Protect, Respect and Remedy: what does Ruggie's framework mean for ethical trade?
Following a long, and at times difficult, period of consultation and development, the United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Professor John Ruggie, has produced his final report on Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. This is a significant landmark and should cause all businesses whose activities have a real or potential impact on human rights to sit up and take notice.
Professor Ruggie started his work in 2005 and put forward his draft "Protect, Respect and Remedy" framework in 2008; which was unanimously accepted by the UN Human Rights Council and has been adopted by a range of public and private actors since. Three main principles:
- Protect - the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication
- Respect - the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing the rights of others and to address adverse impacts that occur; and
- Remedy - both State and business responsibility to provide greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial.
A key point to make about the Framework is that it does not establish any new legal obligations on companies or States - an issue that has given rise to some conflict with parts of civil society. The core rights which are being supported through the framework are those found in a range of international instruments, from the International Bill of Rights, through to the ILO core labour standards. What the Guiding Principles seek to do is to provide guidance on how respective parties should operationalise the Protect, Respect and Remedy framework.
The framework is, however, already having an impact on the revision of a number of important standards, including the IFC Performance Standards, the forthcoming revisions to OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and ISO26000. The latter standard, an important step forward in attempts to try and codify the broad range of sustainability standards which have emerged over the last decade, in a number of instances almost copies out the Protect, Respect and Remedy framework and its implementing steps.
While many of the scenarios the Ruggie team have been addressing relate to the direct impact on human rights of a business's own operations, for example security operations around mines, it is important to note that the framework refers explicitly to supply chains. The Guiding Principles give a range of broad suggestions for the steps which forward-thinking companies can carry out in relation to their human rights footprint. Those who think that there is nothing to be learned from the Framework in relation to labour rights and supply chains are likely to be very wrong.
A core subset of the Guiding Principles relates to the establishment and implementation of due diligence processes. For the supply chain environment, this probably implies regularly reviewing major risks through information sources and stakeholder engagement and not solely relying on audits. Indeed, there are a whole range questions about the future development of workplace auditing - some of which have been expressed by other bloggers on this site - it is certainly the case that audits can be better used to contribute to the due diligence and impact assessment process anticipated in the Guiding Principles. However, many would agree that there could be many more steps taken to improve risk assessment, including better country-level information sources, and better intelligence-led targeting of resources and response. This is only if we restrict ourselves to the labour-related human rights issues, if we start to move to gender, health, water, education and the like there are is room for much wider developments.
A core part of the proposals and the principles relate to the development of non-judicial mechanisms to seek to resolve grievances. This is an area in relation to which there is certainly a lot of work to be done. The Guiding Principles reinforce the importance of State-based and other mechanisms, such as those contained in collective agreements, but specifically states that industry, multi stakeholder and other collaborative groups should ‘ensure that effective grievance mechanisms are available'.
The principles underpinning an effective grievance mechanism are that it should be: legitimate; accessible; predictable; equitable; transparent; rights-compatible; a source of continuous learning; based on engagement and dialogue. In her analysis of a range of initiatives and their grievance mechanisms, Harvard's Caroline Rees, a key member of Professor Ruggie's team, eloquently sets out a critique of the different models currently adopted and shows up a range of shortcomings. Based on her analysis, organisations like ETI, with its ‘closed' member-to-member mechanism, currently falls some degree short of the expectations in the Guiding Principles. Others, such as that developed by the Fair Labor Association and the UK National Contact Point on the OECD guidelines go a long way to meeting the standards and the recently launched grievance mechanism for the London 2012 Olympic Games, which was developed by Ergon, has been specifically based on the Principles and wide stakeholder consultation.
What is certainly the case is that many organisations will seek to carry out gap analyses against the Guiding Principles in the coming months and years, either driven directly by reference to the Principles or indirectly by reference to standards like ISO26000 and the IFC Performance Standards. It will certainly be interesting to see the degree to which the Principles - which are already having influence in extractive industries, oil and gas and other high cost, high impact projects - start to influence the world of sustainable supply chains, where a particular model of audit-led compliance focussed on labour issues has dominated for the last decade. There is a good chance that it will contribute to more transparent systems with a greater emphasis on problem solving and dialogue, than investigation and compliance.
Lessons emerging from Tesco's pilot of the principles
1 year 10 months ago
Some may not be aware that Tesco was the only retailer to pilot the principles of grievance mechanisms, among some of its supplier farms in South Africa. It's interesting to note their experience that workers must be empowered from the start - in other words there's no point having a fantastic mechanism if its intended beneficiaries are unaware of it, or of their rights.
Julia Hawkins, ETI
re Supply Chain
Steve Gibbons (not verified)
2 years 2 weeks ago
Hansje. Excellent question. I don’t think that the principles are restricted to the first tier of suppliers. The Principles talk about the need for businesses to respect human rights throughout their activities, which encompass “entities in its value chain”. Which entities and the level of suppliers are covered by this will depend on the business’s own assessment of risk, since the framework suggests that companies should carry out a human rights impact assessment or equivalent process, to determine likely risks of human rights issues arising that are either directly related to their own activities or the degree to which the business directly or indirectly causes any adverse impacts. The business should then assess the extent of its leverage in addressing those impacts (see paragraph 19 of the principles).
While this process may often mean that first tier suppliers most obviously fall in scope, it is not necessarily the case that they will do so. There may be instances where there is a clear and direct link to lower tier suppliers or suppliers of raw materials which could be addressed by appropriate action, which may involve collaboration with others. As Professor Ruggie puts it, “leverage may be increased by, for example, offering capacity-building or other incentives... or collaborating with other actors”.
Sorry to respond with an answer of “it depends”, especially when you raised such a direct question.
Hansje van der Zwaan (not verified)
2 years 1 month ago
My impression is that Ruggie confines the supply chain to only the first tier suppliers by stating that companies should seek to prevent adverse human rights impacts that are "directly linked to their operations, products or services." (principle 13 b) What are your views on this?