Time for human rights to get down to business? – Adam Smith-Anthony

12 December 2014 by

open-for-business4Businesses, governments and civil society descended on Geneva last week for the 2014 UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, the largest global gathering in the business and human rights field. There were lofty statements of high ambition but the pervasive tone and success of the Forum was more prosaic: nitty-gritty implementation.

It was a conference dedicated to developing and sharing the best practices capable of shifting businesses from showcase philanthropy to real accountability, from vague aspirations to measurable impacts, and from a race to the bottom to a competition to be recognised as world leading. It was a call for real action; as one panel moderator told his coffee-clutching audience early on Day 3: “I want to see dust on everybody’s shoes”.

Implementation of what? 

The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were designed to implement the UN’s Protect, Respect and Remedy framework and to address the governance gaps left by inadequate action by states and the increased reach and impact of corporations. The Forum, now in its third year, was established by the UN Human Rights Council as a global platform for stakeholders to discuss trends and challenges in the implementation of these Guiding Principles.

And there was no shortage of discussions. Over 60 separate sessions, jam-packed with keynote and panel speakers, were crammed into an ambitious official programme, not counting side events and private meetings. More comprehensive reports will no doubt follow; my more limited aim here is to give you a flavour of the key developments and mood of the conference.

Recognising business leaders

The number of businesses at the Forum was up on both previous years, adding to the sense that this is a movement gaining momentum. Naturally, the sample of businesses present was self-selected and so unlikely to be representative of the broader corporate sector. But a movement needs pioneers and these leaders should be recognised when they step forward and tell of real change at the coal face, literally and figuratively.

While the Forum saw many important contributions from various business leaders, there was undoubtedly a flag-bearer for proactive business engagement in the human rights field. Unilever CEO Paul Polman declared in his keynote address that business can only flourish in societies where human rights are respected, and that companies not willing to make the changes this requires will soon find out there is nowhere to hide. The broad consensus was that these were words supported by action; Unilever was widely praised for its root and branch embedding of human rights and environmental protections throughout the company and its extended ‘value chain’.


A less tangible but similarly encouraging sign of this recognition was a markedly – almost surprisingly – collaborative atmosphere. Businesses shared their experiences and affirmed the Guiding Principles as a useful framework for making sense of the jungle of laws, norms and guidance they face, as well as clarifying the respective responsibilities of states and corporations. Amidst repeated talk of genuine multi-stakeholder engagement, corporates and civil society shared a panel to report on joint projects (for example: Oxfam and ICI collaborating on the Nestlé Cocoa Plan, Human Rights Watch assisting Vale regarding women’s rights in Mozambique, and IndustriALL Global Union partnering with Inditex on the issue of labour rights). John Ruggie, author of the Guiding Principles, gave me his assessment: “The quality of the discussion is at a higher level than last year and is less confrontational. We have moved on from ‘Business and Human Rights 101’ toward practical implementation.”

That is not to say corporates were not challenged by charities, NGOs and other not-for-profits. There were pointed calls for far more multinational corporations to join the discussions and warnings that in many areas conditions are actually deteriorating; the treatment of human rights defenders in some parts of the world, for example, was singled out as increasingly problematic.

Practical tools

And so to the nitty-gritty: how can corporates implement the Guiding Principles and how should civil society assist businesses while also holding them to account? Various tools were presented and new initiatives trailed.

Against a backdrop of the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive, to be implemented by large companies in the EU by December 2016, Shift explained its new Reporting and Assurance Frameworks Initiative (RAFI), which promises to set a new common standard in human rights reporting.

On a panel dedicated to the development of comparable metrics, Oxfam presented the October update of its Behind the Brands company scorecard, flanked by initiatives measuring corporate impact on access to medicines and digital rights online – the common objective: to promote competition to top a league table of corporate good practice on human rights. Watch out, too, for the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark, an ambitious initiative launched last week to create a publicly accessible and respected hub for ranking the human rights performance of at least 500 major companies across various industries.

And there was plenty more not covered in this brief summary, including discussion about role and development of states’ “National Action Plans” on business and human rights, initiatives specific to the finance and private security sectors, the Human Rights Council’s explorations into a binding treaty on business and human rights, and discussions on a possible arbitration tribunal dedicated to this field.

What’s next?

The real test of the success or otherwise of the Forum can only truly be assessed over the coming months. Words, though seemingly well intentioned and promising, must be converted to systematic changes and a new standard of business as usual. Rajiv Joshi of the B-Team told the Forum that there is a clear business and moral case for such a step change.

As the dust settles after the Forum, and is amassed on the delegates’ shoes during the hard graft of implementation, we would all do well to remember these words from Nestlé CEO Paul Bulcke’s keynote address: “Lots of good talk, but human rights is about action on the ground”.

Adam Smith-Anthony is a senior associate at Omnia Strategy LLP

1 comment;

  1. Thanks for informing us about this – a really interesting post. An area I feel is overlooked by the business and human rights agenda is the increasing role of business in providing public services/providing services that were until recently publicly provided and the degree to which laws, regulatory regimes, modes of redress are sufficient not to see a general weakening of human rights protection. This is especially important as business involvement is most advanced in areas where human rights are particularly vulnerable including health and social care, psychiatric facilities, prisons, immigration detention and removals and so on. EHRC’s 2010-11 Inquiry into the human rights of older people receiving care in their own homes explored this to a degree, leading this year to the extension of the Human Rights Act to all areas of regulated care, whether provided by private, public or voluntary providers.

    Is the question of business delivering public services on the business and human rights agenda?

    Best wishes, Neil

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: