We had a group of stakeholders (internal and external) that advised us and gave inputs into the process. That was extremly valuable. I also believe it is important to prioritize issues - Kuoni for example states in its commitment on Human Rights:
Kuoni does not attribute more importance to one human right over another. However, we strive to prioritise our implementation efforts in aspects of operations over which we have greater degrees of control and influence, which are
A fundamental difference we have on the "implementation" of UNGP, is that Human and Labour rights should be part of the business formula, that is, this is not just about implementing a new set of guidelines or principles or a new project but to ensure universal principles are embedded throughout the organization, that each one of our associates throughout the world understand Human and Labour rights and how they impact them through their business decisions.
Hi Holly - comments are displayed most recent last, and if they are in response to another comment they are displayed directly underneath that one. Easiest way to follow is via the side bar stream of latest comments. Click on the word "replied" to jump straight to that comment.
Human rights are not "new" to many companies - what is new is the systematic and ingetrated approach towards it. Our company for example included Human Rights related topics into internal audit processes which makes it more accountable than "just voluntary CSR"
Hi Graham, I have to comment a bit generally for reasons of being a consultant. But I would say that grievance mechanisms, particularly community grievances and remedies, is an area which many companies outside of the extractives sector are beginning to look at anew / think about / take action on. The Tesco example which Alan mentioned being just such as case.
Myanmar is an interesting example of an emerging market where companies will face human rights challenges they're unlikely to have faced elsewhere. Here's a look at Myanmar through a Ruggie lens:
I'd agree, Luke. We hear of quite a lot of action to develop grievance procedures in particular, but it seems that the next step towards upholding the ‘Remedy’ pillar isn’t always in place. Companies that are serious about engaging with workers around what’s not working in a supply chain, have to be ready to make appropriate improvements too, or confidence in the mechanism can quickly dry up.
Very interesting Luke and I appreciate your client confidentiality. Grievance mechanisms under Right to Remedy really did feel new and different and indeed challenging not least for the Legal Departments who must be concerned about informal non-judicial process muddying the formal legal processes. Are the panel finding challenges in implementing this leg of Ruggie's three-leged stool?
Marcela, thanks for sharing this example. We had two interesting blogs posted here on Business Fights Poverty about that report:
Liesbeth Unger, International Human Rights and Business Consultant, Oxfam: Oxfam and Unilever – no longer such strange bedfellows? (click here to read)
Rosey Hurst, Founder and Director, Impactt: High ideals and hiccups – three wishes for Unilever and employers everywhere (click here to read)
Michael Addo, who is having some difficulty with connections is sharing that on the recent UN Working Group country mission to the US they found mixed awareness amongst businesses. Those who have been involved in the 'Ruggie process' had good awareness of the principles and were working on the implications. Others still have many questions as to why business should care about human rights.
One major challenge for us is to define the boundary and scope of the supply chain and our responsibility. As the tourism supply chain is extremly complex and fragmented.
I think the question of finding challenges in implementing the 'third leg of the stool' is interesting because a lot of the work we have seen undertaken since the adoption of the GPs has been on the second pillar / leg of the stool. The focus on business and the responsibility to respect is of course crucial. But it's also important to remember and focus our attentions also on the roles and duty of government and remedial processes. And of course there are challenges in implementing all pillars.
I think the other track I would add to this particular discussion is impact assessment. Again, outside of the sectors which have perhaps had to formally undertake ESIA processes, we are seeing some activity - not loads, but certainly some. Kuoni and Unilever being notable examples. And when done well, human rights impact assessment processes really get to grips with local impacts- and can identify very different impacts to those which existing 'expert' or 'knowledge resources' - with existing perceived wisdom might identify in a more traditional risk assessment.
Oxfam 's Rachel Wilshaw took part in a Ruggie panel discussion ETI ran recently. They've recently published their own guide to the UNGPs. A good window on the NGO perspective:
Hi Luke- this is clearly crucial. How do the panel members feel we can raise awareness of the responsibility- and opportunity- that the GPs present? How can we incentivise more companies to look at them seriously in the way that those mentioned throughout this discussion have done? And how can civil society support this process?
Great discussion! Can we finish by exploring what ways you can see in your work whether in a development organisation or a company, of using the approach of the UN Framework and Guiding Principles to help address issues of poverty.