Adverse Human Rights Research Articles

The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive: Real Change or More of the Same?

The implementation of mandatory corporate due diligence has been a growing trend in recent years. Viewed as having the potential to prevent corporate abuse, mandatory due diligence can be presented as the mechanism to substantially improve responsible corporate behaviour in practice. In 2022, the European Commission proposed a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The proposal presents obligations for companies regarding any actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts, as well as liability for violation of such obligations. It aims to streamline due diligence obligations across Member States and create a level playing field. Since then, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament have agreed their negotiating positions. This paper explores the proposed CSDDD, including amendments, and analyses the challenges and prospects for mandatory due diligence. It explores whether the CSDDD could result in a genuine transformation of corporate practices to prevent corporate harms, or whether developments are similar to the incremental changes already seen over the years. It is argued that while the CSDDD could be another step in the right direction, significantly more needs to be done to prioritise rights holders above corporations and demonstrate a real change in responsible business practices.

“Games–Time Human Rights Due Diligence”: A Case Study of FIFA’s Human Rights Volunteers Program at the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022

AbstractThe FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 received an unprecedented amount of criticism from civil society and human rights organizations for the human rights risks and adverse human rights impacts related to organizing and staging the event. Interestingly, it was the first World Cup that was delivered with a team of human rights volunteers monitoring human rights issues at event venues on match days.1 Given the novelty of this project, this Article first informs about the FIFA human rights volunteers (HRV) program in general and second, it analyses to what extent it can be considered a concrete and practical example of an organization’s human rights due diligence (HRDD) and remedy efforts. As some of the broader business and human rights literature suggests, there seems to be a lack of practical examples of how corporations implement HRDD, making FIFA’s HRV program an exception worth studying.

Downstream Human Rights Due Diligence: Informing Debate Through Insights from Business Practice

Abstract The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights conceive of human rights due diligence (HRDD) as covering potential impacts across value chains, including downstream. The proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the revision process of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises have sparked renewed discussion on how and whether companies should conduct HRDD downstream to identify and prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts. Whilst some debate has occurred previously on downstream HRDD, this has predominantly centred on specific sectors, products and services where the links to egregious human rights harms may be more readily identifiable. This piece seeks to inform the current debate by broadening the examples of sectors, products and services and current business practice which demonstrate the critical need for, and ability of, companies to consider human rights risks downstream.

How Australian fashion brands implement human rights due diligence

ABSTRACT The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights suggests a human rights due diligence (HRDD) framework that businesses should follow to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts such as those common within fashion supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) requires entities earning over $100 million annually to report on their implementation of steps two to four and six of the framework. These steps are: assessing actual and potential human rights impacts; preventing and mitigating adverse human rights impacts; verifying whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed; and remediating adverse human rights impacts. However, businesses earning below $100 million annually rarely receive government or academic attention on their HRDD implementation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian fashion brands earning below $100 million annually to determine their understanding and implementation of steps two to four of the HRDD framework. Whilst all brands implemented HRDD initiatives, they predominantly implemented process based initiatives which did not place rights holders, such as supply chain workers, at their centre. This study will assist fashion brands, the government, and industry organisations in improving their understanding of HRDD and identifying mechanisms to better support HRDD implementation within the Australian fashion industry.

Lessons Learned in Qatar: The Role of the Netherlands and Its Businesses in Addressing Human Rights Abuses in Mega-Sporting Events

Mega-sporting events (MSEs) can have a negative impact on human rights throughout their lifecycle, from the bidding stage, over to the planning and preparation stage, the delivery of the event, and also as part of their legacy after the event has concluded. They can be linked to land grabbing, forced evictions, forced labour and many other human rights abuses. The problem is that only a very few of these cases are actually addressed in the sense that rights-holders receive an effective remedy and those responsible for the abuse are held to account. MSEs are jointly organized and staged by public, private, national, and international actors, which each contribute in different ways to the associated human rights impact. Rather than looking at the responsibility of those actors directly involved in organizing and staging the event, this article looks at the responsibility of the participating actors of states that are represented at the event, namely businesses and sports bodies, using the Netherlands and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar as the guiding example. The central questions it tries to explore based on lessons learned and opportunities missed in Qatar are how such actors are connected to adverse human rights impacts associated with MSEs, which responsibilities under the human rights framework flow from those connections, and how participating states should then ensure that businesses live up to their responsibilities.

Forced Organ Harvesting

Forced Organ Harvesting

Addressing human rights abuses at mega-sporting events-A shared responsibility in theory and practice.

