spacer spacer Amnesty International USA spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer
donatetake actionjoin usshopen espanol
 spacer spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
shadow spacer shadow
spacer
spacer
curve
spacer spacer Home > Our Priorities > Business and Human Rights > Legal accountability > UN Special Representative spacer
print this page
 spacer
spacer rule spacer
spacer

The UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights

On April 20, 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution requesting "the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises...with the following mandate:

(a) To identify and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and accountability for transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights;

(b) To elaborate on the role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the role of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, including through international cooperation;

(c) To research and clarify the implications for transnational corporations and other business enterprises of concepts such as “complicity” and “sphere of influence”;

(d) To develop materials and methodologies for undertaking human rights impact assessments of the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises;

(e) To compile a compendium of best practices of States and transnational corporations and other business enterprises..."

On July 28, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed John Ruggie to this position of Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights. Mr. Ruggie resigned his post as Special Adviser on the Global Compact to assume this new appointment, but continued his roles as Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and Director of its Centre for Business and Government.

Amnesty’s involvement with the Special Representative’s office

Amnesty International first wrote a letter to Mr. Ruggie on September 16, 2006 expressing hope that he would work towards establishing a set of universally recognized, normative standards applicable to business. In doing so, AI called on Mr. Ruggie to listen to the experience and concerns of all relevant parties and build on the UN Norms adopted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2003.

Also in its letter, AI indicated two areas in need of further research and development: the responsibilities of companies to protect human rights when they are in host states that are unwilling or unable to protect human rights, and clarification and definition of the terms "complicity" and "sphere of influence" as used in the business and human rights context. In addition to Amnesty’s letter, in February 2006, over 50 faith-based and socially responsible investors also wrote a letter to John Ruggie with similar requests.

Since 2006, Amnesty International, often in coordination with other human rights organizations, NGOs and socially responsible investors, has continued to engage the Special Representative to influence the outcomes of his mandate, providing substantive input about specific abuses by companies and contributing comments and recommendations and responding to his official reports.

Reports from the Special Representative

On February 22, 2006, the Special Representative submitted an interim report to the Commission on Human Rights. In this initial report, Ruggie discussed the human rights issues prevalent in today’s globalized world and the existing responses by the UN, civil society, businesses and governments. He acknowledges the “useful elements” of the UN Norms; however, he also challenged their legal authority (noting that they could not be binding on companies) as well as the way that they allocate responsibility between governments and companies. He expressed concern that the Norms shift the responsibility to respect and protect human rights too much toward corporations which may “undermine efforts to build indigenous social capacity and to make Governments more responsible to their own citizenry.” The interim report drew numerous responses from the human rights community, most of whom were disappointed by the Special Representative’s harsh criticism of the Norms. Many NGOs made suggestions for how Ruggie should proceed with his mandate, including recommendations that he build on the foundation that the Norms had achieved through years of multi-stakeholder collaboration:

On February 9, 2007, UN Special Representative John Ruggie released his second report, entitled "Business and human rights: mapping international standards of responsibility and accountability for corporate acts [PDF]" In this report, Ruggie finds that although international law requires governments to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses, governments have not met their obligations to regulate corporations to protect human rights. He also discusses the “expanding web of potential corporate liability” under international and national laws. Finally, he examines voluntary multi-stakeholder initiatives, but he finds these self-regulating initiatives lacking in several ways: they often do not include small companies, state-owned companies, companies from developing countries, or companies that intend to continue to ignore human rights responsibilities. However, he suggests that these voluntary multi-stakeholder initiatives can be a blueprint for binding standards. Once again, this report drew several responses from NGOs, including Amnesty International:

  • [PDF] Submission to the Special Representative - ICMM (International Council on Mining & Metals) supports the development of additional practical measures to strengthen business & human rights outcomes"
    [DOC] Ruggie statement welcoming ICMM submission, 14 Jan 2008

On April 18, 2008, John Ruggie released the report “Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights.” This report presents a “conceptual and policy framework to anchor the business and human rights debate, and to help guide all relevant actors.” The framework that Ruggie presents includes three core principles that relate to business and human rights: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies. With respect to existing governmental, multi-stakeholder and corporate initiatives to address business and human rights, Ruggie explains that there “are too few of them, none has reached a scale commensurate with the challenges at hand, there is little cross-learning, and they do not cohere as parts of a more systemic response with cumulative effects.” He concludes that the framework he presents in this report is intended to help address that problem.

On May 16, 2008 Action Aid, Amnesty International, EarthRights International, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, Rights and Accountability in Development, Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) submitted a written statement for the eighth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council regarding John Ruggie's April 2008 report. 

