A new report focuses on how companies can ensure their actions do not infringe human rights in fragile states
With the UN Human Rights Council about to consider the guiding principles on business and human rights developed by John Ruggie, the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) has published further practical steps companies can take to meet their responsibilities in high-risk countries.
IHRB’s Salil Tripathi says the report – From Red to Green Flags: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in high-risk countries – builds on Ruggie’s work, offering “proactive” steps companies can take in areas where governance is weak, and where consequently there has to be “a higher onus” on corporate responsibility.
Developing a key strand of the Ruggie framework, the report advocates “enhanced due diligence” measures to respond to challenges created by weak government and law, the presence of armed groups and community tensions. The report also addresses specific issues such as the role of women, shadow economies, forced labour and freedom of association.
Forward thinking
For Peter Frankental,economic relations programme director at Amnesty International UK, the emphasis that both Ruggie and IHRB’s “excellent report” place on due diligence is significant, as this “requires businesses to identify and assess risks in advance and to take preventive steps to avoid causing or contributing to human rights abuses”.
The decision to remain in a troubled country is “context specific”, Frankental adds, so “blanket rules about whether companies should invest or divest are not necessarily helpful in these very complex situations”.
Where this fits with the UN’s “protect, respect and remedy” agenda is an interesting question, particularly as it coincides with the development of the framework to implementation.
Tripathi points out that the Ruggie principles are not “tailor-made for fragile states”. While there is reference to conflict zones, he says by and large the framework “presupposes a functional state that will protect rights”. The IHRB report, on the other hand, suggests practical measures that companies can take when the state is “unwilling or unable to protect”.
As such, Frankental believes it would be “a very useful point of reference for any follow-up special procedure established by the UN Human Rights Council that might seek to develop more detailed guidance for companies with regard to their operations in conflict zones”.
The fact that the UN’s agenda may currently be of less use in such areas is a potential weakness. It is precisely when local governance is failing that international institutions can fill the void.
Lisa Misol, senior business and human rights researcher at Human Rights Watch, says: “One key way to address poor and inconsistent human rights protection in some countries would be to have strong international standards including, ultimately, a multilateral legal instrument addressing business and human rights.”
Misol points out that Ruggie has supported such an idea but chose not to include it in his final report to the Human Rights Council, though Tripathi believes Ruggie went as far as a mandate that put the primary emphasis on state sovereignty had allowed.
While the IHRB report offers companies extensive practical advice on what they can do when national governments fail to protect human rights, how to address what Tripathi describes as the “global governance gap” created when that happens is a far broader question for the UN.