Tag Archives: Business and Human Rights

Human Analytics Update

German translation below. ++++ Die deutsche Version befindet sich unten.

The Human Analytics team has returned to the Washington, D.C. area. After three and a half years in Berlin, the team is glad to be back at such a promising pivotal moment. In the coming weeks, we plan to revamp our website and will continue to publish regular contributions to the Human Rights in Complex Environments blog. Moving forward our blog will focus on developments regarding responsible business conduct in the European and specifically German contexts, in addition to our posts related to security, business, and human rights. Stay tuned for our next blog which will discuss the recent announcement that the German government will pass a supply chain law this year mandating human rights due diligence.

While in Berlin the team had a chance to build out their expertise. Rebecca, whose second language is German, had the opportunity to undertake some interesting work as an independent business and human rights consultant. Most recently, she supported the German development agency GIZ in conducting a multi-stakeholder dialogue with the automotive sector as committed to in Germany’s National Action Plan. She served as lead consultant for the working group tasked with developing a sector-wide grievance mechanism for the automotive industry. She also collaborated with the German Institute for Human Rights and the German Global Compact Network to draft the discussion paper, A Principles-Based Approach to the SDGs – Why It Matters for Business. In addition, she had the opportunity to support the Investor Alliance for Human Rights in drafting various tools for investors, including a guidance on human rights risks in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and a salient issue briefing on the impact of ICT companies on the right to political participation. Before the pandemic limited face to face interaction, Rebecca managed a project for the consultancy twentyfifty supporting the German Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs in meeting its NAP commitment to conduct multi-stakeholder events on sector cross-cutting human rights issues, including commodity procurement, grievance mechanisms, and sourcing practices.

James attended the Technische Universität (TU) Berlin’s Urban Management Master Course to gain new integrated approaches in urban planning to better achieve local stability and peacebuilding outcomes in post-conflict urban environments. While at TU-Berlin, he conducted field research in Berlin, Johannesburg, and Sarajevo. His thesis, “Sarajevo Redux: Socio-Spatial Outcomes and the Perpetuation of Fragility in a Post-Conflict City” is featured on the TU Berlin Urban Management website. Focusing at the neighborhood and municipal levels, the thesis examines how urban planners might better contribute to achieving more sustainable outcomes of peace and stability in an urban post-conflict setting.

The Human Analytics team would love to hear what you have been up to during our hiatus. Please feel free to reach out to us with you own updates or if you have need of our assistance. We are most easily reached via email at info@human-analytics.net.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Das Human Analytics Team ist zurück in der Washington, D.C. Region. Nach dreieinhalb Jahren in Berlin ist das Team froh, an einem so vielversprechenden Wendepunkt zurück zu sein. In den kommenden Wochen planen wir, unsere Website zu überarbeiten und werden wieder regelmäßig Beiträge im Blog “Human Rights in Complex Environments” veröffentlichen. In Zukunft wird sich unser Blog auf Entwicklungen in Bezug auf Unternehmungsverantwortung im europäischen und speziell deutschen Kontext konzentrieren, zusätzlich zu unseren Beiträgen zu Sicherheit, Wirtschaft und Menschenrechten. Unser nächster Blog befasst sich mit der Ankündigung der deutschen Regierung, in diesem Jahr ein Lieferkettengesetz zu verabschieden, das eine menschenrechtliche Sorgfaltspflicht vorschreibt.

Während seines Aufenthalts in Berlin hatte das Team die Gelegenheit, sein Fachwissen auszubauen. Rebecca, deren Zweitsprache Deutsch ist, hatte einige interessante Aufträge als Wirtschafts- und Menschenrechtsberaterin. Zuletzt unterstützte sie die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GIZ, bei der Durchführung eines Multi-Stakeholder-Dialogs mit dem Automobilsektor, wie er im deutschen Nationalen Aktionsplan vorgesehen ist. Sie fungierte als leitende Beraterin der Arbeitsgruppe, die einen unternehmensübergreifenden Beschwerdemechanismus für die Automobilindustrie entwickeln sollte. Außerdem arbeitete sie mit dem Deutschen Institut für Menschenrechte und dem Deutschen Global Compact Netzwerk zusammen, um das Diskussionspapier “A Principles-Based Approach to the SDGs – Why It Matters for Business” zu verfassen. Darüber hinaus hatte sie die Gelegenheit, die Investor Alliance for Human Rights bei der Erarbeitung verschiedener Tools für Investoren zu unterstützen, darunter ein Leitfaden zu menschenrechtlichen Risiken in dem Uigurischen Autonomen Gebiet Xinjiang und ein “Salient Issue Briefing” zu den Auswirkungen von IKT-Unternehmen auf das Recht auf politische Partizipation. Bevor die Pandemie Präsenzprojekte unmöglich machte, leitete Rebecca ein Projekt für die Beratungsfirma twentyfifty, die das Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales bei der Erfüllung seiner NAP-Verpflichtung unterstützte, Multi-Stakeholder-Veranstaltungen zu sektorübergreifenden Menschenrechtsthemen durchzuführen, darunter Rohstoffbeschaffung, Beschwerdemechanismen und Einkaufsverträge und -prozesse.

James studierte im Masterstudiengang Urban Management an der Technischen Universität (TU) Berlin, um neue, integrierte Ansätze in der Stadtplanung zu erlernen, um lokale Stabilität und Frieden in städtischen Umgebungen nach Konflikten zu ermöglichen. Während seiner Zeit an der TU-Berlin unternahm er Feldforschungen in Berlin, Johannesburg und Sarajevo. Seine Masterarbeit “Sarajevo Redux: Socio-Spatial Outcomes and the Perpetuation of Fragility in a Post-Conflict City” ist auf der Website der TU Berlin Urban Management Program zu finden. Mit Fokus auf das Viertel und die kommunale Ebene untersuchte die Arbeit, wie Stadtplaner dazu beitragen können, nachhaltig Frieden und Stabilität in einer städtischen Post-Konflikt-Situation zu erreichen.

Das Human Analytics Team würde gerne hören, was Sie während unseres Sabbaticals gemacht haben. Bitte zögern Sie nicht, uns Ihre Updates mitzuteilen oder sich mit uns in Kontakt zu setzen, wenn Sie unsere Hilfe benötigen. Wir sind am einfachsten per E-Mail unter info@human-analytics.net zu erreichen.

Panel: The Role of Trade Associations in Promoting Human Rights, Sustainability and CSR

Readers of this blog in the Washington, D.C. area may be interested in attending an upcoming panel discussing the role that U.S. trade associations can play in promoting human rights, sustainability, and CSR. Representatives from four different industries will share case studies of various initiatives they have undertaken and lessons learned. The US Council for International Business will be moderating the panel. The panel will be held at the offices of DLA Piper on Wednesday, Jun 21 from 12:00-2:00pm. It is free and open to the public and a light lunch will be served. Registration is requested, please RSVP to Sosseh Prom at the IBA (Sosseh.Prom@int-bar.org).

U.S. Government Releases First National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct

On Friday, the U.S. government released its first National Action Plan (NAP) on Responsible Business Conduct. The NAP is the culmination of a two year process launched by President Obama in 2014 to create a plan consistent with the U.S. commitment to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Over that time period, four stakeholder consultations were conducted across the country and numerous written submissions received. The U.S. now joins the ranks of eleven other countries that have completed NAPs on business and human rights, with the UK being the first to publish one in 2013.

With the National Security Council at the helm, the NAP was developed through the interagency process. The NAP provides a very positive perspective of U.S. companies’ leadership role around the world in following the rule of law, upholding human rights, and strengthening the communities in which they operate. It builds on the idea that “businesses can perform well while doing good and that governments should facilitate the conditions for RBC [responsible business conduct] to take place.”

The NAP contains a comprehensive (although not exhaustive) list of various ongoing and new initiatives that reflect the U.S. government’s commitment to fostering responsible business conduct, with the preponderance of the list focused to ongoing efforts. The initiatives are broken down into five categories that evidence or establish efforts to lead by example, collaborate in multi-stakeholder initiatives, facilitate responsible conduct, recognize positive performance, and provide access to remedy. A number of new action items stand out, although details are sparse. For example, readers of this blog that operate in complex environments may be interested in learning that there will be enhanced enforcement of U.S. laws related to forced labor, new research and tools on preventing trafficking in supply chains, a number of efforts related to responsible land use and reducing land conflict, greater stakeholder engagement in the extractives industry in East Africa, as well as efforts to promote corporate reporting and to consult with stakeholders on improving access to remedy, among other things.

Readers of the NAP should not expect to find: a critical assessment of the effectiveness of existing U.S. laws and regulations, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and various other efforts to promote responsible business conduct; a stock-taking of the greatest human rights challenges faced by U.S. companies in various sectors operating domestically and abroad; an appraisal of the success with which those challenges are identified and addressed and victims of abuses provided access to redress; or benchmarks against which to measure implementation, progress, and accountability to the ongoing and new initiatives identified. Despite recommendations by the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) and other civil society organizations and academics, the NAP process did not begin with a comprehensive National Baseline Assessment. (See here for a “shadow” National Baseline Assessment.)

