Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:49:29.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the roles of multi-stakeholder initiatives in advancing the business and human rights agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Scott Jerbi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growing reliance on ‘multi-stakeholder initiatives’ (MSIs) aimed at improving business performance with respect to specific human rights-related challenges has become a significant dimension of the evolving corporate responsibility agenda over recent decades. A number of such initiatives have developed in direct response to calls for greater state and corporate accountability in areas of weak governance and violent conflict. This article examines the evolution of key MSIs in light of the 2011 adoption of the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and addresses challenges facing these initiatives in the future.

Keywords

multi-stakeholder initiativesUN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Type
The Practice
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 94 , Issue 887: Business, violence and conflict , September 2012 , pp. 1027 - 1046
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Business and Human Rights: Mapping International Standards of Responsibility and Accountability for Corporate Acts, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/35, 19 February 2007, para. 53.

2 United Nations Sustainable Development, ‘United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21’, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992, available at: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf. All Internet references were accessed in 2012 unless otherwise stated.

3 Liliana B. Andonova, Boomerang to Partnerships? Explaining State Participation in Transnational Partnerships for Sustainability, paper prepared for Princeton University Conference on Research Frontiers in Comparative and International Environmental Politics, Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance, December 2011, available at: www.princeton.edu/∼pcglobal/conferences/environment/papers/andonova.doc.

4 See, for example, United Nations Global Compact, ‘Rio+20: action pledges by business kick off Rio drive for sustainability solutions’, 18 June 2012, available at: http://unglobalcompact.org/news/246-06-18-2012.

5 Büthe, Tim and Mattli, Walter, The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001, p. 5Google Scholar.

6 Peters, Anne, Koechlin, Lucy, Förster, Till, and Zinkernagel, Gretta Fenner, ‘Non-state actors as standard setters: framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion’, in Peters, Anne, Koechlin, Lucy, Förster, Till, and Zinkernagel, Gretta Fenner (eds), Non-State Actors as Standard Setters, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Pauly, Louis W., ‘Global finance, political authority, and the problem of legitimation’, in Hall, Rodney Bruce and Biersteker, Thomas J. (eds), The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 77Google Scholar.

8 Rory Truex and Tina Søreide, Why Multi-stakeholder Groups Succeed and Fail, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5495, Sustainable Development Network, Finance, Economics and Urban Development Unit, December 2010, p. 3, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/3977/WPS5495.txt?sequence=2.

9 Campbell, John L., ‘Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility’, in Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2007, pp. 946–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Fung, Archon, ‘Deliberative democracy and international labor standards’, in Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2003, pp. 51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Ibid., p. 67.

12 Ibid.

13 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘A grand strategy of network centrality’, in Fontaine, Richard and Lord, Kristin M. (eds), America's Path: Grand Strategy for the Next Administration, Center for American Security, May 2012, p. 54Google Scholar, available at: www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_AmericasPath_FontaineAndLord.pdf.

14 Rees, Caroline, Corporations and Human Rights: Accountability Mechanisms for Resolving Complaints and Disputes. Report of 2nd Multi-Stakeholder Workshop, 19–20 November 2007, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Report No. 27, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2008Google Scholar, available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/report_27_accountability%20mechanisms2.pdf.

15 See, for example, Anne-Marie Slaughter, ‘The future of foreign policy is public–private partnerships’, in CNN's Global Public Square Blogs, 25 November 2011, available at: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/25/slaughter-the-future-of-foreign-policy-is-public-private-partnerships/.

16 van Huijstee, Mariëtte, Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: a Strategic Guide for Civil Society Organizations, Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (Center for Research on Multinational Corporations), March 2012, p. 49Google Scholar, available at: http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3786.

