Category Archives: Human Rights

Human rights impact assessments are like a promising school band

By Désirée Abrahams

Last week, I attended the 31st International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Conference, held in the stunning, colonial Méxican city of Puebla. I was honoured to be invited to this amazing conference; not only to listen and learn from those working at all levels in the impact assessment (IA) field but also because the session I spoke at was the first of its kind.

After 30 years of IAIA conferences, the 31st opened its doors to a small but rapidly growing field of human rights impact assessments (HRIA).  Thanks to the work of the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, John Ruggie, HRIAs or assessments on a company’s human rights impact as a concept, are now largely accepted.

Although, acceptance hasn’t yet translated into extensive adoption. Human rights impact assessments are like a promising school band that has the potential to turn into a big overnight hit.

If a school band, the session on HRIAs at the Conference was its first concert outside of the school gates, and by all accounts, the audience loved the performance.  But I hear you question, is this because the audience was filled with the equivalent of the mums, dads and other family members of the school band musicians? Wasn’t the IAIA Conference filled with impact assessment practioners and other folk linked to the community?

Indeed it was, but don’t be fooled into thinking that the IA community or others will readily embrace HRIAs without careful scrutiny.  In fact, many in the CSR/ Sustainability community question the added-value of a specific ‘human rights’ impact assessment approach for companies, noting that a ‘good’ social impact assessment  (SIA) should be able to pick up most human rights risks and impacts.  At the session, I was directly asked for a list of the human rights issues that are not addressed in a SIA. Wouldn’t life be simple if there was such a list!  Alas, there is not, and there shouldn’t be, as no one impact assessment, whatever it is called, could ever be the same.

The essence of a human rights impact assessment rests not only on what you do, but how you do it. There are 30+ human rights, so conducting a comprehensive HRIA will require an assessment of all as per the International Bill of Human Rights. Yes, it will be a significant undertaking.

So those that believe that the exercise can be fast-tracked and some human rights can be overlooked in the interests of expediency or that certain human rights do not relate to their business so can be instantly ignored, are missing the point of the exercise.  Often, human rights issues are hidden – often they are nascent, so approaching an assessment of this kind will require an open mind.

The human rights issues associated with workers, communities and other stakeholders can be diverse, dynamic, and demanding; some of them may even conflict with each other.  Indeed, it is this combination of factors that will make a HRIA more challenging than any other assessment to complete, but all the more useful to the company in the long run.

Related link

Frank Seier, human rights specialist from Right2Respect writes a blog post in response to the above

Leave a Comment

Filed under Business standards, CSR, Human Rights, Sustainability

Where is the business and human rights arena headed?

By Désirée Abrahams

In December last year, IBLF advertised for a Programme Coordinator to work on business and human rights. Needing to get someone in quickly, we set a one-week deadline and an essay of 250 words, themed ‘In your opinion, what does the future hold for business and human rights over the next five years?’

We were inundated with very high calibre candidates – all with multiples degrees and varied work experience. Their essays were impressive too. While some focused on the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework’ advanced by John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, his recent Guiding Principles, and ruminated on 2011 and what is set to be an important year for business standards, others chose to focus on what specifically companies should do in next five years. Many stressed the need for business to undertake human rights due diligence; to develop human rights policies that signal their commitment, to assess potential human rights risks, and to critically address any adverse human rights impacts.

Credit: Sven Torfinn

The contrasting responses intrigued me, and in a way, are similar to the varying approaches adopted by different actors in the business and human rights field over recent years. While a huge generalisation, key actors can be seen to cluster into three different levels:

  • Those at 3,000 feet – actors lobbying for international standards, opining for more policies, and advocating for more legislation to regulate the conduct of businesses.
  • Those at 30 feet – actors in the thick of it, who are pulled in many directions, and who face competing challenges and objectives.
  • Lastly, there are those who feel they are three feet under – actors who feel paralyzed by what they view as insurmountable powerful structures – structures they feel they can neither influence nor affect.

While there have been significant advances over the years in the business and human rights field, real change will only come about through a change in attitude and behaviour by all stakeholders, and a commitment to put differences aside and work in partnership. Understanding the respective positions and challenges of each relevant actor, by all actors, will be necessary if the end goal – the eradication of corporate-related adverse human rights impacts on stakeholders – is to be achieved.

Leave a Comment

Filed under CSR, Human Rights, Sustainability

Guest Blog: Poverty is a human rights violation in India

Guest blog by Amita Joseph and Navin K. Singh, Business and Community Foundation (BCF)

More than two decades after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in India, in which toxic gas leaked from a pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide, thousands of surviving victims are still waiting for compensation. India has also long been a destination for cheap labour. Where employability is not a question but employment is, families struggle to meet living standards with little or no improvement to their quality of life. And poverty itself becomes the biggest human rights violation.

Occupational Health & Safety standards are rarely world-class, even with global corporations operating in India, and especially in the mining sector, which is currently in the eye of a storm in relation to human rights and equity in India. Some of the biggest garment brand names on Western high streets were recently at the centre of a major sweatshop scandal in India widely reported in the local press.

An investigation reported in the Hindustan Times found people at the Indian suppliers of these firms working up to 16 hours a day – excessive overtime that is a flagrant breach of the industry’s ethical trading initiative (ETI) and Indian Labour law. Workers complained they were paid at half the legal overtime rate, and those who refused to work were threatened or sacked, a practice deemed under law as forced labour and outlawed around the world.

These brands also found ”high –risk issues in documentation and conditions”. Workers claimed they had to work 7 days a week – a practice condemned by all for workers in the garment sector and often denied the Right to Association as provided for by Law.

There are international market dynamics on pricing which exert pressure on the suppliers and the cost of a cheap product is borne by workers, who are generally asked to work for long hours with no breaks, overtime and are finally poorly paid.

The critical issue of fair pricing is rarely focused upon. When safety measures are ignored, it is not just workers but the community in the vicinity that pays the price as was witnessed in Bhopal. When occupational standards are given the go-by, and access to livelihoods taken away from local people including violating environmental laws, agitations follow and companies no longer have the “social license to operate” which companies like Vedanta confronted in Orissa.

For instance, a well-known multinational company faced allegations in India of its ultrasound machines being used to determine and abort female foetuses, whether ‘due diligence’ had been applied in the sale of the machines to unregistered medical practitioners and whether local socio-cultural contexts and adverse impacts were taken into account when marketing strategies were formulated.

In its fifth principle, the National Voluntary Guidelines for the Social, Environmental and Economic responsibilities of Business states that businesses should respect and promote human rights. The core elements of the principle describe business responsibility to recognize human rights of all relevant stakeholders and groups within and beyond the workplace. Businesses should integrate respect for human rights in management systems and manage human rights impact of operations. They should understand the human rights content of the constitution of India, national laws and policies as well as follow the International codes on human rights. Businesses should not be complicit with human rights abuses by the third parties. And above all businesses should within their sphere of influence, promote the awareness and realization of human rights across their value chain.

What companies can do…

There are challenges of economic globalization and weakening of regulatory capacities of states. However international human rights law is transforming itself from imposing obligations only on states to taking into account corporations overseas where state control is not strong. “Governance Gaps” as identified by Professor John Ruggie remain a reality. Gaps include legal obstacles due to the complex structure of multinational corporations and inconsistency between what is permissible under corporate law and human rights law, the scope of responsibility directly imposed on business is yet to be clearly defined.

Companies operating in India could begin with following global health and safety standards, wage parity, affirmative action and diversity policies and avoid double standards. Those involved in Human Rights abuses face increased security and insurance costs and law suits. The price of getting it wrong cannot be underestimated! There is increasing public expectation, media and activist interest on companies to respect and strengthen their positive contribution to human rights. It is only by mobilizing rights positive action that we are provided with opportunities for victims to use them.

References:

Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Abuses – a guide for victims and NGOs on Recourse Mechanisms; www.iica.in


Leave a Comment

Filed under Emerging Markets, Employment & Labour, Human Rights