Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 4/2013

01.09.2013

Human Rights in the Void? Due Diligence in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

verfasst von: Björn Fasterling, Geert Demuijnck

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 4/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (Principles) that provide guidance for the implementation of the United Nations’ ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework (Framework) will probably succeed in making human rights matters more customary in corporate management procedures. They are likely to contribute to higher levels of accountability and awareness within corporations in respect of the negative impact of business activities on human rights. However, we identify tensions between the idea that the respect of human rights is a perfect moral duty for corporations and the Principle’s ‘human rights due diligence’ requirement. We argue that the effectiveness of the ‘human rights due diligence’ is in many respects dependent upon the moral commitment of corporations. The Principles leave room for an instrumental or strategic implementation of due diligence, which in some cases could result in a depreciation of the fundamental norms they seek to promote. We reveal some limits of pragmatic approaches to coping with business-related human rights abuses. As these limits become more apparent, not only does the case for further progress in international and extraterritorial human rights law become more compelling, but so too does the argument for a more forceful discussion on the moral foundations of human rights duties for corporations.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Bishop (2012) cautions, however, that if we assume moral human rights obligations for corporations, we presuppose that corporations, mere legal entities, are awarded legal rights in order to be able to fulfil such obligations, and points out that awarding such rights could in itself raise the danger that human rights are violated. As a result, Bishop proposes that the human rights obligations of corporations should be limited by limits on the rights of corporations.
 
2
So called claim-rights, like the right to education or the right to healthcare, are not natural in the second sense: they are created on a voluntary basis. Moreover, they cannot be derived from a negative conception of freedom. The ‘liberties’ follow directly on from the equal right to freedom. See Wenar (2011) for a discussion of these notions.
 
3
“The oil giant Shell has agreed to pay $15.5 m (£9.6 m) in settlement of a legal action in which it was accused of having collaborated in the execution of the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other leaders of the Ogoni tribe of southern Nigeria” (The Guardian, Tuesday 9 June 2009). See Wettstein (2012) for an interesting discussion of this case.
 
4
According to O’Neill (1996, p. 142), universal imperfect duties correspond to social virtues.
 
5
Here we use the expression “moral responsibility of a corporation” in a loose sense. We are aware that this expression hides a complex issue of collective moral agency and moral responsibility. A corporation cannot be treated as a human being, because, first, it is a legal construction, and second, responsibility is necessarily collective. List and Pettit (2011) have recently developed an interesting theory of collective (moral) agency that can be read as a theoretical underpinning of the position defended by Peter French (1984) in the 1980s debate about whether or not we may attribute moral agency to a corporation. For our purpose here, the very general and minimal assumption that it is possible to judge, from a moral viewpoint, collective decisions of an organisation like a corporation, is sufficient. We leave aside here the very difficult question of how to relate the collective responsibility to the individuals who are somehow part of the corporation. The expression ‘China does not respect human rights’ faces similar although not totally identical problems. Cf. List and Pettit (2011).
 
6
Even if one agrees with Shue (1996), who convincingly argues that the distinction between negative and positive rights is fuzzy and that there is a basic right to subsistence, it is obvious that the Framework’s scope nevertheless contains rights that go beyond subsistence.
 
7
Admittedly, in practice the line between the two types of rights is not so strict, as Shue (1996) has convincingly argued.
 
8
The SRSG neither invented, nor claimed credit for the term “Ruggie-proof”, but he does not hesitate to cite it either (see e.g. Ruggie 2011).
 
9
Cf. UNHRC 2011a, p. 13 et seq, “The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights is distinct from issues of legal liability and enforcement, which remain defined largely by national law provisions in relevant jurisdictions”.
 
10
The Principles might have influence on the application of the US Alien Tort Claims Act in the future. At the time of writing, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has not rendered its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell. In consequence we cannot tell to which extent the Principles influenced the decision.
 
11
By “diplomatic intervention”, we understand the mediation and conciliation processes under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises through “National Contact Points”.
 
12
As human rights due diligence necessitates the involvement of stakeholders, it appears that the Principles’ due diligence process follows the logic of a social norm system that is constituted through and enforced by collective actions of stakeholders participating in the system itself, and based on disclosure (Catá Backer 2011, 203). Yet, the Principles do not contemplate the participation of affected stakeholders such as local communities, workers, customers, investors and individual rights-holders as an organised response to corporate information assessment and communication but rather as a means for corporations to fulfil their due diligence responsibility. Therefore, branding human rights due diligence as a social norm system appears to be premature and contingent on the way stakeholders will actually react to corporate human rights due diligence, and on whether stakeholders will take advantage of corporate human rights communication and consultation in order to enter into a meaningful dialogue with corporations.
 
13
We are not suggesting that all corporations would engage in such crudely rational behaviour, but that it is not unrealistic that some will (cf. Heath 2009, who suggests that agency and other economic theories based on rational behaviour would be helpful analysis tools as they operationalize “a certain form of moral scepticism” and show “what the consequences of generalised immorality would be”).
 
14
The fact that the SRSG recommends that corporations draw guidance from independent expert advice to assess appropriate action in complex cases (cf. UNHRC 2011a, p. 19) does not speak against our basic finding that the assessment of the degree of a corporation’s implication in human rights remains discretional.
 
15
In practice risk managers will probably not always think of maximising shareholder value or fulfilling other objectives, but simply deal with risks that a corporation commits itself to prevent (workplace safety incidents, legal non-compliance). Yet, it would be unrealistic to assume that the structure and decision-making processes of risk management are detached from corporate objectives and the strategies to achieve them.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Arnold, D. G. (2010). Transnational corporations and the duty to respect basic human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 371–399.CrossRef Arnold, D. G. (2010). Transnational corporations and the duty to respect basic human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 371–399.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bishop, J. D. (2012). The limits of corporate human rights obligations and the rights of for-profit corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 119–144.CrossRef Bishop, J. D. (2012). The limits of corporate human rights obligations and the rights of for-profit corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 119–144.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bittle, S., & Snider, L. (2011). Moral panics deflected: The failed legislative response to Canada’s safety crimes and markets fraud legislation. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56(4), 373–387.CrossRef Bittle, S., & Snider, L. (2011). Moral panics deflected: The failed legislative response to Canada’s safety crimes and markets fraud legislation. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56(4), 373–387.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Buchanan, A. (1996). Perfecting imperfect duties: Collective action to create moral obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(1), 27–42.CrossRef Buchanan, A. (1996). Perfecting imperfect duties: Collective action to create moral obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(1), 27–42.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell, T. (1999). Human rights. A culture of controversy. Journal of Law & Society, 26(1), 6–27.CrossRef Campbell, T. (1999). Human rights. A culture of controversy. Journal of Law & Society, 26(1), 6–27.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Catá Backer, L. (2011). From institutional misalignments to socially sustainable governance: The guiding principles for the implementation of the United Nation’s ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ and the construction of inter-systemic global governance. Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1922953. Catá Backer, L. (2011). From institutional misalignments to socially sustainable governance: The guiding principles for the implementation of the United Nation’s ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ and the construction of inter-systemic global governance. Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​1922953.
Zurück zum Zitat Clapham, A. (2010). Human rights obligations of non-state-actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reprint). Clapham, A. (2010). Human rights obligations of non-state-actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reprint).
Zurück zum Zitat Clapham, A., & Jerbi, S. (2001). Categories of corporate complicity in human rights abuses. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 24, 339–349. Clapham, A., & Jerbi, S. (2001). Categories of corporate complicity in human rights abuses. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 24, 339–349.
Zurück zum Zitat Clarkson, C. M. V. (1996). Kicking corporate bodies and damning their souls. Modern Law Review, 59(4), 557–572.CrossRef Clarkson, C. M. V. (1996). Kicking corporate bodies and damning their souls. Modern Law Review, 59(4), 557–572.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cragg, W. (2012). Ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights: A critical look at the justificatory foundations of the UN framework. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 9–36.CrossRef Cragg, W. (2012). Ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights: A critical look at the justificatory foundations of the UN framework. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 9–36.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Damodaran, A. (2007). Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Wharton School Publishing. Damodaran, A. (2007). Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Wharton School Publishing.
Zurück zum Zitat Dhooge, L. J. (2008). Due diligence as a defense to corporate liability pursuant to the alien tort statute. Emory International Law Review, 22, 456–498. Dhooge, L. J. (2008). Due diligence as a defense to corporate liability pursuant to the alien tort statute. Emory International Law Review, 22, 456–498.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferrell, O. C., LeClair, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (1998). The federal sentencing guidelines for organizations: A framework for ethical compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 353–363.CrossRef Ferrell, O. C., LeClair, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (1998). The federal sentencing guidelines for organizations: A framework for ethical compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 353–363.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Finnis, J. (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Finnis, J. (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Zurück zum Zitat French, P. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press. French, P. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Hart, H. L. A. (1955). Are there any natural rights? Philosophical Review, 64, 175–191.CrossRef Hart, H. L. A. (1955). Are there any natural rights? Philosophical Review, 64, 175–191.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Heath, J. (2009). The uses and abuses of agency theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 497–528.CrossRef Heath, J. (2009). The uses and abuses of agency theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 497–528.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kant, I. (2002). The groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Payton, Trans.). In L. Pasternak (Ed.), The groundwork of the metaphysics of morals in focus (pp. 17–98). London: Routledge. Kant, I. (2002). The groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Payton, Trans.). In L. Pasternak (Ed.), The groundwork of the metaphysics of morals in focus (pp. 17–98). London: Routledge.