That being said, the NAP does set the stage for continued advancement of responsible conduct by U.S. companies as they operate here and around the world. It enables businesses and civil society to hold the U.S. government to its commitments and provides some interesting new avenues for collaboration. Although a detailed road map is not laid out, stakeholders are encouraged to continue to provide feedback and suggestions to the Department of State via a dedicated NAP email. Ongoing engagement will be important as a new administration enters office, which as of now has not made commitments to protecting human rights from infringement by economic actors and has promised to engage in extensive deregulation.

Analyses and reactions from various stakeholders to the NAP will be appearing in the coming days and weeks, and can be found on ICAR’s dedicated U.S. NAP webpage. For those readers located in the Washington, D.C. area who are interested in hearing U.S. government and other stakeholders’ perspectives on the NAP and its development process, an event – The U.S. National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct: Reflections on the Way Here and the Road Ahead – will be held at the American University Washington College of Law on January 12 from 9am-12pm. The event is free and open to the public, although registration is required.

New Tools for States and Companies Assist with Better Governance of the Private Security Industry

V3 Cover pictureIn the last few months, the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) has released three new tools to help States better regulate private security companies (PSCs) and PSCs ensure the responsible provision of security services. An international foundation headquartered in Geneva, DCAF has distinguished itself for the leading role it has played in fostering private security governance by providing research and practical tools, promoting the sharing and implementation of regulatory best practices, and supporting the development of international consensus on norms and standards for the industry.

First, in its role as Secretariat for the Montreux Document Forum (MDF), DCAF issued in June a Legislative Guidance Tool for States to Regulate Private Military and Security Companies. The MDF was established to assist States with implementing the legal obligations and Good Practices outlined in the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict (Montreux Document) by sharing lessons learned and best practices. Currently the MDF has 53 participating States and three international organizations (EU, NATO, OSCE). The Legislative Guidance Tool was presented to the MDF participating States as a resource for implementing their Montreux Document commitments in national laws and regulations. However, whereas the Montreux Document is primarily applicable to States’ governance of private military and security companies (PMSCs) during armed conflict (although with relevance beyond armed conflict), the Legislative Guidance Tool has a wider remit recognizing that the privatization of security services is equally prevalent in the domestic context. Therefore, the Tool has the dual purpose of capturing existing national legislation, policies, and best practices, as well as offering guidance to lawmakers to develop and improve national legislation to bring it in line with international obligations and recognized good practices. It draws on the guidance in the Montreux Document, but also a range of other hard and soft law international frameworks.

As the Legislative Guidance Tool points out, “existing national laws are not always clear on how a State’s international human rights obligations apply to and govern the operations of PMSCs.” The Tool breaks down the national regulatory framework into seven areas that may pose challenges. These revolve around key issues such as including an explicit expectation that companies respect human rights, determining the applicability of legislation in terms of defining the scope of the industry and ensuring adherence extraterritorially, and making determinations about what types of services are permitted and prohibited. Other issues addressed include establishing an authority that is enabled to oversee and control PMSCs’ activities, creating laws to authorize and license companies, and vetting and selection of PMSCs for States that contract with PMSCs. The final two chapters address incorporating provisions into national legislation that address the obligations of PMSCs and their personnel to take steps to avoid committing harmful acts, and that ensure adequate accountability for harms and effective remedies for victims of abuses.

In all, 32 separate challenges are identified and analyzed, and recommendations and examples of good practice are provided to address them. Armed with such detailed guidance on the nature of effective legislation, the MDF could move beyond being primarily a dialogue forum and could push for legislative reform by requiring member States to report annually on their progress in implementing their Montreux Document commitments and assessing those reports against these good practices.

Second, honing in specifically on good practices related to States’ and international organizations’ procurement and contracting of private security services, DCAF also recently released a scoping study entitled, Putting Private Security Regulation Into Practice: Sharing Good Practices on Procurement and Contracting 2015-2016. The study examines how the power of the purse string offers one strategy for ensuring better private security governance. Four key international regulatory initiatives, three directly relevant to private security (the Montreux Document, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, and the draft of a possible convention on PMSCs) and one with broader applicability to all companies (the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights), have established that States can use their extensive commercial transactions as a means to promote respect for human rights by companies.

The study breaks down the five stages of procurement and provides examples of best practices for each drawing on key contracting States’ (US, Switzerland, and Australia) and international organizations’ (EU, UN, NATO, and OSCE) experiences. The five stages of public procurement are 1. Needs Assessment, Authority, Scope of Application and Principles, 2. Solicitation and Notice, 3. Evaluation of Potential Contractors, 4. Contract, and 5. Monitoring, Enforcement, and Accountability. A notable contribution of the study are the annexes providing concise summaries of the procurement regulations of the EU, UN NATO, and OSCE. What is not addressed in the study is the extent to which these types of procurement best practices are actually being implemented across the broader set of Montreux Document participating States, and whether contracting authorities are adequately trained and resourced to ensure high human rights related standards in contracts and sufficient monitoring and accountability; these latter shortcomings in adherence to the Montreux Document were raised by DCAF in a report last year, Progress and Opportunities: Challenges and Recommendations for Montreux Document Participants.

Finally, DCAF has been equally involved in participating and supporting various multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and developing tools and other resources to assist companies operating in high risk environments with meeting their human rights responsibilities. Last month, together with the International Committee of the Red Cross, DCAF released the third version of its online toolkit Assessing Security and Human Rights Challenges in Complex Environments, which is available on the Security and Human Rights Knowledge Hub. Human Analytics has blogged in the past on earlier versions of the Toolkit. Much like other DCAF tools, the Toolkit is structured around challenges, in this case those that companies face when operating in complex environments such as working with host governments, public security forces, and private security provides. The Toolkit identifies “real-life” operational challenges and provides good practices and recommendations to address them, as well as practical tools, such as checklists, case studies, and additional resources, many of which are available on the Knowledge Hub. It is imminently useful and readily accessible, as users can simply click on a particular challenge they face, which will take them to a page with recommendations to address that challenge.

The most recent version of this “living document” contains an updated Chapter 1 Working with host governments, as well as a completely new chapter, Chapter 4 Working with communities, which addresses managing relations with local communities. As the Toolkit rightfully notes, maintaining positive relations with local communities, which is essential to a company’s social license to operate and can bring reputational gains as well as mitigate operational risks, can be difficult to achieve. Companies often face resistance because of long standing grievances related to the operating context which have gone unaddressed such as “employment, land, environment, compensation, resettlement, and negative legacies from previous company projects.” The chapter details a total of 18 challenges related to strategies for stakeholder engagement; the means to share information and effectively consult and elicit consent; internal management challenges related to stakeholder engagement; and the security impacts of operations on local communities and, from the reverse perspective, the community’s impact on company security. The chapter also offers some overarching recommendations that highlight the importance of understanding the local context and adequately assessing related risks, which includes understanding the stakeholder landscape. Local stakeholders’ comfort with participation increases with engagement processes that are inclusive, transparent, responsive to local communities needs and interests, respectful of local culture, and involve communities in identifying problems and creating solutions. Stakeholder engagement is an ongoing process relevant throughout the lifecycle of an activity and can involve a significant amount of resources and time. However, not doing it well can be just as costly, if not more.

The release of DCAF’s new tools provide evidence that the security industry and its stakeholders have largely found consensus on the normative expectations for the responsible provision of security services, both in terms of State obligations as regulators and clients of the industry and corporate responsibilities to respect human rights. But even more so, they demonstrate that we are moving beyond a phase of expectation setting into a new phase of practical implementation. These tools from DCAF can aid both States and PSCs in this new phase, if they are applied. It is the collective responsibility of the industry, governments, civil society, and other stakeholders to make sure this happens.

REMINDER: Register for Corporate Responsibility for Federal Contractors June 9 Webinar

The Society of American Military Engineers is hosting a webinar, entitled Corporate Responsibility for Federal Contractors, on Thursday, June 9 from 1:00pm-2:30pm. Human Analytics’ Rebecca DeWinter-Schmitt will discuss procurement requirements related to the responsible provision of security services. Foley Hoag’s Sarah Altschuller will address new requirements to combat trafficking in persons.

Federal contractors impacted by requirements related to the prevention of human trafficking and the provision of private security services, and who want to familiarize themselves with these new regulations and develop the needed policies and systems to implement them, will benefit from participation in this webinar.

The U.S. Government (USG) is the world’s single largest purchaser of a wide range of goods and services. Increasingly, the USG recognizes that its procurement power can be used to promote responsible business conduct by its contractors. Two recent developments in federal acquisition regulations exemplify this trend, namely new requirements related to combating trafficking in persons and to promoting the responsible provision of private security services.

These changes in federal acquisition regulations reflect a commitment by the USG to observing international standards for responsible business conduct. These requirements are consistent with the USG’s current effort to develop a National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct, which will outline its efforts to implement the provisions of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As part of that process, the USG sees its procurement policy as one way to fulfill its obligation to protect people from human rights infringements linked to business activities.

This webinar should be of particular interest to contracting and compliance representatives, in-house counsel, and government relations staff. To register, click here.

UK publishes updated National Action Plan on Business & Human Rights

UK NAPOn May 12th, 2016 the United Kingdom published its updated National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, a new version of its original National Action Plan first published in 2013 after the 2011 publication of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).  The updated plan details the UK Government’s ongoing steps and activities to support the implementation of the UNGPs, and is organized along the three pillar “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework of the UNGPs.

