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, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

23 May 2008

Author:
Mark Taylor & Salil Tripathi, in Guardian [UK]

Everybody's business

In his report last year, John Ruggie, the UN special representative on business and human rights noted that the complex interaction between UN tribunals and the ICC statute on one hand, and extension of responsibility for international crimes under domestic law on the other, is creating "an expanding web of potential corporate liability for international crimes"…Socially responsible companies have started mainstreaming human rights principles as part of their due diligence…[T]hat's good news…But it also means that companies must carry out necessary due diligence to avoid assisting international crimes, or face the legal and financial costs of getting caught on the wrong side of the law. With this in mind, International Alert and the Fafo Institute are today launching a guide and website called "Red flags: risks of liability for companies operating in high risk zones"…Red flags are an attempt to communicate, in simple, clear terms, how certain expectations about company compliance with human rights has evolved, at least in the use of criminal laws that companies can't ignore.