Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Business & Human Rights: An Introduction to the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and its draft Guiding Principles
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Business & Human Rights: An Introduction to the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and its draft Guiding Principles

1,932

Published on

1 Comment
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,932
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Confidentiality - test the grounds finalize report
  • Not: whether violated Rather: whether Randstad has systems in place
  • Not: whether violated Rather: whether Randstad has systems in place
  • Transcript

    • 1. Business & Human Rights: An Introduction to the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and its draft Guiding Principles David Vermijs ICCO, 16 February 2011 INDEX CARDS Tracking Performance Impact Assessments Integration Human Rights Policy Grievance Mechanism
    • 2. Contents Context Framework Some background Guiding Principles How is it to work?
    • 3. Context 16 February 2011
    • 4. 16 February 2011
    • 5. Global Supply Chains 16 February 2011
    • 6. 16 February 2011
    • 7. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business 16 February 2011
    • 8. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      16 February 2011
    • 9. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      16 February 2011
    • 10. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      16 February 2011
    • 11. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      16 February 2011
    • 12. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      16 February 2011
    • 13. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      • Access to banking (anywhere, including in the Netherlands)
      16 February 2011
    • 14. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      • Access to banking (anywhere, including in the Netherlands)
      • Investments of pension funds (cluster bombs, low wages, etc.)
      16 February 2011
    • 15. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      • Access to banking (anywhere, including in the Netherlands)
      • Investments of pension funds (cluster bombs, low wages, etc.)
      • Body scanners in airports (privacy)
      16 February 2011
    • 16. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      • Access to banking (anywhere, including in the Netherlands)
      • Investments of pension funds (cluster bombs, low wages, etc.)
      • Body scanners in airports (privacy)
      • Freedom of Speech (Google/China, Vodafone/Egypt, Nokia/Iran)
      16 February 2011
    • 17. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      • Access to banking (anywhere, including in the Netherlands)
      • Investments of pension funds (cluster bombs, low wages, etc.)
      • Body scanners in airports (privacy)
      • Freedom of Speech (Google/China, Vodafone/Egypt, Nokia/Iran)
      • Transportation of war criminals (airlines)
      16 February 2011
    • 18. Human Rights Dilemmas for Business
      • Discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia (mandated by law)
      • Practical barriers to Freedom of Association (eg. USA and China)
      • Unequal pay between men and women (widespread in Europe, US)
      • Harassment of colleagues in the office
      • Access to banking (anywhere, including in the Netherlands)
      • Investments of pension funds (cluster bombs, low wages, etc.)
      • Body scanners in airports (privacy)
      • Freedom of Speech (Google/China, Vodafone/Egypt, Nokia/Iran)
      • Transportation of war criminals (airlines)
      • Protecting company assets against attacks (eg. Nigeria, Colombia)
      16 February 2011
    • 19. UN, business and human rights
        • UDHR, 1948: “ every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms”
        • Global Compact, 2000:
          • “Principle 1 : Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
          • “Principle 2:  make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.” 
      16 February 2011
    • 20. But what are the universal responsibilities of business with respect to human rights, if any? 16 February 2011
    • 21. Protect, Respect and Remedy 16 February 2011
    • 22. History: UN Draft Norms
      • Sub committee of the Human Rights Commission:
      • “ Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights”
      • Heated debate
      • Analysis:
        • Imposed state-like obligations on companies
        • No clear differentiation between roles
        • No specific provision for enforcement
      16 February 2011
    • 23. UN Special Representative
      • Appointed by SG Kofi Annan (cont. by Ban Ki-moon)
      • Harvard Prof. John Ruggie (Political Science)
      • Principled Pragmatism: “ to reduce corporate- related human rights harm to the maximum extent possible in the shortest possible period of time.”
      • Evidence-based : 1000s pages research, 45+ multi-stakeholder consultations, 2 main reports, 4 interim reports
      16 February 2011
    • 24. Protect, Respect and Remedy
        • State Duty to Protect Human Rights (policies, regulation, adjudication)
        • Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (requires human rights due diligence)
        • Need for Access to effective Remedies (both companies and states; judicial/non-judicial)
      16 February 2011
    • 25. Features of PRR Framework
      • All companies, of all sizes, in every sector, in any country,
      • All stakeholders whose human rights might be affected
      • All internationally recognized human rights (international bill of rights and ILO core conventions)
      • Human rights cannot be off-set : doing harm in one place cannot compensate for doing good elsewhere
      • Respecting human rights involves meaningful engagement
      16 February 2011
    • 26. Some background 16 February 2011
    • 27. Analysis of the problem
      • Ruggie: governance gaps
        • Reach, power and rights of companies has dramatically increased
