Assessing States’ Obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Post‐Brexit

While National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are widely regarded as particularly promising tools in the emerging transnational regime for the regulation of business and human rights, we still know little about their potential and actual contribution to this field. This article bridges the gap between business and human rights research and NHRI scholarship, proceeding in three steps: Firstly, I analyze the structural conditions for NHRIs to tackle business-related human rights abuses effectively, focusing on the key conditions of legitimacy and competences. Secondly, I examine the envisaged role and functions of NHRIs in business and human rights regulation according to the Paris Principles and the UN Guiding Principles. Thirdly, I reconstruct and critically assess NHRIs’ mandates and powers to address corporate human rights abuse, based on the analysis of surveys and reports. I argue that there is a significant mismatch between the essential structural conditions for effective NHRI engagement with business and human rights, the expected contribution of NHRIs to the prevention and remedy of corporate human rights abuses, and the limitations of their mandates and powers in practice. To overcome that misalignment and unlock NHRIs’ full potential, this article proposes a reform of the Paris Principles which would provide these institutions with a robust source of international legitimacy and increase the pressure on state governments to extend their powers.

The Impact of the 'Ruggie Framework' and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights on Transnational Human Rights Litigation

The modern corporation offers significant potential to contribute to the human rights project, in part because it is free from the challenges posed by national sovereignty. That promise has begun to be realized in businesses practicing corporate due diligence with regard to the human rights of persons involved in or affected by those enterprises. Yet due diligence preserves the self-seeking orientation of the conventional corporation and seeks only to protect itself from committing human rights abuses. This approach, typified by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, does not address background conditions for and root causes of vulnerability to human rights abuses. My alternative, the human rights corporation, takes an other-regarding orientation that advances human rights within the corporation and in its human, social, economic, and natural environments. It moves beyond the due diligence carrot-and-stick model to a model in which the corporation produces not only goods and services but also human rights consciousness and practice as well.

Taking its point of departure in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP), this chapter discusses the complementarity between Pillars One on the State Duty to Respect and Pillar Two the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights. It does this through HRDD and communication such as non-financial reporting. HRDD and reporting are discussed as modalities for promoting businesses’ self-regulation. They therefore offer a way for States to push businesses towards greater respect for human rights. States may induce learning and self-regulation on human rights among businesses through ‘smart mix’ hard, soft and incentives measures related to HRDD and reporting. The paper argues that that clever deployment of these measures may bring forth normative guidance and directives for business action respectful of human rights, strengthening Pillar Two through Pillar One activity.

INTRODUCTION Industrial and export processing zones are considered magnets for direct foreign investment and attractive for foreign enterprises and subsidiaries of transnational corporations in Vietnam. Despite fuelling domestic economic growth by industrial development and job creation, industrial zones’ performance has caused a series of actual and potential human rights violations within workplaces and in surrounding communities. Working conditions in industrial zones in Vietnam revealed a breadth of human rights abuses such as low wages, excessive overtime, temporary contracts, deteriorated working conditions, and environmental pollution which affected not only workers and their families but also people living in the surrounding areas. The 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Guiding Principles) provide a practical guidance to identify and address human rights impacts, emphasising the state duty to protect against human rights abuses, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the need for greater access to victims to effective remedy. Despite numerous endorsements, the Guiding Principles face some scepticism regarding their practicability, which depends on the context of specific countries, and an inherent voluntarism on part of the enterprises’ adherence to the principles. Surya Deva argues that ‘[e] ven if the Guiding Principles are implemented by states and embraced by the business community, they might not make a significant difference in preventing and remedying corporate human rights abuses, especially in situations where there are governance gaps or companies are reluctant to be guided by the Guiding Principles’. In fact, in developing countries whose aim is to attract foreign investment for development, governments are often unwilling to intervene in companies’ activities for fear of impairing their competitiveness. Weak states lacking the requisite governance capacity are also less able to control effectively the activities of foreign enterprises. Likewise, in authoritarian or undemocratic states where rampant corruption is common place, enterprises often lobby ruling elites to ignore their wrongdoings and disrupt the legal enforcement of human rights. At the same time, for enterprises, for the sake of profit maximisation and in the absence of a legally binding regulatory framework, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often regarded as an added cost. This in turn undermines enterprises’ propensity to voluntarily incorporate CSR.