The Future Mandate of the Special Representative

The mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie, was reviewed by the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council in June 2008.

Amnesty International has welcomed much of the work of the mandate to date, including its emphasis on the state's duty to protect in the context of business and human rights and the responsibility of companies to respect all human rights. However, we are also concerned that the mandate holder has placed too great an emphasis on voluntary approaches to regulation of companies and too little emphasis on accountability mechanisms. AI and other NGOs have also been concerned that the current mandate holder has been overly theoretical in his approach to the issues, and that the terms of the current mandate have not allowed for sufficient examination of cases of human rights abuses involving companies or the experience of victims as they seek justice and redress.

The current mandate ended in June 2008 with the submission by Professor Ruggie of his third report to the Human Rights Council (HRC). Amnesty expressed its support to the UN HRC to establish a follow-on mandate on business and human rights

Amnesty lent its support to a follow-on mandate for the following reasons:

  •  A follow-on mandate is needed because the impact of business on human rights remains a global issue that is still relatively under-scrutinized. The issue of business and its impact on human rights must be kept on the UN agenda.
  • A follow-on mandate is critical to maintaining the momentum of growing awareness of states and businesses about the impact of economic activity on human rights and their obligations and responsibilities in this regard.
  • A follow-on mandate is needed because human rights issues involving companies are complex and challenging so there is still much work to be done. The current mandate holder, Professor Ruggie, has himself affirmed that the work of his mandate to date is the beginning of a process rather than the final word.

 Amnesty and other human rights organizations felt strongly that the follow-on mandate should contain an explicit capacity to examine cases of corporate involvement in human rights abuses/violations. There is a need to deepen understanding of the drivers and forms of corporate human rights abuses and corporate involvement in human rights violations. How to address situations where companies abuse rights because of deliberate action or inaction and because they can act with impunity has not been sufficiently well addressed by the mandate to date. Nor have issues such as how rhetorical support for human rights in statements of individual companies is often undermined by the same companies’ opposition to important rights-enhancing policies through industry and trade associations. The impacts of impunity and policy incoherence of companies on the enjoyment and protection of human rights need greater scrutiny. More in-depth analysis of specific cases would help to illuminate these issues and inform further recommendations.

Amnesty has lobbied for the follow-on mandate to examine specific situations where companies have been involved in abuses and/or violations of human rights in order to better reflect the multiple dimensions of the problem. Broadening the scope of the mandate would have ensured that recommendations could better aid states, companies, and the UN to effectively prevent violations and hold those responsible to account.

Amnesty International is not saying the mandate has done no work looking at cases of corporate-related abuses and violations. The SRSG has looked at some 300 reports of alleged corporate involvement in human rights abuses. However, in our opinion, reviewing reports is not the same thing as examining specific cases; we remain concerned that whatever was drawn from the review of reports it is not presented in any depth in the reports of the SRSG; and furthermore, the reports of the SRSG tend to focus greater attention on preventive action and guidance to companies that are basically well-intentioned (both of which are extremely important) and less on accountability mechanisms and companies that are not-well-intentioned. AI believes that examining specific cases would allow these issues to be more fully addressed.

It is important that a UN human rights mechanism on business gives voice and visibility to the experiences of victims of corporate-related human rights abuses, and that recommendations draw on this reality.

 Amnesty wants to see greater emphasis on accountability
The impact of corporate impunity on the enjoyment and protection of human rights need greater scrutiny. A cornerstone of human rights is holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses to account. In AI’s view the policy framework proposed by the current mandate holder does not place sufficient emphasis on accountability. For victims of human rights violations, justice and accountability can be as important as remedial measures.

Mandate of the Special Representative Extended for Three Years
On June 12, 2008 the UN General Assembly officially extended the mandate of the Special Representative for an additional three years. Despite advocacy by NGOs including Amnesty, references to examining specific situations and cases of abuse by companies has not been included in the resolution. However, there are several positive additions to the original text which we lobbied for - particularly in relation to effective remedies.


spacer spacer spacer

RELATED LINKS

Actions

News

Reports

Success Stories!

Activist Toolkit

rss RSS Feed

Contact us at:

Message from Chip Pitts, Former Board Chair of AIUSA

Hold a House Party to debate the use of private military contractorsHost a DVD House Party about the subcontracting of the military.

CAN Magazine
Check out our new brochure and magazine!

RESOURCES:

Corporate Action Network Magazines (PDF format)
2007 - Spring
2006 - Fall
2006 - Spring/Summer
2005 - Spring/Summer
2005 - Winter
2004 - Fall


ON OTHER WEBSITES:
No Safe Haven

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre



 
Sign up to receive actions and updates relating to CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY
   


 spacer
spacer
bottom