tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83496179050417772722023-11-15T16:48:56.212+00:00Private Sector - Public WorldThe role and regulation of responsible business in society.Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-81052311896905243492021-09-20T02:37:00.000+01:002021-09-20T02:37:54.285+01:00Business and Human Rights: legacy and trajectory<p>Is there an unstoppable meta-trend towards greater corporate responsibility and accountability for human rights impacts?</p><p>In my <a href="https://programsandcourses.anu.edu.au/2021/course/laws8254">Masters course</a> on 'Business and Human Rights' (BHR, currently afoot), I offer students a timeline of BHR. This begins with colonisation (where private listed companies sometimes led) up to the current Geneva UN negotiation towards a BHR treaty. I ask them, among other things, the question above.</p><p>The most significant positive event on the timeline, without doubt, is the unanimous endorsement in 2011 by state members of the UN Human Rights Council of the <i><a href="https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf">Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights</a>, </i>based on a related 2008 Framework of differentiated responsibilities. This was a remarkable achievement given the difficulties of erecting a global normative framework and narrative for business responsibility, and decades of toxic, divisive ideological debate in UN forums on the issue. </p><p>Professor John Ruggie, who led the process that produced the <i>Principles</i>, has sadly <a href="https://shiftproject.org/in-memory-of-john-g-ruggie/">died</a>.</p><p>Of the many tributes and comments circulating among BHR scholars and others, these two below best capture, to my mind, the significance of Ruggie's achievement in 2011, especially given the legacy of inaction and division before 2005-2011. In particular, the significance of his work lay in the consciousness that there is no silver bullet for closing the 'governance gap' between corporate impact and corporate responsibility: a mix of measures is needed, drawing on the inputs and incentives of various actors within this regulatory ecosystem, but without obscuring that states are the ultimate duty-bearers, their national legal systems the foundation of regulatory action.</p><p>We all mourn and will miss him.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Comment
1 (Muchlinski)<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A
great reformer has passed. John understood what should be done and, so importantly,
what could be done. As a result we have moved forward hugely in the field of
business and human rights. I am old enough to remember times when talk of
business having human rights obligations would be treated with polite disdain.
That changed in the 1990s leading to the first international iteration of
business responsibility for human rights in the <span class="caps">UN </span>Global
Compact, of which John was one of the leading architects. Then came the impasse
over the <span class="caps">UN </span>Norms. John was called upon by Kofi Annan
to unblock the situation. He started from first principles and concrete evidence
based assessments of what should, and could, be done. He was motivated by an understanding
of how different methods can be used together to move forward change – formal
regulation, civil society pressure and self-regulation. He has been criticised
for not going far enough. That’s not the point. He got us further than anyone
might have hoped in 2005. We have much to learn from his wisdom and genuine moral commitment. Thank you, John,
for an outstanding lifetime of scholarship and public service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><u><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Comment 2 (Orentlicher)<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p>
</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I can’t imagine a world in which those working on business and
human rights are unable to turn to John for guidance. After seeing news of his
passing, I re-read e-mail exchanges from the early period of his work as [UN
Special Representative on BHR], and was reminded how astonishingly different
this space was when he began his mandate—which is to say, I was reminded anew
of how profoundly he transformed it. In an e-mail from November 2005, John
aptly captured the prevailing state of play when he described a then-recent
extractive industries consultation, noting “it proved impossible to have a
serious discussion about standards because for the NGOs that meant the Norms
and for business the Norms meant warfare.” From this starting point (and
ongoing necessary debates notwithstanding), John managed to forge a remarkable
measure of consensus around a brilliant core of actionable insights—standards
that provided a foundation for the immense work that remained/remains to be
done.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><br /></p>Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-77858256182854083142020-10-16T05:41:00.003+01:002020-10-16T05:41:25.110+01:00Business and Human Rights: the Future<p>How powerful is a 'human rights' framing in terms of the overall 'responsible business' agenda?</p><p>Next year will be a decade since the rare unanimous endorsement by the UN Human Rights Council of the <i>UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights </i>(UNGPs / BHR).</p><p>The UN Working Group on BHR has set up an <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/UNGPsBizHRsnext10.aspx">open consultation</a> to take stock of the impact and implementation of the UNGPs and -- in very UN-speak -- chart a 'roadmap' for the UNGPs over the next decade to 2030.</p><p>Much could be written about the UNGPs including on the extent or otherwise of their uptake over the last decade.</p><p>For one thing -- as some <a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2019/05/ethical-ai-business-and-human-rights.html">previous posts</a> have hinted at, and as my next post will cover -- they really do not appear to have gained particular traction in terms of the search by governments, Big Tech, civil society and others for suitable and legitimate frameworks for the governance of responsible AI and other new technologies.</p><p>Here I will limit my observations to one impression from the consultation <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/UNGPsBHRnext10/CN.pdf">concept note</a>. I wonder whether this puts too great an expectation on the transformative, emancipatory, or remedial power of 'human rights' as a vector for governance and change.</p><p>The concept note mentions the UNGPs in the context of 'sustainable development and stability' (notably climate change), rising inequalities and pervasive corruption; rapid
technological change... widespread fragility, conflict and violence...'. It includes a call to embed the UNGPs more concretely in climate change and sustainability debates. It is one thing to draw attention to complex inter-linkages (e.g. the UNGPs with the SDGs), but it may be another to envisage that human rights-based approaches and arguments ought to be at the heart of the range of issues raised in the note. For one thing, business may be daunted enough by the scope of the UNGPs agenda even narrowly framed, and wary of 'responsibility creep'.</p><p>Others have written on the secular decline of 'human rights' as a powerful framework for socio-political action (e.g. Hopgood 2013, Posner 2014; Moyn 2010+; compare e.g. Sikkink 2018).</p><p>Yet one doesn't have to subscribe to the 'end-times / twilight of human rights' school to recognise that while there are obvious intersections with issues such as climate change or corporate taxation, it remains far from obvious that simply re-framing those debates in human rights terms suddenly gives them far greater urgency, appeal, traction ... it is not obvious that business (or government) actors suddenly sit up just because a familiar claim is suddenly made in human rights terms, and the contrary can be true ... </p><p>For my part, an 'ambitious roadmap' for the UNGPs must proceed, at least in part, from a recognition that framing an issue in terms of human rights -- especially individual rights claims against the state, or business -- is not necessarily conceptually persuasive nor a panacea in advocacy / strategy terms.</p><p>In a previous (2018) post I was deliberately provocative in asking if BHR had 'lost its way': <b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/07/has-business-human-rights-lost-its-way.html">here</a></i></b>.</p><p>There among other things I wrote this, and reading the 2020 concept note I have the same reaction, really, and will put this out there:</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">"Yet the question arises whether we should be a bit more strategic about what is likely to gain traction as a BHR issue, and about how widely we frame BHR, and about what we think corporations and other enterprises really have a meaningful responsibility for.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">... Just how useful and effective is the 'human rights' paradigm / lexicon in shifting business (and state) behaviour around social impact? However tempting it is to invoke it in support of all manner of worthy societal campaigns, is it really that effective?"</span></p>Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-86850574947687809582020-09-18T06:24:00.004+01:002020-09-18T06:24:51.462+01:00Investors and human rights risk<p style="text-align: justify;">How is the investment community -- especially institutional investors -- dealing with human rights risks in investment portfolios? What do they need most in order to pursue this agenda?</p><p>Most attention in the 'business and human rights' field is on the operations and supply chains of firms of various sorts. Until recent years there has been somewhat less attention to the all-important entities in the financial sector that invest in (or indeed insure) corporate activity.</p><p>Such actors are capable, in principle, of exerting very considerable influence over the behaviours of fundee businesses -- that is, preventive and remedial conduct in relation to human rights impacts of business activities. Indeed if there is to be some notable transformative shift corporate social (and enviro) impact it is perhaps more likely to come from what investors do or require than from other stakeholders (governments/regulators, or consumer/citizens -- accepting these groups shape each others' conduct).</p><p>Today was the deadline for submissions to the UN 'Principles for Responsible Investment' <a href="https://collaborate.unpri.org/group/5026/stream"><b><i>consultation</i></b></a> on a framework (<a href="https://collaborate.unpri.org/system/files/2020-08/pri_human_rights_paper_for_consultation_aug_2020.pdf">here</a>) for shaping and guiding how investors implement respect for human rights into their pre-investment, portfolio management / screening / engagement, and exit processes.</p><p>My own submission covered a range of issues on which investors -- who of course vary significantly as a broad class -- will continue to need further practical guidance, including stuff tailored to the very different types of finance and investment entities and products.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Some of that guidance must be drawn from / shared by responsible financial sector actors themselves as they implement, learn from and refine their practices on human rights risk. For example, it is remarkably difficult to find publicly available model examples of instructions on screening investees for human rights risks, although these do exist, and investors can resort to tools such as <a href="https://www.parametricportfolio.com/investor-challenges/addressing-human-trafficking"><i>Parametric's</i></a> one on forced labour (using the MSCI basis).</li><li>Among other things, my submission suggests PRI and others can do more work to develop practical examples, model provisions, case studies, hypotheticals. The consultation paper reads as a very conceptual piece but the aim is to inform and equip investment sector actors: the more practical examples (from / for different investor types) the better.</li><li>The aim is also to persuade investment sector actors. People in corporate responsibility talk a lot about the 'business case' for respecting human rights (in addition to the principled basis for doing so). We see expansive claims that conducting human rights due diligence (HRDD) is an effective proxy for generic commercial and business disruption risks. The PRI paper likewise says that HRDD will "often pick up issues that, left unaddressed, would go
on to become financially material..." and that "assessing a
company’s human rights due diligence process can therefore also be a good way
