Abstract
Despite being an internationally accepted corporate social responsibility framework, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have not managed to provide victims of corporate human rights violations with access to remedy. The European Commission has announced plans to introduce an EU-level human rights due diligence directive which may include corporate grievance mechanisms. This article considers potential synergies between the planned directive and the mechanism laid down in the Whistleblowing Directive. Three issues are highlighted. First, stakeholders usually face retaliation after making a complaint about human rights abuses in a company’s operations. By setting formal levels of protection against retaliation, the Whistleblowing Directive offers a regulatory framework to change this reality. Second, conducting effective human rights due diligence must be based on meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders. If companies approach this issue in a top-down manner using auditing firms, they risk non-compliance with human rights due diligence requirements. Therefore, the legislation should include corporate grievance mechanisms to match remedies with victims’ expectations. Third, in terms of corporate grievance mechanisms, victims often lack resources to participate in them in a fair and respectful manner. This requires EU Member States to use their legislative power to lay down regulations that effectively enhance cooperation and coordination with independent monitoring bodies. To enhance the development as to access to remedy, the Whistleblowing Directive offers synergies through which to achieve greater accessibility, transparency, and victim empowerment. Corporate grievance mechanisms, facilitated by the Whistleblowing Directive, could take this a step further.
Highlights
Many corporate scandals in recent years, from the Panama Papers to Dieselgate and Cambridge Analytica, have come to light owing to people who have spoken up
Despite the increasing demand to shift from a voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) approach to smart mix regulation with binding legislation,[4] and from reporting duties to conducting due diligence, little concrete action has yet been taken to bolster the remedies available in the event of non-compliance with mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD)
These issues engage public interest on the basis that failures in such areas are harmful in a universal sense, and deliberation as to whether they belong to the scope of the Whistleblowing Directive should not be necessary
Summary
Many corporate scandals in recent years, from the Panama Papers to Dieselgate and Cambridge Analytica, have come to light owing to people who have spoken up. Lack of effective regulation of employment and recruitment agencies, and low barriers to entry into the business has allowed unscrupulous companies to proliferate and to maintain poor labor practices and possible involvement in human trafficking and other serious human rights abuses through criminal organizations.[6] The report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) concludes that tackling labor exploitation requires that victims should be encouraged to report severe labor exploitation to labor inspectors or the police. It argues that whistleblowing may be beneficial for the implementation of CGMs, while pinpointing both the potential benefits and problems with such synergy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