Mega-sporting events (MSEs) have great potential to promote human rights and be a force for good, not only in the host country or city where the event takes place, but also beyond. At the same time, these events are regularly linked to human rights abuses and this opinion piece provides an overview of MSE-related adverse human rights impacts and discusses how the governance of these events enables these impacts to occur in the context of bidding for, preparing, and delivering these events. At the core of this discussion the paper presents a shared responsibility approach and argues that if applied in a preventative and retrospective way and including the concept of collaborative remedy, it can help address these adverse impacts. This is followed by a reflection on the feasibility of this approach, by considering to what extent current developments in the evolving sport and human rights movement are going in that direction and the paper finishes with a brief discussion on the importance of making the current changes sustainable and how research and education are key elements of this endeavour.

Remediation of Adverse Human Rights Impacts

Remediation of Adverse Human Rights Impacts

The Impact of Corruption on International Human Rights Standards

Corruption represents a multifaceted global challenge that undermines human rights recognized by International Law. This research paper delves into the intricate interplay between corruption and human rights, aiming to shed light on the potential of international human rights frameworks in combating corruption. Drawing upon a comprehensive review of existing literature and international legal instruments, this study examines the transboundary nature of corruption and its adverse impacts on human rights. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by advocating for a holistic approach to combating corruption, recognizing its adverse human rights impacts, and presenting recommendations to bridge the gap between corruption and human rights in policy and practice.

Legal waivers in settlement agreements: Implications on access to remedies in business and human rights

Legal waivers in the business and human rights context are an agreement corporations use to provide compensation to victims in exchange for waiving their right to file future claims in a court of law in corporate human rights abuses. Corporations use legal waivers to further secure legal immunity from potential future claims for adverse human rights impact. In contrast, right-holders accept legal waivers as they provide quick resolution of grievances, mainly in the form of monetary compensation. This article investigates the inequality of bargaining power under which legal waivers operate. It advances the central claim that the use of legal waivers in private remedial processes reflects corporate attempts to renegotiate human rights standards by exercising authority. I use the Porgera case study to shed light on how power inequalities between corporations and right-holders distort the nature of business actors’ governance authority in business and human rights. I further argue that legal waivers strengthen the power of corporations while simultaneously not serving the public interest that corporations claim to uphold in facilitating a private remedial process for right-holders. I conclude that the power inequalities exacerbate the “power” element of authority without affecting the legitimacy of corporations but distorting the nature of their governance authority.

Overcoming Regulatory Failure in the Design and Implementation of Gas Flaring Policies: The Potential and Promise of an Energy Justice Approach

Gas flaring is a major source of air pollution and a chief contributor to climate change. Addressing the adverse social, environmental, and economic impacts of gas flaring has therefore been identified as a fundamental objective of energy policy in oil- and gas-producing countries across the world. Despite this recognition however, gas flaring remains a significant threat to energy justice worldwide, especially in resource-rich Middle Eastern and African (MEA) countries. In Nigeria, for example, as far back as 1979, the primary legislation fixed 1 January 1984 as the deadline for all energy operators to stop gas flaring. More than three decades later, Nigeria remains one of the highest gas flaring countries on earth, with significant adverse social, environmental, and human rights impacts on local communities. While a number of existing studies have documented the perennial failure of gas flaring regulation and policies in Nigeria and other MEA countries, a detailed examination of the energy justice gaps that limit the design and implementation of gas flaring reduction policies has remained absent. This article fills a gap in this regard. Drawing lessons from Nigeria, this article analyzes the energy justice dimensions of regulatory failure in the design and implementation of gas flaring policies. Various legal and institutional drivers of regulatory failures in gas flaring reduction policies are examined in order to identify the ways in which an energy justice governance framework can help close these gaps. The study suggests that conceptualizing and elaborating the energy justice dimensions of gas flaring in energy policy design, enacting stringent and coherent gas flaring legislation, promoting the transparent reporting and disclosure of statistical data on gas flaring reduction programs, and reforming regulatory institutions to ensure coherent implementation of gas flaring policies are significant steps towards overcoming regulatory failure in the design and implementation of energy policies on gas flaring reduction.

Do codes of conduct really mean a change in corporate practices with regard to human rights? Evidence from the largest garment companies worldwide

ABSTRACT Media coverage of abuse and human rights violations throughout global corporations’ value chains has focused stakeholders’ attention on these events leading global corporations to insert the human rights agenda into their social responsibility politics. Using media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory, this paper focuses on the five largest garment companies worldwide (namely, Inditex, Primark, H&M, Gap Inc., and Fast Retailing) which between 2007 and 2018 were involved in scandals due to human rights violations in their supply factories in other countries and analyses how they have responded to the media coverage on these events to regain legitimacy. We examine the extent to which the selected companies’ codes of conduct address human rights issues and whether their adoption really meant a change in corporate practices. The analysis shows that almost all codes address all adverse human rights impacts that have been the subject of attention by the media. However, they were not reflected in the analysed companies’ actual behaviour. Therefore, the adoption of a code of conduct by such companies can be considered a legitimation strategy aimed at turning stakeholders’ perception and counteracting adverse media coverage.

