Greeting fellow intrepid travelers,
In last week’s blog post, I discussed the idea of what is (and should be) considered a “business and human rights” issue. Among the things that I flagged that people have discussed as a BHRare: (1) tax avoidance by multinationals; and (2) diversity on corporate boards.
There were others, but I bring these two specific examples up because, it raises an interesting question for me. (As an academic, I’m allowed to think about interesting questions). That is this – by including such far-reaching issues in our BHR agenda, are running the risk of diluting the BHRmission as a whole?
I admit that I raise this issue with trepidation. I have long taken the stance that (much like the religious dogma ” a sin is a sin is a sin”) an injustice is an injustice is an injustice. While there are obviously qualitative differences in the injustice each person experiences, I want to avoid the trap that can divide communities when we reduce travesties to well – pissing contests – (i.e., my injustice is worse than your injustice). However, I don’t actually think that’s what I’m saying here (and if folks disagree with me please feel free to speak up in the comments). I think there is a difference for instance, in labeling something versus quantifying. The former is what leads to distinction and the latter only leads to division. (Isn’t this in essence what the Supreme Court did in Sosa?)
So why then is the distinction so important? I think it matters because, the international dialogue on business and human rights is still in its nascent stage. We are only recently beginning to have a framework that businesses are comfortable in adopting and still further away when these practices are institutionalized within and across firms. Piling injustice after injustice after injustice into the framework and labeling all of these injustices business and human rights violations might divert corporate attention from the long-standing BHR issues that folks face. Now, in the best scenario, this could lead to a nuanced and comprehensive approach to business and human rights. However, at its worse, labeling everything as a business and human rights issue could lead corporate management to throw up their hands in disgust and declare “It’s too much! We can’t do it all!”
Now I understand that there is a danger in drawing a line in the sand. Issues of distinction have a habit of quickly becoming degrees when faced with competing resources. And, as I mentioned last week, I don’t believe that the issue is static – what is outside the purview of BHR studies today can easily become a part of standard BHR study tomorrow. One of the points of having a blog like this (and conferences and meetings) is to keep that conversation open so that we can be proactive to issues that suddenly require us to readdress and reassess our framework.
Of course, I could be wrong about this – I’m pretty dynamic too. Check in next week to see if I still feel the same way.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
