spacer spacer Amnesty International USA spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer
join ustake actiondonateshopen 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 		spacer
print this pageemail this page
 spacer
spacer rule

UN Norms for Business –
Taking Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights to the Next Level!

The UN Norms for Business represent a major step forward in the process of establishing a common global framework for understanding the human rights responsibilities of businesses.

What are the UN Norms?

The Norms were put together by an expert body of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and 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.

Why are the UN Norms needed?

Governments have the primary responsibility for ensuring that companies respect human rights. But companies must also uphold human rights in their operations. With American companies operating in many different countries, weak or corrupt national governments often can't or won't regulate them. The results can be disastrous. Human rights impacts associated with business include exploitative labor conditions, abuses by security forces, and community destruction. A pesticide factory explosion in Bhopal, India killed tens of thousands, contaminated the area, and devastated the local community. In Nigeria, an oil pipeline in Rukpokwu in Rivers State burst, devastating the once fertile land around it. The resulting oil spill destroyed farmlands, fish ponds and water wells, and deprived farming families of vital income. In both cases, victims suffered violations of their right to life and health. Without appropriate compensation, clean-up, or criminal prosecutions, victims suffered violations of their right to redress, to livelihood and to an adequate standard of living. Both of these examples demonstrate what can happen when companies and countries don't protect the rights of people affected by a business operation.

On the other hand, US companies that are scrupulous have to compete with companies that don't uphold the same values, so the UN Norms for Business would help create a level playing field. All companies around the world need clear guidance on what is and is not acceptable.

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.

Recent Developments

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.

On April 20, 2005, the Commission passed a resolution that calls for the UN Secretary General to appoint a Special Representative to identify and clarify existing issues related to business and human rights. Although the UN Norms are not mentioned specifically in this resolution, this is still an important and positive step towards the establishment of definite and enforceable human rights standards for businesses – wherever in the world they operate.

On July 28, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed John Ruggie to this position of Special Representative. Mr. Ruggie resigned his post as Special Adviser on the Global Compact to assume this new two-year appointment, but will continue 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 International wrote a letter to Mr. Ruggie on September 16, expressing hope that he will 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.

The Special Representative submitted an interim report to the Commission on Human Rights on February 22. In response to the report, Amnesty International wrote to the Special Representative to make recommendations on how AI would like the mandate to be taken forward. Read Amnesty International's letter and the Special Representative's response.

Amnesty International also wrote to the Special Representative as part of a coalition of over 100 NGOs. Read the Joint NGO position on the interim report and the Special Representative's response.

A final report will be provided at the sixty-third session, with views and recommendations for the consideration of the Commission.

Further Information

Check the resources below to learn more about the Human Rights Commission's decision and Amnesty International's position on the UN Norms.

 


spacer
spacer
bottom