The corporate responsibility is stated as a "responsibility" and is stated to be based on a social obligation or a social licence to operate.  This seems to be based on the threat to corporate success if the business operation behaves in ways that violate international standards.  In other words, the motivation for a corporation to respect human rights is based on business considerations.  Corporations want to avoid the possibilities of (a) injury to corporate image (as with the historical examples of Nestle, Shell and Nike), (b) consumer boycotts organized by civil society, (c) litigation in western jurisdictions (as with Unical and Yahoo), and (d) home country legislative enactments on the foreign activity of corporations that have some base in the home country.  This is primarily or essentially aimed at large western based business enterprises.  In that way it fails to cover (a) western based business enterprises that do not rely on corporate or brand images, but, instead, market on the basis of low cost or novel design, (b) non-western based business enterprises that do not face civil society pressures in their projected markets, or which only market in the West on a no-brand or discount-price basis.  The "responsibility", therefore, is one that only is meaningful for some enterprises.  As production increasingly is outside the West, the impact of the "responsibility" is probably declining in this period, though the analysis may rely on the expectation that over time the kind of impact that large, major brand, enterprises now fear and want to avoid, will become a concern for other large enterprises, wherever based.  This still leaves low-price / discount products outside the rationale for the "responsibility."  I am not sure whether this problem has been address so far in the work of the Special Representative.

Douglas Sanders

Bangkok

Whilst the question with regard to supply (and user) chain responsibility is discussed in this forum, I would be curious to hear opinions about a related issue; should the responsibility to respect (RtR) be seen in time, both retrospectively as well as foreward looking?

The retrospective aspect is relevant in case of a take over of one company by another. In that case, should the HR impacts -and thus RtR- transfer from one company to the next? After all, doesn't the buying company obtain both assets as well as liabilities from the selling company? Currently, the HR related risk exposure for a potential buyer is hardly quantified or even assessed unless HR related risk are already an issue. Hence, there is little financial incentive for junior companies (especially in the extractive industry) to make an explicit effort to respect human rights.

With regard to the foreseeability of human rights impacts, is this something that should be part of the responsibility to respect? If so, under what conditions? Should this be limited to silent complicity or is there a need to define foreseeability more explicitly?   

Luc Zandvliet