to assess its overall governance and potential future financial risk..." This is potentially persuasive. But where is the evidence, the examples, the compelling 'business case'? This 'risk proxy' argument needs more meat to engage effectively with financiers and investors as a discerning and analytical group of people.</li></ul><p></p><p>There is one issue I think will continue to trouble investors and their advisors, and which the 'business and human rights' field (scholars, activists, etc) has not itself perhaps quite come to terms with. This is the perennial vagueness -- or is it constructive ambiguity -- around terms such as 'adverse human rights impact' or 'negative human rights outcome'. The PRI paper talks of investors avoiding activities that 'remove or reduce someone's ability to enjoy a human right'. I can get my head around this -- but I am a law professor. This language strikes me as incredibly broad in ways that is potentially unhelpful for those trying to make investment decisions. Many things one does can impact rights or reduce enjoyment thereof yet not necessarily provide a coherent basis for responsibility let alone liability. I do wonder whether the credibility (for want of a better word) of the business and human rights project is undermined by these sorts of open-ended potentially very wide-ranging terms: how are investors to work with them?</p><p>Jo</p><p>For some primer resources on investors and human rights, see <a href="https://investorsforhumanrights.org/publications">Investors for Human Rights</a> and this guidance for <a href="https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/RBC-for-Institutional-Investors.pdf">institutional investors</a> (on the OECD scheme). A range of more specific guidance exists, e.g. within Australia's superannuation sector, or on particular human rights risks (e.g. modern slavery).</p>Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-55625728420979431152020-09-03T02:14:00.000+01:002020-09-03T02:14:09.524+01:00'Due Diligence' and Human Rights Risk<p style="text-align: justify;">Whether or not there truly is a 'new social contract' between business and society, the trend towards grounding 'business and human rights' principles in national-level legislation continues to strengthen.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This week came news that over 20 significant companies and business organisations issued a joint <a href="https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/EU_Business_Statement_Mandatory_Due_Diligence_02092020.pdf"><i>statement</i></a> welcoming the European Commission's April announcement that it is committed to exploring the introduction of mandatory corporate human rights (and environmental) due diligence laws.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There have been various calls for such laws, and some EU member countries have introduced or are exploring them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No doubt this supportive, engaged stance by business actors is partly driven by the desire by leading firms both to cement their advantage and for a more level playing field: larger established firms (especially brand-sensitive ones) can only benefit requiring competitors or putative competitors to adhere to and invest in the same enviro, social and governance (ESG) standards as the incumbent players do. There are other incentives and drivers, not least the need for firms to incorporate systems to respond to the increasing orientation of institutional and other investors (e.g. see <i><a href="https://investorsforhumanrights.org/news/investor-case-for-mhrdd">here</a></i>). Some firms are also supportive out of a sense of inevitability: such laws are inevitable, we may as well have pan-EU coherence rather than a patchwork of national legislation. Some firms accept research that ties ESG performance with protecting or even increasing a firm's value.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yet one question I ask my 'business and human rights' Masters students online this week is whether it matters, ultimately, if business / investor support for or engagement in legislative schemes is motivated by 'instrumental' (rather than 'intrinsic' value) considerations or purposes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I ask this since a critical perspective might be that legislated 'due diligence' requirements (and perhaps more so mere reporting requirements that only imply undertaking internal due diligence processes) do not necessarily transform internal corporate management culture. At least, we remain unsure about the conditions under which this internalisation of values might take place, while such schemes can risk becoming process-oriented rather than preventive and problem-solving in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There will be a robust debate about how such laws deal with penalties, and with remedy for affected groups -- but my ever-practical students are probably right in seeing support for such a regime as a very positive development.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Jo</p><p style="text-align: justify;">See for example this <a href="https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/?opinion_series=3&backdate_after=&backdate_before=&query=">blog series</a> on mandatory human rights due diligence, and <a href="https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8ba0a8fd-4c83-11ea-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en">here</a> for the recent comprehensive study in part underpinning the Commission's approach.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-24395324322707712762020-07-27T06:13:00.000+01:002020-07-27T06:28:47.069+01:00Regulatory culture: punish or persuade?<div style="text-align: justify;">
How do we design 21st century regulatory schemes for responsible business? Regulatory culture must shift, not just corporate culture.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How do we design viable, principled but pragmatic regulatory systems that engage with business in pursuit of goals but are legitimate and trusted by all societal stakeholders?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In particular, what mix of 'enforcement' and 'guidance' is appropriate and effective on the part of the regulator?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The prompt for this post is the <b><u><a href="https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/interim-report">interim report</a></u></b> on the EPBC Act, Australia's principal federal legislative scheme for environmental protection.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I study 'business and human rights' (social impact) but this emerging field has not done enough to learn from the bitter experience of the conservation and environmental movements and the history of regulation there. (The social and environmental are/ought not so easily be distinguished).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The EPBC Act review has various lessons of interest in my field (e.g. on recent reporting schemes on 'modern slavery' in supply chains), from federal/state coordination to questions about the adequacy and quality and availability of reported data. But what stands out are the lessons in the review about designing enforcement aspects of regulatory schemes where corporate activity may impact on public wellbeing and public interests.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The review condemns federal regulators for settling into a regulatory 'culture' of not using available enforcement powers, and for their over-reliance on a 'collaborative approach to compliance and enforcement' that is 'too weak'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last year in a <u><b><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2019/02/corporate-culture-capital-vs-social.html">related post</a></b></u> on the Royal Commission report into the banking sector I noted the same pattern:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">"The lesson is that regulators -- </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">even where they have these powers </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">-- appear reluctant to use them, and so err on the side of 'engagement' where sometimes demonstrative penalty seems more appropriate..."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are many merits (as I wrote in that 2019 piece) to a regulatory approach that is judicious about the use of enforcement powers, and that privileges cooperative approaches that guides and educates and harnesses companies' own resources (etc) in pursuit of the public policy goal. Moreover, the regulator's dilemma is always 'when to punish and when to persuade'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the credible threat of non-negligible punishment may be vital to any strategy of dialogue and engagement. Moreover, enforcement is a form of 'guidance'. Theorists who promoted dialogic and collaborative problem-solving engagement made clear how such regulatory strategies to explain and foster compliance were defensible, but only where the regulated entities know the consequences of non-compliance or perfunctory compliance. A credible pattern of using punitive powers and a reputation for fair but decisive use of enforcement powers is, in this theory, inseparable from the other more 'cuddly' bits about cooperation. Australian regulators have only embraced the latter.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Parking inspectors and fines come to mind. I used to remind my eager 'business and human rights' students -- believers in regulatory capability -- that the Oxford city council has more parking inspectors than the staff at the UN HQ office in New York coordinating the [voluntary] UN Global Compact with business (not an inspector / enforcement entity). The interim review of the EPBC Act shows that since 2010 the total fines issued for breaching environmental approvals is less than the <u>annual</u> amount of traffic fines levied in a typical small local government area in Australia ...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From environmental impact to responsible banking to modern slavery in supply chains, public trust in the regulation of responsible business may require that 21st century regulatory models have some supposedly old-fashioned 'sticks', and use these to incentivise compliance and engagement. This doesn't require that EPBC-type regulators have the blunt 'revenue-raising' approach that parking inspectors do: there is more to regulation than this. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Schemes like the EPBC Act have a wider purpose as part of efforts to shift behaviours towards socially responsible ones. But the judicious use of enforcement powers clearly has a place in such a scheme.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
JF</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2019/02/corporate-culture-capital-vs-social.html">Here</a></u> is the related post on regulatory culture.</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-24070399791019027792020-06-24T05:58:00.000+01:002020-06-24T05:58:39.614+01:00Law and regulation in (and of) crisis<div style="text-align: justify;">
What lessons on the governance of corporate responsibility fall from states' varied COVID responses?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
COVID has prompted various reflections on how law is used (and abused) during crises*.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This blog-site focuses on the regulation of responsible business conduct, but this post reflects on more general, higher-order questions about the nature of <u>any</u> regulatory undertaking. (I would like to think my 2015 <b><i><u><a href="http://regnet.anu.edu.au/research/publications/610/regulating-business-peace">book</a></u></i></b> was doing the same!).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What strikes me most about the COVID-law-regulation nexus is not the patterns we can see about how powerful state and corporate actors 'never waste a crisis' to pursue all manner of agendas calculated to entrench, advance or indeed obscure that power. Many colleagues'* response to the COVID crisis is, in effect, plead at this time for adherence to legal frameworks e.g. for global cooperation. This is perhaps a plea for <i><a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/law-s-regulatory-relevance-9781785364525.html">law's 'regulatory relevance</a></i>' (Findlay 2017), yet too often insufficiently couched in analysis of how law <u>is</u> used to regulate crisis -- but selectively or in service of non-inclusive agendas.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This brings me to what strikes me most about law and regulation w.r.t COVID.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the huge diversity in the regulatory postures or responses of national governments to what is, after all, a pan-global phenomenon, a <i>pan</i>demic of a virus that itself is non-diverse in that it is essentially the same virus everywhere. (The extent to which those responses rely on law-based rather than other forms of regulation is a separate issue).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Haines has written (<a href="https://www.booktopia.com.au/globalization-and-regulatory-character-fiona-haines/book/9780815389286.html">2019</a>) on how and why regulation does / does not change in the face of crisis. (She happened, incidentally, to be writing on responses to a factory fire tragedy -- a 'regulation of responsible business' issue).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Her concept of 'regulatory character' is related to what strikes me most about regulation + COVID: how legitimate and effective regulation (and related institutions) is typically not simply about the right technical models and frameworks and standards. It is about underlying economic, social and political idiosyncracies. These shape how regulation actually looks and works. Cultural context shapes regulatory design and response. It is 'responsive' at least in that sense (although, as above, power dynamics shape regulation too, of course!).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some states have regulated COVID social distancing fairly lightly (e.g. without deploying criminal penalties). In those cases, some of those governments have regulated lightly apparently confident that they can rely and draw upon something relative intangible in the national 'character' about voluntary compliance, cooperation, self-regulation, social cohesion and responsibility -- without necessitating sanctions and penalties.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If I am right, these societal characteristics provide what I might call a regulatory 'resource'. This means the regulator's toolbox (including in crisis) does not just comprise various models and approaches with various merits, trade-offs, etc. It also potentially comprises the repository of societal compliance (etc.) characteristics and inclinations. These must be decisive not only in whether any regulatory intervention gains traction or purchase, but also in how one designs the regulatory response (here, to crisis) in the first place.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Elsewhere (e.g. <i><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311668069_'Business_human_rights_and_peace_in_popular_culture'">here</a></i>) I have reflected -- in the context of regulating responsible business conduct -- that existence and degree of a critical mass of ethically-minded consumers is a principal regulatory 'resource' for regulatory design. Indeed without it, it may not matter how sophisticated (etc.) the regulatory regime otherwise appears.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
COVID strikes me that I was potentially onto something. That's all! Scholars of responsible business and its regulation ought perhaps pay more attention to regulatory 'character' and cultural context, including -- in strategy terms -- to better identify the nature and extent of regulatory 'resource' that proposed governance models might seek to take advantage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
JF</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
* = see <b><i><u><a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/essay/covid-19-international-law">here</a></u></i></b> (for example) some short essays by ANU Law colleagues on (international) law and the COVID crisis.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[This is the first post after a 6-month hiatus].</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-16563882546690269482019-11-27T10:36:00.001+00:002019-11-27T10:36:05.338+00:00Responsible AI: governing market failure<div style="text-align: justify;">
If society seeks or needs responsible development and use of AI technologies, how is this best achieved?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This month the Australian government </span>published its analysis of public submissions on its April 2019 proposed 'Ethical AI Principles', and published a revised set of principles: <b><i><u><a href="https://consult.industry.gov.au/strategic-policy/artificial-intelligence-ethics-framework/">here</a></u></i></b>.<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my April submission (in this <b><i><u><a href="https://consult.industry.gov.au/strategic-policy/artificial-intelligence-ethics-framework/">repository</a></u></i></b>) among other things I put three points, which I summarise here as I believe they remain 'live':</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. <u>A national conversation</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first point was about <i>processes</i>, such as the public enquiry, of arriving at and promoting such lists of principles (whatever their content). This process or that of the Australian Human Rights Commission are no substitute for a genuine, scaled national conversation, indeed a global one. As I submitted, that conversation is not about 'what should our ethical AI principles look like' but (if AI is truly as transformative as we think) about the more fundamental question 'how should we live [and what role do we want and not want for technology in that attempt at flourishing]'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. <u>The missing governance piece</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second point was to ask how the listed principles are intended to take or be given
effect, which is a question not of ‘principles for ethical AI’ but of ‘the governance of
principles for ethical AI’. Every major government and tech company has or is producing such lists. What are the mechanisms by which, in various contexts, we think they are best given effect? Since they are 'ethical' principles, I hesitate to say 'how are they complied with' and 'what are the consequences of non-compliance'. Which leads to my third point.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <u>Ethics vs law / regulation</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The third point was to suggest that the real question (in seeking submissions) ought not to be whether the 8 listed principles in the Australian framework are the
‘right’ or best or most complete ethical principles. Some ethical AI frameworks have more (e.g. Future of Life's 23), some have less (e.g. the OECD's 5, or Google's 7). The prior question ought to be whether responsible AI development and use is best
approached as a question of ethics rather than as a question of law and regulation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I reflected on this third issue in a previous post (<b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2019/05/ethical-ai-business-and-human-rights.html">here</a></u></i></b>): there is a very live law and regulation aspect here (as useful as ethics-based approaches are, and complementary to law).</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This month's revised approach notes:</span></div>
<ul style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 0px;">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.6em 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"The framework may need to be supplemented with regulations, depending on the risks for different AI applications. New regulations should only be implemented if there are clear regulatory gaps and a failure of the market to address those gaps."</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is, on one view, a remarkable proposition, if not an outright abdication of governmental responsibility for promoting responsible AI. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is a proposition, unless I am mistaken, that in relation to AI -- which the Australian framework process explicitly states is so fast-evolving, so profoundly transformative, so pervasive -- posits that:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) law and regulation is only a 'supplement' to ethics-based approaches; and</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(b) the market [whatever that means!] should be left to address 'compliance' with ethical principles, and the people's elected law-making bodies should only have a role where gaps [whatever that means!] are 'clear' .</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For one thing, by the time we diagnose that there has been a market failure to encourage or enforce responsible AI development and use, it will be rather too late to start asking law-makers to get out their legislative drafting pens and address 'gaps'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lawyers and law-makers can stand down: we are not needed here, or now. Australia, that sophisticated regulatory state, has decided that the market -- which of course has proven soooo socially responsible hitherto -- can regulate this issue just fine.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo </div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-53190014298920074882019-07-25T15:09:00.002+01:002019-07-25T15:09:22.825+01:00Modern Slavery reporting laws: a study<div style="text-align: justify;">
One way in which the 'business and human rights' agenda is manifesting in national-level laws is through legislation -- most recently in Australia -- to require larger firms to report periodically on risks of 'modern slavery' within their operations and supply chains.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We have produced a report on how Australian firms appear to be preparing to reporting under the 2018 <i>Modern Slavery Act</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is the Act at risk of become a mere tick-box exercise, or will it help drive a more fundamental transformation of approaches to human rights risks in supply chains:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"... Despite mixed levels of awareness, a common refrain in interviews was that the reporting requirement was a ‘conversation starter’ (including, importantly, within firms) even if not a ‘conversation changer’, although for some it had achieved the latter..."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is a link to the <a href="https://cdn.cpaaustralia.com.au/-/media/corporate/allfiles/document/professional-resources/esg/modern-slavery-global-supply-chains.pdf?la=en&rev=6c100dc809774bd4b97f9e6e27e09fda" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">report</a> (with M. Azizul Islam and Justine Nolan).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ps: for some recent blogs on reporting laws on Modern Slavery, see <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2019/04/modern-slavery-reporting-what-it-isnot.html">this post</a></u></i></b> (and links within).</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-76544784543664699442019-05-22T06:54:00.001+01:002019-05-22T06:56:10.150+01:00'Ethical AI', business, and human rights<div style="text-align: justify;">
How and where does a human rights approach fit into current conversations about 'ethical Artificial Intelligence'?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm preparing my submission, due 31 May, to the Australian government's <b><i><u><a href="https://consult.industry.gov.au/strategic-policy/artificial-intelligence-ethics-framework/">enquiry paper</a></u></i></b> on ethical AI.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Naturally as a 'business and human rights' scholar I am among other things curious about the focus on <i>ethical </i>framings for these questions and issues, relative to legal and regulatory ones (including by reference to human rights concepts and law).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We're currently experiencing a cascade of words as various governmental, inter-governmental, corporate and professional bodies produce ethical frameworks. The Australian discussion paper suggests 8 core principles (fairness, accountability, explainability, etc); the recent European Commission one suggests 7 principles; Google advances 7, Microsoft 6, and so on -- all unobjectionable but inherently ambiguous, context-contingent terms / values / concepts. [See <u><b><i><a href="https://algorithmwatch.org/en/project/ai-ethics-guidelines-global-inventory/">here</a></i></b></u> for one recent inventory -- an attempt to list all these lists of ethical AI principles ... ]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This cascade of normative frameworks is accompanied by a tilt towards a greater focus on governmental action: a regulatory consciousness on ethical AI has been late coming, but is afoot (see <b><u><i><a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/20/us-to-back-international-ai-principles/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL0U5NXFvZVdnYUw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ7pLppHg-vgpRzSNAlukbWmYLoCrqlcJQ2XHjVzWqBLsgzkgj-C1Vh0uQukTjwwkbyUHSqObOWKJuOnXJanE2Q_aM616X_a7BAOMDDfG2St_kBREP_lweoFtepzngjvXad8l4xz0XRy-yxE3tPORDQPVGmZJpqOqA7vhpM1zidZ">here</a></i></u></b>, for example: 'US to back international guidelines...'). Tech giants are calling for rather than necessarily resisting regulation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the gist of my upcoming May submission is that this subject-matter is about more than ethics in these sense that there's a law and regulation piece here (as useful as ethics-based approaches are, and complementary to law).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet in our chagrin as lawyers at the belated recognition that our discipline matters here, there is something more. These issues may be 'bigger' than ethics, but they are also bigger than and beyond just a conventional debate on law and governance. Certainly, human rights law is not necessarily and ideal vehicle for conducting and framing that debate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is involved around responsible innovation debates is really asking some fundamental questions about the future shape of human society. While necessary to this debate, law and especially human rights law are limited as a vernacular for having those debates.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a seminar on May 8 I quoted Harari (2018) who rightly notes that we need a shared and coherent 'story' of what these technologies are for, how they do or do not advance a society of the sort that we want and recognise as 'good' and 'just':</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">".... We cannot continue this debate indefinitely … [v]ery
soon someone will have to decide how to use this power [AI, etc] – based on some
implicit or explicit story about the meaning of life … engineers are far less patient, and investors
are the least patient of all. If you do not know what to do with the power [of
these technologies, but also the power of how to govern them], market forces
will not wait a thousand years for … an answer. The invisible hand of the
market will force upon you its own blind reply..."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See previous posts on responsible innovation <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2019/03/business-human-rights-and-responsible.html">here</a></u></i></b>.</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-7243313623719177122019-04-02T01:30:00.001+01:002019-04-02T01:49:40.602+01:00Modern slavery reporting: what it is/not<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some legislative schemes have unforeseen consequences on the upside. They achieve far more than their particular remit, and capture or catalyse a wider shift.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Others generate unreasonable expectations: laws can only do so much, even in developed regulatory states, and especially without the accompaniment of more profound and clear messages from markets and people about the kinds of behavioural and cultural changes they want companies to exhibit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Australia's <i>Modern Slavery Act </i>came into effect this year. It requires larger firms report annually on whether and what steps they are taking to manage these human rights risks within their operations and supply chains.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last week the government released draft guidance for reporting entities (<b><i><u><a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-and-support/how-to-engage-us/consultations/modern-slavery-reporting-requirement">here</a></u></i></b>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this context I attempt 3 propositions about what this statutory scheme may represent, and 3 things that it doesn't necessarily represent: what is it not?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>'What it maybe is'</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The Act is -- like its UK predecessor and whatever its shortcomings -- a landmark achievement in bringing to corporate boards across Australia a new awareness of the human rights risks sometimes associated with mainstream business and financial activity, and the extent of regulatory intent that exists around these.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. The Australian Act can be seen as part of a wider pattern, at least in OECD countries, of statutory requirements to undertake human rights due diligence or at least report on such activities -- even if domestic and other regulatory manifestations of the UN <i>Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights </i>are still very piecemeal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Engagement with the Act by corporations (and their advisory firms) on this particular human rights risk may drive wider awareness and uptake of the fuller 'business and human rights' agenda, but will not necessarily do so.*</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>'What it perhaps is not'</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The Act is one corporate reporting mechanism among many for big firms (and modern slavery is only one class of business & human rights issue): as the Act beds down there are no guarantees that this will remain a distinctive high-profile issue ...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. An external reporting requirement (even one with board-level sign-off) is no guarantee that firms and funds will take and sustain effective internal procedural, operational and cultural changes relevant to preventing and remedying modern slavery risk.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Even fulsome corporate compliance with the Act (and internalisation of its purpose) will not necessarily have a discernible or material effect on the prevalence of modern slavery in our region.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That last point is a reminder of the risk of such legislation becoming an Australian regulatory salve for our own consciences (<a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/11/who-is-business-and-human-rights-for.html" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">here</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are many other things one could add about what the Act is not. The Act is not a panacea. The Act is not mere pandering to corporations. The Act is not victim-focused or remedial in nature.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so on. For one thing, advocates and academics in 'business and human rights' often talk of these corporate reporting models as new. They are not. They are only new to this field, which would benefit from more research couched in lessons about what reporting requirements, and non-penal ones in particular, can and cannot do to drive progress on the underlying issue with which they deal. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
