Skip to main content

Hardening Soft Law Initiatives in Business and Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Governance Codes for the 21st Century

Abstract

In the wake of the Rana Plaza disaster as well as ongoing human rights abuses perpetuated by multinational corporations, the impetus for the business and human rights (BHR) movement continues to gain momentum. Business and human rights issues are no longer considered two distinct realms operating in isolation from one another but are rather seen as intertwined and in need of being holistically addressed. Nevertheless, despite the growing recognition of the importance for corporations to address human rights issues, responsibilities for corporations in this area have mainly been at the voluntary level. That is, corporate human rights obligations tend to be phrased in permissive rather than mandatory language, and enforcement of these voluntary obligations is either weak or, more likely, non-existent. For that reason, corporate human rights obligations are often termed ‘soft’ law. Recently, however, there have been attempts to ‘harden’ corporate human rights obligations. Several countries are currently negotiating a binding Business and Human Rights treaty which, on completion, would impose legally binding human rights obligations on multinational corporations. Efforts have also been made at the domestic level to harden business and human rights, with notable examples in the UK and France.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Manik and Yardley (2013).

  2. 2.

    For an overview of this treaty process, see Choudhury (2016b).

  3. 3.

    UN Human Rights Council (2008) and UN Human Rights Council (2011).

  4. 4.

    UN Communication on Human Rights (2009), Para. 55.

  5. 5.

    UN (2009), Para. 46.

  6. 6.

    For a good overview of the Global Compact, see Rasche (2009), p. 511.

  7. 7.

    International Labour Organization (1978), p. 422.

  8. 8.

    OECD (2011).

  9. 9.

    Shelton (2006), p. 320.

  10. 10.

    Shelton (2006), p. 320.

  11. 11.

    Shelton (2006), p. 320; See also D’Amato and Engel (1996), p. 56.

  12. 12.

    Chinkin (1989); Klabbers (1996), p. 168.

  13. 13.

    Chinkin (1989) p. 851; Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 421.

  14. 14.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 851.

  15. 15.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 421.

  16. 16.

    D’Amato and Engel (1996), pp. 56–57.

  17. 17.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 859.

  18. 18.

    See Chinkin (1989), p. 852; Shelton (2006), p. 322; Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 423; Newman and Bach (2014), p. 430.

  19. 19.

    See Shelton (2006), p. 322; Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 423.

  20. 20.

    Shelton (2006), p. 322.

  21. 21.

    See Chinkin (1989), p. 861; Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 423.

  22. 22.

    See Shelton (2006), p. 322; Weil (1983), p. 415.

  23. 23.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 861.

  24. 24.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 865; Shelton (2006), p. 322; Weil (1983), p. 415.

  25. 25.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 434.

  26. 26.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), pp. 435–437.

  27. 27.

    As Shelton (2006) notes, ‘The adoption of nonbinding normative instruments also can and often does lead to the codification’, p. 321. See also Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 423.

  28. 28.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 320

  29. 29.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 320; Newman and Bach (2014) (arguing that soft law recognition by many states may represent ‘a tipping point’); Klabbers (1996), p. 178.

  30. 30.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 862. See also Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 456 (arguing soft law ‘normative “covenants” and discourses’).

  31. 31.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 862

  32. 32.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 426; Brummer (2010), p. 625.

  33. 33.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 427.

  34. 34.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 427.

  35. 35.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 427.

  36. 36.

    Franck (1988), p. 712.

  37. 37.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 429.

  38. 38.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), pp. 429, 433.

  39. 39.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 422.

  40. 40.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 433.

  41. 41.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), pp. 427, 441.

  42. 42.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 423.

  43. 43.

    Keller (2008), p. 223.

  44. 44.

    This included attempts to draft the United Nations Draft Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations and to foster a New International Economic Order, which emphasised the need to regulate MNCs.

  45. 45.

    OECD (2011).

  46. 46.

    OECD Guidelines, Paras 2, 8.

  47. 47.

    OECD (2011).

  48. 48.

    United Nations (1980), p. 813.

  49. 49.

    World Health Organization (1981).

  50. 50.

    For a good overview of the history of the development of the UN Norms, see Weissbrodt and Kruger (2003), pp. 903–905.

  51. 51.

    UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2003) Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

  52. 52.

    UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004) Responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises.

  53. 53.

    See generally Rasche (2009).

  54. 54.

    UN Commission on Human Rights (2005a), para 17; UN Commission on Human Rights (2005b), para. 1.

  55. 55.

    UN Human Rights Council (2008), para. 9.

  56. 56.

    UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2011).

  57. 57.

    UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2011), Guiding Principle 11.

  58. 58.

    UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2011), Guiding Principle 13.

  59. 59.

    UN Commission on Human Rights (2009), para 46.

  60. 60.

    UN Commission on Human Rights (2009), para 55.

  61. 61.

    Compare, for example, the UN Norms which detailed corporate obligations in relation to a variety of rights including human rights, the rights of workers, consumer protection and environmental protection and the UNGPs which speak only generally of respecting human rights.

  62. 62.

    For an overview of state attempts to draft a binding business and human rights treaty, see Choudhury (2016b).

  63. 63.

    Morgan (2003), p. 2.

  64. 64.

    Aguilera (2013), p. 37.

  65. 65.

    See Brummer (2010), n 34; Ferran and Alexander (2011).

  66. 66.

    Karmel and Kelly (2009), p. 883.

  67. 67.

    Ferran and Alexander (2011), p. 1.

  68. 68.

    Ferran and Alexander (2011), p. 6.

  69. 69.

    Parker (2002), p. 155; Nolan (2013), p. 155.

  70. 70.

    Parker (2002), pp. 245–91.

  71. 71.

    Scott (2008), pp. 170–185; Picciotto (2002), pp. 151–172.

  72. 72.

    Brummer (2010), p. 638.

  73. 73.

    Brummer (2010), p. 638.

  74. 74.

    Brummer (2010), pp. 638–40; Ferran and Alexander (2011), pp. 5–6.

  75. 75.

    UN Human Rights Council (2008).

  76. 76.

    See Alvarez (2011) and Kamminga (2004).

  77. 77.

    See, for example, the debate on this issue between the US Courts and James Crawford and Christopher Greenwood in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc., Republic of Sudan.

  78. 78.

    See generally Wettstein (2015).

  79. 79.

    Today a host of institutions engage in human rights monitoring, from sustainability firms to audit companies, and even NGOs. See Scott (2008), n 74.

  80. 80.

    There are a number of different possible theoretical explanations for corporate duties for human rights. See, for example, Černič (2009).

  81. 81.

    Investment cooperation and facilitation agreement between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Malawi, Art. 9 (2015).

  82. 82.

    For a more comprehensive discussion of this argument, see Choudhury (2016b).

  83. 83.

    UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2011), Guiding Principle 15.

  84. 84.

    Shift (2015).

  85. 85.

    Shift (2016).

  86. 86.

    Two resolutions led to the drafting process of a binding instrument on business and human rights: UN Human Rights Council (2014a), paras 178–183; UN Human Rights Council (2014b).

  87. 87.

    For elaboration on these benefits, see Choudhury (2016b).

  88. 88.

    States opposing the promulgation of a binding instrument on business and human rights include the US, the UK, France, Italy, Japan, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, South Korea, Romania, and Macedonia. See Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2014).

  89. 89.

    International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families (came into force 1 July 2003).

  90. 90.

    For a full list of ratifications see, UN Treaty Collection (2016).

  91. 91.

    Assemblée Nationale (2015), Art. 1.

  92. 92.

    Assemblée Nationale (2015), Art. 1.

  93. 93.

    See also Nieuwenkamp (2015).

  94. 94.

    For an overview of the status of the proposed legislation see Assemble Nationale, Entreprises: Devoir de vigilance des entreprises donneuses d’ordre.

  95. 95.

    Modern Slavery Act (2015), s 54.

  96. 96.

    Modern Slavery Act (2015), s 54(5).

  97. 97.

    For an overview of non-financial disclosure rules in different countries, see Choudhury (2016a).

  98. 98.

    Modern Slavery Act (2015), s 54(6).

  99. 99.

    Modern Slavery Act (2015), s 54(7).

  100. 100.

    Modern Slavery Act (2015), s 54(11).

  101. 101.

    UK Home Office (2015).

  102. 102.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), pp. 422, 429, 433.

References

  • Abbott K, Snidal D (2000) Hard and soft law in international governance. Int Organ 54(3):421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera RV et al (2013) Regulation and comparative corporate governance. In: Wright M et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of corporate governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez JE (2011) Are corporations ‘subjects’ of international law? Santa Clara J Int Law 9:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Assemblée Nationale Entreprises: Devoir de vigilance des entreprises donneuses d'ordre. Available at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr//14/dossiers/devoir_vigilance_enterprises_donneuses_ordre.asp#ETAPE337523. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Assemblée Nationale (2015) Proposition de loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre. Available at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0501.asp. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Brummer C (2010) Why soft law dominates international finance. J Int Econ Law 13:623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2014) UN Human Rights Council sessions. Available at http://business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty/un-human-rights-council-sessions. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Černič JL (2009) Fundamental human rights obligations of corporations. Available at http://www.irdo.si/skupni-cd/cdji/cd-irdo-2009/images/referati/3-4-6_letnar.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Chinkin CM (1989) The challenge of soft law: development and change in international law. Int Comp Law Q 38:850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury B (2016a) Social disclosure. Berkeley Bus Law J 13:183

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury B (2016b) Spinning straw into gold: incorporating the business and human rights agenda into international investment agreements. U Penn J Int Law (forthcoming). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2778076. Accessed 13 May 2016

  • D’Amato A, Engel K (eds) (1996) International environmental law anthology. Anderson publishing company, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferran E, Alexander K (2011) Can soft law bodies be effective? Soft systemic risk oversight bodies and the special case of the European systemic risk board. University of Cambridge Legal Studies Research Paper No. 36, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1988) Legitimacy in the international system. Am J Int Law 82:711

    Google Scholar 

  • International convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families, opened for signature 18 Dec 1990, 30 ILM: 1517 (effective 1 July 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Labour Organization (1978) Tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. ILM 17:422

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamminga MT (2004) Corporate obligations under international law. Paper presented at the 71st conference of the International Law Association, plenary session on corporate social responsibility and international law

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmel RS, Kelly CR (2009) The hardening of soft law in securities regulation. Brooklyn J Int Law 34(3):883

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller H (2008) Codes of conduct and their implementation: the question of legitimacy. In: Wölfrum R, Röben V (eds) Legitimacy in international law. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 219–298

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (1996) The redundancy of soft law. Nordic J Int Law 65:167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manik JA, Yardley J (2013) Building collapse in Bangladesh leaves scores dead, NY Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/world/asia/bangladesh-building-collapse.html?_r=1. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Modern Slavery Act (2015). Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/pdfs/ukpga_20150030_en.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Morgan B (2003) Social citizenship in the shadow of competition: the bureaucratic politics of regulatory justification. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, p 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman A, Bach D (2014) The European Union as hardening agent: soft law and the diffusion of global financial regulation. J Eur Public Policy 21(3):430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenkamp R (2015) OECD insights—legislation on responsible business conduct must reinforce the wheel, not reinvent it. Available at http://oecdinsights.org/2015/04/15/legislation-on-responsible-business-conduct-must-reinforce-the-wheel-not-reinvent-it/. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Nolan J (2013) The corporate responsibility to respect rights: soft law or not law? In: Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) Human rights obligations of business: beyond the corporate responsibility to respect? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 138–161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/ 48004323.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Parker C (2002) The open corporation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto S (2002) Corporate social responsibility for international business. In: UNCTAD The development dimension of FDI: policy and rule-making perspectives. United Nations Publication, Geneva, pp 151–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc, Republic of Sudan, 453 F Supp 2d 633 (SDNY 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche A (2009) A necessary supplement—what the United Nations global compact is and is not. Bus Soc 48(4):511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott C (2008) Reflexive governance, meta-regulation and corporate social responsibility: the Heineken effect. In: Boeger N et al (eds) Perspectives on corporate social responsibility: corporations, globalisation and the law. Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham, pp 170–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2006) Normative hierarchy in international law. Am J Int Law 100(291):319–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Shift (2015) UN guiding principles reporting framework. Available at http://www.ungpreporting.org/reporting-framework/. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • Shift (2016) Companies. Available at http://www.ungpreporting.org/reportingdatabase/companies-page/. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • UN Treaty Collection (2016) International convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families 9 May 2016 Available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-13&chapter=4&lang=en. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • UK Home Office (2015) Transparency in supply chains etc: a practical guide. Oct 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/471996/Transparency_in_Supply_Chains_etc__A_practical_guide__final_.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • UN Commission on Human Rights (2005a) Report of the United Nations High Commissioner on human rights on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights (E/CN.4/2005/91). Available at https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/110/27/PDF/G0511027.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • UN Commission on Human Rights (2005b) Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Human Rights Resolution 2005/69 (E/CN.4/RES/2005/69)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Commission on Human Rights (2009) Report of the United Nations High Commissioner on human rights on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights—business and human rights: towards operationalizing the ‘protect, respect and remedy’ framework (A/HRC/11/13)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Council (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, John Ruggie (A/HRC/8/5)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Council (2011) Report of the special representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie—guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the United Nations ‘protect, respect and remedy’ framework (A/HRC/17/31)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Council (2014a) Report of the Human Rights Council on its 26th session (A/HRC/26/2)

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Council (2014b) 26th session of the Human Rights Council (10–27 June 2014): resolutions and decisions. Available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session26/Pages/ResDecStat.aspx. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004) Responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights. E CN 4 Dec 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights—implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework (HR/PUB/11/04). Available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

  • UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2003) Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1980) Set of multilaterally agreed equitable principles and rules for the control of restrictive business practices GA Res 35/63, UN GAOR Supp (No 48) at 123, UN Doc A/35/48 (1980), reprinted in ILM. 19:813

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1983) Towards relative normativity in international law. Am J Int Law 77:413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt D, Kruger M (2003) Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. Am J Int Law 97:901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein F (2015) Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: a critical assessment. J Hum Rights 14(2):162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (1981) International Code of marketing of breast-milk substitutes. Available at http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/code_english.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barnali Choudhury .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Choudhury, B. (2017). Hardening Soft Law Initiatives in Business and Human Rights. In: du Plessis, J., Low, C. (eds) Corporate Governance Codes for the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51868-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51868-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51867-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51868-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics