Doing Business Right Blog

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

Doing Business Right – Monthly Report – July & August 2019 - By Maisie Biggs

17. September 2019 Antoine Duval (0)

Editor's note: Maisie Biggs graduated with a MSc in Global Crime, Justice and Security from the University of Edinburgh and holds a LLB from University College London. She is currently working with the Asser Institute in The Hague. She has previously worked for International Justice Mission in South Asia and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) in Amsterdam.

 

Introduction

This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on Doing Business Right based on the coverage provided on our twitter feed @DoinBizRight and on various websites. You are invited to contribute to this compilation via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we may have overlooked.

 

The Headlines

Revised Draft of Treaty on Human Rights and TNCs has been published

The Revised Draft has been released here by the Permanent Mission of Ecuador. The Draft comes ahead of the intergovernmental negotiations to be held at the 5th session of Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (OEIGWG). For further comment and context, see Larry Catá Backer's blog, the BHRRC's debate the treaty section on the revised draft, as well as the BHRJ Blog's series on the revised draft.

Business Roundtable redefined the group’s Purpose of a Corporation 

A prominent group of business leaders has redefined its purpose of a corporation to include stakeholder interests. In a statement signed by 181 CEO members of the Business Roundtable, an American group of business leaders, the statement of “the purpose of a corporation” has been altered from the long-standing commitment to shareholder primacy, to a broader ‘Commitment to All Stakeholders’. The change was announced in an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal and signed by 181 members, including the business leaders of Amazon, American Airlines, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Marriott, Lockheed Martin, Morgan Stanley, UPS, and Walmart.

Chairman of Business Roundtable and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, explained in the release: “The American dream is alive, but fraying. Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”

This reconceptualisation of the purpose of corporations has been met with cautious enthusiasm; however, the statement has no bearing on the legal obligations of the signatories, and whether this materially alters business conduct by the signatories’ companies is yet to be seen.

The ‘Business Roundtable Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation’ can be found here.

UK Supreme Court to hear Okpabi case against Shell

The Supreme Court has granted permission for Nigerian communities to appeal their case concerning environmental degradation against Royal Dutch Shell. Previously the Court of Appeals rejected jurisdiction for the claimants, however the Court’s reasoning was fundamentally undermined by the subsequent Supreme Court judgement in Vedanta. See our previous post here concerning how these cases are related, and how Vedanta has paved the way for jurisdiction to be found in the Okpabi case. See the statement by Leigh Day, working with the appellants, here.

In another case concerning the liability of a UK parent company for harms perpetrated abroad by a subsidiary that hinged on jurisdiction, the Supreme Court refused permission in AAA v Unilever PLC for Unilever subsidiary employees to appeal. Leigh Day have announced they will now move to file cases with the UN Working Group and the OECD.

Samsung France indicted for deceptive commercial practices for not abiding by CSR statements

NGOs Sherpa and ActionAid France have successfully obtained an indictment against Samsung France for deceptive commercial practices. Preliminary charges were lodged in April by a Paris investigating magistrate in the first French case in which ethical commitments have been recognised as likely to constitute commercial practice.

The organisations argue that public ethical commitments by Samsung to workers' rights were misleading, citing alleged labour abuses and child labour in factories in China, South Korea and Vietnam. The case represents a novel approach to litigating extraterritorial business human rights abuses; even in the aforementioned Vedanta case in the UK, there was a similar (brief) suggestion that CSR-style public commitments could be actionable.

Guatemalan shooting victims announce settlement with Pan American Silver in Canada

It has been announced that landmark 2017 Canadian case Garcia v. Tahoe Resources has been resolved between the parties. The case concerned remedy for 2013 shooting of protesters by Tahoe Resources mine security on April 27, 2013 outside Tahoe’s Escobal Mine in south-east Guatemala. The resolution included a public apology from Pan American Silver, who acquired Tahoe Resources earlier this year, while other terms of the settlement remain confidential. Settlements were reached with three of the claimants earlier, but the remaining four only settled on 30 July when PAS issued a public apology and acknowledgement of the violation of their human rights by Tahoe.

In 2017, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed jurisdiction over the case in Canada, finding that the “highly politicized environment” surrounding the mine meant that there was a “real risk” that the plaintiffs would not obtain justice in Guatemala, permitting the claimants to use the Canadian forum. The head of security for the mine is also facing criminal proceedings in Guatemala.

