Monday was Human Rights Day, and a great time to recap why so many of us work on these issues. Faris Natour, the Director of Human Rights for the non-profit, BSR, offers his perspective. Well worth the read.
"Human Rights Day: A Call to Respect Human Dignity."
Originally posted on BSR.org on Monday Dec. 12th.
Lit Review of Business and Human Rights: A New Approach to Advancing Environmental Justice in the United States, in Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism
One of the advantages to being overseas is that you get to see news that you might not otherwise. So, here in Europe, (although I imagine it will soon get play in the U.S. if it hasn’t already) Starbucks has been under fire because of how it has structured its business operations in a way that helped it avoid paying taxes in England. The key thing to note here is that everyone, including the British politicians who have been the most vocal critics, agree that Starbucks’ tax structures are completely legal. I am not a tax lawyer (and I will leave it to those experts to get into the details of any of the tax technicalities) but if everyone, including Britain’s parliament, its tax authorities and, of course, Starbucks is calling their actions legal, then I think we can safely assume that it is. Then what is the source of the fuss? Well, the UK is undergoing severe austerity measures right now. The fact that Starbucks operations are not contributing to the UK’s income stream is being seen by many as unethical.
The fascinating issue about the Starbucks controversy is the action that the company has taken. About an hour ago, the company announced that it would be paying a multi-million dollar contribution to the UK government over the next two years. The reason the payment was framed as a contribution should be obvious – the company is trying desperately to make sure that its action today will not be used as a basis for accountability tomorrow. Indeed – given the fact that the critics of Starbucks tax structures were the people who had the power to change the favorable tax environment – Starbucks proactive strategy was probably very shrewd. Nonetheless, Starbucks’ actions have very heartening implications from a business and human rights perspective. The reason? Well, over and over again, as this story was unfolding, one of the most often returned to themes was the apparent hypocrisy of Starbucks – commentators pointed out how Starbucks prides itself on being a progressive company that works with local communities to improve the status of the people living in those communities. Yet, here is a community that is facing severe cutbacks and could desperately use the income from taxes that Starbucks would bring, and yet the company made sure to avoid those payments.
One of the greatest criticisms of the UN Guiding Principles is how it does not create an accountability structure for TNCs. And yet, if the Global Compact is any indication, thousands of companies over the world have publicly endorsed the spirit embodied in the Principles – respect human rights by doing no evil. Certainly, if a company were to be found violating these principles while publicly espousing their words, then this would provide affected communities with ammunition to mount a very public case against them. Of course, this “naming and shaming” tactic has been used countless times before. The difference is that now I think there are enough people in organizations like the UN (and at various national governments) who have also publicly endorsed these principles that can leverage their relationships with the offending companies to make a change.
Let me put it this way: if the outrage over Starbucks in the UK had only been taken up by some protestors at Trafalgar Square, I doubt that the company would have made its unprecedented move today. Having the UK government at the heart of the storm made all the difference in the world.
Another heartening moment – The Financial Times reports that a Starbucks spokesman, in making the contribution, noted that ” ‘the decisions were the right things to do’ adding that doing the right thing did not only mean doing what was right by shareholders.”
Good news indeed for BHR activists.
Today the UN’s first business and human rights conference concluded. Most agreed that it was a resounding success. In fact, the chairperson for the UN’s business and human rights working group compared the larger than expected Forum to a sold out Lady Gaga concert (probably the first time those two events have ever been linked).
However, it is clear that more work needs to be done. Among the themes that were discussed during the conference (which I want to use this space to explore in coming weeks) are: the implementation of the BHR framework in specific sectors (such as the financial services arena) and the need to promote the Guiding principles among small and medium enterprises (which make up the bulk of businesses around the world). Another major topic of discussion was the challenges created for TNCs by supply chain relationships. This issue is at the heart of my scholarship since it brings the need for a bystander paradigm into stark relief. Also, it dovetails well with another theme that was brought up again and again, by stakeholders at the conference – the current lack of accountability mechanisms for corporations who are a part of human rights abuses. To that end, I was heartened by the words of others who spoke during the two day conference stating that the Guiding Principles were a first step and more needed to be done.
Once again, a clear example of understatement at work.
A Lady Gaga Conference – UN style
The U.N.’s first Business and Human Rights conference started today and I am lucky enough to be attending. While I’m sure that I will spend sometime over the coming weeks digesting what I heard and what I learned, allow me to share my initial thoughts.
The conference is huge.
In their press release describing the event the organizers stated that the registration “exceeded expectations.” It would seem that this is an understatement. Over 1000 people registered for the conference. The visual of what that looks like is stunning. For instance, during the session on corporate responsibility (one of the breakout sessions), we sat in a room that could easily seat 500 people. It was packed.
The conference is diverse.
The other first impression that I had was how many different stakeholders were represented. There were of course, the usual suspects- people who represented advocacy groups, people who represented government (I was heartened that representatives from our State Department were there and a number of academics. However, there were also people representing indigenous communities sitting next to people who represented Nestle. Seeing everyone there, trying together to work through these issues, was heartening.
There is so much that I don’t know.
I became an academic after Ruggie’s work was in full swing. It wasn’t until after I had started writing about these issues that I even discovered this field of business and human rights as its own discipline with a common understanding and framework. Being in the room with people who had helped to craft these principles was humbling. The work that they have done in beginning to develop a shared language, one that both business and human rights workers can understand, had done much to lay the foundation for a human rights framework in which businesses can play a positive role.
Many times the human mind seems to allow trespasses against human rights in other parts of the world appear more inhumane than the ones that occur on our own turf. In the US, we have laws protecting people from having unwanted sexual advances pressed upon them from their co-workers and bosses. And yet, the problem continues to persist. Within the last month, three major cases of sexual harassment have come into the view of the American people. All of the cases involve restaurant workers.
At the beginning of November, a group of workers at Senor Frogs filed a class-action law suit against the CEO and upper-management for groping, propositioning, and demanding sex from lower level workers in the restaurant chain. Not even a week later, a single mother who worked for over ten years in a Waffle House filed a claim against the CEO of that company for demanding that she perform sexual acts with him in order to keep her job. Also, a major steakhouse in New York City just settled a claim for male-on-male sexual harassment between managers and restaurant workers. In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Council is seeing a trend of more cases of male-on-male sexual harassment.
While one could say that we are lucky in America to have a legal system and an infrastructure which allows people to bring these sorts of cases, clearly there’s a gap between what we’ve enacted as a priority and how that is often gets translated on the ground. It is beyond dispute that most folks in the United States believe that people deserve to work in a non-threatening work environment where what matters most is the quality of their efforts on the job. Maybe these more public cases of sexual harassment will raise red flags to management and to workers alike to be more aware of their surroundings and to make sure that their place of employment is a safe one.
However, these cases also raise a larger issue – namely how do we reconcile our view of “civil rights” with the world’s view of “human rights.” Right now, there seems to be a disconnect – one where we tend to feel that issues of discrimination (sexism, racism, etc?) that we deal with here in the U.S. are somehow different from the issues that other countries face. We talk about an American’s “civil rights” as if it were separate from the rights that are embodied in numerous human rights treaties – on issues like the right to self-determination and treatment that is free from discrimination. This is problematic. In essence, it diminishes the very real feeling of dis-empowerment that many Americans feel when they face this treatment – to mere statutory claims (one that can be more closely aligned to a speeding ticket than a fundamental human right). Instead, we need to elevate these issues to what they really are – human rights claims.
Relegating these challenges to the specifically American framework of civil rights also serves to isolate many U.S. advocates whose causes and issues could organically be linked to other global advocates who are fighting similar, if not identical issues. It seems clear that there is common ground between a restaurant worker being harassed in the United States and a female laborer being sexually exploited in the Middle East. Uniting these cause might bring about a more effective change.
As a person who writes about (and cares about) business and human rights issues, I often tend to feel like I’m wearing the white hat. I try and give a voice to issues that affect folks around the world and try to make sure that I think through the impact of my words. However, Christine Bader has written a pair of articles that has really challenged me to assess how my ideas translate to my daily life.
Christine, is a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. She also worked on John Ruggie’s team for several years as they developed, first the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework and then the Guiding Principles. To say that Christine has an intimate view of how business impacts human rights issues is an understatement.
But that’s only half of the story – Christine is also a new mom. To twins. A new mom who, by Christine’s own admission “took a fair amount of time and research” to make a decision about the best rug for her kids’ room – one that balanced issues that she cared about – being environmentally sound, locally produced and not made with child labor. I will now confess – I have never spent much time thinking about my purchases. When I can, I buy local. When I can’t, I run to my neighborhood Kroger’s. I have concerns about Facebook’s internet privacy policies but, not enough to close my account and lose touch with my friends. And I can tell you unequivocally that, until I read Christine’s articles, it hadn’t even occurred to me that I could perform such extensive research on the things that I buy.
It’s painful to confess these things. It puts my values in a stark light against the backdrop of my reality. Oh, I can justify it a half dozen different ways – I don’t have time, I don’t have the energy, I do enough. But all that dwindles to nothing when I realize that a new mom of twins (who has a very productive career besides) is spending time that I never made to researching issues that I care about deeply.
December is turning into a busy month for people who specialize in business and human rights issues.
For those of you who reside in the United States, George Washington University is hosting a one day conference. The conference, entitled “Can Trade Policies and Agreements Advance internet Freedom?” explores the international playing field specifically within the context of the internet and the flow of information. The conference will be on December 6th. For more information please visit the conference website (at go.gwu.edu/tradeandinternet)In Geneva, the United Nations is hosting its first annual business and human rights conference on December 4th and 5th. While registration for the conference has closed, I will be attending and hope to provide you with some updates and insights after the conference has closed For those of you who are attending, the website with all relevant practical information on the conference is here.
Also, if you are attending, please drop me a note in the comments! I am always interested in knowing the people who work in this field.
Tuesday, November 6th was the first major election cycle since the Supreme Court decided on Citizens United in 2010. In the decision, the majority ensured first amendment rights for corporations and unions when it said that the government could not restrict independent political expenditures. Moreover, under the court’s ruling, the amounts of money which corporations and unions contribute does not have to be disclosed. In June, the Supreme Court upheld their decision when it overturned a century old Montana law that limited corporate campaign spending. The case American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Steve Bullock, attorney general of Montana, No. 11-1179 is particularly ironic given that the population in Montana overwhelmingly (as in 3 to 1) used their votes last Tuesday to call for an amendment to overturn the ruling. Montana, along with Colorado, became the first states to do so by voters, but they joined a list of nine other states calling for an amendment of this sort. These voters seem to represent the voice of most Americans as a whole. A September AP pollshowed that 82% of Americans are in favor of capping corporate spending on elections.
With the most expensive election in history just behind us, it seems that the American people are noticing a disparity in fairness in terms of corporate voice. When corporations are able to spend unlimited amounts of money to persuade voters, they are able to buy unprecedented commercial time, airwaves, billboards, and influential literature without disclosing the true financiers of the influential endeavors. Corporations have been recognized as “people” for nearly 200 years, but they are not afforded every single right of humans. For example, corporations have the capability to enforce contracts as people do, but they do not have the right to vote. Perhaps the American people are showing that they would like to take back the right of corporations to use their finances as unfettered speech. While Americans may understand that some things just aren’t fair, they are unwilling to accept this unregulated corporate financing of elections as one of those inherent injustices. This seems to be something that we, the people, might want to change with our own political action, well-funded or not. On the other hand, should we continue down this path and uphold the idea that corporations have the same rights as other persons then corporations may have to accept that they will have additional duties and responsibilities, similar to those of human beings. For instance, the Supreme Court last month also heard a case regarding whether the Alien Torts Statute (ATS) applies to corporations Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. ATS is a centuries old statute that, after a seminal case in 1980 Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) became a strategy of choice for human rights advocates to hold individuals liable for their role in torture and other extreme human rights abuses.
Although no one during oral arguments discussed the issue of corporations as being persons, the questions presented highlighted the issues succinctly:
“1. Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort
Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question, as it has been treated by all
courts prior to the decision below, or an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, as the
court of appeals held for the first time.
One of the purposes of this blog is to help people who are inetersted in this field find some resources that may be helpful to them. To that end, from time, I will be featuring a “lit review” that will spotlight past and current literature from the 1970s to the work of contemporary scholars like Larry Cata Backer, Faith Stevelman, and of course, John Ruggie. The hope is to develop a repository of influential articles in business and human rights that have helped define the debate on business and human rights.