Zurück zum Zitat Laufer, W. S. (2011). Corporate bodies and guilty minds: The failure of corporate criminal liability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Laufer, W. S. (2011). Corporate bodies and guilty minds: The failure of corporate criminal liability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201–217.CrossRef Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201–217.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat McCorquodale, R. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and international human rights law. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 385–400.CrossRef McCorquodale, R. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and international human rights law. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 385–400.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Muchlinski, P. (2012). Implementing the New UN Corporate Human Rights Framework: Implications for corporate law, governance, and regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 145–177.CrossRef Muchlinski, P. (2012). Implementing the New UN Corporate Human Rights Framework: Implications for corporate law, governance, and regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 145–177.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Nolan, N., & Taylor, L. (2009). Corporate responsibility for economic, social and cultural rights: Rights in search of a remedy? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 433–451.CrossRef Nolan, N., & Taylor, L. (2009). Corporate responsibility for economic, social and cultural rights: Rights in search of a remedy? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 433–451.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat O’Neill, O. (1996). Towards justice and virtue: A constructive approach of practical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef O’Neill, O. (1996). Towards justice and virtue: A constructive approach of practical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (2011). Emergence and convergence: Corporate criminal liability principles in overview. In M. Pieth & R. Ivory (Eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability, Vol. 9 (pp. 3–60). Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Springer Science + Business Media. Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (2011). Emergence and convergence: Corporate criminal liability principles in overview. In M. Pieth & R. Ivory (Eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability, Vol. 9 (pp. 3–60). Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Springer Science + Business Media.
Zurück zum Zitat Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights: Cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Polity Press: Cambridge. Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights: Cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Zurück zum Zitat Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: Demos. Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: Demos.
Zurück zum Zitat Renouard, C. (2007). La responsabilité éthique des multinationales. Paris: PUF. Renouard, C. (2007). La responsabilité éthique des multinationales. Paris: PUF.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruggie, J. G. (2007). Business and human rights: The evolving agenda. American Journal of International Law, 101, 819–840. Ruggie, J. G. (2007). Business and human rights: The evolving agenda. American Journal of International Law, 101, 819–840.
Zurück zum Zitat Shue, H. (1996). Basic rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shue, H. (1996). Basic rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (SRSG). (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, 20, 74, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (April 7, 2008). Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (SRSG). (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, 20, 74, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (April 7, 2008).
Zurück zum Zitat Spedding, L., & Rose, A. (2008). Business risk management handbook: A sustainable approach. Oxford: Elsevier. Spedding, L., & Rose, A. (2008). Business risk management handbook: A sustainable approach. Oxford: Elsevier.
Zurück zum Zitat Stemplowska, Z. (2009). On the real world duties imposed on US by human rights. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4), 466–487.CrossRef Stemplowska, Z. (2009). On the real world duties imposed on US by human rights. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4), 466–487.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wettstein, F. (2010). The duty to protect: Corporate complicity, political responsibility, and human rights advocacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 33–47.CrossRef Wettstein, F. (2010). The duty to protect: Corporate complicity, political responsibility, and human rights advocacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 33–47.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wettstein, F. (2012). Silence as complicity: Elements of a corporate duty to speak out against the violation of human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 37–61.CrossRef Wettstein, F. (2012). Silence as complicity: Elements of a corporate duty to speak out against the violation of human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 37–61.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wettstein, F., & Waddock, S. (2005). Voluntary or mandatory: That is (not) the question—Linking corporate citizenship to human rights obligations for business. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik, 6(3), 304–320. Wettstein, F., & Waddock, S. (2005). Voluntary or mandatory: That is (not) the question—Linking corporate citizenship to human rights obligations for business. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik, 6(3), 304–320.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams, B. (1973). A critique of utilitarianism. In J. Smart & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: For and against (pp. 77–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, B. (1973). A critique of utilitarianism. In J. Smart & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: For and against (pp. 77–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Wood, S. (2012). The case for leverage-based corporate human rights responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 63–98.CrossRef Wood, S. (2012). The case for leverage-based corporate human rights responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 63–98.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Human Rights in the Void? Due Diligence in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
verfasst von
Björn Fasterling
Geert Demuijnck
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1822-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2013

Journal of Business Ethics 4/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner