Are Human Rights a responsibility for the company? First part

kulsumkhatun997

The answer to this question depends on who answers it. Those who work on the issue of Human Rights from the public sector will say that it is obvious that it is. Those who work in companies may say no. The problem is largely a problem of communication and lack of knowledge of the broad spectrum covered by human rights. To the former, it seems so obvious that they think they should not make efforts to make companies understand them. Those who work in companies continually see news about “human rights violations” that in the vast majority of cases involve sovereign states, or dictators, or irregular armies, in countries with conflicts. It is common to read that the issue is on the agenda of the discussions of the ministers of Foreign Affairs (or State) with the leaders of developing countries such as China and African countries. It seems to them that it is a government matter. Company managers ask themselves: What does this have to do with us? Their perception and knowledge is highly influenced by the media. However, there are companies that perfectly understand that human rights are their problem. But they are a minority, generally companies in extractive industries (especially hydrocarbons and mining) in developing countries, that carry out their operations in conflict zones and/or that have a great impact on communities, particularly on disadvantaged populations.

But this is a very narrow view of what “human rights” are, generally Phone Number List reduced to issues such as abuse by private security forces, murders, rapes, torture, involuntary evictions, etc. This is only a small part of the violations of those rights, although the most visible. If it were just that, the problem would be limited to a group of companies. But “human rights” are much broader and concern all companies. But we have a problem of information and perception. To clarify these confusions, the UN, through the Subcommission on Human Rights, tried to establish norms that assigned specific obligations to companies, when these were ratified by countries. The subcommittee, made up of government representatives, considered that it was a matter of imposing responsibilities on companies. The proposal was strongly opposed by business organizations, alleging that they were assigned responsibilities that belonged to the states. This view prevailed and the standards were not approved and the Subcommittee was abolished. This increased the confusion and the problem persisted: Who was responsible? In March 2006, the Human Rights Council was created. Previously, in 2005, when the Subcommittee was dissolved, the UN Secretary General created the office of a Special Representative of the Secretary General to analyze the problem and propose solutions.



The search for a solution had to be removed from the purely political level. This representative, Prof. John Ruggie and his team held extensive consultations with all interested parties, particularly the private sector, and proposed voluntary guiding principles , clearly distinguishing what are the responsibilities of governments from what are They are the responsibilities of the companies. These principles are known by the name of their areas of action: Protect, Respect and Remedy . They establish the responsibilities of states to protect human rights, of companies to respect them , and of both parties to establish mechanisms to remedy violations. In the case of companies, they must have schemes to collect complaints and act on them, and in the case of governments they must have legal mechanisms that allow violations to be investigated and resolved. These Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations Framework to “Protect, Respect and Remedy” were endorsed on June 16, 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council. hey also clarify the “human rights” context. According toorced labor, child labor and free association of workers. As can be seen, it is an issue that goes beyond violence in countries in conflict and far beyond the powers of governments, to also include business activity.