UN Guiding Research Articles

번역문] 일본에서의 기업과 인권 : 유엔 기업과 인권 이행원칙의 실행

번역문] 일본에서의 기업과 인권 : 유엔 기업과 인권 이행원칙의 실행

An application of the ‘foundational principles’ of the second pillar of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights to the ranger mine, in the Northern Territory of Australia

This paper reviews the ‘foundational principles’ of the second pillar (the corporate responsibility to respect) of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and applies them to the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory of Australia. It is argued that whilst there is some progress being made and clear acknowledgement and recognition by Rio Tinto that supports the UNGPs, this acknowledgement is yet to translate into meaningful changes on the ground at the Ranger mine. As a result this raises two issues for the UNGPs. Firstly, the efficacy of the UNGPs, as a stand-alone instrument, to deliver increased rights protections for those that need them most. Secondly, commercial realities as opposed to a disregard for human rights, may in some cases explain why companies have not implemented the UNGPs.

A Study on the Relationship between SLO and the Social Contract Theory in the Context of Business and Human Rights

다국적 기업의 인권 침해를 해결하기 위해 유엔에서 ‘기업과 인권 이행 원칙’ (‘이행원칙’)이 2011년에 발표된 후 여러 국제기구와 국가의 관련 기준이 일관성 있게 수렴되어 이미 중요한 국제기준으로 자리잡았다. 우리나라에서도 이행원칙을 반영한 공공기관의 인권경영 기준이 2018년부터 경영평가에 이미 반영되고 있고 또한 민간기업 확산을 위해 법무부가 마련한 “인권 경영 표준지침” 초안이 2019년 말 현재 공청회 과정을 밟고 있다. 프랑스가 인권실사를 의무화한 기업실사의무법을 2017년 이미 공표하였고 독일에서도 비슷한 법안이 계류중인 국제적 동향에 비추어 한국의 인권경영도 입법을 위한 준비를 하고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 이러한 동향의 이론적 근거로서 근래에 활발히 대두되고 있는 기업운영에 대한 사회적 라이센스 (“SLO”)개념은 기업 활동에 직간접적 영향을 받는 이해관계자가 해당 기업활동의 정당성에 관하여 판단할 권리를 가진 주체로서 논의에 포함되어야 한다는 관점에서 기업의 사회적 책임의 중요한 요소로 대두되고 있다. 그런데 SLO의 보다 구체적인 구성요소와 내용을 파악하기 위한 방법론으로서 사회계약(Social Contract)과의 밀접한 관계가 근래 논의되고 있는데, 이는 노사정 중심의 사회대타협(사회협약)개념을 포함하지만 그보다 더 기저에 있는 시민사회의 토론 및 합의 과정의 관점에서 파악될 수 있다. 즉 SLO는 이해관계자가 크고 작은 범위로 구성하는 사회에서 일어나는 사회계약 프로세스에 참여함으로써 내용파악과 접근이 가능하다는 논지이다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 동향을 각각 소개하고 SLO와 확대된 사회계약의 상관관계를 기업과 인권 논의와 연결 지어 관련 이론의 구조화를 추구한다. 또한 이러한 과정을 한국 대기업에 대한 사회적 책임을 SLO 개념으로 바라보아, 결국 기업과 인권 동향은 기업활동의 정당성과 이해관계자의 사회적 동의를 구하는 방법론으로서 SLO와 확대된 개념의 사회계약의 맥락에서 파악할 것을 제시한다. 특히 사회전반에서 나타나는 반기업정서를 넓은 의미의 이해관계자인 한국사회에서의 인식되는 기업의 SLO의 취약으로 파악함으로써 한국대기업에게는 사회전반과 특정 이해관계자의 두 레벨에서 사회계약 논의에 참여하여 기업의 사회적 책임과 SLO를 강화할 수 있음을 제안하고 그 구체적인 실행의 방법론으로서 이행원칙 인권경영이 제시하는 이해관계자 참여를 통한 인권실사를 충실하게 시행해야 한다는 권고를 함께 제시한다.The concept of Social License to Operate (“SLO”) is getting more attention as a key component of Corporate Social Responsibility in the context of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGPs”). It provides a new perspective on social concerns associated with corporate activities, similarly as the framework of legal licenses, to contemplate in more concrete terms who and what constitutes the license and the process. Korea has implemented the “business and human rights standard manual” to public institutions in 2018 and a similar guideline for private sector companies is going through public hearings as of 2019, ostensibly in preparation for the legislation in the future. This comes in the backdrop of the ‘French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law’ promulgated in 2017 and a similar German draft bill surfaced earlier this year. This paper argues that, in order to clarify the content of the SLO, the expanded notion of the social contract provides a conceptual framework where terms of SLO reflect, and are informed by, the ‘terms of the social contract.’ In other words, there is an active process of dialogue between SLO and the social contract where the process of coming to consensus on key issues of the society (social contract process) determines, or at least informs, the terms of SLO. The business and human rights regime, then, is one key component of the social contract “negotiation” and discussion that occurs on various levels of the society and stakeholders. For corporations, SLO represents their participation in the social contract process of the society as a corporate citizen and, on that basis, demonstrates their commitment to becoming part of the solution for harms caused by corporations. Whether solutions are readily found or not, the participation goes a long way to legitimize their effort to fulfill social responsibility. UNGPs provide a methodology to engage in the process from the human rights point of view. Therefore, given this construct, UNGPs offer an opportunity for Korean conglomerates to participate in an active dialogue between SLO and the social contract to improve their weak SLO.

Irremediable impacts and unaccountable contributors: the possibility of a trust fund for victims to remedy large-scale human rights impacts

ABSTRACTCorporate actions often adversely impact human rights in ways that are not easily justiciable. Such actions include the production and use of fossil fuels, contributing to climate change and its impacts, and actions that deny or retrogress access to the global food, housing and pharmaceutical markets. This paper terms the impacts caused by these actions ‘large-scale impacts’. Large-scale impacts feature multiple contributors, disparate victims, and no clear line of causation for establishing individual liability, and they often stem from legally permitted economic activity. This paper argues that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights – pillar two of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) – provides a useful framework for: (1) capturing the harm that such impacts cause, and (2) holding a wide range of businesses accountable for their contribution. However, the remedial mechanisms under pillar three of the UNGPs, as currently constituted, are ill-suited to such impacts. To correct this gap, this paper proposes the establishment of a Trust Fund for Victims, into which all corporate contributors to large-scale impacts would pay and against which victims could claim. Such a mechanism could significantly improve corporate accountability in the context of economic globalisation.

General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities (CESCR)

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) took an unusual step in issuing its “General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities.” Unlike most of CESCR's other General Comments, General Comment No. 24 does not tackle a specific right. Instead, it consolidates and elaborates the Committee's jurisprudence on states' obligations in the area of business and human rights, providing clarity on its approach to some of the most contentious issues within the field of business and human rights. This General Comment has the potential to have profound implications for the ongoing development of legal standards in the area of business and human rights, including implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP).

Any Act, Any Harm, To Anyone: The Transformative Potential of 'Human Rights Impacts' Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

The concept of ‘adverse human rights impacts’ introduced by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is frequently used in institutional, activist and scholarly discourse. However, the term is under-explored and usually equated with ‘human rights violation’, occluding its transformative potential. This article demonstrates its expansiveness and rationale: ‘impacts’ cover any business act which removes or reduces an individual’s enjoyment of human rights. The formula is designed to capture business acts that are not paradigmatically understood as human rights violations but that nonetheless cause harmful outcomes. This can encompass, inter alia, acts which reduce market access to essential goods, harm caused by business-related tax abuse, and business contributions to climate change. The extra-legal concept provides an authoritative argumentative framework through which social understandings of business-related harm can evolve and can underlie a transformative shift in the business-society relationship.

Modern Slavery in Global Supply Chains: Can National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights Close the Governance Gap?

