Chapter 5 ungc human rights

CHAPTER 5HUMAN RIGHTS AS ETHICAL IMPERATIVES

FOR BUSINESS

The UN Global Compact’s

Human Rights Principles

Human Rights

• Principle 1: Businesses should support

and respect the protection of internationally

proclaimed human rights; and

• Principle 2: Business should make sure

that they are not complicit in human rights

abuses.

Human Rights

•Human rights remains one of the most

challenging areas of corporate

citizenship. Why?

• In part, this is because human rights

have traditionally been the concern of

states, and international human rights

law has generally been addressed to

them only.

Human Rights

What are “human rights”?

• Those rights that we are said to have

simply by virtue of being human.

• Our most fundamental freedoms, that is,

the freedoms necessary to live a truly

human and dignified life.

• Universal (apply to all humans), equal

(apply to all humans equally), and

inalienable (cannot be revoked or given up)

Principle 1: Direct Human Rights

Responsibilities for Corporations

• Business should support and respect the

protection of internationally proclaimed

human rights.

• This is not passive, but direct and active.

As such corporations who sign the GC

pledge to respect human rights on a

voluntary basis even if or precisely when

domestic laws fail to hold them accountable

for it.

Principle 1: Direct Human Rights

Responsibilities for Corporations

• Human rights responsibilities of

corporations are primarily moral

responsibilities; corporations have them

irrespective of what the law says.

• It means to engage in a dialogue on the

potential duties and duty-bearers at the

outset, rather than limiting them to

governments.

Principle 2: Corporate Complicity in

Human Rights Abuses

• The issue is not merely direct human rights

abuses, but indirect human rights abuses as

well. Indirect abuse:

1. No malicious is needed for a corporation to

become complicit in human rights violations.

2. It is expected that the corporation knows

that its actions may contribute to abuse.

3. Its actions must have substantial (not

indispensible) effect.


Human Rights Abuses

Three types of complicity in human rights

abuse:

1. Direct complicity – occurs if a

corporation directly and actively

contributes to or assists in the violation of

human rights committed by a third party.


Human Rights Abuses


abuse:

2. Beneficial complicity – does not require

active contribution on the part of the

company, but “merely” that that it benefits

from the human rights violations

committed by the third party.


Human Rights Abuses


abuse:

3. Silent complicity – even without benefit

the mere silence or inactivity of a

corporation in the face of human rights

abuses. It’s silence may have a

legitimizing, encouraging, or emboldening

effect on the party that violates human

rights.


Human Rights Abuses

A fourth type of complicity in human rights

abuse:

4. Obedient complicity – occurs when a

business follows laws or regulations of a

government to act in ways that support its

activities that intentionally and significantly

violate people’s human rights.

Question

How would you characterize the purchase of

coltan from suppliers who force people from

their homes and villages to get to the

minerals? Is there complicity? If so what

kind?

1. Direct

2. Beneficial

3. Silent

4. Obedient

The Center for Constitutional Rights

The Center for Constitutional Rights is

dedicated to advancing and protecting the

rights guaranteed by the United States

Constitution and the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by

attorneys who represented civil rights

movements in the South, CCR is a non-

profit legal and educational organization

committed to the creative use of law as a

positive force for social change.


CCR uses litigation proactively to empower

poor communities and communities of color;

to guarantee the rights of those with the

fewest protections and least access to legal

resources; and to train the next generation

of civil and human rights attorneys.


In 1993, CCR sued Bosnian Serb leader

Radovan Karadži ́c for genocide, war crimes

and crimes against humanity. That 1995

victory was the first time that a private

person was held liable for violations of

international law in U.S. courts and

opened the door to extending accountability

for human rights violations to other non-

governmental entities.


Building on that victory, CCR sued the

Unocal oil corporation for supporting slave

labor, murder, rape and forced displacement

of thousands of villagers during the

construction of a gas pipeline in Burma.


Doe v. Unocal established for the first time

that multinational corporations may also

be held liable for human rights violations

when they are complicit in abuses

committed by governments they are

working with. This was also the first time

that a multinational corporation was charged

with complicity in rape as torture.

The Center for Constitutional Rights• Blackwater USA, for firing on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad

• Caterpillar, Inc. for selling D9 bulldozers to the Israel Defense Forces,

knowing they would be used to destroy homes and injure or kill the

inhabitants

• Dow Chemical (amicus) for knowingly providing the U.S. government

with a poisonous agent (Agent Orange) to be sprayed on civilians in

Vietnam

• Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Petroleum on behalf of murdered

leaders and activists in Nigeria suing for human rights abuses against

the Ogoni people

• Talisman Energy, Inc. (amicus) for conspiring to commit human rights

violations, including war crimes, while engaged in oil operations in

southern Sudan

• Titan Corporation and CACI International for conspiring with U.S.

officials to torture and abuse people in U.S. custody in Iraq, including

the detainees at Abu Ghraib

What’s Next?

• Two questions with regard to the effectiveness of

voluntary human rights principles:

• First, can the impact of voluntary standards be

more than a drop in the bucket relative to the

global human rights situation?

• Second, can a voluntary code sufficiently level

the playing field so that those companies who are

serious in their commitment will not be put at a

competitive disadvantage relative to the

companies that do not embrace the GC, or who

do so only to bluewash their brand?

What’s Next?

The way forward:

• Establishment of a mandatory standard

• A binding and enforceable human rights code

• More institutionalized discourse on business and

human rights is needed

• More emphasis on researching and clarifying the

concept of complicity in regard to corporate human

rights abuse

• Move from respecting human rights, to the duty to

protect human rights, to remedy human rights

abuses

22

Positive drivers for businessWhy do [should] businesses want to respect and

promote human rights?

• It’s ethically the right thing to do

• It helps companies to build a positive reputation with

communities, investors, shareholders, governments, media.

• It improves the business climate

• It helps to secure the local

‘social licence to operate’

• It may help to access new

business in-country or elsewhere

• New and current employees prefer

companies that respect human rights

From IPIECA Human Rights Training Toolkit for the oil and gas industry

23

Negative drivers for business (1)What are the potential risks of ignoring human rights issues?

• Legal: litigation and ensuing penalties

• Reputation: long term damage

to company’s image

• Political: damage to relation-

ships with host and home governments

• Operational: increased security

risks for personnel, community

members and property;

disruption to operations; delays on

completion of new projects

• Financial: impacts from operations disruptions of late project completions; inability to secure funding for new projects; potential share price impacts


24

Negative drivers for business (2)

• Allegations of ‘complicity’

can lead to legal

proceedings as well as

reputation damage

• Example: your company is

accused of using security

providers that are proved to

have infringed human rights,

or suppliers that use child or

forced labour or infringe

upon their employees’ rights


Education

Chapter 5 ungc human rights