These Guiding Principles are grounded in recognition of:

a. States’ primary role in promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including with regard to the operations of business enterprises;

b. The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and meet the societal expectation to not infringe on the human rights of others;

c. The reality that rights and obligations have little meaning unless they are matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached.

These Guiding Principles should be understood as a coherent whole and should be read, individually and collectively, in terms of their objective of enhancing standards and practices with regard to business and human rights so as to achieve tangible results for affected individuals and communities, and to support the social sustainability of business enterprises and markets.

Nothing in these Guiding Principles limits or undermines any legal obligations a State may have undertaken or be subject to under international law with regard to human rights.

These Guiding Principles should be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner, with particular attention to the rights and needs of, and challenges faced by, vulnerable and marginalized groups, and with due regard to gender considerations.

Download the full draft
Register to comment on this topic
previous guiding principlenext guiding principle


posted by: animal_social on Thursday November 25, 2010Ratings Relevance: 2 1 Agreement: 1 1
Dear Sirs,

I would like to know to what extent do the Guidind Principles go further than Global Compact ? Shouldn’t this point be clarified, even for non jurists, in the introduction ? (in other words and simple words, were is the progress relatively to Global Compact ?)

Furthermore, I would like to have the specialists’point of view regarding the intersections and relations between ISO 26 000 and the Guiding Principles.

Looking forward to reading your analysis on those two issues,


PS : je vous remercie d’excuser mes fautes de grammaire en anglais

Register to respond & rate this response
posted by: lgula on Thursday November 25, 2010Ratings Relevance: 1 0 Agreement: 1 0

The SRSG’s work is relevant to the UN Global Compact on many levels. In particular, the SRSG’s elaboration of the corporate responsibility to “respect” human rights as a baseline responsibility and of “complicity” (part of the responsibility to respect), which are some of the main concepts in UN Global Compact Principles 1 and 2.

For more information on the relationship between the UN Global Compact and the work of the SRSG you may wish to visit:

Further, last May the UN Global Compact Office and the SRSG developed an explanatory note about the interconnectivity of these initiatives. See:

Kind regards,


Register to respond & rate this response
posted by: jrunda on Monday December 13, 2010Ratings Relevance: 2 0 Agreement: 1 2
As in my comment to the preface of the GP, I would like to see a motivation for companies to respect, based not only on societal expectations, but also on ethics. What I mean is that companies should respect, even if there were no societal expectations on that subject. Perhaps adding “and ethical behavior” would be enough, between the end of the current “…applicable laws and meet the societal expectation” and “to not infringe on the human rights of others” at “INTRODUCTION” – “b.”


Register to respond & rate this response
posted by: najtaylordotcom on Tuesday December 14, 2010Ratings Relevance: 0 1 Agreement: 0 1
Section (b) in the Introduction is problematic to me:

First, it is a fragmented sentence: “…specialized functions, [are] required…”;

Second, might best refer to laws and norms, since it may be reasonably argued that having agency, business enterprises are often required to adhere to principles and obligations beyond the law – as is indeed then indicated by the phrase “…the societal expectations…”;

Third, the relevance of business enterprises might be best presented from the viewpoint of the market/state/civil society spheres of society, and in addition, the erosion of state soveriegnty, and thus the transfer of responsibilities and obligations (whether legal or moral) to market actors such as businesses;

Fourth, and lastly, the phrase “business enterprises” might be best clarified here – I feel it grossly naive to focus on corporations to the exclusion of institutional investors such and pension and sovereign wealth funds (apologies, point made in an earlier post under ‘Preface’.

Go well,

N.A.J. Taylor

Principal, Taylor McKellar

Register to respond & rate this response
This site was built specifically for the SRSG’s mandate
It was created and is being maintained pro bono by students at The University of Western Ontario as part of their fourth year Design Project.

About Terms of Use Privacy Policy Contact Us