Adam B. Greene Vice President, Labor Affairs / Corporate Responsibility & Governance

UNITED STATES COUNCIL FOR

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

IOE Global Industrial Relations NetworkBusiness & Human Rights

Scotiabank, Toronto, CanadaApril 24-25, 2013April 24-25, 2013

Adam B. GreeneVice President, Labor Affairs / Corporate Responsibility & Governance

April 24-25, 2013

IOE Global Industrial Relations Network

UN Framework on Business & Human Rights

State duty to protect:

– Respect rights, establish laws, implement and enforce them

Corporate responsibility to respect:

– Comply with all applicable laws

– Proactive actions beyond compliance

Access to remedies:

– Access to (functioning) courts

– Other mechanisms: consultations, engagement

2 April 24-25, 2013


Endorsed by the UN in June, 2011

Recommendations to implement the “Protect, Respect, Remedy” framework

Apply to all States and all enterprises, regardless of size, sector, location, ownership or structure

Do not create any new international laws or obligations: “Not law – logic”

Set the new international benchmark on corporate responsibility

UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights

3 April 24-25, 2013


Not infringe on the human rights of others

– Starts with legal compliance

Avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts through own activities; and

Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts directly linked to company through business relationships

– Even if they have not contributed to those impacts

Corporate Responsibility to Respect

4 April 24-25, 2013

“Avoid” = control (you are responsible for impacts)

“Seek to” = leverage (supplier is responsible for impacts)


Supply Chain Responsibility

“The responsibility of business to respect human rights applies to all enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure.”

Enterprises with large numbers of suppliers are not expected to conduct due diligence on all of them

Appropriate action with suppliers will depend on:

– Your leverage with the supplier

– The importance of the relationship

– The severity of the supplier’s impacts, and

– The potential negative impacts caused by terminating the relationship

5 April 24-25, 2013


OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011):

– includes a new chapter on human rights based on the Guiding Principles

ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility (2010):

– Human rights and implementation text modified to make it consistent with the Guiding Principles

International Finance Corporation (2011)

– Guiding Principles reflected in the revised IFC Sustainability Framework and Performance Standards

EU Strategy on CSR (2011-2014):

– Expects EU enterprises to follow the Guiding Principles

Influence of the UN Guiding Principles

6 April 24-25, 2013


Governments: UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guiding Principles in June 2011

Business: IOE, ICC and BIAC endorsed the Guiding Principles

Trade Unions: ITUC endorsed the Guiding principles as a “far better approach than the usual CSR activities”

X NGOs: GP’s are a “starting point” but “are incomplete in important respects and do not fully embody the core human rights principles”

Endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles

7 April 24-25, 2013


Governments: no new treaty, keeps issue moving

Business: recommendations - not new treaty, clear distinction between role of States and companies, applies to all countries and companies (not just MNE’s); and clear limits on supply chain responsibility

Trade Unions: linked to international standards, including ILO Declaration, takes basis out of company CSR policies, see broad scope on supply chains

X NGOs: wanted an international treaty with direct liability on companies for human rights abuses – i.e. the so-called “UN Norms”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

8 April 24-25, 2013


Global Unions are redefining the GP’s

How do GPs & OECD Guidelines differ from CSR?

– The ‘national law and practice’ escape clause is closed – the question: “Is it legal?” is not relevant!

– Where human rights are concerned international human rights standards are the reference - not national law!

– ‘Expectations’, ‘aspirations’ etc. are replaced with real-world impact, defined responsibilities and a specified course of action

– The ‘sphere of influence’ is replaced with a broad but concrete definition of the business relationships within which action is required as a part of ‘human rights due diligence’

9 April 24-25, 2013


Global Union views: Supply Chains

IMPACT replaces ‘sphere of influence’, and requires ACTION within a defined network of ‘business relationships’ and the ‘supply chain’

Responsibility of a company for any adverse impacts on the part of business partners is clear

Business partners clearly fall within the sphere of the business relationships/supply chain within which human rights due diligence must be exercised, as do agency/contract workers

– “In the absence of an employment relationship, enterprises are nevertheless expected to [follow] risk-based due diligence and supply chain recommendations.” OECD MNE Guidelines

10 April 24-25, 2013


Global Union views: Agency Workers

Most company human rights policies are guided by international human rights standards – what’s wrong?

– The reference to the international human rights instruments that guide the policy is selective

What are the real or potential human rights risks of agency labor? Do they involve human rights risks attributable to a Company, or are they limited to risk by association?

Agency work conforms to the ILO definition of a ‘disguised employment relationship’ undermining rights and protection – ILO Recommendation 198

11 April 24-25, 2013


Global Union views: Agency Workers

Inequality of treatment between permanent and non-permanent employees violates international human rights commitments

It is a violation of international human rights commitments to maintain temporary and agency workers working alongside permanent workers in a situation of permanent precariousness

Under the OECD Guidelines, companies have an obligation to work towards the progressive realization of rights.

12 April 24-25, 2013


Global Union views: Precarious Employment

The GP’s & OECD Guidelines for the first time specify the (minimum) instruments defining States’ and corporations’ international human rights obligations

Human rights apply to all workers – they cannot be restricted in the name of “seasonality”, “flexibility”, or diminished as a consequence of a triangular employment relationship or ‘temporary’ contracts

The use of precarious employment beyond what can be established to be necessary for legitimate purposes puts companies at risk of violating fundamental human and trade union rights

13 April 24-25, 2013


Global Union views: Precarious Employment

Performing human rights due diligence means minimizing actual and potential risk of human rights violations by reducing the extent of precarious work

Companies must demonstrate that they are moving away from precarious employment to promoting more stable and secure jobs by entering into negotiations with trade unions for the progressive reduction of precarious employment

Companies should engage in continuous monitoring, together with trade unions, of the use of precarious employment in their own operations as well as in those of their suppliers and contract manufacturers

14 April 24-25, 2013


Example: Forest Stewardship Council

2008 – Motion proposed & seconded by various European unions is passed by FSC General Assembly requiring that organizations must comply with “at least the core ILO conventions” in order to be awarded any type of FSC certificates.

FSC will only allow its association with organizations that are not directly or indirectly involved in the following unacceptable activities…

− “Violation of any of the ILO Core Conventions1

− 1As defined in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work”

15 April 24-25, 2013


Compromise text agreed - then rejected In addition, the signing Organization recognizes that the

principles established by the International Labor Organization through the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (the “Principles”) serve to guide governments in the protection of the basic rights of workers without defining a uniform path for every nation to follow. Based upon these Principles, and consistent with applicable national law, rights, regulations, and administrative/judicial rules and procedures , the signing Organization shall respect:

a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor;

c) the effective abolition of child labor; and

d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

16 April 24-25, 2013


AFL-CIO Report: “Responsibility Outsourced”

“systematic failure by the "corporate social responsibility" industry to protect abused workers in supply chains of multinational companies”

"The whitewash of corporate-financed workplace audits is starting to fade fast, and this landmark report calls time on a failed system which has done nothing to help workers in some of the most exploitative parts of multinational production chains” Sharan Burrow

“Initiatives run by workers have had a positive impact, but company-financed initiatives have often followed the outsourcing model of the very companies they are supposed to police”

17 April 24-25, 2013


Adam B. GreeneVice President, Labor Affairs / Corporate Responsibility & GovernanceUnited States Council for International Business (USCIB)1212 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2100, New York, NY 10036 USAEmail: [email protected] / Office: +1-212-703-5056 / Mobile: +1-917-318-1795

Thank You

18 April 24-25, 2013

Documents

Adam B. Greene Vice President, Labor Affairs / Corporate Responsibility & Governance