following text contained in document produced by United States Council for International Business (USCIB)
TALKING POINTS
Draft
"Norms on the Responsibilities of
Transnational
Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
with
regard to Human Rights"
·
Business
is committed to operating in a responsible and sustainable manner, including by
respecting the human rights and civil liberties of employees, customers,
suppliers and the communities in which they operate.
Business is also committed to helping advance human rights in those
countries where human rights are denied by policy or practice and fully supports
efforts to raise awareness of human and labor rights among companies.
·
In
addition to the many international treaties that have been negotiated between
governments, businesses have put considerable efforts into developing voluntary
codes that set forth positive human rights practices for companies and other
organizations. Examples include the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (1976), the ILO Tripartite
Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
(1977), the Caux Principles for Business (1994), the US Model Business
Principles (1996), the Global Sullivan Principles (1999), the UN Global Compact
(2000), and the US-UK Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (2000).
·
Such
efforts are designed to supplement the implementation and enforcement of
national laws and regulations to protect human rights and civil liberties, not
to replace them. But the draft
“Norms” are predicated on the belief that human rights can best be advanced
by circumventing national political and legal frameworks and establishing
international legal obligations for multinational companies that do not exist at
the national level – or apply to domestic companies.
·
We
believe that, while well intentioned, this approach would be counterproductive
because it risks undermining the resources and attention necessary to improve
the capacity of national governments to implement and enforce their existing
human rights laws, with which all companies – foreign or domestic, local or
global – must already comply. It
would also shift the focus away from some of the worst cases of human rights and
labor abuses that take place in local economies.
·
Private
organizations, including business, do not have the democratic mandate or
authority to assume what are and should remain government responsibilities and
functions. Attempting to shift that responsibility to companies would place them
in an impossible situation of being held accountable for the actions of those
beyond the company’s control.
·
Moreover,
the “norms” extend far beyond issues
of basic human rights and cover a wide range of political, social, and economic
rights that are appropriately decided by national governments.
It would be highly inappropriate to, in effect, privatize the policing of
those rights by making companies the enforcing agent.
·
The
draft “norms” create a legal no man’s land.
They do not distinguish between binding and non-binding human rights
obligations. The draft code is
presented as a set of “norms” when in fact many of the instruments it is
drawn from are not themselves legally binding and those that are legally-binding
heavily qualify to the rights that they address.
By calling them “non-voluntary” and using legal language where there
is no legal obligation, the draft blurs the line between voluntary and legal
actions, and makes corporate compliance virtually impossible.
·
The
draft norms would create significant conflicting requirements for companies and
few, if any, could remain in compliance with existing national laws should the
draft “norms” be adopted. As one
example, companies would be required to ensure that their actions do not indirectly
contribute to human rights abuses. Since
tax payments support all governments, companies would be required to stop tax
payments to any government that is suspected of past or future human rights
abuses. Based on the definitions of
human rights used in the draft code, the
Further,
companies would be required to ensure that all companies in their entire
supply chain comply with the draft code, which for many companies is simply not
possible. Companies would be
required to break contracts with suppliers that the company – not an impartial
court - deems to be in non-compliance with the draft code.
Given the legal ambiguities in the draft code, it would create a legal
justification for companies to break contracts at will.
· Finally, to the extent that the draft “norms” present potential legal and practical burdens on companies operating in developing countries with poor human rights records, they would create a serve deterrent to investing in developing countries. Rather than improving human rights in such countries, the draft code would virtually eliminate the very investment that is the best hope for economic development and improved human rights.