publications

Background: Understanding the Different Ways Business Activity Can Infringe Human Rights

Internationally recognized human rights outlined in core human rights instruments guarantee all people equal and inalienable rights by virtue of their inherent human dignity.2 These instruments appropriately pay particular attention to the role of states, as the primary duty holder under international law, in upholding these rights. The state’s role includes protecting individuals and communities from human rights abuses committed by businesses and other non-state actors. Businesses and other actors, however, also have responsibilities themselves. As the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights phrases it, “every organ of society” does.3

The moral and legal debate over how to define the human rights responsibilities of businesses tends to be argued on an abstract level. Considerable effort, for example, has been made to raise awareness about the fundamental concept of complicity, under which business may share in responsibility for abuses by third parties, as well as to elaborate on the applicability to business of basic human rights principles. Yet confusion over basic factual matters persists. At the most fundamental level, there is no shared assessment of the extent of the impact that business practices have on human rights. Instead, available information can be interpreted in very different ways.

For example, the frequent observation that certain industries, such as the extractive industries, have faced repeated human rights controversies, when presented without reference to examples from a range of other industries, can form an impression that human rights problems are highly segmented and limited to a few sectors. By the same token, the special attention given to the particular problems that can arise in certain business contexts, such as areas of violent conflict or so-called weak governance zones, when considered in isolation, can suggest that business-related abuses do not occur on a global scale. Likewise, the connection between business activity and certain sets of rights, especially labor rights, can lead to assumptions that other rights are intrinsically less affected by business practices.

The striking nature of some types of abuses in which companies have been implicated, including war crimes, can draw attention away from systematic and entrenched abuses that may be considered unremarkable. The frequent and natural tendency to focus on particularly egregious abuses can obscure the fact that many other business impacts on human rights can cause serious harm to affected individuals and communities, particularly when they disproportionately affect certain groups or exacerbate existing discriminatory patterns in communities.

The lack of common understanding of the nature and scope of the problem has important implications. One result is that, to date, many debates about business responsibility and policies aimed at improving corporate conduct have neglected to fully consider human rights issues. For example, a number of business initiatives that address human rights have emerged in response to specific problems and define their scope accordingly. They therefore typically have a limited reach and apply only to individual companies or industries or particular country contexts.

Even within their particular zone of application, moreover, such industry- or region-specific initiatives have not always been fully consistent with international human rights standards. Indeed, at present there is no widely recognized set of standards on business and human rights that provides an overarching framework and reference point for these diverse initiatives.

In order to foster a more complete understanding of the role, effects, and responsibilities of business in relation to human rights, and thereby to help shape appropriate solutions, it is helpful to take stock of the cross-cutting ways in which enjoyment of rights can be harmed as a result of business activities.

Impacts on human rights may result from such core business activities as employing staff, building or utilizing facilities, consuming and manufacturing materials or providing services, and interacting with community members and governments. As the nature of business operations continues to change and evolve so too will the ways and contexts in which such operations can affect human rights.




2 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “International Law – The Core International Human Rights Instruments,” undated, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/index.htm#core (accessed February 11, 2008). The core international human rights instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted December 10, 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948), and the following nine core treaties: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), adopted December 21, 1965, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into force January 4, 1969; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force January 3, 1976; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted December 18, 1979, G.A. Res. 34/180, 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, entered into force September 3, 1981; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), adopted December 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987; the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted November 20, 1989, G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force September 2, 1990; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), adopted December 18, 1990, G.A. Res 45/158, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 262, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990), entered into force July 1, 2003; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPD), adopted December 13, 2006, G.A. Res. 61/611, U.N. Doc. A/61/611 (2006), not yet in force; and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED), adopted December 20, 2006, G.A. Res. 61/177, U.N. Doc. A/61/488 (2006), not yet in force.

3 Additionally, the preambles of both the ICCPR and ICESCR recognize that others beyond states—specifically individuals—have human rights responsibilities, which likewise may cover juridical persons (including businesses) as well as natural persons. Moreover, there is a broad consensus that businesses are subject to direct responsibility for human rights abuses that amount to international crimes, including enslavement, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. For a discussion of the potential for business entities to be held legally liable for grave violations of international law, see, for example, Anita Ramasastry and Robert C. Thompson, Commerce, Crime and Conflict: Legal Remedies for Private Sector Liability for Grave Breaches of International Law (Norway: Fafo, 2006), http://www.fafo.no/pub/rapp/536/536.pdf (accessed November 15, 2007). On the direct responsibilities of business in relation to the laws of war, see, for example, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “Business and international humanitarian law: An introduction to the rights and obligations of business enterprises under international humanitarian law,” November 11, 2006, http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/business-ihl-150806 (accessed November 15, 2007).