* In 2018 research with Justine Nolan and M. Azizul Islam (publication forthcoming) we observe that many corporate officers and others see the Act as, at very least, a 'conversation starter' within firms and more widely.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/05/compliance-risk-in-modern-slavery.html">here</a></u></i></b> for a recent post on compliance risk under the Act, and <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/11/business-and-human-rights-in-verse-poem_28.html">here</a></u></i></b> for a different take (modern slavery approached in verse...).</div>
<br />Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-37433636176857612032019-03-14T01:45:00.002+00:002019-03-14T02:20:24.445+00:00Business, human rights and responsible innovation<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are increasingly governed and influenced by algorithms and predictive analysis.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The use by governments and businesses of artificial intelligence / machine learning (AI/ML) platforms can impact on human rights in myriad ways.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We have moved from debating <i>whether</i> governments need to regulate AI's potential discriminatory (etc.) effects, to questions of <i>how</i> best to do so in a legitimate, effective and coherent way: enabling innovation while protecting fundamental values and interests.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The nexus of 'new tech' and 'human rights' is presented as an emerging issue. Yet the rate of change and the implications of AI (etc.) across so many aspects of life suggest that it is only a regulatory consciousness that is still 'emerging'. All else is well underway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, we are far from the shallows now (as Lady Gaga / Bradley Cooper sing in <i>A Star is Born </i>(2018)): we are well in the deep waters now of how best to regulate for responsible innovation. And those deep waters are fast-moving ones, far faster than most regulatory and legal systems have moved.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This post relates to my hasty and under-cooked submission last week to the Australian Human Rights Commission / WEF <u><b><i><a href="https://tech.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-02/AHRC_WEF_AI_WhitePaper2019.pdf">'White Paper'</a></i></b></u> on 'AI and Human Rights: Leadership and Governance', itself related to a wider consultation (<u><i><b><a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/publications/human-rights-and-technology-issues-paper-2018">2018</a></b></i></u>, ongoing).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One point made in that submission was a reflection on big tech firms' approach to the regulatory question. (This post is confined to that reflection -- the responsible innovation regulatory agenda is a far bigger and more complex one.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Commission's reports detail how influential CEOs -- from Microsoft to Amazon to Facebook -- are all now calling for or conceding the need for governmental regulatory frameworks on ethical AI / social impact / human rights (and these are <u>not</u> all the same thing, as my submission notes!).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These CEOs thus recognise the shift to the 'how' question, and are partly behind that shift, calling for regulation. Salesforce's CEO said at Davos last year that the role of governments and regulators was to come in and "point to True North".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now most commentators have welcomed this. Like the Commission, they add this CEO's call to the chorus ('at least they are not resisting regulation' and 'business is inviting government to lead and steer'. A good thing).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet is it only me who finds something hugely troubling about this statement?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is this. Is big tech so lacking in moral substance that it needs government to point out 'True North' (a set of general principles to guide AI design and use)? 'True North' is by definition universal and fairly easy to establish. Non-discrimination, user privacy, access to review and reasons for adverse decisions. These were basic societal values last time I looked at western democracies. They do not require governmental steer or compass reading for business. Get on with it, already.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Governments must lead the responsible innovation agenda, not least because their own use of AI is a key issue. Yet on the Salesforce CEO's statement, if industry cannot arrive at these values of its own accord, we truly are far from the shallows. As Lady Gaga sings, how will we remember ourselves this way -- before AI made life unrecognisable? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ps -- see an earlier blog <b><u><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/04/data-big-business-and-human-rights.html">here</a></i></u></b> on 'big data' and human rights, and <b><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/11/business-and-human-rights-in-verse-poem.html"><i>this one</i></a></u></b> from November last year putting some of these themes into a short poem... !?</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-90994688060943190152019-02-05T23:31:00.001+00:002019-02-05T23:31:26.424+00:00Corporate culture: capital vs social capital<div style="text-align: justify;">
Australia is this week absorbing the <b><u><a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2019-fsrc-final-report/">final report</a></u></b> of the Royal Commission into 'misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is at the heart of the disregard shown by retail banks and finance houses for regulation aimed at protecting consumers from the excesses of the pursuit of profit motive?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As ANU's John Braithwaite has said, a core dilemma of regulation is "when to punish and when to persuade" (1992+).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Command and control-style punishment and sanctions are not the only way to regulate. There are many reasons for non-compliance, suggesting that regulators sometimes need to preference dialogue and engagement over knee-jerk automatic punishment. There is a strong case to be made for regulatory designs and institutional approaches that privilege engagement, persuasion, education, capacity-building. Braithwaite's 'responsive regulation' theory would suggest that regulators hold punitive powers in reserve while making overtures to regulatees and seeing how they respond to non-punitive approaches. The regulator then adjusts its own approach. This will be perceived, the theory goes, as more fair and so legitimate. Entities will internalise the regulatory goal, compliance will improve and the regulator can let compliant entities essentially self-regulate, and indeed exceed what is required in pursuit of the social goal underlying the regulation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is a lesson from the Royal Commission?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is that this approach, as influential as it has been, needs to be revisited. Or at least the theory needs to be fully implemented if it is to work. Not surprising, that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The lesson is that regulators -- <i>even where they have these powers </i>-- appear reluctant to use them, and so err on the side of 'engagement' where sometimes demonstrative penalty seems more appropriate. The issue is whether the regulated entities are responding to signals to change. If they are not, another more intrusive approach is warranted from the regulator.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Standing back, the key word is in the first sentence above: motive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Incentives matter: we can talk all we want about 'values not just value' and 'engendering a shift in corporate culture'. But when all is said and done, market actors respond to incentives, and clear, credible and consistent signals and actions from regulators about the consequences of non-compliance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And those consequences sometimes need to be severe.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Commissioner Hayne wrote, "misconduct will be deterred only if entities believe that misconduct will be detected, denounced and justly punished..." It is not deterred -- for such profitable entities -- by requiring those found to have done wrong to "do no more than pay compensation." It is certainly not deterred by the issue of infringement notices in the hope that the market or consumers will respond to those incidents by withdrawing or conditioning their custom or financing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Responsive regulation remains a highly appealing theory, if properly implemented. It is bound to fail -- as Braithwaite and his disciples have always said -- if only partially implemented. If all the cuddly dialogic bits are followed, but not the hard and punitive bits. Regulators can and should talk to their regulatees about how to improve compliance. But they are not mere consultants to business. They are regulators. Braithwaite would insist that the regulatee must know that the regulator can escalate things, where fair and appropriate and where there is no response to overtures to comply. They must know and see that the regulator can make life very difficult.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Braithwaite once wrote, dialogue, engagement and capacity building must take place "in the shadow of the axe".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Australian regulators need to have the axe, even if they need to be smart and fair about when to keep it in the background and pursue a more engaged approach.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is true from banking conduct in the retail sector, to emerging models on supply chain reporting in the context of modern slavery, on which see earlier posts on this blog.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-83432002300994693422018-12-05T22:34:00.002+00:002018-12-05T22:34:47.430+00:00Business and Human Rights in Verse: Poem 3This is the 3rd in a mini-series of attempts to approach themes of 'Business and Human Rights' in verse. The 1st was 'Big Data' and the 2nd 'Supply Chain' (see previous two posts).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #1f497d;">‘Dance the Guns to Silence’: some Business and Human
Rights in verse<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Dr Jolyon Ford<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Associate Professor of Law, Australian National University<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 9;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>November 2018<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">III.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="color: #1f497d;">Extractive<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">They came at night. It matters
not,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">What they did exactly, it does not
matter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Let us not try say what they
took or did:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The gun will serve the highest
bidder.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Across the valley the rotors’
throb<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Tells us he comes to see the
mines.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Beneath the ridge the scarred
land drops<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">To where we sit and wait in
lines.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The low hills crouch, they have
given up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The land is beaten down.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">It too has learned this will
only stop<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">When all sign of struggle is
gone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">There is no dawn that brings
them home,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">No song of comfort sung.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">They exist only if we remember
them,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">When all is said, and all is
done.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">From the camp we hear the shift
