized economic organs, not democratic public interest institutions’.
Instead, he calls on companies to improve their due diligence processes to identify and address adverse human rights impacts.
Another recommendation is to revise the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These would help cover the ‘governance gaps’ that have emerged in recent years, Ruggie says. The guidelines were last updated in 2000, and Ruggie claims their human rights provisions ‘not only lack specificity but in key respects have fallen behind the voluntary standards of many companies and business organizations.’
He also suggests that business-led initiatives such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the Equator Principles relating to project finance are in need of grievance procedures to ‘protect their credibility’.
However Ruggie is careful to clarify that all such mechanisms ‘must not undermine the strengthening of state institutions’, which have a ‘duty to protect against human rights abuses’.
While the UNCHR is not bound to accept Ruggie’s conclusions, it appears likely that it will now try to draw a line under the issue. The UN high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, recently said binding norms would be ‘frankly very ambitious’ (EP9, issue 9, p2), although many civil society groups have welcomed the idea.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No