AbstractFollowing the 2011 endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), states have begun to implement National Action Plans (NAPs) to operationalize the UNGPs. Using a case study approach and applying a conceptual framework for polycentric governance, this article aims to provide an early assessment of the effectiveness of NAPs adopted by the United Kingdom and the United States to combat one of the worst human rights abuses in global supply chains: modern slavery. This study demonstrates that both NAPs contain elements addressing the governance gaps surrounding modern slavery, such as enacting new laws, adapting existing regulations, strengthening multi-stakeholder mechanisms for business accountability, and promoting innovation. However, it is argued that the NAPs themselves were not the catalysts for the majority of these measures. This article concludes that states should optimize the five characteristics of polycentric governance outlined in this study to improve the relevance and effectiveness of NAPs as drivers of change.

The Criminal Liability of Corporations: A Step Forward in the Implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) marked the end of a long journey towards regulating corporate conduct on this issue. However, they were conceived only as a focal point to guide public, corporate and civil governance towards the respect and protection of human rights. For this reason, the UNGP function as a common platform on which new rules and strategies should be developed. In this sense, as an element of public governance, Mexico adopted the criminal liability of corporations (CLC), which entered into force in 2016, along with the accusatory criminal justice system. Thus, since one of the purposes of criminal law is the subsidiary protection of legal assets —most of which have an underlying fundamental right—, the purpose of this article is to determine whether or not Mexico’s adoption of the CLC enhances the implementation of the UNGP, and if so, to evaluate its scope and limitations. After scrutinizing the UNGP in light of the regulation of the CLC in Mexico, the author argues that, although its performance can be optimized in many ways, the CLC plays an essential role in the area of business and human rights, not only for its direct contributions, but also for the interaction it generates with corporate and civil governance.

Securing human rights through risk-management methods: Breakthrough or misalignment?

AbstractThis is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank Framework, the International Financial Corporation Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention, one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights transnationally. The analysis identifies four ‘offsets’ through which economic decision-makers can distort their human rights performance and place causal observers at a disadvantage. Prevention becomes an issue of how to relate to ‘residual impacts’ on human rights. This article finds that the ‘hierarchy or mitigation’ and even ‘human rights due diligence’ under illuminate the challenge. The proposal here is to add ‘reduction at source’ as a parameter of human rights risk management. The sources for this analysis are the three instruments, and the practice of implementing organizations, particularly IFC projects, CAO cases, impact assessments, and CSR reports. In conclusion, the potential for cross-fertilization among instruments is genuine. Increased clarity on prevention of human rights impacts should assist economic decision-makers in their risk management task and casual observers in assessing their performance.

Securing Human Rights Through Risk-Management Methods: Breakthrough or Misalignment?

This is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank’s Framework, the International Financial Corporation’ Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights transnationally. The analysis identifies four ‘offsets’ through which economic decision-makers can distort their human rights performance and place causal observers at a disadvantage. Prevention becomes an issue of how to relate to ‘residual impacts’ on human rights. This article finds that the ‘hierarchy or mitigation’ and even ‘human rights due diligence’ under illuminate the challenge. The proposal here is to add ‘reduction at source’ as a parameter of human rights risk management. The sources for this analysis are the three instruments, and the practice of implementing organizations, particularly IFC projects, CAO cases, impact assessments, and CSR reports. In conclusion, the potential for cross-fertilization among instruments is genuine. Increased clarity on prevention of human rights impacts should assist economic decision-makers in their risk management task and casual observers in assessing their performance.

THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A MANAGER OF GLOBAL ‘BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS’ REGULATION: COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY REPORTING RULES

The European Union’s 2013 Country-by-Country Reporting (CBCR) rules bring within the public domain information on corporate payments made to governments all over the world for the purpose of exploiting natural resources in the oil, gas, mining and logging sectors. In so doing, the CBCR rules enhance transparency in these sectors and aim to reduce tax avoidance and corruption in resource-rich countries. Arguably, they also contribute to the European Commission’s long-term strategy to secure sustained access to raw materials in the European Economic Area. The CBCR rules represent one of the only three binding regulatory frameworks that have been adopted at the EU level to implement the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Just as with the two other initiatives that came into existence (the Non-Financial Reporting Directive and the Conflict Minerals Regulation), the immediate impact on the competitiveness of corporations based in the EU was a key concern during the legislative process. This article uncovers the two strategies that were employed to overcome such concern and give the CBCR rules a ‘global’ character.

Law-Making, Civil Society and the Treaty on Business & Human Rights: Strategies for Effectiveness

This thesis dissects the Zero Draft of the Treaty on Business & Human Rights, encompassing both its legal and political controversies. By assessing previous experiences of politically controverted negotiations that resulted on protective treaties (namely, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Ottawa Treaty on Anti-Personnel Landmines), it argues that the engagement of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) is essential for a progressive and broadly ratified treaty to be achieved. Building upon Putnam's Two-Level Games theory, it then argues that the political feasibility of the Treaty can be directly impacted through coordinated CSO strategies. A key challenge that CSOs must address is the corporate capture of the treaty-making process, especially through the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the European Union. By employing the framing methodology, this work analyses the rhetorical strategies used by those actors to limit political engagement. It then compares this framing to corporate strategies employed in other treaty negotiations, and proposes a counter-framing (to be adopted by CSOs and engaged States) to combat corporate capture. This thesis ultimately sustains that there is both the need and realistic hope for the Treaty, especially if CSOs effectively reframe and push the narrative that (i) the Treaty and the UN Guiding Principles complement one another; (ii) EU countries are actively favouring corporate interest over human rights; and (iii) the Treaty must be more ambitious so as to include, among others, mandatory human rights due diligence and direct obligations upon parent companies.

Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the framework of the recovery and peacebuilding in the Еastern regions of ukraine

Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the framework of the recovery and peacebuilding in the Еastern regions of ukraine

UN Binding Treaty for Transnational Corporations on Human Rights

24 | International Union Rights | 26/4 ANALYSIS | UN BINDING TREATY DRAFT The Draft Treaty is taking clear shape and this is a key time for trade unionists to continue to engage with technical legal aspects of the drafting In July 2019, the ‘Revised Draft of the Legally Binding Instrument’ was released from the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Business and Human Rights, updating the so-called ‘Zero Draft’ of July 2018. Many welcomed the new draft as a step forward, but others were quick to seize upon a number of ambiguities and puzzling choices that seem to depart from the broad consensus of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The document now has a coherent shape and focus, but fails to produce clarity on a number of technical legal points. These must be addressed if the Draft is to create a meaningful international standard. The following represent my own views (broadly starting with the highest priority points, moving towards those that are either less urgent or viable) on which changes trade unionists should consider pushing for in the Draft. Due diligence and stakeholder issues The continuing move towards a legally mandated form of binding due diligence can be welcomed by unions. It promises opportunities for participation and engagement, and is the only mechanism that seeks to avoid and prevent harm, rather than merely compensate for harm that has occurred. It is built upon the idea of voluntary due diligence that was central to the UNGPs. It is understood by and – more or less – supported by significant sections of the business community, at least to a degree. Properly mapped out, binding due diligence holds the potential to improve corporate planning so as to identify and avoid risks, improve communication with stakeholders, and to establish better participation for all affected by corporate activities (notably, of course, those working in their supply chains). It also backs this up with real accountability for failures to identify and avoid risks. Crucial to effective due diligence, however, are requirements for stakeholder involvement in corporate planning. Trade unionists should consider calling for the following improvements: • Groups identified as ‘at risk’ should include trade unions (Articles 5(3)b and 14(4)). • Groups identified as ‘to be consulted’ should include trade unions (Article 5(3)b). • The form that Article 5(3)b consultation takes should be better defined so as to give stakeholders a genuine opportunity to influence decision-making. • The outcomes of consultation do not have a mechanism requiring that they be integrated into due diligence planning. This is in contrast to the outcomes of impact assessments, which are specifically integrated into due diligence planning under Article 5(3)a. An equivalent link placing consultation outcomes at least on a par with impact assessment outcomes should be established. • There should be an explicit link between Article 5 due diligence for parent companies and Article 6 legal liability concerning harm arising as a result of due diligence failures (discussed further below). • There should be a clear statement under Article 5 (and therefore linked also to Article 6(6)) to the effect that parent companies should not be able to divest themselves of due diligence obligations by simply outsourcing that responsibility to a third party monitor or by paying little or no attention to their supply chains. Liability, jurisdiction, and applicable law Victims of harm need access to courts and judicial processes, and effective remedies must be available that are appropriate and commensurate to the harm suffered. The latest Draft does give a useful framework around which to discuss what liability might look like under the Treaty, but there are surprising gaps and a lack of clarity concerning how and in what circumstances parent company liability towards victims overseas might arise. Changes in the following areas ought to be investigated: • Article 6(6) outlines a civil liability track for victims. It covers situations where one company is controlled or supervised by another, and (in the alternative) also situations where a company should foresee or should have foreseen harm caused by a company with which it has a ‘contractual relationship’. This second strand of liability seems to arise where the parent company...

