Abstract

This paper explores how UK-based companies deal with their responsibility to respect the human rights of Assam (India) tea plantations workers. Using publicly available corporate reports and other documents, it investigates how companies approach, and communicate on, their potential human rights impacts. It highlights the gap between well-documented human rights issues on the ground and corporate reports on these issues. It aims to answer the following research question: in a context where the existence of human rights violations at the end of the supply chain is well-documented, how do companies reconcile their possible connection with those violations and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights? The paper reveals the weakness of the current CSR approach from the perspective of rights-holders. It supports a business and human rights approach, one that places the protection of human rights at its core.

Highlights

  • This paper explores how UK-based tea companies deal with their responsibility to respect the human rights of Assam tea plantation workers

  • This article aimed to answer the following research question: in a context where the existence of human rights violations at the end of the supply chain is well-documented, how do companies reconcile their possible connection with those violations and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights? When Sections 2.2 and 4 are compared, it is clear that reports by businesses and civil society organisations render the situation in Assam differently

  • Our analysis shows that the gap between the situation on the ground and what companies report on Assam is striking

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper explores how UK-based tea companies deal with their responsibility to respect the human rights of Assam tea plantation workers. Using publicly available corporate reports and other documents, this paper investigates how these companies approach and communicate their potential human rights impacts in Assam. It highlights the gap between, on the one hand, complex and well-documented human rights issues on the ground and, on the other hand, corporate reports on these issues. Established in 1707, the company owns two other stores in London and one in Dubai as well as diverse hospitality ventures. It is privately owned by Wittington Investments Ltd.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call