The Business of Human Rights

It’s the last weekend of 2012, and by now I’m sure you’ve been inundated with top ten lists. However, if you’re like me, you have never before seen a “top ten” list on business and human rights issues. Until now.

This year, not one, but two organizations have come up with a “top issues” list for 2013. Charles Borden and Schan Duff (of the law firm of Allen Overy) prognosticated their Top 5 Human Rights Issues for Businesses. The article appeared in the law firm’s inaugural Business and Human Rights Review. Meanwhile, the Institute for Human Rights and Business, created not only a top ten list but disseminated it with video, thereby guaranteeing its relevance to a younger generation.

  

I won’t give away their views on things (you’ll just have to access them yourself), but, I will say this – the tenor of each of these lists seems to reflect the various markets/readership/clientele base that are at each organization’s core. As a result, there are no overlapping issues in these two lists. There is nothing ground breaking about this insight – that an organization will cater to its core audience (which lucky for me, since I don’t have an audience, I can mainly write this for myself). However, it does reflect what I think is the greatest challenge for BHR in moving the issues from principles to implementation. That issue is this – finding a means to translate BHR issues in a way that both human rights advocates and businesses can understand. So, for instance, how do “corporate governance risks” and “forced labor” issues relate? How can you get both sides to understand that, while human rights due diligence and corporate due diligence are very different things, the policies and operations that companies must institute to guard the former will almost invariably help the latter? How do you get an executive to address the needs of victims or communities in rhetoric (and actions) that they understand, instead of using a “corporate speak” that will almost assuredly alienate those communities?

Next Week – we transition to 2013 with various commentators’ top five lists of BHR issues for 2013. Stay tuned.

Picture of Christine taken from http://www.ihrb.org/images/commentary/guest/Christine_Bader_235.png

Monday was Human Rights Day, and a great time to recap why so many of us work on these issues. Faris Natour, the Director of Human Rights for the non-profit, BSR, offers his perspective. Well worth the read.

"Human Rights Day: A Call to Respect Human Dignity."

Originally posted on BSR.org on Monday Dec. 12th.

Lit Review of Business and Human Rights: A New Approach to Advancing Environmental Justice in the United States, in Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism

Joanna Bauer

One of the advantages to being overseas is that you get to see news that you might not otherwise. So, here in Europe, (although I imagine it will soon get play in the U.S. if it hasn’t already) Starbucks has been under fire because of how it has structured its business operations in a way that helped it avoid paying taxes in England. The key thing to note here is that everyone, including the British politicians who have been the most vocal critics, agree that Starbucks’ tax structures are completely legal. I am not a tax lawyer (and I will leave it to those experts to get into the details of any of the tax technicalities) but if everyone, including Britain’s parliament, its tax authorities and, of course, Starbucks is calling their actions legal, then I think we can safely assume that it is. Then what is the source of the fuss? Well, the UK is undergoing severe austerity measures right now. The fact that Starbucks operations are not contributing to the UK’s income stream is being seen by many as unethical. 


The fascinating issue about the Starbucks controversy is the action that the company has taken. About an hour ago, the company announced that it would be paying a multi-million dollar contribution to the UK government over the next two years. The reason the payment was framed as a contribution should be obvious – the company is trying desperately to make sure that its action today will not be used as a basis for accountability tomorrow. Indeed – given the fact that the critics of Starbucks tax structures were the people who had the power to change the favorable tax environment – Starbucks proactive strategy was probably very shrewd. Nonetheless, Starbucks’ actions have very heartening implications from a business and human rights perspective. The reason? Well, over and over again, as this story was unfolding, one of the most often returned to themes was the apparent hypocrisy of Starbucks – commentators pointed out how Starbucks prides itself on being a progressive company that works with local communities to improve the status of the people living in those communities. Yet, here is a community that is facing severe cutbacks and could desperately use the income from taxes that Starbucks would bring, and yet the company made sure to avoid those payments. 


One of the greatest criticisms of the UN Guiding Principles is how it does not create an accountability structure for TNCs. And yet, if the Global Compact is any indication, thousands of companies over the world have publicly endorsed the spirit embodied in the Principles – respect human rights by doing no evil. Certainly, if a company were to be found violating these principles while publicly espousing their words, then this would provide affected communities with ammunition to mount a very public case against them. Of course, this “naming and shaming” tactic has been used countless times before. The difference is that now I think there are enough people in organizations like the UN (and at various national governments) who have also publicly endorsed these principles that can leverage their relationships with the offending companies to make a change.


Let me put it this way: if the outrage over Starbucks in the UK had only been taken up by some protestors at Trafalgar Square, I doubt that the company would have made its unprecedented move today. Having the UK government at the heart of the storm made all the difference in the world.

Another heartening moment – The Financial Times reports that a Starbucks spokesman, in making the contribution, noted that ” ‘the decisions were the right things to do’ adding that doing the right thing did not only mean doing what was right by shareholders.” 


Good news indeed for BHR activists.

Today the UN’s first business and human rights conference concluded. Most agreed that it was a resounding success. In fact, the chairperson for the UN’s business and human rights working group compared the larger than expected Forum to a sold out Lady Gaga concert (probably the first time those two events have ever been linked).

However, it is clear that more work needs to be done. Among the themes that were discussed during the conference (which I want to use this space to explore in coming weeks) are: the implementation of the BHR framework in specific sectors (such as the financial services arena) and the need to promote the Guiding principles among small and medium enterprises (which make up the bulk of businesses around the world). Another major topic of discussion was the challenges created for TNCs by supply chain relationships. This issue is at the heart of my scholarship since it brings the need for a bystander paradigm into stark relief. Also, it dovetails well with another theme that was brought up again and again, by stakeholders at the conference – the current lack of accountability mechanisms for corporations who are a part of human rights abuses. To that end, I was heartened by the words of others who spoke during the two day conference stating that the Guiding Principles were a first step and more needed to be done.

Once again, a clear example of understatement at work.

A Lady Gaga Conference – UN style

The U.N.’s first Business and Human Rights conference started today and I am lucky enough to be attending. While I’m sure that I will spend sometime over the coming weeks digesting what I heard and what I learned, allow me to share my initial thoughts.

The conference is huge. 
In their press release describing the event the organizers stated that the registration “exceeded expectations.” It would seem that this is an understatement. Over 1000 people registered for the conference. The visual of what that looks like is stunning. For instance, during the session on corporate responsibility (one of the breakout sessions), we sat in a room that could easily seat 500 people. It was packed.

The conference is diverse. 
The other first impression that I had was how many different stakeholders were represented. There were of course, the usual suspects- people who represented advocacy groups, people who represented government (I was heartened that representatives from our State Department were there and a number of academics. However, there were also people representing indigenous communities sitting next to people who represented Nestle. Seeing everyone there, trying together to work through these issues, was heartening.

There is so much that I don’t know.
I became an academic after Ruggie’s work was in full swing. It wasn’t until after I had started writing about these issues that I even discovered this field of business and human rights as its own discipline with a common understanding and framework. Being in the room with people who had helped to craft these principles was humbling. The work that they have done in beginning to develop a shared language, one that both business and human rights workers can understand, had done much to lay the foundation for a human rights framework in which businesses can play a positive role.