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and their Implementation in Germany and the Czech Republic

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and their Implementation in Germany and the Czech Republic

Hardening Soft Law: The Implementation of Human Rights Due Diligence Requirements in Domestic Legislation

Although the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) are a soft law instrument which does not create any legally binding obligations, they nevertheless constitute the first authoritative global standard on business and human rights and have spurred a number of domestic-level legislative developments that seek to implement the UNGPs and translate the human rights due diligence (HRDD) requirements into hard law, through a process of progressive ‘hardening’ of the UNGPs. Indeed, since the adoption of the UNGPs in 2011, a wide spectrum of domestic-level measures on HRDD have bloomed in numerous jurisdictions throughout the world. Reporting regulations such as the UK and Australian Modern Slavery Acts focus on only one part, albeit an essential one, of the HRDD process which is the communication element. Other domestic-level measures, such as the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, go beyond mere mandatory reporting by requiring companies to actually undertake HRDD, whilst remaining issue-specific. Some go still further, such as the French law on the duty of vigilance, the Swiss Initiative on Responsible Business, and the German draft law on due diligence in supply chains, by aiming to provide an overarching mandatory due diligence framework, with penalties and a civil liability regime attached to it. This Chapter will provide an in-depth analysis of these legal developments.

Experimentalist Global Governance and the Case for a Framework Convention Based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Building on earlier work this chapter further develops one argument for a BHR framework convention based on the UNGPs and BHR national action plans. Specifically, it contends that support for a framework convention can be found in the theoretical-normative concept of “global experimentalist governance” (de Burca, Keohane, and Sabel, 2014). Section 2 outlines the concept of GXG and its application to human rights treaty regimes. Section 3 argues that four preconditions for an effective experimentalist regime, as described by scholars, might be satisfied for a BHR framework convention based on the UNGPs and NAPs. Section 4 sketches some elements a BHR framework convention could include, consistently with GXG precepts. Section 5 concludes.

Doing business right? Private actors and the international legality of economic activities in occupied territories

In recent years the question of the lawfulness of economic activities in occupied territories has emerged as a matter of significant debate in international law. A number of non-governmental organizations and scholars maintain that international law prohibits economic relations with occupying states and this extends to territories under their control. Still, the legal framework governing the lawfulness of such relations remains unclear. In light of this, the present contribution aims to explore the lawfulness, under international law, of economic dealings by third party private actors in territories under prolonged occupation. It is argued that, since corporations are not direct holders of international law obligations, the duties of non-recognition and non-assistance do not extend to their activities. Similarly, it is shown that the development of a law of individual criminal responsibility in international law has not yet been accompanied by a regime of corporate criminal responsibility, thereby affirming the absence of any formal international normative dimension of transnational corporate activity. In the light of the inadequacy of traditional legal instruments to regulate corporate activity in occupied territories, the article finally turns to one of the main soft-law instruments governing such activity, namely the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The article provides some concrete examples of how the UNGPs have been successful in dissuading companies from carrying out economic activities in the occupied Palestinian territories and in the occupied Western Sahara. The main argument advanced here is that, in the absence of a hard regulatory framework governing corporate activities, soft-law instruments, such as the UNGPs, show great potential in bringing about a change of corporate conduct towards occupied territories. More fundamentally, this practice will hopefully lead to the adoption of a hard instrument on the topic.

