Business & Human Rights: Another Shot at What Makes An Issue A Business & Human Rights Issue
This blog is focused on business and human rights, but what does that mean? For someone like me who has focused a lot more on business law than human rights law, it raises a whole host of questions. I suspect (perhaps because of my business law background) my view of business and human rights issues is much narrower than others who concentrate their efforts in this area.
In an earlier post, Jena noted, I think correctly, “[U]ntil you get the relevant constituencies to understand just how broad based the idea is of what constitutes a potential ‘human rights impact’ for businesses, you won’t be able to bring together all of the parties who can contribute to a solution.” I agree, but I would argue this is a different issue than determining what is a business and human rights issue.
For me, it is worth narrowing the field of business and human rights to cover those issues that raise unique and specifically business-related human rights violations. Thus, I would draw a distinction between a “business and human rights” issue and human rights issues that happen to intersect with the business world. These latter issues are not less significant than business and human rights issues. Instead, they are broader human rights issues that are not unique to businesses or how they operate on a global stage.
I recognize the risk that narrowing the scope can marginalize, or at least minimize, concerns about the issue raised. On the flip side, though, one can go in the other direction by being over inclusive and convert business and human rights issues into what amounts to issues related to the human condition. A holistic view has its merits, but I am of the view that narrowing the field to more business-specific concerns is more likely to lead to significant improvements in the nearer term.
I am still working through where to draw the lines here, but I think using Jena’s prior examples might help. Here are the examples:
A. A Dutch multinational company hires off-duty military personnel to act as security in an unstable community. The security officers assault, torture, and intimidate a number of people in the community.
Assessment: Business and human rights issue.
B. A small U.S. corporate board has appointed mainly white males to act as directors for the company.
Assessment: Human rights issues that happen to intersect with the business world.
C. A Canadian multinational corporation creates tax shelters in the Bahamas to avoid paying taxes at its headquarters in the United Kingdom.
Assessment: Assessment: Human rights issues that happen to intersect with the business world.
D. A French mineral company regularly dumps hazardous material into a nearby stream, polluting the water and endangering the neighboring community’s health.
Assessment: Business and human rights issue
Admittedly, this is a bit of a “know it when I see it” kind of assessment. I will save for a follow-up post an attempt to articulate the differences for me between the two types, but suffice it to say that I think the difference for me is linked to whether the violation is more linked to the culture of the business or the culture at large. And yes, I know the line is extremely fuzzy. So this is kind of a public think piece, but I welcome comments and criticisms.