The article focuses on the issue of observance of labor rights in wartime, in particular, through the prism of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This document is the main basis for achieving a positive result in the implementation of labor relations, which requires a detailed analysis and study of its specific features. It is noted that labor relations are controlled by the State and represented by the government on the basis of national and international legislation. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is a significant achievement of the international community in the field of effective and lawful functioning of labor relations and regulates the key principles of business entities in those states that have implemented this document. The author identifies problematic aspects of compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is noted that the main factor behind the violation of labor rights is the armed conflict, which contributed to the restriction of the labor rights of citizens provided for by the Constitution. The russian federation's armed aggression has resulted in the illegal dismissal of a significant number of citizens and violations of labor legislation, which is a violation of the UN Guiding Principles. The ineffectiveness of the existing legal framework under martial law can be observed, as the norms do not provide for state action in such a special period. Considering the real state of affairs in the state, it is necessary to update the regulatory acts in accordance with the challenges of our time. The author suggests options for avoiding and preventing violations of the labor rights of citizens under martial law. Priority areas for addressing such problematic issues include constant monitoring of the regulatory framework in accordance with urgent needs; avoidance of gender-based and sexual violence; strategy of actions in case of a business entity's defection to the enemy; development of state initiative programs in the field of business; international cooperation; and adoption of foreign experience.

This paper discusses the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. The main purpose is to highlight and clarify the gaps between CSR regulations and human rights abuses caused by business organizations.From a historical perspective, natural resources have been recognized as a common reason for pushing the CSR agenda in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially with the presence of big businesses in the outcome of globalization. However, despite a development-oriented CSR agenda and therefore on African local needs such as hospitals, housing, and roads, big businesses that have embarked on CSR activities are often involved in human rights violations. This is despite the insertion of human rights in some African state regulations, the UN Global Compact, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in which those businesses are signatories. This is the case in Gabon, Nigeria, and South Africa whose regulations were established by the respective states indicate business’ broader societal priorities directed towards stakeholders (local communities in particular) but in terms of corporate obligations, ‘Human Rights appear to be a blind spot in CSR’.The reasons for that are indicated in the findings of this qualitative inquiry, which reveals deep problems of corporate governance and little understanding of corporate human rights in domestic legislation. According to international law, human rights fulfillment focuses on nation-states as sole bearers. This means other non-state actors have indirect human rights responsibilities. Therefore, the challenge remains to extend and interpret existing domestic and international frameworks to include CSR alongside traditional state obligations. This could make corporate human rights more ‘applicable’ to businesses.Previous research by Visser and Amodu has focused on proposing models to respond to the challenges of CSR in Africa. This paper clarifies the challenges of CSR with human rights issues and suggests an extension of the current legislative framework covering CSR. The article is qualitative and has used a Desk Research study approach that includes published academic papers, government documents some secondary data such as case studies, interviews, and discussions.

Business Enterprises and the Environment: Corporate Environmental Responsibility In 2011, following his 2005 initial mandate of the UN Commission on Human Rights and his extended 2008 mandate of the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on the issues of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Professor John Ruggie, issued the final text of the ‘Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework”‘. The 2008 Framework on Business and Human Rights and the complementing 2011 Guiding Principles consist of three pillars: the duty of states to protect human rights, the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights, and access to remedies for victims of human rights abuses. They currently qualify as the dominant paradigm in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse, also because they now form part of various soft law and self-regulation initiatives. The Framework and Guiding Principles do not, however, specifically focus on environmental issues, but their systematic approach and structure do provide a model to address state duties and business responsibilities to care of the environment. This article is intended to complement the UN Framework and Guiding Principles on business and human rights with principles in the field of business and the environment. Hence, it is submitted that states have a customary duty to care for the environment; it is similarly submitted that business enterprises have a responsibility to care for the environment; and it is submitted that stakeholders must have access to remedies in relation to breaches of these duties and responsibilities.

Between 2012 and 2013, we analysed and coded the human rights policies of the largest corporations in six of the world's most globalised industries: finance, mining, oil and gas, food and beverage, apparel and agribusiness. Using the language of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as benchmarks, we developed a scoring mechanism to evaluate the level of responsibility companies had accepted to (1) respect human rights, (2) conduct human rights due diligence, and (3) provide remedies for human rights violations associated with their activities. Statistical analysis using both standard regression and ordinal logistic regression revealed that companies domiciled in the United States score poorly, nearly on par with sub-Saharan Africa, while companies based in Europe and Commonwealth countries demonstrate the highest adoption rate of human rights duties. Additionally, extractive industries produce, overall, the strongest human rights policies, while apparel companies are laggards. Furthermore, membership in socially responsible industry groups may not correlate with higher human rights scores. These findings are analysed in the context of the external influences that align most closely with shifts in corporate policies. The article considers explanations for the disparities, which have policy implications for home states and industry associations.

