The UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights
The UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights were put together by an expert body of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2003, and they set out in a single, succinct statement a coherent and comprehensive list of the human rights obligations of companies. They do not create new legal obligations, but simply explain how existing obligations under international law are relevant to companies and their global operations.
The UN Norms do not seek to impose inappropriate responsibilities on businesses. They clearly state that companies only have responsibilities "within their respective spheres of activity and influence." Indeed the entire thrust of the UN Norms is to encourage the development of stable environments for investment and business, regulated by the rule of law, in which contracts are honored, corruption reduced, and where business enterprises, both foreign and domestic, have clearly defined rights and responsibilities. As the first attempt at the UN level to articulate a comprehensive set of human rights standards for business, the Norms made a valuable contribution to the process of developing clear and binding human rights standards for business.
Norms Under Attack
Since the UN Sub-Commission unanimously adopted the UN Norms, they have been subjected to intensive and concerted attacks largely based on false or misleading information by industry bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Organization of Employers (IOE), and the US Council for International Business (USCIB).
The principle argument in opposition to the UN Norms is that governments, not corporations, are responsible for the enforcement of human rights obligations. Instead of holding business accountable, industry groups say that efforts should only be directed to ensure that states develop and adequately enforce domestic human rights standards.
This approach ignores the tremendous influence and power that corporations exercise in the global economy. In many countries, governments are either unwilling or unable to step in when corporate activities have a negative impact on the human rights of their workforce or the communities where they operate. The business community cannot continue to ignore the fact that corporations, like individuals, can be the subjects of international law. In the words of Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan, "[C]ompanies cannot escape responsibility or be silent witnesses to widespread human rights violations. Human rights are not a luxury for good times – they must be respected and upheld at all times under all circumstances, by all actors, state or corporate."
The US government has also opposed the UN Norms. Despite the Bush Administration's stated support for higher ethical standards for business enforced by strict laws, the US delegation to the Commission has worked aggressively to undermine any effort aimed at establishing more definite or substantial human rights standards for multinational companies. In a statement September 2004, the US Mission in Geneva wrote that the UN Norms were conceptually flawed and "doomed from the outset", arguing that "[w]here human rights abuses are widespread they are the result of either action or inaction of States, not generally by private enterprises." The US also claimed that the Norms had "no basis in law." In the most recent session of the UN Human Rights Commission in April 2005, the US Delegation voted against a resolution that appoints a special representative to simply examine the issues concerning business and human rights, stating that many in the UN were pursuing an "anti-business agenda" and "human rights obligations apply to states, not non-state actors."
Amnesty International disagrees strongly with this position and believes that, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all organs of society, including multinational corporations, are obligated to protect and promote human rights.
The UN responds to calls to strengthen the standards for business responsibilities
AI's call for corporate accountability was boosted in April 2004, when the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) recognized the need to prioritize strengthening standards on business responsibilities. August 2003 had seen the unanimous adoption by the UN Sub-Commission of the UN Norms. A decision was adopted by the UNCHR in April to ask the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile a report identifying ways to strengthen standards on business' human rights responsibilities, taking into account the Norms.
The Commission received over 90 submissions from states, NGO's, labor and business interests, academic institutions and individuals. The submissions have been compiled in a report released in March 2005. The report provides a valuable analysis of existing initiatives, highlights outstanding issues needing further clarification, and offers a balanced overview of divergent perspectives. The main arguments that have been presented against and in favor of the UN Norms are clearly outlined (pages 9-11). Amnesty International expects opposition from the business community to increase as a result of this report.
Meanwhile, despite a generally negative response to the UN Norms from industry associations, some individual companies have begun exploring how the UN Norms can help guide their practices. One group of companies doing so is the Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights. Amnesty International believes that these companies will find that the potential benefits to business are, in fact, significant. Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan explains:
The implementation of the UN Norms would help to establish compatible regimes across national borders wherever a company operates. In doing so, it would also level the playing field for companies. The UN Norms do not impose unreasonable demands on companies. Intelligent laws not only restrain abuses, they can also fulfill an important role in promoting good practices. And what serious company would argue that good laws are not good for business?
Clearly, the road towards implementing a set of comprehensive, operational human rights standards for companies is still far away. However, Amnesty International will continue to vigorously promote the UN Norms as the basis of these standards, both at the United Nations and here in the United States, and hopes that the Special Representative on Business and Human Rights builds on the foundation of the Norms in the pursuit of his mandate to clarify the legal responsibilities of business entities.
