Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 116, Issue 4, pp 799–814 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Human rights Ruggie Principles Corporate responsibility Moral rights Moral duties 

References

  1. Altschuller, S. A. (2011). Author of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Joins Foley Hoag, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://www.csrandthelaw.com/articles/csr-practice/.
  2. Arnold, D. G. (2010). Transnational corporations and the duty to respect basic human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 371–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, M. H. (2009). Governing corporate compliance. Boston College Law Review, 50(1), 2009; Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 166. Retrieved October 14, 2011 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1474291.
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, A. (1996). Perfecting imperfect duties: Collective action to create moral obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights (BLIHR). (2009). The guide for integrating human rights into business management. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http://www.integrating-humanrights.org/.
  8. Campbell, T. (1999). Human rights. A culture of controversy. Journal of Law & Society, 26(1), 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. Clapham, A. (2010). Human rights obligations of non-state-actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reprint).Google Scholar
  11. Clapham, A., & Jerbi, S. (2001). Categories of corporate complicity in human rights abuses. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 24, 339–349.Google Scholar
  12. Clarkson, C. M. V. (1996). Kicking corporate bodies and damning their souls. Modern Law Review, 59(4), 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damodaran, A. (2007). Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Danish Institute for Human Rights. (2006). Human rights compliance assessment quick check. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from http://www.humanrights.dk/what+we+do/focus+areas/human+rights+and+business/tools+and+methods/assessment+tools+for+businesses.
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnis, J. (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. French, P. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, H. L. A. (1955). Are there any natural rights? Philosophical Review, 64, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath, J. (2009). The uses and abuses of agency theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 497–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Human Rights Watch. (2011). UN Human Rights Council: Weak stance on business standards. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/06/16/un-human-rights-council-weak-stance-business-standards.
  23. International Federation for Human Rights. (2011). UN Human Rights Council adopts Guiding Principles on business conduct, yet victims still waiting for effective remedies. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://www.fidh.org/UN-Human-Rights-Council-adopts.
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Laufer, W. S. (2011). Corporate bodies and guilty minds: The failure of corporate criminal liability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCorquodale, R. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and international human rights law. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meulbroek, L. K. (2002). Integrated risk management for the firm: A senior manager’s guide (February 20, 2002). doi:  10.2139/ssrn.301331. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=301331.
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Neill, O. (1996). Towards justice and virtue: A constructive approach of practical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights: Cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Polity Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  36. Renouard, C. (2007). La responsabilité éthique des multinationales. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  37. Ruggie, J. G. (2007). Business and human rights: The evolving agenda. American Journal of International Law, 101, 819–840.Google Scholar
  38. Ruggie, J. G. (2011). Lecture, Sir Geoffrey Chandler Speaker Series, The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce, 11 January 2011. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/ChandlerLecture_Final.pdf).
  39. Sherman, J., & Lehr, A. (2010). Human rights due diligence: Is it too risky? Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 55. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_55_shermanlehr.pdf.
  40. Shue, H. (1996). Basic rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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).Google Scholar
  42. Spedding, L., & Rose, A. (2008). Business risk management handbook: A sustainable approach. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Stemplowska, Z. (2009). On the real world duties imposed on US by human rights. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4), 466–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, M. B., Zandvliet, L., & Forouhar, M. (2009). Due diligence for human rights: a risk-based approach. Working Paper No. 53, Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_53_taylor_etal.pdf.
  45. United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2010). Principled pragmatism: The way forward for business and human rights. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/PrincipledpragmatismBusinessHR.aspx.
  46. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2009). Promotion of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the rights to development. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/11/13. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/11session/A.HRC.11.13.pdf.
  47. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2010). Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the realization of all human rights and on possible actions to alleviate it, A/HRC/13/38. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-38.pdf.
  48. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2011a). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework’. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, A/HRC/17/31. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-21-mar-2011.pdf.
  49. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2011b). Human rights and corporate law: trends and observations from a cross-national study by the Special Representative. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, A/HRC/17/31/Add.1. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from http://www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/report-human-rights-and-corporate-law-23-may-2011.pdf.
  50. Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative. (2012). Implementation guidance tools. Retrieved November 30, 2012 from http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/VPs_IGT_Final_13-09-11.pdf.
  51. Wenar, L. (2011). ‘Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/rights/.
  52. Wettstein, F. (2010). The duty to protect: Corporate complicity, political responsibility, and human rights advocacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, B. (1973). A critique of utilitarianism. In J. Smart & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: For and against (pp. 77–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Williamson, H. (2011). Conflict zone pressure rises on corporations. In Financial Times, 12 January 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4530e7a-1e45-11e0-bab6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1t4BRsGM0.
  57. Wood, S. (2012). The case for leverage-based corporate human rights responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EDHEC Business SchoolLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations