http://www.srsgconsultation.org/rss/feed.xml The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights en-us Wed, 12 May 10 10:46:38 -0700 Wed, 12 May 10 10:46:38 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/rss SRSGConsultation.org RSS Generator admin@srsgconsultation.org daniel@t0media.com 60 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Updated 12 May 2010: The Special Representative has been collecting views and feedback; here he aims to test some of the propositions that are emerging. Having a human rights due diligence system in place is necessary but not sufficient to meeting the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The Special Representative aims to develop guiding principles to help ensure that human rights due diligence is effective. Questions for discussion: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? Are the following propositions all equally necessary for a company to meet its responsibility to respect human rights? What additional guidance would ensure the effectiveness of human rights due diligence? Propositions: Companies should strive for meaningful engagement and dialogue with the individuals and communities that they affect. Because a main purpose of human rights due diligence is to demonstrate that the company is meeting its responsibility to respect rights, companies should ensure a reasonable level of transparency to stakeholders. Companies should ensure that their human rights due diligence is informed by an appropriate level of knowledge and expertise on human rights, whether internal or external to the company. Expertise can help ensure that human rights due diligence is fit-for-purpose, i.e. appropriate and proportional to the human rights issues in a given context. Companies should conduct human rights due diligence not as a one-off activity, but as an ongoing process that recognizes the dynamic nature of human rights. (See also the discussion in this forum on what is specific to human rights.) Mon, 11 Jan 10 15:13:44 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=36 http://www.srsgconsultation.org While human rights are to be considered inalienable and indivisible, human rights can come into conflict with one another, and international human rights law allows states to limit certain rights in particular circumstances: For example, some states restrict freedom of expression toprotect against hate speech. Companies maybe faced with similar situations of conflicting rights, which can complicate their efforts to respect all rights. It may be legitimate for companies to limit certain rights in the context of their operations, such as when safety considerations prohibit clothing required by some religious faiths. This is not a newissue inhuman rights discourse, but so far has been discussed mainly in the context of states being allowed to limit the enjoyment of rights. Principles such as "necessity", "legality", and "proportionality"are requiredof states when limiting rights,but there isno universal consensus on precise instruction, let alone how principles applicable to states may apply to companies.Questions for discussion:Is existing guidance for states on this issue applicable to companies?What guidance can be given to companies on how to reconcile conflicts between human rights, and when particular human rights might be limited?What experience do you have with this issue? Mon, 30 Nov 09 05:41:37 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=35 http://www.srsgconsultation.org 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. As with any other business issue, tracking performance on human rights is essential to knowing and showing whether policies are being effectively implemented and to driving improvement. Tracking performance creates a critical feedback loop for companies, and reporting enables stakeholders to better understand and engage with companies and compare performance within and across industries. Both tracking and reporting performance require good metrics, or key performance indicators, whether qualitative or quantitative. Some metrics might be more useful for tracking performance within a company; other information might be more useful for communicating performance to external stakeholders. Companies are beginning to experiment with more dynamic formats of reporting than the traditional process of collecting data that gets printed in an annual report, for example online dialogues and stakeholder review panels. Some of these methods may enhance participation and inclusion, both of which are important human rights principles. Questions for discussion: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? What are the most important elements and principles of tracking and reporting human rights performance, whether initiated by business or required by states or other parties? What examples would you cite as good practice? Publicly-listed companies all over the world are accustomed to some form of external reporting. Are there specific considerations or noteworthy good practice for privately-held companies or state-owned enterprises that the Special Representative should take into account? Propositions: Companies should track and report their impacts on human rights, including through their relationships, in order to demonstrate that human rights policies are being implemented. In tracking and reporting human rights performance, companies should include both qualitative and quantitative measures, and report on both processes and outcomes. In order to meet the requirement that companies ‘know and show’ that they are respecting human rights, reporting processes should incorporate some form of verification. Verification should enhance credibility, and ensure that a balanced picture is being presented and that the views of those affected by the business have been taken into account. Mon, 02 Nov 09 09:13:17 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=34 http://www.srsgconsultation.org 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: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? What are good examples of a company's integrating respect for human rights into its culture and processes? What are the biggest barriers to integrating human rights into business, and how can those barriers be overcome? What lessons learned from business integration of other issues (e.g. health and safety, compliance and ethics) could be applied to human rights? Propositions: Companies should ensure that respect for human rights is integrated throughout a company, including in key processes such as resource allocation, recruitment, procurement and the evaluation of employees and divisions. A periodic company-wide assessment could be one means of ensuring that respect for human rights is integrated throughout the business and identifying areas where additional attention is needed. Like States, companies should ensure both ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ integration of human rights: ‘vertical’ meaning that the commitment to meet the responsibility to respect made by company leadership is implemented throughout the company, including into its culture and values; and ‘horizontal’ meaning that efforts to respect human rights in one department aren’t undermined by another department. Companies should institute adequate oversight to ensure that their responsibility to respect is being met, for example by incorporating it into their control systems and assigning managerial or Board accountability. Employees should be trained, empowered, and incentivized to fulfill their company’s responsibility to respect human rights. Mon, 02 Nov 09 09:09:36 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=33 http://www.srsgconsultation.org 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. Often problems arise because companies fail to consider the potential implications of activities and relationships before they begin -- or because complacency sets in once they're established. Companies can know and show that they are respecting human rights only if they take proactive steps to understand how existing and proposed activities may affect human rights. Such assessments could, where appropriate, be integrated into other relevant company processes, such as risk assessments or environmental and social impact assessments. Specific tools such as “human rights impact assessments” are one means to achieve this purpose (see the SRSG's 2007 report on the topic), but the important thing is that potential impacts are identified and addressed, not the form or tools by which the assessment is achieved. Moreover, human rights situations are dynamic and pre-existing conditions will change with the entry of a high impact business operation. Therefore, the assessment of impacts should take place regularly throughout the life of a project or activity, whether triggered by project milestones, regular cycles (e.g. periodic performance reviews), or changes in any of the issues related to the scope of a company's responsibility to respect human rights: context, activities, and relationships. Questions for discussion: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? There are a number of tools and resources emerging to support companies in assessing their impacts, each of which might be appropriate for particular situations. What principles should underpin the assessment of human rights impacts, regardless of form? In your experience, what thresholds, processes, or triggers determine when companies should undertake an assessment of its impacts? Propositions: Companies should assess their actual and potential impacts on human rights on an ongoing basis. Special attention should be paid to assessing impacts before major internal decisions or changes that could have human rights implications, such as new market entry, a merger or joint venture, a new product launch, or an internal policy change. Such assessments should include projections of how the company’s impacts on human rights through its activities and relationships might change (or have changed, in the case of an ex post assessment). Input of the potentially affected population, human rights experts, and other stakeholders can add to the robustness, credibility, and effectiveness of the assessment. Mon, 02 Nov 09 09:06:03 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=32 http://www.srsgconsultation.org 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. In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, companies should clearly set and communicate their responsibilities, expectations, and commitments. Broad aspirational language may be used to describe respect for human rights, but more detailed guidance in specific functional areas is necessary to give those commitments meaning. This is often done through a statement of policy, but the format and label may differ from company to company. Questions for discussion: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? In your experience, what is most challenging about developing a corporate statement of policy on human rights? What are examples and features of a good corporate statement of policy on human rights, in terms of content, form (e.g. statement of values, code of conduct, etc.), or implementation (e.g. how is it rolled out to all employees, how is implementation tracked - and how is that communicated in the policy)? Propositions: Companies should have a public statement of policy or analogous affirmation of their responsibility to respect human rights approved by the board or equivalent. Statements of human rights policy should be made available to all employees in all relevant languages, and incorporated into relevant management and employee training. Companies could have stand-alone statements of policy on human rights, or they may be incorporated into other policies or similar statements. For both, it is useful to indicate what systems or departments are accountable for the policy’s implementation, if applicable -- a small or medium-sized enterprise might not have such formal structures. Depending on the size and structure of its business, a company might choose to have a single high-level policy for the whole of the enterprise, with more detailed policies for particular businesses, functions, or regions. Next element: Assessing impacts Mon, 02 Nov 09 09:01:28 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=31 http://www.srsgconsultation.org This page is for comments related to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights that are not covered by any other pages in this forum. Please keep comments relevant; inappropriate comments will be removed per this site's Terms of Use. Sun, 01 Nov 09 18:00:02 -0800 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=30 http://www.srsgconsultation.org United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for business & human rights ONLINE CONSULTATION ON THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE U.N. "PROTECT, RESPECT, REMEDY" FRAMEWORK THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS The purpose of this forum is to gather input from a wide range of stakeholders to share views with the SRSG as he develops guiding principles to operationalize the U.N. "Protect, Respect, Remedy" framework, as requested by the Human Rights Council. For information about on the SRSG's mandate, please visit his web portal. Initially, this forum will focus on discussion topics related to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, the second pillar of the framework. These topics will remain in place through February 2010, although the SRSG may amend them in response to how the discussion proceeds. The SRSGwill eventually add to this forum discussion topics relevant to the other two pillars of the framework: the State duty to protect and the need for greater access to remedy. Major changes or additions to the forum will be publicized on the SRSG's web portal as well as on this site. Participation Anyone can read the pages and comments in this forum without registering, but we encourage you to contribute ideas and views. To do so, please register by following the instructions... In the spirit of open dialogue, we encourage participants to identify themselves when posting (either through user profiles or in the comments themselves), and to be candid but respectful. (Inappropriate comments will be removed [link to "Terms of Use"].) Recognizing that there are legitimate reasons why some cannot comment publicly, private correspondence can be submitted to name[at]email[dot]com; a moderator will determine whether such input can be contributed to this forum without naming its exact source. To encourage constructive input, you have the ability to rate comments on quality, and whether you agree or disagree. Topics All of the topics below are relevant to operationalizing the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Please be sure to read through the "Foundations" section before moving onto the other topics and adding your comments to the discussion. There is also a page for comments relevant to the SRSG's mandate that are not directly related to any of the above topics. Thank you for your active interest in the SRSG's mandate. Foundations The corporate responsibility to respect human rights Scope of the corporate responsibility to respect Content of the corporate responsibility to respect Explanation of human rights due diligence Elements of human rights due diligence Links to the State Duty to Protect and the need for greater access to remedy Elaboration What is specific to human rights Risk management Applicability Implementation Consultation Transparency When international and national standards con?ict Limiting rights Issues Supply chains Integrating a gender perspective Indigenous Peoples Finance If you have any questions or problems with the site, please contact name[at]email[dot]com. Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:20:06 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=20 http://www.srsgconsultation.org While financial institutions have a responsibility to respect human rights like every other company, they are generally at least one step removed from the human rights impacts of the business activities that they enable with their funds.A bank’s human rights due diligence for a project loan will differ from that of the company operating the project -- banks are unlikely to have the capacity to visit every site to which they provide capital. Nevertheless, banks must conduct human rights due diligence to meet their responsibility to respect human rights -- and the human rights risks of a client may also become risks to the funder's liability, returns and reputation.Beyond banks lies an even more complex array of other lenders, investors, and asset managers, all of which have different means of engagement and leverage with companies. Questions for discussion: Are the implications of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights different for financial institutions than for other sectors? If so, are any differences material to the SRSG's task of articulating principles that apply to all industries?Are the implications of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights different for different kinds of financial institutions and activity -- i.e. project finance, corporate lending, equity investing, sovereign wealth funds -- where there are varying forms and degrees of leverage on the part of the financier? As above, are any differences material?What due diligence practices in the financial sector, whether initiated by business or required by governments, are particularly relevant to human rights due diligence? Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:18:56 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=19 http://www.srsgconsultation.org States are responsible for upholding and implementing their national and international obligations to indigenous peoples. Where company activities may affect the rights of indigenous communities, companies also need to become aware of and understand the particular position of indigenous peoples and their rights in order to ensure that they meet their responsibility to respect human rights.Issues that tend to arise where business and indigenous peoples meet are land use and ownership; cultural identity and development; the desire for sustainable livelihoods; consultation and the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" (FPIC).Questions for discussion:What guidance can be given to companies operating in areas where national law does not adequately protect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples?The standard for consultation advocated by some is FPIC. What guidance can be provided to companies as to how “consent” is defined and how it can be established?In addition to consultation, what should a company whose operations directly affect indigenous peoples do to respect their rights and interests?What positive examples can you cite of a company meeting its responsibility to respect human rights with regard to indigenous peoples? Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:18:31 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=18 http://www.srsgconsultation.org The SRSG's mandate requests that he "integrate a gender perspective throughout his work". Through formal and informal consultations, some experts have suggested that with regard to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, integrating a gender perspective requires companies to 1) collect disaggregated data on their impacts, and 2) conduct multi-dimensional analyses with regard to their potential and actual impacts. Disaggregating data in this context means collecting data broken down by gender. Some have suggested that only with disaggregated data can companies identify the relationship between gender and their human rights impacts. It is not part of a company's baselineresponsibility to respect human rights to address the social formation of gender biases. However, human rights due diligence should identify differential impacts based on gender and consequently help companies avoid creating or exacerbating existing gender biases. A multi-dimensional approach means that human rights due diligence should include examination of gender issues at multiple levels -- for example, the community (e.g. are women in a particular community allowed or expected to work); and the society (e.g. is there institutionalized gender discrimination, whether by law or religion).Questions for discussion: Are these methodologies suitable and sufficient for integrating a gender perspective into the corporate responsibility to respect human rights? Are there other methodologies or examples that you can recommend?What obstacles impede implementation of these methodologies? What additional resources or elaboration is necessary? Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:18:02 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=17 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Despite the fact that suppliers are also companies, and therefore bound by the same responsibility to respect human rights as their buyers, companies face supply chain challenges around the world. The scope of a company's responsibility to respect human rights includes its relationships; therefore, part of human rights due diligence is examining, preventing, and mitigating potential infringements on human rights through suppliers and partners. Questions for discussion: For the purposes of this discussion, who is a supplier? Do suppliers include providers of goods and services not related to core business, i.e. does an apparel company need to vet its stationery supplier? Do suppliers include those who provide goods and services procured through the open market, rather than through ongoing relationships? How should the boundaries of a company's responsibility to respect human rights with regard to its supply chain be described, regardless of industry? To meet their responsibility to respect human rights, must companies engage with states and other parties to improve systemic conditions around their supply chains, for example government capacity to enforce labor laws or provide social services such as education? Some suggest that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights includes supply chains all the way back to raw materials, e.g. apparel companies should be responsible for human rights conditions in cotton plantations, electronics retailers for iron ore mining, beverage companies for sugar cane harvesting. Some say this would be unreasonable. What do you think? Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:08:24 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=16 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Companies that have global operations, large physical footprints, a diverse range of businesses, or complex supply chains could affect the entire spectrum of internationally recognized human rights. While the corporate responsibility to respect requires respecting all rights, it is unlikely that all issues can be addressed simultaneously. Consequently, guidance may be needed on how to prioritize potential and actual impacts on human rights. Question for discussion:What guidance can be given on how to prioritize potential and actual company impacts on human rights? Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:02:14 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=15 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Companies sometimes face situations in which national law or local practice conflicts with international human rights principles. National authorities generally require compliance with their laws; local communities maydemand observance of traditional practices; while others may advocate adherence to international human rights standards, as might the company itself for reasons of principle and consistency.There are places in which law (including United Nations or home state sanctions) prohibits companies from operating, or where the risk of becoming involved in international crimes is so great that companies should refrain from doing business there. But the vast majority of cases do not fall into these categories, leaving companies left with the challenge of finding ways to honor the principles of international human rightsstandards without violating national law.Companies faced with this situation have taken different approaches:Some multinational companies left South Africa during Apartheid to avoid having to implement discriminatory practices, while others stayed and explicitly disobeyed segregation laws, challenging the government to enforce its own legislation.To honor the spirit of freedom of association where it is curtailed by the government, some companies have encouraged workers to form their own representative structures, facilitated elections of worker representatives, provided education on labor rights, and trained local management on how to respond constructively to worker grievances.Companies in the internet and telecommunications sector have responded to government challenges to free expression and privacy by working with human rights advocates to develop guidance on what steps companies should take when faced with such challenges.Questions for discussion: What principled guidance can the SRSG provide to companies faced with conflicts between national and international norms? How should the nature of the rights at risk and the severity of possible abuses be taken into account when dealing with such conflicts?How might multinational companies address this situation differently from domestic companies?What examples can you cite of a company having grappled with conflicts between norms, and how would you evaluate the effectiveness of the company’s actions? Fri, 30 Oct 09 19:00:52 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=14 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Transparency of information is essential to meaningful dialogue about potential human rights impacts, as well as to preventing human rights abuses and addressing problems at their inception. Moreover, in some instances companies may face liability for failing to disclose information relevant to human rights, for example where human rights impacts may expose the company to operational, reputational, or legal risk. (See also the SRSG's project on corporate law and human rights.)At the same time, there are also real and perceived risks associated withdisclosure of some information related to human rights — for example, risks to revealing the identity of complainants, risks to staff and assets, or of potential increased legal liability. Thus, while the principle of transparency is an essential feature of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, there may be situations where companies must limit what they disclose and to whom.This topic links most obviously to the tracking and reporting performance element of human rights due diligence, but some have suggested that to meet the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, other elements of human rights due diligence must be disclosed as well.Questions for discussion:What is it reasonable to expect a company to disclose with regard to its human rights due diligence? What would such transparency achieve? What are the barriers to greater transparency, and how can those barriers be overcome?How might transparency vary across the different elements of human rights due diligence or different stages of a business lifecycle, for example in pre-decision stages where proposals are tentative or confidential? Fri, 30 Oct 09 18:55:33 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=13 http://www.srsgconsultation.org One of the essential principles of human rights is that affected individuals and communities must be consulted in a meaningful way. Consultation is sometimes required for companies to obtain their legal license to operate, and many have found it essential to ensuring their social license to operate. But as with transparency, there are situations where consultation may be limited. Consultation is particularly important where indigenous peoples are concerned; for a discussion specific to indigenous peoples, please visit that page of this forum. Questions for discussion: Can consultation be a universal requirement for companies to meet their responsibility to respect human rights? What about where the government curtails freedom of speech or freedom of association, or insists that consultations take place in the presence of the police or other state agents? Do you know of examples of where effective consultation has taken place in such conditions? How should a company identify the individuals and communities it needsto consult to meet its responsibility to respect human rights? When individuals claim to represent communities, how can their claims be verified? What makes consultation meaningful, i.e. what ensures that the individuals and communities being consulted understand key issues and provide informed and relevant input? How does consultation fit into the different elements of human rights due diligence or different stages of a business lifecycle, for example in pre-decision stages where proposals are tentative or confidential? Fri, 30 Oct 09 18:54:55 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=12 http://www.srsgconsultation.org These “Foundation” pages explain the corporate responsibility to respect human rights so participants have the necessary background to engage constructively in the sections that follow. This section does not have discussion questions like the other sections do, but readers are welcome to add comments and reactions. Updated 5 April 2010 The U.N. "Protect, Respect, Remedy" framework is made up of three pillars: the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others; and greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial. This online consultation is focused on the second pillar, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. But the pillars are not meant to exist in isolation from one another. The framework is intended to reflect and promote the ongoing, dynamic interaction between business, governments, civil society, and other actors, and contribute to collective and cumulative progress. Progress within any one pillar will trigger and reinforce progress in the others. States and business have independent obligations, thus neither needs to, nor should, wait for the other to move first. As States do a better job of fulfilling their duty to protect, that will facilitate and begin to ensure that all companies meet their responsibility to respect. As companies internalize the responsibility to respect, they will increasingly support State efforts to bring laggards along. As access to remedy improves, companies and States alike will learn how better to prevent corporate-related abuses in the first place. And so on. The SRSG welcomes general comments here on the links and synergies between the three pillars of the U.N. "Protect, Respect, Remedy" framework. Fri, 30 Oct 09 18:53:59 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=11 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Updated 12 May 2010: The Special Representative has been collecting views and feedback; here he aims to test some of the propositions that are emerging. The corporate responsibility to respect human rights applies to all business enterprises regardless of size, industry, region or ownership. The scope of the responsibility to respect human rights is determined by the actual and potential impacts of a company's activities and relationships, not its revenues or number of employees. All companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, which requires human rights due diligence; but the resultant company activities will vary depending on the particular context and circumstances. Some have expressed concern that human rights due diligence is too onerous for small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs may have less capacity and more informal processes and management structures than larger companies, which means that their human rights due diligence will take on a different form than that of larger companies. But SMEs can have significant impacts on human rights; if they were absolved of responsibilities because of size, some might deliberately keep the size of their workforces or annual turnover below any designated threshold. In fact, compared to larger, complex, globally-dispersed companies, SMEs may find it easier to ensure that commitments are implemented throughout their business, to react quickly to changing conditions, and to develop strong ongoing relationships with the people they affect -- “bricks and mortar” SMEs often have closer ties to their immediate community than corporations based elsewhere. Questions for discussion: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? How can expectations for SMEs be articulated without diluting their responsibility to respect human rights? Propositions: The corporate responsibility to respect human rights applies to all business enterprises regardless of size, industry, region or ownership. Small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have a responsibility to respect human rights like every other business enterprise, but their human rights due diligence might look different than that of large corporations. For example, most SMEs are privately held and therefore not subject to public reporting requirements, but should consider other means of demonstrating that they are meeting their responsibility to respect. SMEs might particularly benefit from simple tools to help them meet their responsibility to respect, as well as government support and partnerships, whether with other companies or nongovernmental organizations, for example. Fri, 30 Oct 09 18:52:17 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=10 http://www.srsgconsultation.org This page does not have discussion questions, but participants are welcome to add comments and reactions. Updated 5 April 2010 The appropriate corporate response to managing the risks of infringing on the rights of others is to exercise human rights due diligence. One and the same process helps companies address their responsibilities to individuals and communities they impact, and their responsibilities to shareholders—thereby protecting both value and values. Drawing on well-established practices and combining them with what is unique to human rights, the UN "Protect, Respect, Remedy" framework lays out the basic parameters of human rights due diligence, comprising four components, as follows. (For information and discussion about each of the elements, please click on its title. ) Statement of policy Assessing impacts Integration Tracking and reporting performance Each of these components is essential. Without them, a company cannot know and show that it is meeting its responsibility to respect rights. Company-level grievance mechanisms perform two functions: under the tracking and reporting component of due diligence they provide the company with feedback that helps identify risks and avoid escalation of disputes; they can also provide remedy, linking to the third pillar of the “Protect, Respect, Remedy” framework. (For more information on such mechanisms, visit BASESwiki, the SRSG's information and learning resource on company-level and other non-judicial mechanisms.) For information and discussion on each of the elements of human rights due diligence, please click on its title above. If you have comments on human rights due diligence as a whole, please share them here. Fri, 30 Oct 09 11:26:51 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=7 http://www.srsgconsultation.org These “Foundation” pages explain the corporate responsibility to respect human rights so participants have the necessary background to engage constructively in the sections that follow. This section does not have discussion questions like the other sections do, but readers are welcome to add comments and reactions. Updated 5 April 2010 In June 2008, the Human Rights Council welcomed the "Protect, Respect, Remedy" framework that the Special Representative proposed, affirming that there is a corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The corporate responsibility to respect human rights means to avoid infringing on the rights of others, and addressing adverse impacts that may occur. The term “responsibility” to respect, rather than “duty,” is meant to indicate that respecting rights is not an obligation current international human rights law generally imposes directly on companies, although elements may be reflected in domestic laws. At the international level it is a standard of expected conduct acknowledged in virtually every voluntary and soft-law instrument related to corporate responsibility. Companies may undertake additional human rights commitments for philanthropic reasons, or to protect and promote their brand; operational conditions may dictate additional responsibilities in specific circumstances; and contracts with public authorities for particular projects may require them. In other instances, such as natural disasters or public health emergencies, there may be compelling reasons for any social actor with capacity to contribute temporarily. Such contingent and time-bound actions by some companies in certain situations may be both reasonable and desirable. But the proposition that corporate human rights responsibilities as a general rule should be determined by companies’ capacity, whether absolute or relative to States, is troubling. On that premise, a profitable company in a poor country could find itself called upon to perform ever-expanding social and even governance functions—lacking democratic legitimacy, diminishing the State’s incentive to build sustainable capacity, and undermining the company’s own economic role and possibly its commercial viability. Indeed, the proposition invites undesirable strategic gaming in any kind of country context. In contrast, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights exists independently of States’ duties or capacity. It constitutes a universally applicable human rights responsibility for all companies, in all situations. Fri, 30 Oct 09 11:14:11 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=6 http://www.srsgconsultation.org These “Foundation” pages explain the corporate responsibility to respect human rights so participants have the necessary background to engage constructively in the sections that follow. This section does not have discussion questions like the other sections do, but readers are welcome to add comments and reactions. Updated 5 April 2010 Because companies can affect virtually the entire spectrum of internationally recognized rights (as shown in the Special Representative's analysis of some 400 public allegations against companies), the corporate responsibility to respect applies to all such rights. In practice, some rights will be more relevant than others in particular industries and circumstances, and they will be the focus of heightened company attention. But situations may change; therefore broader periodic assessments are necessary to ensure that no significant issue is overlooked. Where can companies find an authoritative enumeration of internationally recognized rights? At minimum, in the International Bill of Human Rights (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) coupled with the ILO Core Conventions. The principles these instruments embody are the foundational elements of the international human rights regime. But if they impose legal obligations on States, not on companies directly, why should companies be concerned with them? Because companies can and do infringe on the enjoyment of the rights these instruments recognize. Moreover, those rights are the baseline benchmarks by which other social actors judge companies’ human rights practices. Depending on circumstances, companies may need to consider additional standards: for instance, in conflict-affected areas, which pose particular challenges, they also should take into account international humanitarian law; and in projects affecting “at-risk” or vulnerable groups—for example, indigenous peoples or children—standards specific to them. Regarding the idea of a treaty specifically on corporate accountability, the Special Representative explained his view in a May 2008 article in Ethical Corporation magazine, “Treaty road not travelled,” that while the option of a treaty should not ruled out for the future, negotiations on an overarching treaty now would be unlikely to get off the ground, and even if they did the outcome could well leave us worse off than we are today. Thu, 29 Oct 09 23:22:04 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=5 http://www.srsgconsultation.org These “Foundation” pages explain the corporate responsibility to respect human rights so participants have the necessary background to engage constructively in the sections that follow. This section does not have discussion questions like the other sections do, but readers are welcome to add comments and reactions. Updated 5 April 2010 What is the scope of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights? What acts or attributes does it encompass? Scope is defined by the actual and potential human rights impacts generated through a company’s own business activities and through its relationships with other parties—such as business partners, entities in its value chain (see also this forum's discussion of supply chains), other non-State actors, and State agents. In addition, companies need to consider how particular country and local contexts might shape the human rights impact of their activities and relationships. Such attributes as companies’ size, influence or profit margins may be relevant factors in determining the scope of their promotional CSR activities, but they do not define the scope of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The relationships dimension is linked to the topic of complicity, the legal meaning of which has been spelled out most clearly in the area of aiding and abetting international crimes, i.e. knowingly providing practical assistance or encouragement that has a substantial effect on the commission of a crime. (See the SRSG's 2008 report, paragraphs 73-81.) Thu, 29 Oct 09 23:20:29 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=4 http://www.srsgconsultation.org Updated 12 May 2010: The Special Representative has been collecting views and feedback; here he aims to test some of the propositions that are emerging. “Human rights” are internationally-recognized, inalienable rights and freedoms aimed at securing dignity and equality for all (see content of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights). Human rights may overlap with issues already addressed in company practice, such as workplace safety,but include impacts that companies may not currently address. Human rights due diligence differs from commercial, technical, and financial risk management in that it is not about assessing risks just to the company, but to the rights of others. Due diligence processes related to health and safety, the environment, and employment are similarly concerned with risks to people. Human rights due diligence is also an inherently dialogical process that should involve engagement and communication with the affected population where possible. Questions for discussion: Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing? What guidance could be provided to companies to enable the right balance between integrating human rights into company systems, and maintaining what is unique about human rights? What do the specific features of human rights imply for whether and how human rights due diligence should be integrated into other processes, or stand alone? Propositions: Companies should aim to integrate human rights into relevant corporate systems, for example for risk management. However, in doing so, companies should keep sight of the full spectrum of internationally-recognized human rights. Human rights due diligence requires that rights-holders be engaged in decisions that have an actual or potential impact on their rights. Wed, 28 Oct 09 11:33:15 -0700 http://www.srsgconsultation.org/discussion?discusison_id=3