The updated plan summarizes many of the relevant developments and events that have occurred internationally since the release of the UNGPs and the 2013 UK National Action Plan, including new initiatives concerning human rights reporting by businesses, the ranking of companies based on their human rights performance, and the International Code of Conduct Association’s emerging compliance mechanisms for private security providers.

Additionally, the new plan contains several topical case studies to illustrate legislation, events, reports, and project initiatives related to business and human rights, including the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act and related guidance for companies on increased transparency in supply chains; the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster, where over 1100 people were killed; and the Nairobi Process, an initiative to integrate the UNGPs into the newly expanding extractives sector in Kenya.

The updated plan also provides UK Government actions related to managing private security company (PSC) and human rights risks, specifically regarding its activities supporting the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the newly released ISO 28007 maritime standard and ISO 18788 land standard for private security companies.  ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, Management System for the Quality of Private Security Company Operations – Requirements with Guidance (PSC.1) is not, however, referenced in the UK’s original or updated National Action Plan.  This is interesting considering the reported UK Government’s 2013 statement conveying their intent to adopt the PSC.1 standard “for UK-based PSCs working in complex environments on land overseas.” One can only speculate that perhaps the UK Government views ISO 18788, which is based on PSC.1,  as the new standard for British overseas private security providers.

Numerous countries are in the process of developing and implementing similar National Action Plan efforts.  In addition to the United Kingdom, 7 other states (Colombia, Finland, Norway, Lithuania, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark) have already written National Action Plans to demonstrate and map their efforts to implement their commitment to the UNGPs, and approximately 28 more are underway in the process.  The US Government’s National Action Plan is also under development and is expected to be released in the very near future.

REMINDER: Register for Companies and Climate Change

Companies and Climate Change flyer_April 29

Next week Thursday, May 5 “Companies and Climate Change: Legal Liability and Human Rights Challenges After Paris/COP21 is being held in Washington, D.C. from 2:30-5:30pm as an official side event of Climate Action 2016. A multi-stakeholder summit, Climate Action 2016 is the first major international event on the implementation of the Paris Agreement since it was adopted by governments at COP21 in 2015. Summit co-hosts include the United Nations, World Bank, University of Maryland, and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development.

Climate Change is the defining issue of our time.  In the coming decade and beyond, every major commercial enterprise will feel its impact, some more severely than others.   In the wake of the Paris Agreement, it is now clear that pressure on businesses to reduce carbon emissions and to help mitigate the impact of climate change will increase.  It is almost certain that we will see an increase in the use of laws, regulations, lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits to accelerate the pace at which businesses address climate-related issues.  What can businesses expect in the coming years? What liability might businesses face for economic damages and human rights impacts attributed to climate change?  What can businesses do today to avert climate-related challenges tomorrow?  How does doing the right thing with respect to climate change also make good business sense?  Companies and Climate Change will address these and other questions. This event is co-hosted by the International Bar Association, Washington College of Law’s Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, Center for International Environmental Law, Institute for Human Rights and Business, and Sidney Austin LLP.

Please register by clicking the following link:  RSVP.  You will be asked to provide your email address before being prompted to provide basic registration information.  By registering, you will enjoy free access to the two sessions from 2:30–5:30pm, but not the entire Climate Action 2016 summit.  If you are interested in attending the entire summit, please send a request to Sosseh Prom (Sosseh.Prom@int-bar.org), and your request will be transmitted to the summit organizers.

 

Companies and Climate Change: Legal Liability and Human Rights Challenges After Paris/COP21

Companies and Climate Change FlyerThe International Bar Association, Washington College of Law’s Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, Center for International Environmental Law, Institute for Human Rights and Business, and Sidney Austin LLP are pleased to invite you to attend “Companies and Climate Change: Legal Liability and Human Rights Challenges After Paris/COP21,” which is being held in Washington, D.C. from 2:30-5:30pm on May 5.  It is an official side event of Climate Action 2016, a multi-stakeholder summit being held in Washington, D.C. on May 5-6.  Climate Action 2016 is the first major international event on the implementation of the Paris Agreement since it was adopted by governments at COP21 in 2015. Summit co-hosts include the United Nations, World Bank, University of Maryland, and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development.

Climate Change is the defining issue of our time.  In the coming decade and beyond, every major commercial enterprise will feel its impact, some more severely than others.   In the wake of the Paris Agreement, it is now clear that pressure on businesses to reduce carbon emissions and to help mitigate the impact of climate change will increase.  It is almost certain that we will see an increase in the use of laws, regulations, lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits to accelerate the pace at which businesses address climate-related issues.  What can businesses expect in the coming years? What liability might businesses face for economic damages and human rights impacts attributed to climate change?  What can businesses do today to avert climate-related challenges tomorrow?  How does doing the right thing with respect to climate change also make good business sense?  Companies and Climate Change will address these and other questions.

Please register by clicking the following link:  RSVP.  You will be asked to provide your email address before being prompted to provide basic registration information.  I should note that, by registering, you will enjoy access to the two sessions from 2:30–5:30pm, but not the entire Climate Action 2016 summit.  If you are interested in attending the entire summit, please send a request to Sosseh Prom (Sosseh.Prom@int-bar.org), and your request will be transmitted to the summit organizers.

 

Panel on Business Challenges and Human Rights

On April 12, Human Analytics’ Rebecca DeWinter-Schmitt will be speaking on a business and human rights panel at the 25th anniversary celebration of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Rebecca is pro bono Director of the Human Rights in Business Program at the Center. The panel entitled, Business Challenges and Human Rights: The Case of Apple, will discuss issues faced by the company such as ensuring users’ right to privacy, the sourcing of electronic components containing minerals mined in conflict zones, and the manufacturing of electronic equipment in factories implicated in workplace abuses, as well as Apple’s response to these challenges. Other panels include international standards in the fight against torture, promoting human rights in the U.S., and advancing human rights through impact litigation. The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required.

25th Anniversary Conference Flyer final

MNCs are moving to greater accountability – are business schools meeting the demand?

global businessBusiness school programs are designed to produce skilled managers who can lead enterprises and maximize stakeholder value both now and in the future. Core business disciplines such as entrepreneurship, marketing, cost accounting, finance, and program management remain constant to a manager’s professional education, but MBA programs must always adapt to the changing business conditions. For example, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, business education curriculum rapidly evolved in response to growing globalization with the opening up of new markets and international businesses opportunities facilitated by new transportation and communication technologies.

Today, however, multinational corporations (MNCs) must manage and operate with greater accountability and expectations in a hyper-globalized economy.  MNCs have increasingly complex global supply chains that reach into states with weak governance, instability, and at times active conflict. In such areas, states may not be able to fulfill their obligations to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, to include private actors such as businesses.

As a result, companies are increasingly adopting policies and practices to meet new business and human rights standards and disclosure requirements to identify and address adverse impacts on human rights caused by their business activities or supply chain relationships anywhere in the word, and regardless if the host state is able or willing to meet its human rights obligations.  The scale of this shift in company operating requirements for MNCs has created new management needs for business schools to consider. Are they doing all they can do to prepare future managers to lead in these companies?

Increasing international and state mandates for business and human rights

International framework initiatives for human rights due diligence and good management practices have been gathering momentum since the 1990s. The 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) require companies to identify, prevent, mitigate and address adverse impacts on human rights caused by either their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. Several industry sector-specific initiatives are also in place, to include frameworks for the apparel manufacturing, extractives, private security, and information technology industries.

The number of business and human rights-related mandatory disclosure requirements for MNCs is also increasing. From 2013 to 2015, a number of non-discretionary company disclosure requirements involving human rights and business activities and/or supply chains abroad have been implemented at the state level, to include the United States and the United Kingdom.

Another example is the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (CA-TISCA), the first of its kind in the United States.  Every retail seller and manufacturer doing business in California with annual revenues exceeding $100 million is now required to release an annual statement detailing efforts to eliminate slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chains. California’s positon as the largest state economy in the U.S. and the world’s 8th largest economy makes this recent legislation particularly relevant.

Beginning in 2014, Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act required public company “conflict mineral” disclosures to the SEC to disclose whether certain minerals used in the manufacture of various products is sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or neighboring countries.

Likewise, in 2013 the U.S. Government stipulated that any U.S. person who invests $500,000 or more in Burma (Myanmar), or invests in Burma’s oil and gas sector, is required to complete and submit Department of State reporting requirements as set forth in the Department of State’s Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma.

MNCs are also paying close attention to recently released relevant National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights.  Since 2013, 10 states have developed national action plans on business and human rights as part of the state responsibility to disseminate and implement the UNGPs. Nineteen other states, to include the United States, have national action plans currently under development. The U.S government is expected to publish its National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct in 2016.  The plan is expected to detail efforts to implement the U.S. government’s commitment to the UNGPs.

The corporate challenge – moving from commitment to practice in business operations and relationships  

It’s not only that states are increasing business disclosure requirements, MNCs themselves have increasingly committed to business and human rights principles.

Over 8000 company chief executives (part of 12,000 + total signatories in 170 countries worldwide) have signed Letters of Commitment expressing their commitment to the United Nations Global Compact Ten Principles on human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption. Principle 2 states that businesses should make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Many MNCs have also endorsed the UNGPs, the first authoritative global framework to establish the responsibility to identify and address human rights risks related to business activities, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which, while non-binding,  provide principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context, to include how corporate due diligence should be observed in a conflict region. The OECD Guidelines were updated to comport with the UNGPs.

The adoption rate of management practices to implement business and human rights policies differ by industry sector and risk exposure – companies with previous human rights incidents or that operated in a high risk industry were the earliest adopters. Many of these early adopters participated in  multi-stakeholder initiatives involving academics, civil society, governments, industry, and international organizations to develop business and human rights frameworks specific to their industry, to include the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights for the extractive sector, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers for the international security sector, the Fair Labor Association for the apparel sector, and the  Global Network Initiative for the information technology sector.

Individual companies have also demonstrated their commitment to business and human rights practices when investing in new markets.  When Ball Corporation, a U.S.-based can and tin company decided to enter Burma (Myanmar) to manufacture beverage cans for locally produced Coca Cola products, they conducted due diligence on how their products would impact local populations.  In Ball’s July 2015 Responsible Investment in Burma report, they described their approach to stakeholder engagement which was further elaborated on during an interview with company leadership on National Public Radio.

However, while companies are increasingly showing the commitment to adopting business and human rights policies and practices, it is far more difficult to translate these same corporate commitments to actual management practices and metrics at the operational and supply chain levels.

Consider the recent  article by Harvard Business Review (HBR) on an Amnesty International report on major global technology and automobile brands with reported human rights abuses in their extensive global cobalt supply chains. The Harvard article concludes that the implicated global brands cited in the report do want to make their supply chains more ethical and would not willingly tolerate human rights abuses in their supply chains. Instead, HBR points out that failure to address ongoing abuses may more revolve around “willful ignorance”.  Meaning that while companies do care about the ethics of their operations, they’re not actively investigating their supply chains to seek out this information. HBR feels that a reason for this may be that company decision makers may be wired or have “psychological mechanisms” to make them want to avoid difficult issues, such as initiating internal investigations.

Recent first hand reports such as this suggests that even the most respected of MNCs can still unknowingly fall short of their responsibility to respect human rights within their supply chains, regardless of the commitment of the company. Accordingly, MNCs need business managers familiar with business and human rights standards and able to identify and rectify gaps in their human rights management practices as it applies to their specific business operations and supplies chains throughout the world.

The global business environment has changed. The business school mission to prepare future business leaders has not.

It is not yet clear if business schools, with some notable exceptions, are sufficiently adapting their own programs to prepare future business leaders to apply and integrate human rights management practices into company operations sufficiently to responsibly lead and grow their businesses in today’s far more globalized and connected business environment.

The establishment of the Center for Business and Human Rights (CBHR) at New York University’s Stern School of Business in 2013 is certainly one indicator that business schools are adapting their programs to prepare MBA candidates for the human rights in business needs of MNCs in the 21st century. NYU Stern is the first business school to establish a specific center for business and human rights and sets the example for other business schools to follow.

However, several other indicators suggest that there is still a very long way to go for professional business education to sufficiently adapt to fully preparing future managers for the changing needs and challenges of companies operating in today’s global market.

The UN Global Compact Office and the Secretariat of the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) maintains an open letter to academic institutions to make the case that demand for multidisciplinary business and human rights education is growing worldwide and that companies are looking to hire graduates with the skills to manage the human rights risks and opportunities of business activities and relationships.

In 2014, the Financial Times published an Op-ed by Professor Ken McPhail detailing his view that business schools are ignoring the emergent role of companies in modern society, rightly pointing out that the power relationship between states and MNCs has shifted dramatically over the past 40 years.  In 2016, Professor Dorothée Baumann-Pauly of NYU Stern and HEC Lausanne, expanded on the view that business schools could be more innovative when she  articulated a number of current challenges of teaching business and human rights at a business school.

Business schools must be responsive to the needs of businesses operating in a hyperglobal economy where both conditions and stakeholder expectations have evolved significantly.  Business schools can, and should, prepare their MBA candidates to integrate human rights due diligence and good management practices into company operations and supply chain relationships. Not doing so fails to support the full development of management talent now required for multinational firms to competitively operate.

Until this happens, companies are well advised to seek outside human rights management expertise as needed to meet their human rights due diligence requirements.  There are cost-savings and efficiencies in drawing on such expertise to identify means to mitigate potential reputational, legal, operational, and financial liabilities.  An outside perspective can provide a valuable independent, critical analysis of companies’ existing policies and practices.  Furthermore, the expertise of third parties with experience in assisting companies in meeting their human rights commitments can be leveraged to assist with developing the needed in-house capacities.

Business schools have played a crucial role in preparing leaders to maximize value in their organizations for nearly two hundred years. It is no less essential that they continue to do so in the 21st century.

Human Analytics announces new addition to its Advisory Board

James Yellin

(6 January, 2015) – Human Analytics LLC is pleased to announce the appointment of Ambassador James Yellin to its Advisory Board. Ambassador Yellin is a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State and has served in a number of diplomatic assignments around the world to include ambassador, deputy chief of mission, consul general, political officer, economics officer, and acting USAID country director. Ambassador Yellin is also a military veteran and served as a member of the U.S. Army Special Forces in Vietnam.

“We’re thrilled to have Jim join our exceptional team of advisors. We will greatly benefit from his significant experience and expertise in multi-stakeholder dialogue, conflict resolution, and economic development in complex environments. He has done so much to serve this country and we are truly fortunate to have him as a resource,” said Rebecca DeWinter-Schmitt, Senior Managing Director, Human Analytics LLC.

With the addition of Jim to its Advisory Board, Human Analytics is extremely fortunate to be able to benefit from the experience and insight of thought leaders from the fields of private sector stability operations, human rights due diligence, business operations in complex environments, conflict mitigation, and research and analysis on international security matters.

 

Great expectations: Companies must demonstrate socially responsible business practices to keep consumers’ business

Coming to an aisle near you: Rising consumer expectations for socially responsible business practices.

A number of recent events, including this week’s Associated Press’ report linking Thai shrimp producers – such as those that ship to popular U.S. grocery stores and restaurants –  to slave labor, recent decisions by large publicly traded companies to establish corporate human rights policies and programs, and the findings of a recent national survey on consumer sentiment towards corporate social responsibility, indicate the increasing attention that companies, news organizations, and now consumers themselves are giving to a company’s ability to demonstrate ethical and socially responsible business practices.

Indicators of this increasing consumer expectation for ethical business practices also include the recent media statement from New Jersey Republican Congressman Chris Smith, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, in response to the Associated Press’ findings of slave labor links to the Thailand fish and shrimp industry’s supply chains, as well as this quarter’s release of a national consumer survey conducted by Aflac, a large U.S.-based insurer.

Representative Smith was quoted by the media as saying, “All of us may find ourselves eating a slave-made product without knowing it, but once we know it, we all have a moral obligation, I believe, to make a personal decision to boycott it.”

Details from the 2015 Aflac-Light Speed GMI’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) survey fact sheet are based on a national survey that included 6,000 respondents (2,000 nationally representative and 400 within each of the top-10 Designated Market Areas in the United States). Expanding its scope to include the investment sector, Aflac also surveyed 355 investment professionals about how corporate social responsibility impacts their decisions.

While Aflac’s conclusions are drawn from a single survey research effort, the selected sample pool indicates wide representational coverage of the U.S. consumer markets and, at least in terms of the number of participants, a significant sampling of investment professionals. The findings are worth noting and indicate substantial consumer preference towards perceived ethical companies as well as a strong bias for working for companies with a strong CSR program and publically recognized ethics. In both areas, strongest consumer preferences for perceived company ethics/values are attributed to millennials, which, as a group, will continue to rise in overall market purchasing power.  Specific conclusions from Aflac’s research include:

  • 79% of consumers believe companies that stay true to their ethics/values outperform others in their field.
  • 82% of millennials believe companies that stay true to their ethics/values outperform others in their field.
  • 92% of millennials are more likely to purchase from an ethical company.
  • 75% of consumers said they would be happier to work for a company with a strong CSR program.
  • 44% of consumers feel that salary is most important when it comes to a prospective employer, but 74% of consumers are likely to seek out employment at a company that has been awarded publicly for its ethics.
  • 82% of millennials are likely to seek employment at a company that has been publicly awarded for its ethics, whereas 68% of people over 35 would.

 

While continued analysis is needed to further understand the specifics of rising consumer expectations for socially responsible business practices, the factors and events above seem sufficient enough to suggest that rising consumer expectations for firms to “know and show” socially responsible business practices has potentially very real commercial benefits and consequences for firms to consider.

 

Business and Human Rights: What is in Store for 2016?

Each year, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) releases a list of what they consider the top issues in the field of business and human rights for that coming year. This year is no exception and the BHRRC has announced that the list for 2016 will be released in the coming weeks. Reflecting on 2015 list, it is worth noting developments related to these ten issues and looking to 2016, conjecturing what the new year brings. For those unfamiliar with the list, here is what the BHRRC identified as the top issues this year.

