Studying Business & Human Rights: 10 topics

Year-end brings its 'top-ten' lists in many areas. The 'business and human rights' field is no different. This was the IHRB's top 10 list of issues for 2016, published in December 2015. The institute has been soliciting inputs for this December (for 2017).

What are 10 important and/or interesting topics for student research projects on BHR?

I've recently completed delivering a new online Masters course in BHR. I produced a nominal longer list of essay topics for students, relating to the course content.

As with the IHRB list, those interested in this field will no doubt debate what should or should not be on a list of 'top 10 topics'. Some caveats: (a) a list of ten doctoral projects would look different -- this list relates to shorter student essays of about 5-8 thousand words; (b) BHR needs more country-, sector-, scheme- and supply chain-specific research, in particular directed towards business awareness and responses to the BHR agenda -- this list is more about conceptual issues and debates than topics for that sort of primary fieldwork; (c) listing good essay topics is not the same as suggesting that these are the ten most important things for a BHR course to cover; since it is about academic insight or study, nor is the list the same as saying 'these are the 10 most important, 10 most unclear or disputed, 10 most neglected, etc'; (d) the list, like the course, has a law and regulation focus: the self-consciously and inevitably inter-disciplinary BHR field still needs good intra-disciplinary work; (e) this is not held out as the top-ten just a top-ten... 

Here then is one list of 10 essay-length questions for students of BHR within a law school context:

1.  'Do mandatory schemes hold more regulatory promise in the BHR field than voluntary ones, or is this a false dichotomy?'

2. 'What, if anything, is the difference between an 'adverse impact' on human rights and a human rights violation? What are the implications of the UNGPs' use of the term 'adverse impact' for one's ability to offer businesses clear advice about the content and limits of their responsibilities?'

3. 'How, if at all, do you think the 2008/2011 UNGPs framework offers clear principles that deal with a situation where a business operation complies with its Pillar II responsibilities in all its operations but is invested in a country with a poor human rights record?'

4. 'What is the nature and extent of, and evidence for, any duty of the state to regulate the human rights impact of corporate actors abroad? Discuss, differentiating any duties in international human rights law from any duties relating to the law governing state responsibility.'

5. 'If the Talisman scenario were to arise today, how would Pillar I of the UNGPs affect what you think would be an appropriate governmental response?'

6. 'How do you define 'modern slavery'? How would you advise a corporate client on where the threshold lies between 'slavery and slavery-like practices' and employment practices that, while problematic, do not raise international human rights standards?'

7. 'What do you see as some of the wider implications for the concept of 'human rights compliance' of the trend towards corporate / financial due diligence processes?'

8. 'How would a BHR treaty / treaties most effectively and viably deal with Pillar III (access to remedy) issues? What are some models or approaches based on existing human rights (and other) treaty regimes?'

9. 'Which of these two statements do you agree with, and why? (i) "The treaty process an unhelpful distraction from national-level BHR actions by states" and (ii) "The treaty process is a necessary aspect of addressing the governance gap."'

10. 'How credibly and effectively, and with what strategic consequences, can the BHR narrative (and UNGPs standards applicable to states and businesses) be linked to other major contemporary social issues such as climate change or corporate taxpaying?'

  

Trumping the responsible business agenda

What would a Trump presidency mean for the responsible and sustainable business agenda? 

Even as we question the limits of expert analysis, it keeps pouring in following Donald Trump's remarkable US presidential election victory, coming as it did with Republican capture of both legislative houses.

Well, here is my small contribution (on the issue that I follow).

Overall I think that it is hard to envisage a Trump administration pushing for governmental and regulatory action on the overall sustainability agenda, and on promoting corporate responsibility and accountability.

For instance, a Business and Human Rights 'National Action Plan' is not something one would imagine near the top of any policy agenda.

Yet there are two related points that might be made:

1. Overstating government

Perhaps we sometimes overstate the relative significance of formal institutional regulatory and policy initiatives to the furtherance of this agenda, or at least to preventing, solving and remedying adverse human rights impacts of business activity where these are a risk or reality.

In this sense, this election result may not derail or detain that agenda as significantly as one might suppose. Human rights promotion, level playing fields for responsible firms, remedial avenues, etc cannot be left to non-governmental actors. But governments cannot do everything. Without promoting an abdication of governmental roles and responsibilities, in the Business and Human Rights / corporate sustainability / responsible business field it may be that we have all focused too heavily on what governments ought to do, relative to alternate or parallel strategies to transform fundamental market and consumer incentives, mindsets, behaviours and patterns in ways that might engender faster and more profound change.

...

2. Under-estimating business

Perhaps we can (or must...) see this outcome as an opportunity to explore further the many vital and vitalised vectors and avenues for corporate, civic and consumer actions (and coalitions thereof) that do not necessarily rely on government to lead or steer.

Indeed the existence of a reluctant or recalcitrant or reclusive government on this score might indeed stimulate all sorts of unexpected enlightened activity in this sphere, often led by business and investors. This may include a greater convergence of the BHR agenda with core commercial ideas about value-creation, productivity, competitiveness and so on.

...

In short, it is not necessarily all bad news.

(There is also the question of whether / how any deceleration and adjustment on global and regional free trade agendas might affect that emerging body of work on the intersections between trade and investment regimes, corporations, and human rights.)

Jo

More generally ...

Its been nearly two months since my last blog-post -- a reflection of just how much information and analysis is 'out there', a volume and pace that does not necessarily make for better-quality decisions.

I can only use the fact of this time-lapse as a metaphor for a point made in some earlier posts about the proliferation of initiatives and normative and reporting frameworks relating to sustainable, responsible and accountable business in society (here is an example).

This flurry of activity is hard to criticise, yet should not be an end in itself, can lead to new indirect definitions of 'compliance' in business & human rights terms, and does not necessarily help us solve the underlying problems.