bells ring,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">This is not a place for
dreaming.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">You will not hear our voices
sing,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">But nor will you hear the
screaming.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">In this rich earth, a richer
dust concealed,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Though we dig, it is not for
truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Grass in the breeze where the
scar has healed,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Mocks their futile defiant
youth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Some system did all this for
gain,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">And made our rivers burn.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">It took our very soil away<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">And so our soul in turn.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">And so here now we that remain<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Mine the seams of lessons never
learned,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Listen to the scoured land in
its pain,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Wait without hope for their
ghosts’ return.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 9;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 324.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">Cambridge
MA, 31 Oct. 2018<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-56742348019184102172018-11-28T22:56:00.000+00:002018-11-28T22:56:13.809+00:00Business and Human Rights in Verse: Poem 2This is the second of three attempts to approach 'business and human rights' slightly differently (for a law academic), in verse. The first attempt (previous post) was 'Big Data'. The third attempt (next week's post) is 'Extractive'.<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #1f497d;">‘Dance the Guns to Silence’: some Business and Human
Rights in verse<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Dr Jolyon Ford<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Associate Professor of Law, Australian National University<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">November 2018</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">II.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="color: #1f497d;">Supply Chain<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">In these rooms where dull heat
squats,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">We sprawl and watch the shared
screen flicker<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Scenes from your world, worlds
apart:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Track the thin truth that ties
us together.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Do you ever just lie awake at
night<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">And feel the ways our lives are
close?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">What becomes of the traces of
our sweat,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">In that bright world the camera
shows?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">What scent of humanity lingers
there,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">(It is a small world, after
all)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Persistent and intimate, perhaps
we share<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">A story or secret, something
small.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Bits of you come to us in waves,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Lying here watching the things
you do.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Yet traces of me linger in your
days,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Woven in the things we make for
you.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">I wake unrested and wait to
wash,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">We cannot leave this place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Too tired to care where all this
goes,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">To think of blame, or of
consequence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">You are still out there
somewhere, doing<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Whatever it is People do with
Life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The myriad things that fill your
days<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Tease our dreams through hot
still nights.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The thread that weaves us does
not bind,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The link does not connect;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The traces of me in space and
time,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The little hope that’s left.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Stains in the hidden lining remain,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Shame too abstract to make a
mark.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Something too faint to keep you
awake,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Weeps unheard in this squalid
dark.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">The folly of our tele-dream:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">To think we thought you somehow
near.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">For your Things we gave our
self-esteem,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">For such a small world, truly far.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: #1f497d; text-align: right;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; text-align: right;">Singapore, 13 October 2018</span>Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-85349705265227256992018-11-23T03:27:00.000+00:002018-11-23T03:27:46.171+00:00Business and Human Rights in Verse: Poem IThis is the first of 3 efforts to approach 'business and human rights' issues in another way. Poem 1 is entitled 'Big Data'; Poem 2 'Supply Chain' and Poem 3 'Extractive':<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #1f497d;">‘Dance the Guns to Silence’: some Business and Human
Rights in verse<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Dr Jolyon Ford<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">Associate Professor of Law, Australian National University<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 9;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>November 2018<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d;">I.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Big Data<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Auden felt it
years ago,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">His senses taut
and pricked with light:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">The gloom that
gathers when we know<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">We cannot know
truth, or wrong from right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Aggregate my
many selves,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Average out my
patterned moves;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Analyze my
weakest points,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Accept the
truth that the Data proves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">You are more
than just the sum<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Of your coded
self, something more<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Than the image
that the moment holds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">When this drops
in and tells you things<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">You did not
know about your life,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Remember that
we yearned for this;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Accept the
truth that the Profile tells;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">Know that if
blame is even worth it now,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 12.0pt;">In truth we did
this to ourselves</span><span style="color: #1f497d;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #1f497d;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 8;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">Canberra, 10 October 2018<span style="color: #1f497d;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-17605445525300781842018-11-07T23:39:00.000+00:002018-11-07T23:39:04.580+00:00Who is 'business and human rights' for?Who are those doing 'business and human rights' (BHR) stuff, and for whom are they doing these things?<br />
<br />
This post offers two reflections on the BHR 'movement'.<br />
<br />
(I'm conscious that I'm at risk of over-thinking things about the BHR movement or 'field'. Examples of this include posts asking '<b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/07/has-business-human-rights-lost-its-way.html">has BHR lost its way</a></i></b>?' or one reflecting on <b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2017/03/business-and-human-rights-field.html">what the field itself comprises</a></i></b>.)<br />
<br />
The first reflection I've used since 2016 in my Masters (LLM) course in BHR, to stimulate student thinking. It might be framed as <i>who 'does' BHR?</i><br />
<br />
The second reflection is one I offered at a <b><i><a href="http://regnet.anu.edu.au/news-events/events/7295/regulating-transparency-corporate-supply-chains-australia%E2%80%99s-draft-modern">recent talk</a></i></b> at ANU's RegNet, my doctoral alma mater. It might be framed as <i>who is BHR for?</i><br />
<br />
<u>Who 'does' BHR?</u><br />
<br />
Many students study human rights with a view to 'making a difference'. Most of my students accordingly focus on classic public law and public international law subjects.<br />
<br />
Yet -- and this is what I leave my students with each course-end -- perhaps the most effective BHR lawyers of the future will not be steeped in conventional human rights skills and knowledge. They will be people who understand contract law, corporate law, fiduciary duties of institutional investors, international trade and investment law and negotiations... they will also be students who have grasped that understanding the significance of local political economy dynamics is as important as fluency in the UN Guiding Principles on BHR:<b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2018/09/law-and-power-law-as-power.html"> law and power, law as power</a></i></b>.<br />
<br />
BHR could do with more reflection, for example, on expertise, who is <i>doing </i>it, on how 'power law and expertise shape the global political economy' in a <b><i><a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10703.html">David Kennedy</a></i></b> (2016) sense.<br />
<br />
Many activists (and academics) in this field appear not only not to understand business or corporations, they sometimes seem not to want to understand them. Business and investment is something that happens out there, by some people who are probably not as nice or worldly as us.... Yet one has to question BHR strategies grounded in knee-jerk distaste for the very entities that one needs to understand (and sometimes engage with!) in order to transform problematic patterns.<br />
<br />
<u>Who is BHR 'for'?</u><br />
<br />
Two of the BHR topics that perhaps dominate in Australia at present are (i) data, new technology and human rights; and (ii) corporate action on human rights risks in the supply chain under the intended <i>Modern Slavery Act</i>.<br />
<br />
Both are important, complex, etc. Yet both, in different ways, have the effect of focusing very much on 'us' (in the first world) rather than 'them' (places where the aggregate of serious, systemic adverse BHR impacts occur).<br />
<br />
Take the supply chains focus, which is one I'm part of. (An <b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2017/03/business-and-human-rights-field.html">earlier post</a></i></b> linked above noted that BHR is about a lot more than just 'modern slavery', as current and important and hard as that problem is).<br />
<br />
There is a possible critique that the orientation of our current 'modern slavery' enquiries is parochial or inward looking. Its dominant vein is as follows: we must act to ensure we -- and our jurisdiction, our supermarket shelves, our wardrobes -- are not 'tainted' by association with modern slavery risk. That is not the same as saying 'we must tackle this phenomenon wherever it occurs'.<br />
<br />
Have we succeeded if, through altered purchasing and procurement patterns (etc.) we rid Australia of any tainting trace of modern slavery, even if the phenomenon is alive and well in our region?<br />
<br />
At least on <i>Modern Slavery Act </i>matters, is BHR as a movement (and so to a degree BHR scholarship) at risk of framing things as 'what can we do to rid ourselves of this human stain?' rather than 'what raft of measures will best address this topic in its own right?', that is, what works <i>irrespective of how it affects our space?</i><br />
<br />
This second reflection might be viewed as a bit unfair. After all, we (in Australia) are simply looking for ways, within our sphere of influence (so to speak), to address a global problem. And it is natural for analysis to 'begin at home' and focus on such issues. Still, its just a reflection.<br />
<br />
JoJo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-716767311700678372018-09-18T07:51:00.001+01:002018-09-18T07:53:05.270+01:00Is the ethical consumer a myth?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Can informed, motivated ethical consumers act as human rights 'regulators'?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What design assumptions underpin models for regulating business human rights risk through mandated reporting?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last week Australia's house of representatives debated the <i>Modern Slavery Bill </i>2018, which would require larger Australia firms to report annually on steps taken to ensure their operations and supply chains are not tainted by human trafficking and forced labour.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The government's model would not include statutory consequences or penalties for non-compliance (non-reporting). Based as it is on s. 54 of the UK's 2015 <i>Modern Slavery Act</i>,<i> </i>the model is premised on the idea that businesses that do not report 'will be penalised by the market and consumers and severely tarnish their reputations' (Minister's <b><i><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F429b4c41-4a6c-465d-a259-05e8252b994d%2F0037%22">2nd reading speech</a></i></b>, Sept. 2018).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The model is defensible in principle and regulatory theory, as I've blogged (etc.) <b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/search/label/modern%20slavery">elsewhere</a></i></b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet as the Senate's August report noted (<b><i><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/ModernSlavery/Report/b01">Recommendation 3.97</a></i></b>), we need to 'test the proposition that reputational risk is a sufficient motivator' for widespread and meaningful reporting, and for continuous improvement in related internal due diligence practices.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A research agenda exists here since it is not obvious that consumers are likely to be effective at policing compliance with human rights performance by corporations. (Investors, insurers and other market actors may play this role more effectively, but that's not the issue in this post).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition to the fact that not all industry sectors face reputational risk in the same degrees or ways, we know from existing scholarship that it is not obvious (i.e. the empirical evidence is thin) that consumers will behave more ethically if they only have more information about the provenance and socio-enviro conditions under which things are extracted or made.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That is, the ethical consumer may be a 'myth' (e.g. Devinney et al 2010; Carrington et al 2010). There is an attitude-behaviour gap (Boulstridge and Carrigan 2000): even consumers who say, when surveyed, that ethical considerations matter to them do not necessarily change their consumption behaviours. Nor do they become activist consumers holding firms to account.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If so, we need to explore regulatory models premised on the idea that an informed, motivated mass consumer public will effectively hold corporate actors to account on statutory disclosure of human rights risk.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
See too this previous post on modern slavery, on consumers as regulators (influencing behaviour of commercial actors): <b><i><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com/2017/06/modern-slavery-consumers-regulators.html">here</a></i></b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-10370712157552925242018-09-02T06:11:00.003+01:002018-09-02T06:11:44.563+01:00Law and power, law as powerThe potential and limits of law and legal analysis are questions about social, economic and political power.<br />
<br />
My current Masters (LLM) students are in Week 6 of their fully online 'Business and Human Rights' <a href="https://programsandcourses.anu.edu.au/course/LAWS8254">course</a>. We are currently discussing barriers to accessing an effective remedy for alleged business-sourced human rights violations. Much of this discussion revolves around transnational torts litigation, and the doctrinal + practical barriers to claimant groups.<br />
<br />
In the discussions we have canvassed criminal law 'remedies' and I referred students to a news item about allegations against a French cement giant for its subsidiary's conduct in war-torn Syria (<b><i><u><a href="https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/can-the-lafarge-case-be-a-game-changer-french-multinational-company-indicted-for-international-crimes-in-syria?utm_content=buffer43a79&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer">here</a></u></i></b>). In one commentary on that news, the author says: <br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292929; font-family: source-sans-pro, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">"Human rights cases are rarely a question of law alone, they are about power."</span><br />
<br />
This is an apposite for all students of 'Business and Human Rights' (BHR, and we are all students thereof!).<br />
<br />
BHR scholars repeatedly self-profess that theirs is a 'cross-disciplinary' field that is nevertheless dominated by legal scholars. The field's maturation will require a far more systematic and contextualised engagement with the political economy and power dynamics of everything from transnational litigation to supply chain transparency.<br />
<br />
Law can be powerful, even emancipatory; but power differentials and dynamics that constrain and distort this transformative potential need greater and more context-specific analysis by all of us working in this field.<br />
<br />
Jo Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-2454261831622481932018-07-20T02:39:00.002+01:002018-07-20T02:39:41.785+01:00Has 'Business & Human Rights' lost its way?Does 'business and human rights' risk becoming about everything, and so nothing?<br />
<br />
What comprises the BHR 'field' is not neat and defined. It is evolving, as is the multi-faceted (but still gap-riddled) regulatory 'ecosystem' that governs business-human rights responsibility and remedy.<br />
<br />
This lack of neatness, this open-endedness, is on one view both inevitable and desirable. We should not and probably cannot seek to be prescriptive about what 'counts' as a BHR issue.<br />
<br />
Yet the question arises whether we should be a bit more strategic about what is likely to gain traction as a BHR issue, and about how widely we frame BHR, and about what we think corporations and other enterprises really have a meaningful responsibility for.<br />
<br />
This post is prompted by a claim this week (<b><i><u><a href="http://corporate-responsibility.org/unilever-time-real-leadership-human-rights/?platform=hootsuite">here</a></u></i></b>), related to litigation to this effect, that Unilever is somehow responsible for remedying the terrible human suffering of former employees resulting from post-election ethno-political violence in Kenya on the basis that some of the victims of this very complex, nation-wide violence were Unilever employees.<br />
<br />
If by 'remedy' in BHR we really mean situations such as this, arguably BHR advocacy is over-reaching. If a demonstrably progressive firm like Unilever is accused of merely 'illusory' support for the UN Guiding Principles, how are we to foster meaningful engagement with other firms?<br />
<br />
There are serious questions to be asked about how subsidiary corporate structures hamper access to forums for seeking effective remedy. Still, the underlying claim (that Unilever is responsible for compensating employee victims of violence that shook a whole country) has little basis in tort law, let alone human rights law. Championing this sort of speculative litigation (of all the BHR issues one could profile) shows a mindset that thinks the BHR phenomenon is far better established, far-reaching and powerful than it is. Ambition is fine; over-reach can just expose how under-developed things really are.<br />
<br />
Just how useful and effective is the 'human rights' paradigm / lexicon in shifting business (and state) behaviour around social impact? However tempting it is to invoke it in support of all manner of worthy societal campaigns, is it really that effective?<br />
<br />
BHR is about the many things potentially involved in preventing, minimising and remedying business-related human rights abuses (as well as encouraging and appropriately enrolling business in positive efforts at greater rights fulfilment and enjoyment). A central challenge in all this is to engage the attention of business and finance sector actors, informing and advising as well as accusing and chastising.<br />
<br />
BHR is not just about the UN Guiding Principles or a narrow legalistic framing around the jurisprudence of international human rights law. Yet if websites or email updates on BHR become about listing all sorts of things that happen to involve companies, we have lost some powerful opportunity.<br />
<br />
If BHR becomes about pretty much everything -- precarious work contract patterns; climate change and its governance; tax evasion and avoidance; corruption; mass political violence in east Africa -- it risks undermining itself. It risks alienating or confusing business audiences -- or being dismissed by them. It risks losing a vital connection with a credible, universal set of normative guarantees (human rights).<br />
<br />
A related challenge is to remember that while BHR is somewhat in fashion in the field of human rights, it is still (tiringly and never-endingly) the state which must answer for the vast majority of human rights problems.<br />
<br />
Jo<br />
<br />
See an earlier articulation of some of the possible coherence challenges of the BHR field (2015, pp 6-7), <b><i><u><a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/business-and-human-rights-emerging-challenges-consensus-and-coherence">here</a></u></i></b>. See also this sceptical blog-post on linking the BHR phenomenon to climate change activism, <b><i><u><a href="http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/regarding-rights/2015/12/02/climate-change-and-human-rights-beneficial-links/">here</a></u></i></b>.Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-2969101521858575012018-05-28T06:09:00.002+01:002018-05-28T06:09:32.345+01:00Compliance risk in 'modern slavery' reporting<div style="text-align: justify;">
The 'business and human rights' phenomenon is about much more than just 'modern slavery' in corporate supply chains.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The potential for modern slavery practices to 'taint' the supply chains of formal, regular business is one form of 'business and human rights' problem.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This post makes a brief point about a form of 'compliance risk' that may not be fully appreciated as we move, in Australia, into the process of legislative enactment and implementation of reporting requirements for larger firms around the risks of modern slavery within their operations or supply chains.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By 'compliance risk' I do not mean familiar ideas such as the reputational, regulatory, legal or other risks possibly associated with non-reporting, poor or inadequate reporting, misleading or deceptive reporting (e.g. relative to internal processes of due diligence on the reportable risk).<br />
<br />
I mean a risk that might emerge even if a firm has very commendable due diligence and reporting practices relating to the potential for modern slavery in its business and business relationships.<br />
<br />
The 'compliance risk' I mean is a form of unintended blindness to <i>human rights </i>risks in the business's sphere even though these may not be <i>modern slavery </i>risks.<br />
<br />
Thus the potential problem is that once firms are actively reporting on the risks of modern slavery within their operations or supply chains (since that is what legislative requirements relate to), those firms might pay less attention to other forms of human rights risk in their business models, forms that may have nothing to do with supply chains, or with forced labour or human trafficking.<br />
<br />
Firms (and policy-makers, and civil society) will need to keep framing these overall issues more broadly than just the current 'hot topic' of modern slavery in supply chains, and principally by reference to the 2011 <i>UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights</i>.<br />
<br />
The 'business and human rights' phenomenon is about much more than just 'modern slavery' in corporate supply chains. In Australia, a focus on a possible <i>Modern Slavery Act </i>has obscured or may come to obscure (including in business's perspectives) the whole range of ways in which business might unwittingly or otherwise cause, contribute to or be linked to human rights problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I made this point in a March 2017 post on this blog, <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/business-and-human-rights-field.html">here</a></u></i></b>, shortly after the Australian government announced its consultation towards a possible Act. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
@fordthought</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See a recent post (May 2018) <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2018/05/modern-slavery-in-supply-chains.html">here</a></u></i></b> on defining 'supply chain' in the Modern Slavery Act reporting context, and general comments in <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/regulating-modern-slavery-in-supply.html">this post</a></u></i></b> from October 2017 and <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/corporate-supply-chains-and-modern.html">this one</a></u></i></b> from August 2017.</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-90776586993854364672018-05-10T08:23:00.000+01:002018-05-30T02:16:26.031+01:00Modern slavery in supply chains: definitions?<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What are ideal
viable regulatory models for public authorities to address the serious human
rights risks that might exist in a business’s operations or supply chains,
especially abroad?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This post simply pastes in the summary of a paper I've produced (<b><i><u><a href="https://anu-au.academia.edu/JolyonFord">here</a></u></i></b>).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The paper
isolates one regulatory design issue on prevailing models of statutory
requirements for certain firms to report on human rights risks in their supply
chain: how, if at all, should such legislation seek to define ‘supply chain’? This
paper argues that this is not a narrow or merely technical question:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">First, it affects the scope of
commercial activity to which any ‘compliance’ notion will relate, and
associated issues of regulatory clarity, certainty and coherence.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Second, the approach to defining (or
not) ‘supply chain’ can be seen a metaphor for more general design philosophies
or approaches. These <i>how </i>questions of
design go to more profound questions about <i>what</i>
‘transparency models’ (or, more accurately, reporting models) seek to achieve.
