Are Human Rights a responsibility of companies? Third part

kulsumkhatun997

In the two previous parts in which we answered the question in the title, we considered possible confusion about responsibilities for human rights, the content of the recently approved Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Putting the United Nations Framework into Practice United to "protect, respect and remedy" and the reactions of business representatives. In this part we try to answer the question asked in the second part : What can be done to support the adoption and implementation of the Principles? From the discussion in the previous two articles it should have been clear that companies have part of the responsibility in the issue of human rights by employing and impacting human beings through their activities. However, its “protection, respect and remedy” involves a multitude of actors, especially governments. According to the Guiding Principles, companies would have responsibilities focused on respect for human rights, in the scope of their activities, and will have responsibilities to have adequate schemes and take actions to remedy any violations of those rights in which they are involved. . For the implementation of the Guiding Principles, it is therefore necessary to consider not only what the company should do but what would be a strategy for the human rights ecosystem, with its different actors. The company can do a lot, but the responsibility for establishing laws and regulations falls to national governments.

It is up to supranational institutions to Phone Number List harmonize these guidelines in order to prevent companies, particularly multinationals, from evading compliance by locating some of their activities in countries with regulatory and implementation deficiencies, preventing their application from being capricious. It is up to civil society, and especially the media, to promote implementation by verifying compliance and reporting situations of violation. The company alone cannot, and some do not want, to take responsibility for “protection, respect and remedy.” The ecosystem must be conducive to this. Many times the incentives and pressures in companies are focused on achieving short-term benefits, which may involve “ignoring” some human rights (discrimination, prohibition of labor associations, child labor, etc.). Human rights are an issue that requires the implementation of a long-term vision and although many companies know that this coincides with their best interests, it needs “help” from the ecosystem through some mandatory regulations and surveillance. , whether internal to the company or external, from governments and civil society. One of the main obstacles to the company having the incentives for appropriate behavior is that different parties speak different languages , and I don't mean languages.



The discussion of the last ten years to achieve the approval of the Guiding Principles (analyzed in the first part) with the insistence of governments in attributing a responsibility that does not correspond to companies and the intense reaction of these is very illustrative of these languages different. Even the cautious reaction of companies to the promulgation of the Principles and the negative reaction of some governments and part of civil society are indicative of this. Everyone has their ideas of what this entails. Companies make the implicit cost-benefit analysis of compliance with obligations and often clearly see the costs, highlighted by the reactions of governments and civil society. They do not clearly see the benefits, sometimes intangible. Those who promote human rights speak of punishments, in imperative language (the Guiding Principles propose moving from “raising and frightening” to a positive one of “knowing and demonstrating”). Companies better understand the language that tells them about the financial impact.