publications

Findings

Several themes emerge from the above examination of situations in which business activity undermines human rights.

First, business impacts on human rights are not limited to sectors that have received the most attention to date—in particular apparel manufacturing and the extractive industries—and existing initiatives are insufficient to address the full scope of the problem. The case material above demonstrates that the activities of all types of businesses, large and small, domestic and multinational, public and private, can implicate human rights. To fully combat business-related human rights abuse, a broader approach encompassing all business actors and contexts is needed.

Second, in assessing the impact of business activity on human rights, it is important to focus on company ties to third parties that commit abuse as well as cases in which businesses themselves directly cause harm. Such third parties are often government agents—such as security forces—working in coordination with companies or on behalf of company interests. Other times the negative human rights impact stems from business failure to take adequate steps to prevent misconduct by employees, suppliers, or others with whom it has business relationships. This finding is significant because it demonstrates that businesses’ role in relation to human rights is not limited to obvious cases. It also makes clear that efforts to address corporate conduct must take into account that businesses can affect human rights through their association with others as well as on their own.

Third, governments often fail to protect their own citizens, as well as non-citizens, from abuses by businesses. The relative power of companies in relation to the governments of countries in which they operate, particularly in economically disadvantaged states, can contribute to this gap in protection, but it is also found in wealthy countries. This gap is exacerbated by close relationships between business and government officials and by the unrepresentative nature of some governments whose officials have ties to businesses, though democratic governments are obviously not immune to undue influence by moneyed interests. The key lesson to be drawn here is that if business-related abuses are to be curbed, governments need to do a much better job of regulating business conduct. Further study of the motivations or circumstances that underlie state inaction would help inform more effective responses.

Fourth, individuals whose rights are affected by businesses are often unable to attain satisfactory resolution of their claims or are denied redress altogether. In some cases, individuals and communities who try to enforce their rights through protests or through judicial means have been subject to retaliation. The inability to obtain redress compounds the original violation and itself constitutes a violation of victims’ rights. This finding reinforces the need to promote access to justice for victims of business-related abuses and the importance of further examination of the reasons states are not providing appropriate remedies and reparations.

Finally, the examples presented here indicate that many companies have not yet ascribed to business standards addressing human rights or disregard codes of conduct or company commitments to social responsibility, where they exist. Taken together with the rest of the analysis in this report, the clear conclusion is that existing efforts to address the impacts of business activities on human rights are insufficient.