This article discusses the growing issue of labor rights within global supply chains, with a focus on the importance of due diligence in ensuring decent work standards. Global supply chains, often complex and obscured by various economic and contractual layers, frequently result in poor working conditions, low wages, and human rights abuses, especially for vulnerable workers in developing countries. The article emphasizes that corporate due diligence can be a key tool in addressing these challenges, preventing violations, and promoting better labor conditions. The objective of this study is to analyze how due diligence frameworks can be integrated into business practices to improve labor rights. While voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives have gained popularity, they often lack enforceability, which leaves workers unprotected. The article argues for a dual approach that combines both voluntary and mandatory compliance mechanisms to ensure accountability and effective protection for workers across supply chains. The research utilizes a qualitative methodology, examining historical case studies and international frameworks designed to improve labor rights in supply chains. Notable cases like the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh and the Brazil Verde Farm case illustrate the devastating effects of failing to implement labor protections. These cases highlight the need for robust due diligence and human rights protections within global supply chains. The article reviews international guidelines such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and ILO standards on decent work, evaluating their effectiveness in ensuring compliance. The study finds gaps in existing voluntary compliance mechanisms, often leaving labor abuses unaddressed. As a solution, the article advocates for mandatory due diligence legislation, citing Germany's Supply Chain Act as a positive example of proactive legislation that can set global standards for responsible business conduct. Additionally, the research highlights the role of trade unions and collective bargaining in advocating for workers' rights. These social partners are crucial for ensuring that due diligence measures lead to tangible improvements in working conditions, and that workers have a voice in shaping their employment terms. In conclusion, the article stresses the need for a comprehensive approach to addressing labor rights violations in global supply chains. This includes strong legal frameworks, the active participation of trade unions, and effective due diligence practices. By addressing these multifaceted issues, companies can ensure decent work standards are met throughout their supply chains, contributing to a fairer and more ethical global economy.

Thispaperanalysestheprocess ofimplementing the UN framework of “Protect, Respect and Remedy”. First, itpresentsa historical overview of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and then it reflectson the repercussions in Brazil, based on the recommendations made after the visit of the UN Working Group in 2015. In 2018, the Brazilian government published a series of regulations, among them,a National Guideline on Human Rights and Business. Unfortunately, theadvances contained in the documentendup overshadowed by the fact that it was notcreatedin a participatory and transparent way, and by adopting an optional framework when dealing with corporate human rights responsibility, thus mitigating the obligations of respect for human rights by the companies.

External experts play a crucial role in implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, advising businesses on how to identify, prevent and mitigate risks. Yet their responsibility remains underexplored in relation to judicial remedy. This article addresses this gap by investigating the involvement of external experts in strategic litigation concerning alleged corporate human rights harms. While such litigation primarily seeks remediation and societal change, it also reveals overlooked actors within legal processes. Using the concept of ‘visibilisation’, this study examines three landmark cases to explore how courts understand experts’ legal subjectivity. Findings suggest that this subjectivity encompasses both an evidentiary and functional role in corporate processes, raising important questions regarding accountability. By highlighting their influence on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and human rights due diligence (HRDD), the article advances understanding of expert responsibility and considers its future in the emerging era of mandatory HRDD.

The past one decade had witnessed how the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) shaped the global standard for responsible business, while it had also indicated the ineffectiveness of implementation. At present, the potential of human rights due diligence to operationalise the UNGPs tends to be recognised by both state and non-state actors. States around the globe are undertaking various approaches to institutionalise human rights due diligence to fulfil their duty to protect under international human rights law. Against this backdrop, the paper aims to explore current practices of human rights due diligence institutionalisations and provides a holistic assessment of different models adopted by state actors. The research result argues that among the three major models, i.e., NAPs Model, mHRDD Model and BHR Treaty-based Model, the NAPs Model is a more optimal solution to operationalize the UNGPs. This judgment bases on not only the innate merits of the NAPs Model but also on its potential to avoid adverse impacts resulting from unilateral legislation and to foster consensus for a business and human rights treaty.
 
 Received: 5 March 2022 / Accepted: 7 May 2022 / Published: 5 July 2022

The Crisis of International Human Rights Law in the Global Market Economy

Following an overview of literature on corporate human rights abuse and remedy, we employ a qualitative comparative analysis approach based on the logic of fuzzy sets (fsQCA) (Crilly et al., 2012; Fiss, 2007; Ragin, 2008), to explore varying configurations of talk, decisions, activist NGO initiatives, and state involvement that may lead to additional action steps toward remedy for corporate human rights abuses. Our findings show that aspirational talk alone is not sufficient to lead to action, contrary to recent theorizing within organized hypocrisy scholarship (Christensen, et. al., 2020). Without NGO pressure, corporate hypocrisy prevails when it comes to human rights remedy: Firms that engage in human rights talk are no more likely to take action toward remedy than indifferent firms who do not engage with human rights. But with NGO involvement, firms’ human rights talk seems to provide leverage to pressure firms to take consistent action. When it comes to human rights abuse, firms that make empty promises should be prepared to match their talk with action because organized hypocrisy provides a trigger for NGOs to effectively apply pressure for remedy.