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

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

22 二月 2023

作者:
Surya Deva

Paper by Surya Deva analyses limitations of HRDD and warns that existing mHRDD laws may not bring substantial changes for rightsholders

"Mandatory human rights due diligence laws in Europe: A mirage for rightsholders?", 22. February 2023

[...] It is therefore timely to interrogate the potential and limitations of mandatory HRDD laws in preventing business-related human rights abuses. As part of this interrogation, this article develops a two-layered critique of mandatory HRDD laws. As part of the first layer, it problematizes the very concept of HRDD as articulated by the UNGPs. I will argue that due to various conceptual, operational and structural limitations, HRDD alone – even if practiced by corporations – will not bring the desired changes for rightsholders. The second layer of critique concerns the content of mandatory HRDD laws that have been enacted so far: leaving aside inherent limitations of HRDD, these laws are merely half-hearted attempts to tame business-related human rights abuses and hold the relevant corporate actors accountable. If not drafted properly, mandatory HRDD laws may in fact prove counter-productive by either encouraging ‘cosmetic compliance’ on the part of corporations or institutionalizing HRDD as a defence to legal liability. They may also help in covering up existing imbalances of power between states, corporations and communities, instead of addressing them.

Therefore, regulators and policy makers should carefully consider limitations of HRDD in practice and look beyond making HRDD mandatory to make any real difference to the situation of rightsholders on the ground or bring a fundamental shift in how businesses are currently run. They should do so despite calls to preserve, what I would call, the ‘sanctity’ or ‘conceptual purity’ of HRRD under the UNGPs. (Mandatory) HRDD should not end up becoming the end in itself. Rather, HRDD should be treated merely one of the many means to ensure that businesses respect internationally recognized human rights, and states should use all available regulatory options as part of their duty under Pillar I of the UNGPs instead of focusing solely on enacting mandatory HRDD laws. [...]

In a span of just over 11 years, HRDD has become a common currency in the BHR field used by all players as a tool for business enterprises to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse human rights impacts. Although not a prominent component of Pillar I, HRDD has also become a key tool employed by states to discharge their duty to protect human rights. This in itself is a significant achievement for a deeply polarized field historically.

However, as this article has tried to show, we should not accept HRDD as a panacea to either prevent human rights abuses or hold businesses accountable. In fact, because of its popularity and impressive uptake, HRDD – as part of the Pillar II of the UNGPs or of a mandatory regime at the national, regional or international level – has the potential to create a false impression of change, without making any substantial positive impact on the situation of rightsholders on the ground. I have elaborated various conceptual, operational and structural limitations of the concept of HRDD under the UNGPs. Moreover, as a critical review of five mandatory HRDD laws shows, many of these limitations will not be overcome by states simply making HRDD mandatory in line with the UNGPs.

Based on the existing practice of HRDD (including mandatory HRDD laws), one can draw at least four lessons for regulators and policy makers. First, social expectations or market forces alone will not be adequate orchestrators for businesses to take seriously their responsibility to respect human rights. Although it may sound paradoxical, the role of states as regulator, monitor, enforcer, facilitator and co-ordinator will be critical to support the operationalization of the independent responsibility of businesses to respect human rights under Pillar II of the UNGPs.

Second, a key distinction should be made between the outcome (the business responsibility to respect human rights) and the process (HRDD). The current mandatory HRDD laws are only seeking to make the latter obligatory. While this is a step in the right direction, it will not be sufficient. States and other actors should pay greater attention to achieving outcomes and this should also be reflected in their mandatory regulatory regimes.

Third, the 3.0 version of laws under Pillar I of the UNGPs, including mandatory HRDD laws, should set much more ambitious goals, some of which are articulated in the six preconditions discussed above. They should, for example, focus on addressing imbalances of power, information and resources between enterprises and rightsholders. Moreover, such laws should combine a variety of carrots and sticks. By providing for incentives for businesses taking their human rights responsibilities seriously, states should both create and facilitate proactively market rewards for responsible business conduct. In addition, there should be effective provisions for access to remedy and corporate accountability.

Fourth, the entire state-based regulatory universe should not be limited to mandatory HRDD laws. Although prevention under Pillars I and II may be ‘inextricably linked’, unlike businesses’ prevention responsibility under Pillar II, states’ prevention duty under Pillar I is not mostly limited to HRDD. Rather, states should employ a range of additional regulatory tools such as obliging the adoption of a precautionary approach, establishing a strict liability regime, imposing import-export bans, drawing red lines in certain situations or addressing systemic problems with the free market economy. In other words, mandatory HRDD laws should be part of a wider regulatory menu instead of being the only item on the menu.

隐私资讯

本网站使用 cookie 和其他网络存储技术。您可以在下方设置您的隐私选项。您所作的更改将立即生效。

有关我们使用网络存储的更多信息,请参阅我们的 数据使用和 Cookie 政策

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.

分析 cookie

ON
OFF

您浏览本网页时我们将以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie将有助我们理解您的浏览资讯,并协助我们改善呈现资讯的方法。所有分析资讯都以匿名方式收集,我们并不能用相关资讯得到您的个人信息。谷歌在所有主要浏览器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加应用程式。

市场营销cookies

ON
OFF

我们从第三方网站获得企业责任资讯,当中包括社交媒体和搜寻引擎。这些cookie协助我们理解相关浏览数据。

您在此网站上的隐私选项

本网站使用cookie和其他网络存储技术来增强您在必要核心功能之外的体验。