17 For more information on the Ethical Trading Initiative, see: www.ethicaltrade.org.

18 See the Fair Labor Association (FLA) website: www.fairlabor.org.

19 FLA, ‘Apple joins FLA’, 13 January 2012, available at: www.fairlabor.org/blog/entry/apple-joins-fla.

20 For more information on the Global Network Initiative, see: www.globalnetworkinitiative.org.

21 For more information on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, see: www.voluntaryprinciples.org.

22 See, for example, Jon Mitchell, ‘British Petroleum finds oil – plus a war: Colombian rebels frequently target pipelines and rigs’, in Christian Science Monitor, 29 January 1997, available at: www.csmonitor.com/1997/0129/012997.econ.econ.1.html.

23 See, for example, Human Rights Watch, The Price of Oil: Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in Nigeria's Oil Producing Communities, January 1999Google Scholar, available at: www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/nigeria/nigeria0199.pdf.

24 Freeman, Bennett, Pica, Maria B., and Camponovo, Christopher N., ‘A new approach to corporate responsibility: the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights’, in Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 24, 2000–01, p. 427Google Scholar.

25 Carbonnier, Gilles, Brugger, Fritz, and Krause, Jana, ‘Global and local policy responses to the resource trap’, in Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, p. 252Google Scholar.

26 Börzel, Tanja A. and Hönke, Jana, From Compliance to Practice: Mining Companies and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo, SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, No. 25, Research Center (SFB) 700, Berlin, October 2011, p. 29Google Scholar, available at: www.sfb-governance.de/publikationen/sfbgov_wp/wp25/wp25.pdf?1325771404.

27 See Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, ‘Overview of company efforts to implement the Voluntary Principles’, Information Working Group, Company Implementation Report, available at: http://voluntaryprinciples.org/files/vp_company_efforts.pdf.

28 See Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, ‘The Initiative of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights: Governance Rules’, as approved by the Plenary on 16 September 2011, available at: www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/VPs_Governance_Rules_Final.pdf.

29 The Voluntary Principles Association, a non-profit organisation based in the Netherlands, was announced on 21 November 2012. The Association is intended to address administrative needs of the Voluntary Principles Initiative ‘in order to enhance the Initiative's capacity to pursue its objective of facilitating the collaborative work of companies, governments, and non-governmental organizations seeking to find solutions to complex security and human rights challenges’. See Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, ‘The Voluntary Principles Initiative announces the formation of the Voluntary Principles Association: new organization will facilitate efforts by extractive sector companies to protect human rights’, available at: www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/Voluntary_Principles_Association_Press_Release_-_November_21_2012.pdf.

30 See Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, ‘Summary of Proceedings, Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, Extraordinary Plenary Session’, Ottawa, Ontario, 16 September 2011, pp. 1–2, available at: www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/FHE-DC-130591-v1-VPs_Summary_of_Proceedings_Extraordinary_Plenary_Meeting.pdf.

31 See Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, ‘Chair's Summary of Proceedings, Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, Annual Plenary Meeting’, Ottawa, Ontario, 29 March 2012, p. 1, available at: www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/Summary_of_Proceedings_VPs_Plenary_March_2012.pdf.

32 More information on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is available at: http://eiti.org/.

33 As of November 2012, these include Azerbaijan, the Central African Republic, Ghana, the Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Timor-Leste, Yemen, and Zambia. See: http://eiti.org/countries.

34 As of November 2012, these include Afghanistan, Albania, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, the Republic of the Congo, São Tomé and Principe, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Togo, and Trinidad and Tobago. See: http://eiti.org/countries.

35 See Scanteam, Achievements and Strategic Options: Evaluation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Final Report, Oslo, May 2011, available at: http://eiti.org/files/2011-EITI-evaluation-report.pdf.

36 See, for example, Bracking, Sarah, Hiding Conflict over Industry Returns: a Stakeholder Analysis of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Brooks World Poverty Institute, Working Paper 91, University of Manchester, May 2009Google Scholar, available at: www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/resources/Working-Papers/bwpi-wp-9109.pdf.

37 Mouan, Liliane C., ‘Exploring the potential benefits of Asian participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative: the case of China’, in Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2010, pp. 367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Ibid.

39 See EITI, ‘President Obama: The US will implement the EITI’, 20 September 2011, available at: http://eiti.org/news-events/president-obama-us-will-implement-eiti#.

40 For more information on the Kimberly Process initiative, see: www.kimberleyprocess.com.

41 See, for example, UNSC Res. S/RES/1173, 12 June 1998 (concerning Angola), and S/RES/1306, 5 July 2000 (concerning Sierra Leone and Liberia).

42 UNGA Res. A/RES/55/56, 29 January 2001, on ‘The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts’.

43 UNSC Res. S/RES/1459, 28 January 2003.

44 World Trade Organisation, ‘Waiver concerning Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds’, Doc. G/C/W/432/Rev.1, 24 February 2003.

45 Lehr, Amy, ‘Old and new governance approaches to conflict minerals: all are better than one’, in Harvard International Law Journal Online, Vol. 52, Article Series: November 2010, p. 159Google Scholar, available at: www.harvardilj.org/2010/11/online_52_lehr/.

46 Global Witness, ‘Why we are leaving the Kimberley Process – a message from Global Witness Founding Director Charmian Gooch’, 5 December 2011, available at: www.globalwitness.org/library/why-we-are-leaving-kimberley-process-message-global-witness-founding-director-charmian-gooch.

47 Kimberley Process Administrative Decision on Marange (Zimbabwe), Doc. 001/2011, 1 November 2011, available at: www.kimberleyprocess.com/documents/10540/40001/2011%20-%20AD31%20Marange%20%28Zimbabwe%29.pdf?version=1.1&t=1327595170000.

48 Global Witness, ‘Global Witness leaves Kimberley Process, calls for diamond trade to be held accountable’, Press Release, 5 December 2011, available at: www.globalwitness.org/library/global-witness-leaves-kimberley-process-calls-diamond-trade-be-held-accountable.

49 Kimberley Process Certification Scheme Core Document, Section I, ‘Definitions’, available at: www.kimberleyprocess.com/documents/10540/11192/KPCS%20Core%20Document?version=1.0&t=1331826363000.

50 See, for example, Naren Karunakaran and Ahona Ghosh, ‘Diamond trade versus human rights’, in Economic Times, 19 June 2012, available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-19/news/32317729_1_conflict-diamonds-blood-diamonds-kimberley-process-certification-scheme.

51 Ibid.

52 Kimberley Process, p. 4, available at: www.kimberleyprocess.com/documents/10540/49668/Milovanovic.pdf.

53 UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011, available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/121/90/PDF/G1112190.pdf?OpenElement.

54 UN Human Rights Council Resolution on ‘Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/17/4, 6 July 2011, para. 5.

55 Norway's statement is available at: www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/statements-norway-uk-business-human-rights-16-jun-2011.pdf.

56 See UN Human Rights Council, above note 54.

57 Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/29, 10 April 2012, para. 75.

58 See UN Human Rights Council, above note 53, Principle 30, p. 26.

59 Ibid., Principle 30, Commentary.

60 See FLA, ‘Third party complaint process’, available at: www.fairlabor.org/third-party-complaint-process.

61 See Charter for the Oversight Mechanism for the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, 2013, available at: http://www.icoc-psp.org/uploads/ICoC_Articles_of_Association.pdf.

62 John G. Ruggie, ‘Keynote Remarks at Extraordinary Plenary Voluntary Principles on Security & Human Rights Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade, Ottawa, Canada, 15 September 2011’, available at: http://voluntaryprinciples.org/files/Ruggie_Speech_VPs_September_2011.pdf.

63 See the ISEAL Alliance website at: www.isealalliance.org.

64 See the MSI Integrity website at: http://www.msi-integrity.org/.

65 Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, ‘Recommendations on follow-up to the mandate’, 11 February 2011, available at: http://business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-special-mandate-follow-up-11-feb-2011.pdf.

66 UN Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/21/5, 16 October 2012, para. 11 requests ‘the Secretary-General to undertake a feasibility study to explore the establishment of a global fund to enhance the capacity of stakeholders to advance the implementation of the Guiding Principles … the conclusions should be presented to the Human Rights Council and included in the report of the Secretary-General in June 2014’.