The wider public policy objective is eradicating modern slavery by engaging
business and civil society in cooperative pursuit of this grand challenge. This
goal ought to guide and inform all design decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some firms argue
that any reporting obligations should be limited to ‘first tier’ suppliers only
(direct payment relationships); many activists argue that peak firms atop
particular supply chains should be obliged to report more comprehensively,
i.e., full traceability reporting, on suppliers’ suppliers too. This paper
argues that a future Australian <i>Modern
Slavery Act </i>should not seek to define ‘supply chain’ at all in legislative
form, nor in ancillary regulations: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Consistent with Pillar II of the 2011 <i>UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights</i>,
firms have a responsibility to respect human rights by (among other things) identifying
and address <i>priority</i> human rights
risks in their business operations and relationships: leaving ‘supply chain’
undefined helps avoid artificial categorisations that might obscure this ongoing
exercise of self-analysis and prioritisation. The ‘how many tiers’ debate
misses the point: from risk management, reputational and other perspectives too,
the focus of enquiry should be the severity (scale, seriousness, etc.) of human
rights risks across business relationships. Instead of responding to prescribed
compliance indicators, as might happen with a defined approach, the internal
corporate process of needing to self-define what one’s ‘supply chain’ will include
for reporting purposes might hold value: it may help to trigger important corporate
self-reflection on the extent of one’s influence or responsibility as a firm.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Prevailing reporting models are
premised at least in part on external market, consumer and civic stakeholders ‘regulating’
corporate performance on human rights issues. In a model that does not define ‘supply
chain’, these actors can always signal that a firm’s framing of its ‘supply
chain’ is too narrow or otherwise misconceived. Legal, audit or assurance
entities advising larger firms might be key agents in a conceivable ‘race to
the top’ (at least within market leaders in some consumer-facing /
reputation-exposed sectors) in terms of the quality of reporting, including the
scope of a firm’s choice of what its ‘supply chain’ comprises. <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Reporting requirements may not actually
be appropriate and adapted to the wider objective of preventing and addressing
modern slavery. Nor do they necessarily produce transparency. Nevertheless, they
are the model under consideration. This being so, the legislation should
attempt to encourage fulsome business cooperation from a premise of trusting large
Australian businesses to do the right thing in the first instance. An overall
tone and message that the legislation is not unduly prescriptive on such issues
as what constitutes ‘supply chain’ will probably help to generate proactive
business engagement. Such cooperation is vital to the ‘bigger picture’
objective. Even the most capable regulatory state cannot ‘fix’ modern slavery
in supply chains without the cooperation of the businesses that use these
systems:<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Supply chains, like business sectors,
are hugely diverse, not static, and often very complex, but firms are also typically
far better-placed than regulators to see or know issues within their supply
chains. In a scheme premised on business uptake and cooperation, these facts
suggests that legislation avoid being unduly prescriptive.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The point of this legislation is to
help identify, prevent and resolve human rights problems in supply chains. It
is not, as some activists would appear to frame it, an opportunity to target
larger businesses with highly prescriptive statutory duties accompanied by punitive
sanctions out of a belief (for example) that such firms, as a species, are
insufficiently transparent or accountable in our society generally. The
legislation is one element in a broader policy approach around finding ways to
incentivise and support Australian firms to systematically identify and so prevent
or address the underlying human rights risks. All design questions should turn
on ‘what will best help solve the problem of modern slavery in globalised
supply chains?’ and ‘how can we best involve business itself in solving these
problems?’<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Yet this cooperative dialogic approach
is only justifiable if a clear signal is given that regulation will become more
demanding in future if reporting compliance is perfunctory or not improving
modern slavery patterns in (Australian) supply chains.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Non-binding
formal policy products produced in parallel to this legislation should provide
guidance to firms on the considerations involved in how they seek to define the
scope of their due diligence (and so reporting) on these issues. This needs to
go a lot further than the UK guidance that ‘supply chains’ under the 2015 Act has
its ‘ordinary meaning’. Government should engage civil society and consultancy
/ assurance / audit firms in helping to produce and progressively refine such
guidance.</span></span></div>
<br />
[This is a summary from my May 2018 paper]<br />
<br />
Jo<br />
<br />
See a recent post on this blog on this topic <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/regulating-modern-slavery-in-supply.html">here</a></u></i></b>.Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-33474412091397320102018-04-05T03:39:00.001+01:002018-04-05T03:42:08.863+01:00Data, big business and human rights<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Data protection and privacy is among the most important and high-profile issues where 'business' and 'human rights' intersect.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Are some media-tech firms so large and influential that their social impact cannot be regulated? Or is the issue more about a sufficient constituency of public consumer-citizen demand for proper regulation?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;">This week saw <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43649018">news reports</a> that Facebook may have 'improperly shared' the data of 87 million users with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, linked to the Trump presidential campaign.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;">In this post I simply paste below a paragraph from a forthcoming paper I have written on how these sorts of issues and crises are treated in popular culture. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;">Hollywood may no longer be a credible barometer or bearer of moral messaging, and nor has it yet produced the definitive movie of our age in relation to our lives online. Still, from 1995's <i>The Net </i>to 2015's </span><i style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">Ex_Machina </i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">we do see some reflection of (Western) societies' anxieties and trajectories in relation to the commodification of data and privacy issues.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is what the paragraph says:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">"... One critic describes </span><i style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">Ex_Machina </i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">as
one examination of ‘how corporations have been freed from all forms of social
responsibility in the digital age’ (Allen 2016*). That is an overstatement, but Allen
does observe that in movies of this sort the issue is not so much corporate
access to one’s private life as the role that individual consumers (out of
apathy, convenience, ignorance, trust or other factors) play in enabling corporations
to ‘take on a life of their own’ and accumulate so much potential influence
over private data. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">The significance of this movie (or more accurately this type
of movie -- it was not a blockbuster) might lie in what it tells us about the
mix of regulation vs. consumer preferences in this and other areas of corporate
ethics and responsibility. After all, if informed consumers are not motivated
to press home data-related human rights concerns in any concerted way, what are
the prospects for influencing, expanding and sustaining corporate
self-regulation or industry or state regulation to protect those same concerns?"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">How does this relate to current debate on Facebook's data management?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Consumers do need to know and understand issues before they can be a constituency of demand for better regulatory interventions.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">But social media and other technologies may be so convenient and/or seductive that if the balance of
regulation on data privacy ends up not favouring the individual, it may not be that we are all the blameless victims of some
elaborate corporate strategy to undermine human rights.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">It may be that we have done this to ourselves.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">Jo</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">* Allen, A., (2016) ‘How the ‘Evil Corporation’ Became a Pop-Culture
Trope’ <i>The Atlantic</i>,<i> </i>25 April 2016.</span></span></div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-16128162278786454272018-02-09T03:46:00.000+00:002018-02-09T03:46:34.885+00:00Regulating the Future: 'private sector, public role'<div style="text-align: justify;">
One ought not get too categorical about distinguishing the public and private sectors when thinking about the wider 'sustainability' and 'social impact' agendas.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This blog's name plays off the differences we apprehend between public and private actors and activity, from principles (e.g. differing legitimacy levels as between corporations and public authorities) to drivers (e.g. differing incentives and audiences) to practicalities (e.g. different tools and techniques even where the ends are common).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But in many socio-enviro responsibility & sustainability contexts, the public-private distinction may be difficult to make. Or it may be not useful to dwell on, where it blinds us to the significant governance contributions of private actors towards what are ultimately public goals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Past posts have dwelt on this, but this one (the first for 2018) is prompted by three recent things that I see as connected in relation to this enduring public-private debate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first is my delight this week in meeting my new PhD student here at ANU, who will study the financial sector as a significant source of influence on the human rights impact of business more generally. (See recently in this regard the Thun Group of Banks view on one aspect of this, <a href="https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/2017_12_Thun%20Group%20of%20Banks_Paper_UNGPs%2013b%20and%2017.pdf"><u><i><b>here</b></i></u></a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Who is a 'regulator' and what counts as 'regulation', and what are appropriate and effective contributions that those policing bottlenecks in the economy -- such as financiers and insurers -- can play in furthering regulatory objectives? How does formal Regulation (with a big R) or other policy interventions (regulation with a small r?) leverage these contributions?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second is that I recently returned from a sustainable development symposium at the University of Indiana, Bloomington on balancing freedom vs security in the regulation of cybersecurity. Given that (mostly privately owned) tech firms dominate much activity in cyberspace, they will surely play an outsize role in the governance of that space relative to public authorities.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With this influence comes elevated levels of responsibility on the part of private actors (and expectations of increased accountability about how that power and influence is used).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which brings me to the third prompt for this post: a Twitter thread from @KateAronoff about a meeting (to which the media were not invited) between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Amazon CEO Jeff Bizos, described by a CBC journalist as a 'bilateral' meeting. Now technically it is bilateral if two parties are involved. But Aronoff's point was to get us to pause and consider the implications of a world where the language of diplomacy is seamlessly used in this way. Normally, only heads of state have bilateral meetings... but then Amazon does 'run' a large part of the world in net terms.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Surveys suggest many consumers/citizens trust (private) big brand firms and business leaders more than they trust public institutions and elected political leaders. Trust is a key component of regulatory legitimacy and effectiveness. Yet as we design societal impact regulatory models for the globalised (and virtual) economy, and make use of -- or just acknowledge as real -- private governance contributions, we need to think about the authority and legitimacy and other qualities that only public institutions ultimately have.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
@fordthought</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-33581988785699582602017-10-22T22:07:00.002+01:002017-10-22T22:07:15.273+01:00Regulating modern slavery in supply chains<div style="text-align: justify;">
What viable but principled regulatory model is best suited to regulating business supply-chains to ensure that they do not tolerate or promote forced labour, human trafficking, etc ('modern slavery')?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does legislation that requires corporate reporting on measures taken within one's supply-chain to address these risks -- but which does not imposes statutory consequences for not complying -- have a place here?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many activists argue 'Not'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would disagree. One can be highly motivated about addressing modern slavery in business supply-chains, yet support legislative models that others dismiss as 'undemanding'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Australia is proposing a legislative model on this issue, drawing on s. 54 of the UK's 2015 <i>Modern Slavery Act. </i>The consultation on the proposed approach closed last week. (See the Consultation Paper <b><i><u><a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/modern-slavery-in-supply-chains-reporting-requirement-public-consultation.aspx">here</a></u></i></b>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last week I made a lengthy submission to that consultation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is the gist...:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>If the aim is to foster business engagement in preventing and solving the underlying problems, a model that give businesses space to address its operations and supply chains (which they know better than any regulator could), that is not prescriptive about reporting, and that does not impose penalties for non-compliance <i>is </i>defensible ... </li>
</ul>
... but only ....<br /><ul>
<li>If the model clearly signals to business that more demanding / intrusive regulation is conditionally being held in reserve for a period, and will be implemented if the uptake by business is merely perfunctory and the reporting patterns do not indicate proper engagement in due diligence and other processes to identify, prevent, resolve and remedy human rights risks...</li>
</ul>
The current proposed model does not include penalties for non-compliance with the reporting requirement. Yet it makes no overt or explicit signal to business that there may be more demanding legislation in future if business uptake and response is weak.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is from the intro to that submission, making the above points:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;">"... T</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -18pt;">he point of all this
is not the adoption of ‘tough’ regulatory postures for their own sake (even if
these were politically viable): instead the point is to find ways to
incentivise and support Australian entities to systematically identify and to prevent
or address the underlying human rights risks...</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -18pt;">... many features [of the proposed legislation] which this submission supports (such as refraining from any statutory
consequences for non-reporting) are ultimately only
justifiable, or likely to be received as legitimate by civil society, on a
certain condition. This is that there ought to be a clear, signalled government
message to business that government ... is prepared in future to consider more intrusive, demanding legislative
measures if it is found that the proposed approach is not
engendering meaningful engagement with the problem..."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
JF</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See previous posts on 'modern slavery' and its regulation (in Australia and generally), most recently <b><i><u><a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/corporate-supply-chains-and-modern.html">here</a></u></i></b>.</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8349617905041777272.post-78553957695098809622017-10-02T04:28:00.002+01:002017-10-02T04:42:22.458+01:00Responsible business in a Trump era (III)<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just how compelling is the 'business case' for firms and funds to adopt and implement human rights policies?<br />
<br />
Here I mean planning, self-assessment and reporting policies and systems that are explicitly framed in human rights terms -- not the wider idea of a 'business case' for being socially responsible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Among the outgoing Obama administration's last actions in December 2016 was to shepherd in a US '<b><i><u><a href="https://www.humanrights.gov/dyn/issues/business-and-human-rights/national-action-plan.html">National Action Plan</a></u></i></b>' on 'Business and Human Rights' (BHR).<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The evidence so far shows clearly that a Trump-led US federal government will not lead, in policy, messaging and regulatory terms, in the BHR area. Indeed it will evidently not do so on the responsible or even sustainable business agendas more broadly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If that is so, it may nevertheless happen that in the US and beyond, big business and the financial and insurance worlds drive parts of this broad agenda itself, not waiting for a national government lead.*<br />
<br />
With important caveats, I have recently blogged on this possibility.** These blog-posts were offered in the search for a 'silver lining', from a BHR perspective, to Trump's election. Of course European governments + the EU (and others) might lead in America's stead. But the US matters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If it happens that business does not wait for such a lead, it may be because there is a perceived 'business case' for it (even if part of that case is just longer-term anticipation by business of a degree of reversion in regulatory trends in a post-Trump presidency).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The 'business case' concept in the BHR field derives from the wider corporate accountability / responsibility field. It is a familiar feature of the CSR field, in particular. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Business case' is of course shorthand for the idea that whatever the ethical, moral or legal reasons for mitigating a business's social, enviro and governance impact, it makes good commercial sense, especially in the longer term, to embrace this agenda.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We need to be cautious about a 'business case' at the broad level: business sectors and sub-sectors -- and individual firms within these -- may have very different incentive structures (etc.) in responding to or anticipating social impact issues. The 'business case' concept is a more sound one when describing how those incentives etc might be approached in particular contexts, making a case each time.<br />
<br />
For years the CSR and then emerging BHR fields spent considerable energy on articulating a general 'business case'. Yet in recent years BHR advocacy has sometimes appeared to proceed on the basis not only that the business case for acting on human rights risks is self-evident, but that it is or will go further and become an important driver of uptake by business of the BHR implementation agenda.</div>
<br />
The thrust of the current post is to suggest that the Trump era will now put to the test claims made in recent years about the strength and obviousness and appeal of the business case for self-starting action on human rights risk.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Put another way (and partly for provocation's sake), it is easy to assert the existence of an obvious business case for business to be pro-active about addressing human rights impacts, but we need to be careful about assuming that this has some sort of self-executing logic to it.<br />
<br />
At very least, it seems unlikely that all aspects of BHR will advance at equal pace and degree. Parts of some sectors in business may go with some aspects of the BHR agenda (eg 'modern slavery' in supply chains), while not on others; we may see uptake on some measures (eg human rights due diligence in larger listed firms and financial houses), but little movement in areas such as access to remedy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course many would argue that because human rights are universal non-negotiable normative imperatives, emphasising the commercial advantages of investing in a human rights-consistent business is a wrong starting-place to 'motivate and justify' corporate engagement in human rights implementation.*** This is partly the thrust of a recent <i>Harvard Business Review </i>article entitled <i><b><a href="https://hbr.org/2017/09/we-shouldnt-always-need-a-business-case-to-do-the-right-thing">'We shouldn't always need a business case to do the right thing'</a>.</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think there is unarguably a business case for some kinds and sizes of firms to take the BHR agenda seriously. Demonstrating empirically that such action protects or creates commercial value is more difficult.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
* This comment relates to the federal government: the same reactionary approach to promoting sustainable and responsible business conduct is not necessarily true of state-level governments in the US, some of them major economies in their own right, such as California.<br />
** My previous posts on 'responsible business in a Trump era' are <b><i><u><a href="https://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/responsible-business-in-trump-era-ii.html">here</a></u></i></b> (February 2017) and <a href="http://privatesector-publicworld.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/trumping-responsible-sustainable.html"><i><b>here </b></i></a>(November 2016).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*** See Posner and Baumann-Pauly, 'Making the Business Case for Human Rights', in Baumann-Pauly and Nolan 2016, section 1.2.</div>
Jo Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769170940819994774noreply@blogger.com0