abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English

Artikel

8 Mär 2006

Autor:
Irene Khan, Secretary-General, Amnesty International

Understanding corporate complicity: Extending the notion beyond existing laws [speech by Irene Khan, Amnesty International, to Business & Human Rights Seminar, London, Dec 2005]

[W]hat happens when the company itself does not commit an abuse but benefits from an abuse committed by a government or armed group? Or funds those who commit abuses? Or remain silent in the face of abuse? Or complies with national laws and policies which are clearly in violation of international human rights?...[L]et me start by laying out some examples of real cases where companies can risk complicity [examples follow]...What can companies do to avoid complicity? What companies must do is to create and maintain a culture of non-complicity in every aspect of their operations. To do so, companies must move towards a culture of compliance with human rights and international standards. For guidance, they can turn to principles suggested by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights [list of the principles follows]

Zeitleiste