Human Rights & Welfare in Business

본 연구는 기업 내에서 발생하는 인권문제를 기업인권의 관점에서 이론적 고찰을 해보는 것에 목적을 둔다. 기업인권의 문제는 조직 내부에서 발생하는 권력구조의 불평등에 기인한다. 인권은 자유와 평등의 집합체이며 인간의 생명 존중과 존엄의 결과물임에도 불구하고, 기업인권의 문제는 기업이 형성한 그릇된 조직문화에서 인권의 가치가 존중되지 않음을 의미하는 것이기도 하다. 즉, 인간의 가장 중요한 그리고 가장 기초적인 욕구인 인간 존중과 존엄이라는 기본권이 우리사회에서 보장받지 못 하고 있음을 입증하는 것이다. 기업인권을 권력구조의 불평등이라는 구조적 관점에서 논의하기 위해서는 노동의 탈상품화와 사회권을 포함한 시민권적 관점 또한 중요한 이론적 분석의 틀이다. 이러한 측면에서 인권의 가치는 사회복지의 가치와 공유되며, 이들은 국제기구의 기업인권 관련 규범에 투영되어 왔다. 지금까지 국제기구의 규범들은 기업의 자율성에 의존한 결과, 기업 내 인권의 문제를 효과적으로 방지하지 못하였다. 하지만 UN 이행원칙에는 국가와 기업의 개입, 노동권 및 사회권의 보장 등 사회정책적 가치들이 적극적으로 반영되어 있다. 따라서 기업인권과 기업복지의 관계를 정립하고, 기업인권에 대한 기업복지 차원의 정책적이며 실천적 대응방안을 모색할 필요가 있다.The goal of this study is to scrutinize the welfare issues in business sectors and human rights with theoretical explanations. The issues of human rights in enterprises have resulted from inequality of power structure existing in business organizations. Despite human rights are an outcome of respect for human life and dignity as well as an aggregate of liberty and equality in a human society, human rights have actually not been secured for the employed in business sectors due to erroneous organizational environments in business sectors. De-commodification of labor and citizenship perspectives along with social rights can be a crucial part of theoretical approaches in explaining corporate human rights. These findings address a core message that there is a mutual understanding in sharing philosophical values between corporate human rights and social welfare. Finally, this research work also introduced products of efforts in which global institutions have engaged. In particular, ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights’, a piece of work from the United Nations to protect the employed from human rights issues in enterprises, contributed to setting institutional guidelines in governments and business sectors in the world.

Intersecting Spheres of Analysis in Business and Human Rights: Developing a New Socio-Legal Research Agenda and Methodology for UN Guiding Principle No 9

ABSTRACTExisting methodological approaches to business and human rights frequently fail to address the broad spectrum of relevant issues in the field. Persistent disciplinary silos and normative limitations of key legal and governance instruments result in reductive normative approaches and ultimately in ineffective policies. Focusing on the normative environment covered by UN Guiding Principle on Business and Human Rights No 9, specifically on the intersection between business and human rights in international investment, this paper argues for the need to put forward interdisciplinary socio-legal methodologies. It contends that any comprehensive methodology addressing the field ought to account for the specificity of existing governance models, the intrinsic dominant role of corporate actors and the socio-legal complexity displayed at the intersection of human rights with business and market mechanisms. The analysis developed is advanced not as a ‘model’ methodology but as an instance of mapping out how a relatively narrow governance approach can be enhanced methodologically in order to better inform research and policy design.