        • But capacity of states to prevent and mitigate the adverse consequences has not
      • Examples:
        • Bilateral Investment Treaties
        • Export Credits
        • Weakly governed states
      16 February 2011
    • 28. What is happening?
      • States:
        • Should not limit their policy space
        • Should not interpret their obligations minimally
        • Should use their policy space, including ETJ/ETO
      • Business:
        • Adhering to the law is not enough
        • Company needs a social license to operate
        • From “naming and shaming” to “knowing and showing”
      16 February 2011
    • 29. Guiding Principles 16 February 2011
    • 30. (Draft) Guiding Principles
      • Operationalization/Implementation of PRR Framework
      • Based on 3 further years of research and consultation
      • Contents:
        • Report (Introduction)
        • Guiding Principles + Commentary
        • Definitions
      • Timeline:
        • November 2010: Draft
        • 31 January 2011: Deadline for comments
        • March 2011: finalized for translations
        • June 2011: discussed by Human Rights Council
      16 February 2011
    • 31. State Duty to Protect
      • Foundational Principles
      • Ensuring Policy Coherence
      • Fostering Business Respect for Human Rights
      • The State-Business Nexus
      • Commercial Transactions of the State
      • Supporting Business Respect for Human Rights in Conflict-Affected Areas
      • Multilateral Institutions
      16 February 2011
    • 32. Responsibility to Respect
      • Foundational Principles
      • Top Level Commitment
      • Due Diligence
        • Assessing Impacts
        • Integration
        • Tracking Performance
        • Communication
      • Remediation
      • Context
        • Conflicts of standards
        • Prioritization
      16 February 2011
    • 33. Access to Remedy
      • Foundational Principle
      • State-based Judicial Mechanisms
      • State-based Non-judicial Mechanisms
      • Non-state-based Grievance Mechanisms
        • States: facilitation
        • Companies: operational-level GMs
        • MSIs: provide for GMs too
        • 5. Effectiveness Criteria for GMs: Legitimate, Accessible, Predictable, Equitable, Rights-Compatible, Transparent ( Based on Dialogue and Engagement)
      16 February 2011
    • 34. How is it to work? 16 February 2011
    • 35. Positioning the GPs
      • The Guiding Principles’ normative contribution lies not in the creation of new international law obligations but in elaborating the implications of existing standards and practices for States and businesses; integrating them within a single, coherent and comprehensive template; and identifying where the current regime falls short and how it should be improved.
      • – Draft Final Report, paragraph 13
      16 February 2011
    • 36. Actors
      • States
      • National Human Rights Institutions
      • NGOs
      • Companies and business organizations
      • Multistakeholder organizations
      • Investors
      • Multilateral organizations
      • Academic
      • U.N. Special Procedures
      • Legal Organizations
      • www.business -humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy- Framework
      16 February 2011
    • 37. Examples: States/NHRIs
      • Export credit agencies formulate new criteria (Canada)
      • Aligning CSR strategy with framework (Norway, UK)
      • Studies on the legal and extraterritorial aspects of respect for human rights (EU, Netherlands)
      • Business & Human Rights Toolkit for diplomatic staff (UK)
      • Responsible procurement (Netherlands)
      • Public Reporting (Denmark and Sweden)
      • Malaysia: NHRI prepares workshop in line with framework
      • South Africa HRC: framework referenced in BIT review
      • Australia HRC: Part of Guidance to companies
      • www.business -humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy- Framework
      16 February 2011
    • 38. Examples: Companies
      • Grievance Mechanisms Pilot Project
        • Shell/Sakhalin, Russia
        • Tesco, South Africa
        • Cerejon, Colombia
        • HP, China
        • Esquel Group, Vietnam
      • ExxonMobil/Nestle: benchmarking
      • Anglo American/ ArcelorMittal/ Shell: company-wide GMs
      • IOE/MVO Nederland: guides/programs for SMEs
      • Global Business Initiative on Human Rights
      16 February 2011
    • 39. Developed With: ABN Amro, AkzoNobel, Essent, KLM, Philips, Rabobank, Randstad, Shell, TNT, and Unilever www.gcnetherlands.nl ABB, Anglo American, Cairn Energy, Cerrejón Coal, Chevron, ENI, Essent, ExxonMobil, Gap Inc., General Electric, Hewlett Packard, Levi Strauss, Merck, Nestle, Newmont, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Shell, Syngenta, The Coca Cola Company, Total, Unilever. www.institutehrb.org State of Play Guidance Tool 16 February 2011
    • 40. Examples: NGOs/CS
      • Amnesty International
        • Submission to OECD, IFC, ECAs common approaches
        • Research reports on Shell (Nigeria), Vedanta (India)
      • Burma Campaign UK (re: Toyota’s decision to leave Burma)
      • Cambodia Human Rights Center
      • Institute for Human Rights and Business: several papers
      • Oxfam Australia (Review of Australian Mining companies)
      • World Resources Institute (Roadmap for World Bank)
      16 February 2011
    • 41. Converging CSR standards UN Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework 16 February 2011
    • 42.
      • Thank you for your attention
      16 February 2011
    • 43. ETO/ETJ
      • “ At present, States are not generally required under international human rights law to regulate the extraterritorial activities of businesses domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction. But nor are they prohibited from doing so provided there is a recognized jurisdictional basis and that the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.”
      • Draft Report, Paragraph 7
      16 February 2011
    • 44. Contact Info
      • David Vermijs
      • [email_address]
      • Tel. + 31 6 4348 9690
      16 February 2011
    • 45. 16 February 2011

    ×