Top 10 business & human rights issues for 2015

1. Reinforcing Citizen Participation in the Business and Human Rights Agenda, including by Protecting Human Rights Defenders

2. Overcoming Barriers Preventing Access to Effective Remedies for Corporate Related Human Rights Abuses

3. Scaling Up Efforts to Eradicate Forced Labour, Slavery and Trafficking from Services, Manufacturing, and Global Supply Chains

4. Strengthening Trade Union Movements in an Era of Growing Casualisation of Work

5. Protecting the Right to Privacy and Ending Mass Surveillance of Digital Communications

6. Ensuring Corporate Use or Acquisition of Land Does Not Undermine the Rights of Small Farmers and Local Communities

7. Developing Policy and Regulatory Architecture to Tackle Human Rights Abuses Arising from Tax Avoidance and Illicit Financial Flows

8. Combating Sexual Violence in the Workplace

9. Making the Private Sector Role in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) work for Human Rights

10. Strengthening State Approaches to Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including through National Action Plans[1]

In the U.S., the State Department’s lead role in developing a National Action Plan for the U.S. government has raised a host of issues and has drawn comments from advocates. Perhaps the biggest issue of concern to civil society organizations is the fact that the National Action Plan will apply primarily to companies operating outside of the U.S. This is a troubling issue as many domestic human rights problems continue to develop – workplace rights, rights of migrant workers as well as privatized prisons, water services and other functions normally within the province of government being at the forefront of the debate.While this Top 10 list is not predicting the future as much as reflecting of the growing trends in the field, it is interesting to examine some examples of how these issues have developed over the year.

In the cyber realm, right to privacy remains a concern with continuing recognition that some ICT companies play an important role, if not complicity, in government surveillance. The revelation that a European cyber security company, Hacking Team, was providing invasive Internet security services to a number of repressive governments around the world reflects a growing concern about the risks facing companies that cooperate with host governments everywhere, particularly if governments are not being transparent with their data collection policies and how they are handling the obtained information.

Eradication of forced labor remains a hot button topic, with the ongoing labor problems in Qatar related to the construction of the World Cup facilities creating considerable concern. With more than 2400 foreign workers dying on the job, and massive corruption within FIFA, the World Cup sponsor, attention is high on the problems facing those workers as well as others around the world.

With regard to casualization of labor, the current debate surrounding drivers working for the virtual taxi service, Uber, keeps this issue in the minds of many people. In addition, the recognition of the important role that unions play in securing adequate pay and acceptable working conditions for people has become acute when people witness titans of industry seeing annual massive pay raises while workers’ wages remain stagnant.

So what is in store for 2016?

While we cannot predict what the people at the BHRRC will identify for 2016, based on what we have observed this year, a couple of predictions are in order.

First, missing from the list for 2015 is the increasing move toward the development of a business and human rights treaty. Viewed by some as a misguided effort prompted by Ecuador and several other states not normally associated with respecting human rights, the issue continues to gain traction in the business and human community and promises to become one of the top issues in 2016.

Second, with the anticipated release of the U.S. draft National Action Plan in 2016, there will likely be heated debate not only from the advocacy community but from business as well, with both sides taking predictable positions on the scope, implementation, and effectiveness of the Plan.

Third, with the influx of refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries into Europe, the risk of labor exploitation will increase along with the attention being paid to the issue. Combined with the simmering nationalism expressed by a handful of companies in Europe with similar noises coming from politicians both in the E.U. and the U.S. about the myriad threats to society posed by immigrants, the spill over effects into mainstream business activities remains a growing concern.

Finally, as sustainable energy development remains a major goal in the global economy, environmentally responsible energy production and supply will likely come up against the realities of working people exploited in manufacturing of solar energy equipment, land use for the installation of massive solar arrays, and the displacement of local populations affected by large-scale wind and solar farms.

What the issues revealed by the BHRRC list will be is not yet known. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of human rights issues involving business going forward.

 

 

 

[1] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Top 10 Business and Human Rights Issues for 2015, Dec. 19, 2014, http://business-humanrights.org/en/institute-for-human-rights-and-business-publishes-top-10-business-human-rights-issues-for-2015#c108055.

Measuring Human Rights Impacts with Geospatial Information

Today, human rights investigators have unprecedented access to information. Access to government archives, corporate information and a range of data on people around the world abound. In recent years, human rights activists have also turned to satellite imagery as another means for collecting evidence of human rights issues. With all of this available information, the challenge is to understand what all of this means to both assessors and the people impacted by business activity.

At a recent conference hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC several speakers touched on geospatial information as a source of data for identifying human rights problems. Commonly thought of as satellite mapping, geographic information systems (GIS) is a technology that has been in active use since the 1970s. As the technology for gathering geospatial information has improved, the data gathered has become readily available to the public and many new applications using GIS have been developed.

In the field of human rights, the use of GIS data has been used for identifying mass grave sites, the burning and destruction of communities, gas flaring and the after effects of aerial bombardment. In each of these cases, the scope of destruction lends itself to relatively easy identification of human harm from above, often by comparing views of a specific location over time.

In the field of business and human rights, the use of geospatial data and GIS may seem less obvious. When assessing the human rights impacts of business activities, GIS can provide valuable data on the physical impacts arising out of “footprint” projects, that is, physical business operations that can transform a community. For example, prior to the start of an open pit mining operation, an understanding of the physical environment viewed from above serves as a baseline for identifying changes brought about by the physical destruction of a given area.

For example, in 2013, the government of Myanmar entered into an agreement with a Japanese consortium to develop the Silawa Special economic Zone (SEZ). Located approximately 15 miles (25 kilometers) south of Yangon (Rangoon). Approximately 4500 people were displaced by the project. While the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), a partner in the development, has argued that impacted villagers were provided land as compensation for being displaced, the impacted villagers have complained about the new, largely uninhabitable land. Satellite imagery of the area taken in 2012 and again in April of 2015, reveal profound changes to the physical environment that reveal the impact of the development project.

Thilawa SEZ 2012: Courtesy of Google Earth
Thilawa SEZ 2012: Courtesy of Google Earth

 

Thilawa2015-1
Thilawa SEZ April 2015: Courtesy Google Earch

However, interpreting this data provides a more nuanced understanding of the human rights impacts arising out of this project. When people living in the path of this project were relocated, their new land was found to be unsuitable for human habitation due to marshy conditions. By analyzing the geospatial imagery of the area, human rights assessors could identify specific impacts on the economic and social rights (right to adequate housing, right to food) as revealed by the destruction of farmland and the presence of water in marshy areas surrounding the project.

Combined with GPS tagged data collected in the community (location of homes and people, and agricultural land, water sources, and access routes), GIS data can inform a clearer analysis of human rights impacts in and around business activity. Markers inserted as layers on the GIS map that include links to photographs taken at specific locations on and near the affected site and field notes gathered can provide human rights assessors with a deeper understanding of the scope of the problems facing impacted people.

Geographic information systems are an invaluable tool for understanding the human rights implications of business activity. With the technology readily available, its use will inform a better understanding of the range of human rights concerns facing communities and aid human rights experts in their work.

 

 

Updated Toolkit “Addressing Security and Human Rights Challenges in Complex Environments” Now Available

ICRC-DCAF-Toolkit1Recently the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) announced an updated, second version of their Toolkit, Addressing Security and Human Rights Challenges in Complex Environments. Human Analytics posted on the first version, which was released a year ago. In a press release, DCAF and ICRC describe the Toolkit as a “guidance document structured around real-life security and human rights challenges faced by companies operating in complex environments.” It identifies operational challenges and provides good practices and recommendations to address them, as well as practical tools, such as checklists and case studies. Based on extensive desk- and field-research and interviews, the Toolkit can be of use to both field and headquarter personnel and is user-friendly. Users need not necessarily read through the entire Toolkit, but rather can click on a particular challenge they face, whereupon they will be linked to the page with recommended good practices to address that challenge.

In addition to chapter updates on working with host governments and public security forces, readers of this blog may be particularly interested in a new third chapter, Working with private security forces. That chapter identifies ten distinct challenges that companies may face when working with private security forces, namely in the areas of risk and impact assessment, labor standards, local procurement, vetting, training, relationship between public and private security, security equipment and use of force, oversight and accountability, and human rights abuses.

Each of these challenges is further elaborated. To take one example, under the heading “bids and contracts” additional challenges include that “companies may find it difficult to properly assess quality and cost considerations when selecting private security providers;” “human rights responsibilities and potential liabilities of both the company and the PSP [private security provider] may not be clear;” and “in the absence of implementation guidance, PSPs may not fully perform according to international standards, despite their inclusion in contracts.” Good practices to address each challenge are detailed. For example in the case of the latter, they include recommendations such as developing policies, procedures, and guidelines defining the roles and responsibilities of PSPs; ensuring the PSPs understand the performance objectives detailed in the contract related to respect for national and international laws; complementing training provided by the PSPs to its personnel as needed; conducting regular performance evaluations and meeting with the PSP’s management to review findings; and developing options to address non-conformance of the PSP with contract requirements. Each good practice is described in greater detail, with references and links to key relevant provisions in guidance documents provided. Many of these guidance documents will be well-known to security providers, such as the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, ANSI/ASIS PSC.1, the Montreux Document, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Others may be a bit less familiar to private security providers, but nevertheless contain invaluable guidance. All of these documents are available in full under the General Guidance section of the website housing the Toolkit.

The Toolkit is embedded in a larger Security and Human Rights Knowledge Hub. Among other things, the Hub collects policy frameworks, guidance documents, case studies, and tools that support companies addressing the challenges of operating in complex environments. In particular, the Hub supports companies seeking to implement the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, to which DCAF and ICRC are official observers. However, the Hub is also meant to be a resource to other companies, beyond the extractives industry, which work in complex environments, as well as the public and private stakeholders with whom they engage. The Knowledge and Toolkit are living products to be updated regularly. Users are encouraged to comment and contribute information and materials to both.

Swiss Law on Private Security Companies Contributes to Protection of Human Rights

On June 24, the Swiss government published a detailed decree relating to the Swiss law on Private Security Companies (PSCs) and announced that it will go into effect on September 1, 2015. The Swiss government, through its Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), has taken the lead in fostering international consensus on regulation for PSCs through its two-part Swiss Initiative. Phase one, carried out in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross, was an effort to create a non-binding declaration directed at states that contract with PSCs and are home to them, as well as the territorial states where they operate. The resulting Montreux Document, released in September 2008, recalls the existing international humanitarian and human rights law obligations of states with regards to the activities of private military and security companies during armed conflict, and elaborates good practices to assist states in meeting those obligations. Phase two of the Swiss Initiative focused on developing an international code of conduct and accompanying governance and oversight mechanism for the private security industry. Released in November 2010, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC) details human rights-based principles for the responsible provision of security services in complex environments. The multi-stakeholder governed International Code of Conduct Association (ICoCA), launched in September 2013, ensures implementation of, and accountability to, the ICoC.

The Swiss Federal Council’s decree details provisions to bring the 2013 law into full effect, and reflects the national manifestation of its international efforts. The law was passed to help ensure Swiss security and neutrality as well as respect for human rights. It applies to companies based in Switzerland providing security services overseas or who support the provision of those services, as well as Swiss government agencies contracting private security overseas and holding companies headquartered in Switzerland with control over PSCs operating overseas.

Key provisions of the law include the following:

  • PSCs headquartered in Switzerland may not participate in offensive operations during armed conflict.
  • PSCs must be members of the ICoCA.
  • Services that could result in severe human rights abuses are forbidden. For example, prison services cannot be provided in countries where it is known that torture occurs regularly at those facilities.
  • PSCs that wish to provide security services in complex environments, to include the protection of people, property, goods, as well as check point and prison services, must register with the Political Directorate of the FDFA. The FDFA will decide within a 14 day span whether the services are routine and acceptable, require additional investigation, or should be forbidden because they run counter to the intent of the law. Expedited registration is possible for services provided in an emergency situation.
  • Among the information required at time of registration is the types of services to be provided and clients, operating environments, weapons to be used, number of personnel and personal information of armed personnel, screening of personnel, expected risks, and trainings, including on human rights and humanitarian law.
  • The Federal Council has set minimal contractual requirements for PSCs working with Swiss government agencies, including reporting on the status of service provision, the identity of personnel, who can be replaced if they threaten delivery of contractually required services, notification of the contracting agency of any situation that may affect fulfillment of the contract, and notification of any incidents involving use of force. A sample contract containing these minimal requirements is available.

 

The enforcement of the law foresees measures such as empowering the FDFA to carry out, under certain conditions, unannounced inspections of the offices of PSCs, to include examination of their files. Failure to comply with the law can result in prison sentences of up to three years and fines.

Register Now – Managing Human Rights Risks in Complex Environments – April 9 (Washington, D.C.)

Sponsored by the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA)

Co-sponsored by Fund for Peace/Facilitated by Human Analytics

MANAGING HUMAN RIGHTS RISKS IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS

ISOA Members are leaders in the stability operations industry. They provide vital services in complex environments around the world. Their activities support peace building, stabilization and reconstruction efforts, security sector reform, humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations, and long-term development projects.

However, the fragile nature of the operating environments in which these services are provided pose potential risks to service providers and their public and private sector clients. In particular, the management of human rights related risks has been the focal point of various international initiatives to set standards applicable to service providers and their clients.

Beyond standards specific to particular sectors, such as private security, oil, gas, and mining, and humanitarian assistance, the UN has developed a broader framework – the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – to assist all business enterprises, in partnership with governments, with ensuring respect for human rights.

This one-day forum will provide updates on a number of standard setting initiatives to address risks associated with operating in complex environments. Case studies will explore how various organizations have converted principles into management practice. Private sector clients will discuss the incorporation of standards into contracts, and U.S. government officials will offer insights into recent policy and procurement related developments. Legal, management consulting, and auditing experts will offer perspectives on standards compliance.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

9:00am – 5:30pm

LOCATION:

Hosted by the law offices of Foley Hoag – 1717 K. St, NW, Washington, D.C.

TO REGISTER:

http://www.stability-operations.org/events/event_details.asp?id=617493

(Open to the public and no cost to attend. Space is limited.)

AGENDA:

9:00am-9:10am                 Welcoming remarks                      

Ado Machida, President, International Stability Operations Association

Gare Smith, Partner, Foley Hoag Corporate Social Responsibility Practice

9:10am-9:30am                 Keynote address: The business case for managing human rights related risks

Representative from Unilever, TBD

9:30am-10:45am               Governments as clients: Key human rights concerns from the perspective of state actors

Moderator: Doug Brooks, President Emeritus, International Stability Operations Association

Jason Pielemeier, Special Advisor & Team Lead, Internet Freedom, Business, and Human Rights, U.S. Department of State

Christopher Mayer, Program Support, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense

Donald “Larry” Sampler, Assistant to the Administrator, USAID

Representative from British Embassy, TBD

10:45am-11:15am            Coffee break

11:15am-12:30pm            Recent developments in standards for complex environments

Moderator: Dr. Rebecca DeWinter-Schmitt, Senior Managing Director, Human Analytics

The Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights

J.J. Messner, Executive Director, Fund for Peace

International Code of Conduct Association

Chuck Tucker, Executive Director, World Engagement Institute and Board Member ICoCA

ANSI/ASIS PSC.1 Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations and the Draft International Standard 18788 Management System for Private Security Operations

Dr. Marc Siegel, Commissioner, ASIS Global Standards Initiative

Standards in the Humanitarian Space

Laky Pissalidis, Security Director, InterAction

Trevor Hughes, Director of Risk Management & Global Security, International Relief & Development; Board Member, International NGO Security and Safety Association

12:30pm-1:30pm              Lunch

1:30pm-2:45pm Ensuring the implementation of standards

Moderator: Dr. Ian Ralby, Founder and Executive Director, I.R. Consilium

Legal considerations

Gare Smith, Partner, Foley Hoag Corporate Social Responsibility Practice

Implementing management system standards

Lisa DuBrock, Managing Partner, Radian Compliance

Third party certification

Tony Chattin, Director, MSS Global

2:45pm-3:15pm Coffee break

3:15pm-4:30pm Due diligence in the field: Case studies of standards implementation

Moderator: Clements Worldwide, TBD

Erik Quist, Vice President and General Counsel, Sterling Global Operations (invited)

Nick Welch, Director International Relations, Noble Energy (invited)

Dr. Kateri Carmola, Director, Carmola Consulting Group

Rafael Khusnutdinov, Director Global Safety and Security, Save the Children

4:30pm                                 Reception

New Report from The Economist Provides Insights into Corporate Leaders’ Perspectives on Human Rights

There is no doubt that business and human rights has gone mainstream when The Economist Intelligence Unit writes a report on the subject. The Road from Principles to Practice: Today’s Challenges for Business in Respecting Human Rightssponsored by a number of governments, business groups, non-governmental organizations, multinational companies, and law and auditing firms – explores businesses’ perspectives on their human rights responsibilities and the steps being taken to implement them. Based on a survey of 853 senior corporate executive from companies around the world as well as nine in-depth interviews of thought leaders, the report provides interesting insights into the state of the art in the field of business and human rights in terms of thinking and practice.

Some of the outcomes are somewhat unexpected. The “business case” for companies to respect human rights, in other words the economic benefits to the corporate bottom-line, has been the primary selling point through which the business world has been lobbied to take up its responsibilities. Eight three percent of the executives surveyed agreed that human rights are a matter for business as well as governments. Furthermore, and naturally with some sector specificity, most executives recognize that their corporate activities can impact on myriad human rights categories. But when asked about the biggest drivers for their companies’ commitment to respect human rights, the top driver (48%) was “building sustainable relationships with local communities.” The other top three answers were “protect company’s brand and reputation” and tying for third place “moral-ethical considerations” and “employees’ expectations about company values and actions.” Coming in at seventh place (21%) was “there is a clear business case for doing so.” While no doubt some of the top responses can be read as economic justifications for respecting human rights, i.e. mitigating risks linked to dissatisfied local communities, protecting the value of the brand, and attracting and retaining top employees, the survey seems to indicate that we may be starting to see a shift away from purely instrumental, short term thinking, to more holistic, mid- to long-term considerations of human rights responsibilities and impacts.

But is this recognition of human rights responsibilities also translating into action? Here the survey results are less satisfactory. Pillar two of the UN Guiding Principles on Business on Business and Human Rights lays out the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. (For an introduction, see Human Analytics Business and Human Rights 101 Prezi.) Looking at two key requirements in pillar two, the survey results evidence that there is still work to be done.

Guiding Principle 16 details the need to develop a publicly available statement of policy committing to respect human rights, which stipulates the expectations of personnel, business partners, and other parties linked to a company’s operations. Only 22% of corporate executives state that their firms have a publicly available human rights policy in some form. Of those, only 37% consulted with external stakeholders, although the Guiding Principles recommend that relevant external expertise inform human rights policies. On the upside, 66% of companies with a public human rights policy train and provide guidance to their employees on it, and 62% communicate the policy across all business relationships.

Guiding Principle 21 states that companies must “know and show” that they address their human rights impacts in practice through formal communications. While 42% of respondents communicate to internal stakeholders on human rights issues, only 27% communicate to external stakeholders. Only 11% publish an annual report on human rights related issues, and a mere 10% report on assessments of human rights impacts for parts of their operations.

The survey did not attempt to tackle two other key requirements of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, namely a due diligence process to identify, mitigate, and account for how human rights impacts are addressed and a process to remedy adverse human rights impacts. Clearly, questions posed on those matters likely would have made the road ahead seem much longer.

So what is to learn from industry leaders in terms of best practices on that journey? First and foremost, the commitment to respect human rights has to come from the C-suite. Leading companies are much more likely to have their CEOs involved in developing and implementing their human rights policy commitment (59% of the leaders compared with 39% among the rest). Second, leaders display a shift in corporate culture, where the driver for respecting human rights is as much a moral/ethical one as a business one.  Finally, leaders integrate human rights throughout their operations. Seventy eight percent of leaders have at least one department tasked with leading on human rights issues, and on average leaders have nine functional teams that are either leading or actively involved on human rights policy and practice.

What are the most common barriers – both among leaders and the rest – in understanding and implementing the requirement to respect human rights? Thirty two percent cite a lack of understanding of the company’s human rights responsibilities, 27% point to the lack of available company resources, and 25% note the lack of training and education for employees. Seeking dialogue and advice from external stakeholders is key to overcoming these barriers. From non-governmental organizations, local communities, government actors, to consultancies and law firms, a range of interlocutors are emerging who can help educate companies and their personnel, raise awareness on human rights issues, develop policies, and create tools to operationalize and implement them into management practices.

REMINDER: Human Analytics Hosts Sean McFate Presenting on The Modern Mercenary

Human Analytics, in conjunction with the Human Rights in Business Program of the Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, the Global Governance, Politics & Security Program and the Ethics Peace & Global Affairs Program at American University’s School of International Service, are sponsoring a presentation by Sean McFate, author of The Modern Mercenary, published by Oxford University Press. The event will take place in the SIS Abramson Family Founders Room from 3-5 pm on Tuesday, February 24. The event is free and open to the public. No registration is required.

McFate_ModernMercenaryEVENTFLYER_JDSV3

Human Analytics Co-sponsors Sean McFate Presenting “The Modern Mercenary”

McFate_ModernMercenaryEVENTFLYER_JDSV3Human Analytics, in conjunction with the Human Rights in Business Program of the Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, the Global Governance, Politics & Security Program and the Ethics Peace & Global Affairs Program at American University’s School of International Service, are sponsoring a presentation by Sean McFate, author of The Modern Mercenary, published by Oxford Press. The event will take place in the SIS Ambramson Family Founders Room from 3-5 pm on Tuesday, February 24. No registration is required.

 

Business and Human Rights Will Continue to Move Up as a Corporate Priority in 2015

NYSE
New York Stock Exchange

 

On December 31 2014, Forbes magazine published the article, Eight CSR Trends to Watch Out For in 2015. Of the eight corporate social responsibility trends presented, the prediction from Christine Bader (formerly responsible for human rights matters at BP and the author of 2014’s The Evolution of a Corporate Idealist: When Girl Meets Oil) that companies step up to tackle human rights issues domestically and globally resonates particularly strongly when you consider the following developments and activities that have recently occurred or will be occurring in 2015:

  • The establishment of U.S. government business and human rights reporting requirements for U.S. firms operating in Myanmar continues to facilitate human rights due diligence from companies that meet the reporting criteria.
  • Likewise, the U.S. government’s Dodd-Frank conflict minerals provisions for companies that source specified minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo and other covered countries continues to help minimize the exploitation and trade in conflict minerals by armed groups in the DRC region. Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to publicly report how much they pay governments for access to oil, gas, and minerals.
  • In 2015 the continued adoption of new human rights and security standards and management frameworks (ANSI/ASIS PCS.1 and The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers) by private security companies and their clients, and the emergence of third party certification bodies to audit to the standards, will continue to further differentiate among security providers (and utilizers) and will create providers of choice in the private security industry.

When a business publication as established and respected as Forbes points out that the rising trend of business and human rights is on companies’ radars it shows that the concept has come of age.

 

 

 

 

 

Association for oversight of private security companies holds meeting to share successes and plan the road ahead

logo-smallThe International Code of Conduct Association (ICoCA) held its Annual General Assembly meeting in London last week. The ICoCA was established last year to provide oversight and ensure implementation of the human rights and humanitarian law commitments laid out in the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Services Providers (ICoC). The gathering brought together members from the multi-stakeholder organization’s three pillars – private security companies, governments, and civil society organizations – as well as independent observers. Human Analytics is a member of the observer pillar. The cross-section of leading security companies and industry stakeholders came together to learn about the ICoCA’s activities in the past year, objectives for the coming year, and progress made in developing key procedures essential for effective oversight and accountability, namely certification, reporting, and monitoring.

Much has been accomplished since the launch of the ICoCA. Executive Director Andy Orsmond recounted the many steps taken to put the ICoCA on a sound organizational footing, such as setting up the Secretariat in Geneva, establishing Board election procedures, which allowed for the election of a new Board chair and two new Board members, the development of membership requirements and an application process, and creating infrastructure and an information security policy. The latter is particularly important to member companies, who must include detailed information about their operations in their applications, and will soon be requested to share additional information as part of the regular reporting requirements, which are still being developed. Those companies want to know that their information is being preserved in a confidential and secure fashion.

Looking to next year, from the basis of a strong financial footing, the ICoCA has laid out ambitious objectives for itself. One of the top priorities is to complete development of the certification process, to include voting on certification procedures and the creation of a framework to assess various national and international standards to which security companies are currently being certified. PSC.1, shorthand for ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012: Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations, is the first national standard to be evaluated against the requirements of the ICoC. A maritime security standard, ISO/PAS 28007, is next in line. Recognizing that attaining certification is a phased process, the ICoCA will develop a means for companies to transition into full certification.

In addition to tackling certification procedures, the Board has set up a working group that is currently in the process of developing reporting criteria and monitoring protocols. As the ICoCA seeks to grow its membership and the observer pillar in the coming year to include reaching out to other industry stakeholders, including non-state clients, potential new members and supporters will no doubt be interested in understanding what certification, reporting, monitoring, and grievance procedures look like in practice. The intense discussion among attendees about evolving concept papers on these various procedures leaves no doubt that developing these procedures will require extensive negotiations and consultations. However, listening to the Secretariat staff and Board members, it is clear that they are forging common ground. It is to the credit of the ICoCA that it is carrying out these discussions in an open and transparent fashion.

Multi-stakeholder consensus building is never an easy process, but what comes out at the end will likely have greater legitimacy and credibility. As UN Business and Human Rights Working Group member Alexandra Guaqueta said in Geneva at the UN Forum the day before the Annual General Assembly, the ICoCA reflects a “new generation” of multi-stakeholder initiatives. She described it as being exemplary for its consultative nature, the solid technical work it is based on, its strong governance structure with greater accountability mechanisms, its solid membership with willing first movers, the high level of industry participation, and a built in incentive structure, with participating governments building adherence to the ICoC into procurement processes.

However, as other participants remarked, to move forward each pillar must be prepared to give a little and not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The ICoCA will always be a work in progress.

 

New “Business and Human Rights 101” Prezi Available

BHRs 101 Front slide

Human Analytics is pleased to offer a free Business and Human Rights 101 Prezi slide show. The presentation is an introductory exploration of the origins and emergence of international consensus on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. It examines the provisions of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN GPs), which were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, and details key concepts relevant for companies, including human rights due diligence, corporate complicity, leverage, and responsibility for business relationships. A growing number of companies are recognizing the business case for implementing the UN GPs. This resource offers a helpful introduction for those unfamiliar with the human rights responsibilities of business. To view the Prezi, click here.

Human Rights Impact Assessments – a critical tool for gauging human rights risk

HRIA 28 AUGSince the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN GPs) in 2011, corporations have increasingly embraced the UN GPs to include the responsibility to “identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships” (Guiding Principle 18).

Principle 18 of the UN Guiding Principles further states that in order to gauge human rights risks, this human rights due diligence process should:

“(a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise;

(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise                and the nature and context of the operation.”

This is especially critical for businesses operating in environments with weak or low levels of governance, diminished rule of law, and historically inadequate access to remedies for rights-holders experiencing adverse human rights impacts. A human rights risk assessment process in alignment with the UN GPs is of particular relevance to the extractives and private security sectors where engagement with the local population is the norm rather than the exception.

But how do companies, particularly within these industries and in these types of operating environments, “identify and assess” the potential and actual human rights impacts of their projects as called for in the UN GPs? To meet these responsibilities companies typically conduct Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) as part of their human rights due diligence process, and as a means to demonstrably “know and show” how their policies and procedures respect human rights. HRIAs should be an integral and on-going component of their business operations.

A HRIA, if properly conducted, allows a company to know definitively if, and how, their project impacts human rights, both positively and adversely. The HRIA methodology involves several distinct, but linked, iterative data-gathering and analytical phases, to include substantial and meaningful engagement with local rights-holders. Project supply chain and subcontractor relationships also must be considered, as well as project and community touch points, to include with NGOs and local government and security forces. All factors are assessed from the contextual aspects of the local environment and the project activity itself. The HRIA differs from Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (though can leverage data from these sources) and has a specific scope to identify and assess human rights risks posed by the project from the perspective of internationally recognized human rights norms.

Confirmed human rights impacts that are identified from the HRIA process are used to adjust or modify a project’s operating procedures to eliminate any adverse impacts to rights-holders. Additionally, a successful community engagement process also facilitates the building of trust and communication between the local community and the business project and lays the groundwork for future feedback – a key element for the establishment of grievance mechanisms for the community to utilize in any future instances of real or perceived adverse human rights impact.

Identifying and addressing human rights impacts is not only the right thing to do; it is the business smart thing to do. Failure to manage risk, including human rights risks, can be costly to a company, potentially resulting in disruption of commercial operations, reputational damage, and legal liability – and ultimately the loss of a company’s social license to operate.

Human Analytics provides the needed external human rights expertise and offers customized and cost effective solutions to our clients seeking to manage the risks of operating in complex environments. Working in close partnership with our clients, we bring our team’s expertise and experience to bear to ensure that we develop solutions that fit our clients’ needs, are appropriate to the size of their enterprise, are fitting to the nature and context of their operations, and evolve with changes in the operating environment.

UN Global Compact – Organizing the Corporate Human Rights Function

UNGC LogoU.N. Global Compact on Emerging Corporate Good Practices for Organizing the Human Rights Function

The recently released Good Practice Note from the United Nations Global Compact Human Rights and Labour Working Group on organizing the human rights function internally advises companies that there is no single ‘right’ answer to how to organize the human rights function. To illustrate this point the publication leads readers through various models that have been utilized by corporations seeking to comport with the principles laid out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“Guiding Principles”).

The Good Practice Note (which was prepared for the Working Group by Shift) makes clear that effective corporate approaches take into account an individual company’s particular operational and organizational context. How corporations organize to accomplish the human rights function internally is a matter of self-assessment and corporate determination.

The report assists companies with this process. The Working Group assessed the practices and experiences of several companies (primarily large, multinational corporations) to identify the specific models utilized by these corporations to organize their human rights function. The models provide useful benchmarks for similar companies to consider when conducting their own decision making process on how to organize and manage their own human rights function.

Presented through four easily accessible sections, the report framework facilitates utilization by senior corporate managers in both functional and operational roles. Individual corporate experiences are framed through four identified models utilized to implement the human rights functions within the corporation. While the report itself goes into significant detail on the potential advantages and disadvantage for each model, general discussion and observation for each of the four highlighted models follows:

          1.   Cross-functional working groups. Cross-functional working groups are organized to bring together different departments from across the company to create a shared responsibility for leading and implementing the human rights function within the organization. Corporations often undertake this approach when adopting a change management strategy to facilitate internal vertical and horizontal program implementation within the organization. However, to ensure sustained implementation beyond roll out, specific roles and responsibilities – to include individual accountability and standards – must be clearly defined at every level of the organization to ensure ownership at each corporate activity throughout the enterprise.

           2.  Hosting a ‘guide dog’ function within existing business departments. Here companies elect to nest the human rights function within an existing corporate functional area. This approach provides a designated clear point of contact and “home” for human rights within the corporation, but care must also be taken to ensure that human rights function accountably and oversight is not inadvertently undermined, or given mere lip service to established corporate compliance standards, by placing the function outside of established business unit reporting chains. Conversely, the “guide dog” approach may grow the capacity of human rights within an organization by encouraging operational business units to view the human rights function as a supporting resource by which to gain technical advice and assistance without fear of repercussion.

           3.  Legal and/or compliance-driven ‘guard dog’ models. This approach is taken when companies place the human rights function within their legal or compliance division. Compliance and accountability is emphasized and may be appropriate given the context of the corporation’s organizational structure and operational model but can occur potentially at the cost of open dialogue with business units on human rights functional management or potential impacts. Here, too, ownership of the human rights function may be perceived as a corporate and not a business line responsibility.

           4.  Separate responsibilities allocated across different departments. Delineating clear and separate responsibilities across different departments (i.e. corporate sustainability, risk management, and human resources) for the human rights function allows corporations to benefit from the combined specific expertise, perspective, and capabilities that different functional areas bring to bear. This can insure a more comprehensive approach to managing the human rights function as well as implicitly communicating the message that it is a core company function – central to everything the company does. However, companies must also carefully consider the central coordinating requirements, priority alignment, and decision making protocols incumbent when responsibilities are shared among separate organizational elements.

Managers will take particular interest in the provided advantages and disadvantages for each of the four corporate models identified in Section II, as well as the nine emerging good practices developed from analyzing the ways in which companies “have tailored the design of these basic models to achieve a more well rounded approach that combines features of more than one model” in Section III.

Building from the analysis of the models (Section II) and the emerging good practices developed from this analysis (Section III), Section IV concludes the report with the concept that no ‘one size fits all’ approach exists for companies to consider in determining how to best structure the “right” company-specific human rights function. The report concludes that each company is different with specific operating contexts, corporate culture, existing policies and processes, the nature of its business activities and corresponding human rights risks, and how far along the company is in meeting its human rights responsibilities.

The corporate focus in determining the appropriate company-specific approach should therefore be on helping managers to first ask the right questions. Asking questions that self-examine and consider the “who, what, why and how” of a company’s operations may help to provide the best direction to companies as “they design – and re-design – the function”. To assist in this process the section provides key questions for companies to consider as they initially structure or assess an existing corporate human rights function.

Large, multinational companies that are undertaking their responsibility to respect human rights by developing and implementing a human rights function will want to take advantage of the U.N. Global Compact Human Rights and Labour Working Group’s work and read the Good Practice Note reviewed here. The findings of the Working Group offer not only insights from the experiences gleaned from other multinational companies conducting related activity, but also a careful consideration of the emerging good practices and key questions to ask that were developed from the models and approaches identified from these experiences.

New Human Analytics Briefing Paper on Designing a Human Rights Policy

HRPolicyDesign-Briefing-Paper

Human Analytics is pleased to offer a new briefing paper on human rights policy design. This briefing paper discusses the reasons for developing a human rights policy, including the commercial benefits of putting a human rights policy in place. It details appropriate content for a human rights policy, as well as the steps in designing and implementing it. Creating a human rights policy is the essential first step in an effective human rights due diligence process, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. To download the free briefing paper, click here.

UN Working Group Survey of Companies Reveals Some Counterintuitive Results

UNWGonHR
The UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, which was tasked by the UN Human Rights Council with promoting dissemination and implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, recently released a draft report with results from a survey of 153 companies. The survey is meant to help the UN Working Group: 1. understand progress in the dissemination of the UNGPs; 2. highlight implementation motivations and challenges; and 3. understand the support companies need to meet their responsibility to respect rights. While the survey used a snowball sampling method based on the existing networks of the business associations involved in the survey (rather than a representative sample of companies), a wide range of small and large companies from 39 countries and an array of sectors were represented.

Interestingly, some of the findings run counter to conventional wisdom about companies’ commitment to respect human rights. One often hears that many companies are unaware of the GPs, with the exception of large, brand name companies in high profile sectors, such as extractives, ICT, apparel, and food and beverage. However, the survey found that three quarters of the respondents had heard of the Guiding Principles and that three out of five have a public policy statement on human rights. This result may be linked in part to the sampling methodology – and disappointingly only a little more than half of the companies had engaged in any effort to actively respect human rights. While three quarters of respondents have dedicated corporate responsibility/sustainability departments responsible for implementation of their human rights policies, nearly one in two companies indicated that moving from policy to practice remains a challenge.

Counter to popular belief that companies require a business case to respect human rights, when asked what motivates them to address human rights, “it is the right thing to do” – an ethical justification – ranked in the top three answers. Equally as interesting, and contrary to the idea that companies only act in response to public scandals, few respondents selected a negative issue in the company’s past as a driver of behavior. Finally, contrary to the popular belief that companies shun mandatory regulation in favor of voluntary regulation, over 45% of respondents indicated that government enforcement of local laws would support their efforts to respect rights, and one out of five indicated that legally mandated human rights due diligence requirements would be of value. Four respondents even indicated they would find value in a binding international treaty.

The bottom-line is that despite methodological shortcomings this survey assists in the development of a more nuanced understanding of what motivates companies to respect human rights and what challenges they face when attempting to do so. Relying on conventional wisdom will not get us far in fostering the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles.