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

이 페이지는 한국어로 제공되지 않으며 English로 표시됩니다.

의견

29 9월 2023

저자:
Jasmine Elliott & Irene Pietropaoli, British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL)

Negotiating the scope of human rights due diligence in the UN binding treaty & the EU CSDDD

As trilogue negotiations for the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) continue and an updated draft of the UN legally binding instrument on business and human rights (UN Treaty) was recently published in advance of the 9th working group session in October, there is an opportunity to influence both debates and negotiations. While the two proposed instruments have different scope, it is imperative they align and complement each other. Here, we discuss three aspects related to mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) requirements in both drafts and consider ways in which these two proposals can be further strengthened through alignment.

Climate change

First, amid a climate change crisis, UN bodies are increasingly recognising climate change affects the enjoyment and realisation of all human rights – both directly and indirectly. While the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) did not address climate change or environmental rights explicitly, the UN Working Group on business and human rights has clarified States and business have obligations and responsibilities in relation to human rights harms linked to climate change. Likewise the 2011 OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises did not reference climate change – but the 2023 updated Guidelines now includes the expectation that enterprises conduct human rights due diligence (HRDD) on environmental harms associated with their operations, products and services, including in relation to climate change and biodiversity (Chapter VI). This emphasis is also reflected in the proposed CSDDD, which requires directors of companies to consider ‘the consequences of their decisions for sustainability matters, including, where applicable, human rights, climate change and environmental consequences’ (Art 25.1). The updated UN Treaty draft, however, has dropped any mention of climate change. The previous (third) draft stated that States Parties shall ensure HRDD measures undertaken by business enterprises shall include ‘undertaking and publishing regular human rights, labour rights, environmental and climate change impact assessments throughout their operations’ (Art. 6.4.a). The new 2023 draft now reads ‘undertake and publish on a regular basis human rights impact assessments prior and throughout their operations’. This is a disturbing regression which should be reversed during the October negotiations.

High impact sectors

Another discrepancy is the differentiation between high impact sectors and other sectors in the CSDDD – a distinction not reflected in the UN Treaty. While Article 6.3 of the third draft of the UN Treaty gave states some flexibility in implementing mHREDD obligations with consideration of company size and sector, this language is not reflected in the updated draft UN Treaty, which instead says states should ‘regulate effectively the activities of all business enterprises’ through ‘appropriate legislative, regulatory, and other measures’ (Article 6.1-2). Furthermore, the updated OECD Guidelines cover all sectors equally (including the financial sector) without applying different expectations to sectors classed as high impact or high risk.

The CSDDD, on the other hand, restricts or delays mHREDD obligations by company size and sector, including ‘high impact sectors’ like mining, agriculture, and textiles. Unlike climate change, where the CSDDD incorporates it more clearly into its scope than the UN treaty, treating certain sectors as ‘high impact’ limits the scope of HRDD in the CSDDD in ways the UN treaty does not. This sector focus in the CSDDD dangerously leaves out important considerations for how all sectors can impact human rights, as has been noted in joint statements by NGOs asking the CSDDD to include considerations of sectors like finance and tech.

Adverse impacts

Finally, discussions of ‘adverse impacts’ are also still not aligned between the two proposals. The updated UN Treaty now gives a definition of the term “adverse human rights impact” and uses this term in its discussion of human rights due diligence; this update brings the UN Treaty more in line with how the CSDDD discusses human rights impacts. Yet, the CSDDD also introduces “severe human rights impact”, where a subset of companies would only have to consider severe human rights impacts in their due diligence obligations. Like the discussion on high impact sectors, the CSDDD is limiting the scope of HRDD by potential severity of adverse impacts in a way that the updated UN Treaty does not. The UN Guiding Principles recognise that business should consider the severity of the harms caused in their human rights due diligence, but severity should not be used to limit or excuse companies from their mHREDD obligations.

These three examples of where the UN Treaty and the CSDDD differ are important in the overall discussion of how mHREDD applies to all businesses. Both drafts have limited the scope of human rights issues under consideration, either by not including them - in the case of climate change in the UN Treaty - or by introducing limited language, like ‘high impact sectors’ or ‘severe human rights impact’ in the CSDDD. Excluding consideration of relevant, substantive issues like climate change or specific sectors as it relates to mHREDD could be negotiating away key aspects of human rights considerations for businesses.

By Jasmine Elliott, Research Fellow in Business and Human Rights, and Irene Pietropaoli, Senior Fellow in Business and Human Rights, British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL)

More on the Binding Treaty

Webinar series: Bridging the gap

Together with Centre for Applied Legal Studies, The International Commission of Jurists, Justica Ambiental, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, we convened a series of three webinars in July, August and September 2023 to foster debate around critical issues in the development of the Binding Treaty. Watch the recordings here.

UN Intergovernmental Working Group releases updated draft of legally binding instrument on business and human rights

An updated draft of the legally binding instrument was released in July 2023 ahead of the ninth session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights.

Binding Treaty portal

Read about the latest developments on the Binding Treaty.

Building momentum: Critical considerations in the Binding Treaty 2023 negotiations

의견

Reclaiming states’ economic sovereignty: the crux of the new treaty on business and human rights

Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights 24 10월 2023

의견

Five reasons the Binding Treaty needs to be feminist

Feminists for a Binding Treaty 20 10월 2023

View Full Series

개인정보

이 웹사이트는 쿠키 및 기타 웹 저장 기술을 사용합니다. 아래에서 개인정보보호 옵션을 설정할 수 있습니다. 변경 사항은 즉시 적용됩니다.

웹 저장소 사용에 대한 자세한 내용은 다음을 참조하세요 데이터 사용 및 쿠키 정책

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

분석 쿠키

ON
OFF

귀하가 우리 웹사이트를 방문하면 Google Analytics를 사용하여 귀하의 방문 정보를 수집합니다. 이 쿠키를 수락하면 저희가 귀하의 방문에 대한 자세한 내용을 이해하고, 정보 표시 방법을 개선할 수 있습니다. 모든 분석 정보는 익명이 보장되며 귀하를 식별하는데 사용하지 않습니다. Google은 모든 브라우저에 대해 Google Analytics 선택 해제 추가 기능을 제공합니다.

프로모션 쿠키

ON
OFF

우리는 소셜미디어와 검색 엔진을 포함한 제3자 플랫폼을 통해 기업과 인권에 대한 뉴스와 업데이트를 제공합니다. 이 쿠키는 이러한 프로모션의 성과를 이해하는데 도움이 됩니다.

이 사이트에 대한 개인정보 공개 범위 선택

이 사이트는 필요한 핵심 기능 이상으로 귀하의 경험을 향상시키기 위해 쿠키 및 기타 웹 저장 기술을 사용합니다.