‘States have a duty to protect against corporate abuse’

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Related Articles

Gold the most preferred investment

: international and national levels. Several guiding principles are already apparent though, including that any “grand strategy” needs to build out from the existing capacity of states and the states system to regulate and adjudicate harmful actions by corporations, not undermine it. We need to further clarify and progressively codify the duties of states to protect human rights against corporate violations: individually, as host and home states, as well as through collective action.

The law of the land varies from country to country. Isn’t it unrealistic to expect MNCs to embed universal codes into subsidiaries and supply chains?

This is an important question with which we’re currently grappling. My mandate also asked me to clarify the implications of concepts such as corporate “sphere of influence.” To do so requires thinking about the different challenges facing a wide variety of businesses and industries. We have also been thinking more about responsibility for acts by subsidiaries and those further down the supply chain.

Can market instruments like socially responsible investment funds that promote human rights be more useful?

No single measure would yield more immediate results in the human rights performance of firms than conducting impact assessments where a significant human rights impact can be expected. Several tools are now available and we need to test the available tools in the real world, not strive for theoretical perfection. Governments and companies need to step forward and cooperate with community groups and others in piloting these tools, so that the human rights impacts of business can be better understood and improved.

Is there a business case for human rights?

The most obvious business case is risk management, brand protection, and contributing to sustainable communities — better work forces and a growing customer base.

What next?