Several years ago the UN issued a set of Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. I may be missing something but they seem to have had relatively little airplay, so I was surprised to stumble over them recently. Within a wider commentary, they make three simple yet profound statements of claim on businesses and governments, that:
- each State has a duty to protect human rights, including in relation to the activities of businesses acting domestically an extra-territorially;
- each business has a corporate responsibility to respect human rights and to take action to prevent abuses occurring and to make corrections where it fails, and
- States are required to set in place judicial and legislative means by which there is access by the injured to remedy.
The human rights to which these principles refer to are the International Bill on Human Rights (which contains the better known Universal Declaration plus some other documents). I find this an interesting document in several ways. First, the high level of onus on both States and businesses (including business leaders) to ensure compliance and the level of due diligence and reporting that should surround it. These expectations imply accountability without specifying to whom exactly. Second, the breadth of application, which might extend out to related parties, such as suppliers. Third, where there is a conflict between business’ requirements, still it is expected the human rights principles will be respected. Fourth, where abuse has taken place, States are required to set in place judicial mechanisms for effective remedies to be provided to the affected parties, state-based grievance procedures or monitored non-state-based grievance procedures.
You could argue that it contains little that is new but I would say that the collection of these principles by a body with the status of the UN, and force of the principles it contains is new. In particular, I think it is worth noting the clear move in these principles to locate the responsibility of business formally into the public sphere. Not that it hasn’t always been there but these principles make it quite clear that the operations of business should be open to public inquiry, that business is responsible for a level of care for people on human rights terms and that the State has a duty of oversight and where necessary enforcement. The principles give support to those advocating more formal versions of the social licence to operate and challenge self-regulation, especially where it has become cartel-like.
While the principles lie confined to a UN document they have few teeth. Governments need to adopt them as state principles and build enabling legislation to give effect. The business impact of governments doing so for globally competitive companies is obvious and we can expect reluctance to adopt without there being a ‘level playing field’. Witness Australia’s Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading debate!
In my view it is the responsibility of the Church to engage in the debate over the implementation of these kinds of social principles because they provide a contemporary and operationally effective way of giving action to our principles for the protection of the most marginalised people in society. Some will argue that this is not the business of the Church, but I say if it is a matter of public principle, which is what the UN says, then it is a matter of concern for the Church as a socially engaged participant in plural society.