United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on business & human rights
Updated 26 April 2010: The Special Representative has been collecting views and feedback; here he aims to test some of the propositions that are emerging.
While a company can state its commitment to respecting human rights and take steps to implement that statement, inconsistent or contradictory actions can undermine a company’s efforts to meet its responsibility to respect: product developers may not consider human rights implications; sales teams may not know the risks of entering into relationships with certain parties; company lobbying may contradict commitments to human rights; and buyers may place conditions on suppliers that can't be met without violating labor rights. Respect for human rights must be integrated throughout a company wherever it might be relevant.
The intent of integration is to make respecting human rights part of the parameters within which business is conducted -- like ethical behavior, compliance with the law, or ensuring safe conditions for employees. To that end, companies should ensure leadership from the top to embed respect for human rights, include human rights in relevant training, and develop the capacity to respond to unforeseen situations in a manner that respects human rights.
Questions for discussion:
Propositions:
0 
Agreement: 4 0
I think this is one of the truly interesting questions about integration into business management and values. I agree with the 'lens' metaphor (made by John Sherman elsewhere on this site) and there is a rights-aware (or rights-based) approach to any issue - i.e. there are not 'human rights issues' but more generally there are 'human rights approaches' to almost any business issue. But what does it mean to integrate human rights into existing management systems? When is it a bolt-on to existing social, environmental, labour, health and safety, risk management systems etc... This seems to be the approach of most companies currently series about applying the due diligence steps. I think this is fine, but when does a human rights approach require a more systemic rethink? When do human rights considerations actually conflict with traditional business methods. When is it essential to do a stand-alone human rights impact assessment, for example, then merely adding some 'human rights elements' to more 'developmental' or commercially driven approaches. What is the fundamental additionality of human rights - both is terms of the underpinning principles (accountability, respect of dignity, participation, transparency, access to a remedy etc...) as well as the full breadth of all civil, political, economic, social and political rights?
0
Agreement: 8 0
Good to see that 'Integration' is closely followed by 'Assessing Impacts' here. In 2008, IBLF and the IFC launched the 'Integration Process' as part of the formal road-testing process of the Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management, as we realised that some companies have very advanced ESIAs and SIAs in place that consider some human rights issues, and therefore, have no need to establish a parallel HRIA process but rather ensure that a human rights approach is administered during their ESIA and SIAs.
Lessons learned from the Integration Process will be announced in April 2010, following the launch of the revised version of the Guide to HRIA. At this point, I'd like to reiterate that there is a real need to further this discussion and we will be hosting an online discussion on this subject very shortly on the Guide to HRIA website www.guidetohria.org
0
Agreement: 4 0
One thing that could be learned from business is that it is quite normal for tensions to exist within companies. For example, sales and marketing are often in fierce conflict with production teams and many cost centers are in conflict with finance – because inherent tensions exist in job descriptions, KPIS and incentives. Therefore,perhaps integrating human rights need not be seen as a smooth, conflict free process – maybe there is real integration when serious internal choices are faced up to and dealt with.
Perhaps relevant here isthe question of how necessary it is to use the language of human rights. I would argue that it is necessary for some people, and at least one board level champion, to deeply understand the language and articulate the approach. This can create a positive tension where optimum results can be achieved. If not,when push comes to shove, a full human rights lens (to borrow from John Shermanon this site) can be easily discarded.