Women and the ‘Business’ of Human Rights: The Problem with Women’s Empowerment Projects and the Need for Corporate Reform

AbstractCorporate-led women’s empowerment initiatives appear, in their proactiveness, to be a welcome addition to a range of measures addressing adverse human rights impacts by business. This article questions the claim that these projects significantly advance women’s rights. Instead, they can be understood as a manifestation of what Catherine Rottenberg terms ‘neoliberal feminism’ with women at risk of being transformed into ‘gender capital’ for business gain. This article rejects the claim that empowerment can only be delivered by encouraging women into market-based work. Instead, it is argued that the corporate responsibility to respect the human rights of women can better be supported by reorienting business away from its preoccupation with delivering value for shareholders, towards an approach that values women’s unpaid socially reproductive labour.

Towards a new legal consensus on business and human rights: A 10th anniversary essay

The article takes stock of developments in domestic and international law concerning the regulation of adverse human rights impacts by global business enterprises, one decade after the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Maastricht Principles). It discusses these soft-law instruments in the light of long-standing systemic obstacles to holding business enterprises legally accountable for their global human rights impacts. The article argues for a new legal consensus on business and human rights, grounded in the increasing recognition by States that corporate respect for human rights should be brought under the purview of (international) human rights law. This consensus builds on the gradual convergence between the regulatory models that underpin the UNGPs and the Maastricht Principles, such that States’ domestic regulation of business enterprises with extraterritorial effect becomes anchored in international legal obligations towards foreign victims of business-related human rights violations.

Gender Component of Internal Displacement in Ukraine: A Case of Business (In)Capability to Localize Human Rights Impact Assessment

Human rights due diligence (HRDD) has become the buzzword of much of the advocacy and work today around business and human rights.1 It is almost commonplace that companies have the responsibility to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address these adverse human rights impacts as part of their ongoing HRDD processes, in line with the UNGPs.2 The assessment of human rights impacts (HRIA) is a critical step in this process.3

Business and Human Rights: A P&O Ferries Case-Study

Business and Human Rights:A P&O Ferries Case-Study KD Ewing (bio) Quite by chance, I was completing a section of my Human Rights at Work course at King's College London. The section in question was on 'Business and Human Rights', and formed part of the Human Rights at Work (LLM) course. One of the themes covered in the latter section of the course is the obligation of businesses to comply with Human Rights obligations and the multiple sources of that obligation. And then came the P&O announcement like a bolt from the blue, once again raising big questions about the effectiveness of soft law instruments as a means of ensuring that big business behaves in a socially responsible way. Business enterprises 'should respect human rights' Pre-eminent amongst these sources are the UN General Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) approved in 2011 (the so-called 'Ruggie principles' after their author). These seek to impose obligations on governments to protect against human rights abuses; on corporations to respect internationally recognised human rights; and on States to 'ensure as part of their duty to protect against business-related human rights abuse' that those affected have access to an effective remedy. The principles require national governments to develop an action plan to promote their implementation, which the British government proudly claims to be the first to have done. This can be found on the BEIS website, with the government's implementation document claiming implausibly that 'the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand'. Not only that: 'The 'golden thread' of safeguards in society that are good for human rights–democratic freedoms, the rule of law, good governance, transparency, property rights and civil society–also provide fertile conditions for private sector led growth'. The question that then arises is what is meant by human rights for this purpose? To which human rights do these obligations apply? The position could not be clearer or more expansive. According to the UNGPs, they apply to the 'international bill of rights' (meaning the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), as well as the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles at Work. It is not necessary to go into these in great detail here; they are easily accessible on the web. So what are the obligations on the part of the government to comply with principles which have now been endorsed by the G7 as part of the currency of globalisation? First they have a duty to 'prevent, investigate, punish and redress' human rights abuses. Secondly they should set out 'an expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations'. Thirdly, they should enforce laws that are aimed at or have the effect of requiring business enterprises to respect human rights'. Special obligations arise specifically in relation to those businesses which are supported by the State or have contracts with the State. One other obligation which is worth noting in light of press reports that a Department of Transport was notified by P&O in advance of the announcement, yet did nothing to stop it, but on the contrary appeared to condone the company's decision. This is the principle that states should ensure that government departments that shape business practices are aware of and observe the State's human rights obligations when fulfilling their mandates. This includes providing relevant information, training and support, raising questions about the training and support of the DoT official, whose responsibility when circulating details of P&O's decision was to raise a red flag not to flash a green light. A duty to 'identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for' So far as the company itself is concerned, the Guiding Principles impose multiple human rights obligations. They must avoid causing adverse human rights impacts in their activities, and address such impacts when they occur, and in order to do so, they must take a number of prescribed steps. First they must have in place policies and processes, whereby they commit to meet their...

Corrupt from the Head Down: Human Rights Impacts of Political Favouritism in Public Procurement

Public procurement represents a significant part of the global economy and influencesthe nature and quality of public goods and services. Consequently, it has substantial direct and indirectlinks with the human rights of a wide array of rightsholders. However, public procurement systemsrarely reflect these links and remain resistant to calls on human rights integration from internationalorganizations and academic scholarship. While this divergence is often discussed, the root governance issues that create the gap between public procurement and human rights and contribute to the lackof progress remain relatively unexplored. This paper investigates a prevalent governance issue inpublic procurement – political favouritist corruption schemes – and their role in the paradoxical lackof progress in aligning public procurement systems with human rights requirements. Through theanalysis of primary and secondary sources, the paper demonstrates the links between such corruptpractices and prevalent human rights issues in public procurement. It argues that by underminingpublic procurement systems, political favouritism jeopardizes primary economic and secondarysocial objectives of procurement and brings about adverse human rights impacts. These impactsharm civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural human rights in national contextsand obstruct the development at large. Moreover, this corrupt arrangement represents a roadblockfor promoting human rights integration in public procurement and, hence, hampers the progressfor the novel approach of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in general, andits provisions concerning the state-business nexus in particular. The paper concludes by outliningthe need for further interdisciplinary and empirical research which will explore this issue throughthe lens of business and human rights, and offer a systemic analysis of root causes, the state of playand potential solutions.

The Management and Oversight of Human Rights Due Diligence

The COVID‐19 pandemic showed how vulnerable workers in global supply chains are to adverse human rights impacts. Protecting such workers must be a primary policy goal in the efforts to “build back better” from the crisis, and businesses conducting human rights due diligence (HRDD) is a primary means to do so. In Europe, there is a fast‐moving trend toward legislatively mandating HRDD, and there is potential for similar movement in the United States. Whether HRDD will significantly improve human rights conditions, however, is an open question. Based on our experience with corporate compliance programs, it is clear that the management and oversight of HRDD is an essential factor in ensuring meaningful implementation, as opposed to corporations focusing on form over substance. This article identifies those key internal governance issues and provides advice on how best to ensure effective implementation. The article argues that for most corporations, the day‐to‐day management of HRDD best fits with the compliance function—not the legal function—and this new role could be part of the next step in the evolution of the compliance function. This article also discusses the role of the board of directors and how HRDD combined with recent developments in the law of fiduciary duties can push directors to engage in more rigorous oversight. In addition, it discusses the types of information that are essential for supporting the management and oversight of HRDD.

A Study on State Duties under UNGPs Ensuring Human Rights in the Ship-Recycling Industry

The adverse human rights impact in the South Asian ship-recycling yards is not uncommon for international shipping industry since beginning of 2000s. Even if preventive measures under the Basel Convention has been established to ensure human rights in these beaching yards, the deteriorated conditions over human rights have rarely experienced improvements for workers and residents. Thus, this paper slightly deviates from current international instruments regulating ship-recycling activities, and then focus on the state duties under IHRL to ensure human rights through UNGPs. Particularly, UNGPs, in order to ensure human rights under the current regime of IHRL including the UDHR and other legal instruments, provides principles which can be applied in relation to business activities of transnational corporate. In particular, as state duties, the UNGPs prescribes state duty to protect against human rights abuses caused by the business activities and to ensure access to effective remedy for the victims. While the UNGPs has not created new obligations of states since it is not an international legal instrument, these obligations should be looked upon derived from the existing international human rights law. Therefore, this paper will examines the state duties under the UNGPs focusing on how to ensure these duties in the ship-recycling industry of South Asia where especially human rights abuses have been severe. These includes development of a new treaty for implementation of the UNGPs for a long-term and domestic measures ensuring effective remedy to the victims for a short- to mid-term.

The Management and Oversight of Human Rights Due Diligence

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how vulnerable workers in global supply chains are to adverse human rights impacts. Protecting such workers must be a primary policy goal in the efforts to “build back better” from the crisis, and businesses conducting human rights due diligence (HRDD) is a primary means to do so. In Europe, there is a fast-moving trend towards legislatively mandating HRDD and there is potential for similar movement in the United States. Whether HRDD will significantly improve human rights conditions, however, is an open question. Based on our experience with corporate compliance programs, it is clear that the management and oversight of HRDD is an essential factor in ensuring meaningful implementation, as opposed to corporations focusing on form over substance. This article identifies those key internal governance issues and provides advice on how best to ensure effective implementation. This article argues that for most corporations, the day-to-day management of HRDD best fits with the compliance function—not the legal function—and this new role could be part of the next step in the evolution of the compliance function. This article also discusses the role of the board of directors and how HRDD combined with recent developments in the law of fiduciary duties can push directors to engage in more rigorous oversight. In addition, this article discusses the types of information that are essential for supporting the management and oversight of HRDD.