Remedy being reached has led to celebration from commentators, however no further legal precedent has been set than that from the 2017 appeal, so it might have limited value for future claimants. It has been surmised that settlement was reached because of the overwhelming evidence in the case: video footage from security cameras showed protestors being shot in the back as they fled the mine site.

See also: The Guardian – Brazilian mining company to pay out £86m for disaster that killed almost 300 people and San Francisco Chronicle – Suit alleging US chocolate makers collaborated in slave labor proceeds for US developments.

 

UN and International Organisations Publications and Statements

NGOs, NHRIs, CSOs and Human Rights Organisations Publications and Statements 

Government Press Releases and Publications

In Court

In the News

Academic Materials

Blogs           

Call for Papers, Submissions and Abstracts

Upcoming Events

Comments are closed
Doing Business Right Blog | Accountability for the exploitation of North Korean workers in the Shipbuilding Industry through Dutch Criminal Law – By Imke B.L.H. van Gardingen

Doing Business Right Blog

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

Accountability for the exploitation of North Korean workers in the Shipbuilding Industry through Dutch Criminal Law – By Imke B.L.H. van Gardingen

26. November 2018 Antoine Duval (0)

Editor’s note: Imke B.L.H. van Gardingen (LLM Int. and EU labour law, MA Korean Studies) is a policy advisor on labour migration at the Dutch Federation of Trade Unions (FNV) and a researcher on DPRK overseas labour.

 

On November 8, 2018 a North Korean overseas worker who had worked in slave like conditions for a Polish shipyard, a supplier of a Dutch shipbuilding company, has filed a criminal complaint against the Dutch firm. The Dutch Penal Code, article 273f(6), includes a provision criminalizing the act of ‘profiting’ from labour exploitation, targeting not the direct perpetrators in the labour exploitation, but the ones profiting from this exploitation. This is a unique case that aims to hold the company at the top of the chain accountable for modern slavery in its supply chain. A chain that in the case of shipbuilding is rather short; the buyer subcontracts the core business of building the complete hull under detailed instructions cheaply abroad.

Research on DPRK workers in Poland
The case of the DPRK workers in two Polish shipyards was brought to light in two reports, published by the LeidenAsiaCentre (available online here and here), a research institute affiliated with Leiden University.[1] In this research we demonstrated how well documented the case of the exploitation of DPRK workers in Poland is. Due to EU-mandated minute record-keeping and frequent inspections by the labour inspectorate, a very precise picture was obtained of how the workers work, live, and are managed. How they are or are not paid and who their actual or paper employers were, as well as under what specific circumstances they work. In both reports it was established that the working conditions and the situation of DPRK workers amount to labour exploitation. What makes the EU case particularly interesting is that the rights of migrant workers in the EU are quite well protected, at least on paper. This offers interesting angles to explore concrete routes in the context of the EU legal arena.[2]

Explanation of the case
DPRK workers are recruited in North Korea to work overseas. The selection criteria range from being a loyal party member to being married and preferably having children to secure the risk of defection. Only shortly before departure do the workers receive information on the country they will go to; the travel is arranged for and mostly through North Korean embassies abroad. Upon arrival the workers hand in their passports and start working right away without ever receiving a working contract, having a bank account or obtaining knowledge on the working conditions and height of the salary. The workers are mostly employed by a DPRK company registered in Poland or a Polish-North Korean joint venture and detached to other companies, which is often illegal according to their working permits. As contractors, the DPRK companies of the joint ventures receive payment for the assignment. A fraction of that amount is paid to the workers. There is a wide gap between the formal monthly payment, of which the payslips with falsified signatures are included in the labour inspection report, and the payment the workers actually receive. The payment is irregular, sometimes once a month, but mostly not. Also the amount of the payment is variable, it can range from a few dollars to a few hundred dollars a month, minus arbitrary deductions for housing, but also party loyalty fees. The Labour Inspectorate has often reported hazardous working situations, and also documented one fatal accident where none of the required safety measures were met. Workers live in poor conditions; too cramped, moisty with fungus causing headaches, without proper washing facilities so workers had to wash on the working site. Excessive overwork is common as workers are presented as never having to take a rest and as being able to work continuously, day and night 7 days a week. And being DPRK citizens, they are not free to leave from the worksite, nor to anyplace else.

All in all, it is safe to conclude that the labour of DPRK workers in Poland can be labelled as ‘forced labour’, as is also confirmed by the Polish labour inspectorate in the documentaries ‘Cash for Kim’ and ‘Dollar Heroes’ (produced by the Why Foundation in a series called ‘Why Slavery’), the UN special rapporteur on DPRK and the US report  on human trafficking. The question then is who can be held accountable for violating the labour and human rights of DPRK workers and account for the profits made as a consequence of these violations.[3] The DPRK supplying the workers, the direct or indirect employers as the perpetrators, subsidiaries or business partners giving the orders and profiting from it, or all of them? The issue of liability can shift from fault based liability to strict liability, which could be justified by the fact that all the parties involved profited from –intolerable - slave labour.

Our first and second report on DPRK labour in Poland have shown that Polish Shipbuilding companies in Gdynia and in Szczecin work together closely with Dutch Shipbuilding partners on financing vessels, supplying parts, project management, technical know-how, security, obtaining quality certificates and sharing EU funding.[4] The cases offer sufficient proof of close partnership and cooperation. The key question is whether in the case of proved abuse and labour exploitation, the Dutch legal framework can be used to hold the partner companies accountable. If so, companies could also be held accountable for criminal offenses if the exploitation is deemed severe enough to fulfil the conditions enshrined in Article 273 of the Dutch Penal Code, and specifically Article 273f(6), criminalising ‘profiting from the exploitation of a person’. Prof. Ryngaert from Utrecht University believes it is a very real possibility. He states,

It is the territorial benefit which a corporation draws from exploitive practices, regardless of location, that serves as the jurisdictional linchpin. Accordingly, Article 273f(6) of the Dutch Penal Code creates opportunities to trigger Dutch jurisdiction over corporations linked to acts of exploitation somewhere down the supply chain, and ultimately hold them liable.[5]

In terms of liability he argues,

In general however, it can be stated that a corporation's liability will be engaged when it consciously accepted the risk that the goods it bought were produced in substandard conditions, including conditions of labour exploitation, even if the corporations did not intend such conditions to occur, and if the corporation did not have positive knowledge of the conditions

It is now up to the Dutch Prosecution Office whether they will take up the case and prosecute the suspected Dutch company for ‘profiting’ from labour exploitation. There will be legal counter-arguments raised, but other considerations will undoubtably also play a role. Such as the lack of capacity at the Dutch prosecution office that is severely understaffed, pressure from politicians and businesses who might prioritize short term economic interests. In any event, it will be an important and interesting case to follow. For the value of this case in particular, but  also for the window it might open for other cases in which workers are exploited to the benefit of the corporations sitting at the top of the chain.

A recent Dutch judgment from May 2018 is interesting in this respect, it involved the managing director of a Dutch large shipping company who was held liable for wrongdoings happening in –amongst other places- Bangladesh and who was sentenced to a fine of €50.000 and disqualified from his profession for a year.[6] Primarily, this case focussed on environmental offenses. The managing director violated ‘the stipulations of the European Regulation (EG) Nr. 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and the council of 14 June 2006 with regard to the transfer of waste materials (EWSR).’[7] But the following considerations are also included in the judgment and have played an important role in it:

Besides, the working conditions are appalling. The ships are manually scrapped by untrained labourers, who do not have the knowledge and expertise to recognize hazardous materials to take precautions and to follow procedures and who do not get sufficient protective clothing and auxiliary materials either. With such scrapping practices, several people are killed annually. Moreover, there is still child labour in the scrapping companies in Bangladesh.
The suspect has closed his eyes to this problem, of which certainly he as an executive director of a large shipping company must have been aware. With his considerations, he obviously only has had eyes for the commercial interest of the companies for which he was responsible.[8]

Furthermore, the judges concluded in their judgment:

‘[…] a fine in itself does not do justice to the severity of the facts. That is why a disqualification from his profession for the duration of one year will be imposed on the suspect. That also expresses the social importance that should be attached to an integer management. The suspect in particular, as CFO of a large company, who also bears final responsibility for the management, may be expected to take the additional social consequences of the performance of his tasks into consideration beside the business economic consequences of his decision, such as in this case the negative consequences for the environment and the health of the labourers in the shipbreaking yards. [9]

The suspect was therefore convicted of a ‘fine of €50,000,-, in default of full payment and full recovery to be replace by 285 days of detention’ and imposed ‘as an additional punishment on the suspect a disqualification of the right to practice the profession of (direct or indirect) executive director, supervisory board member, advisor or employee with a shipping company of any part thereof, such for the duration of 1 (one) year.’[10]


To conclude, the criminal complaint of the North Korean worker is potentially a ground-breaking complaint to enhance the accountability of Dutch corporations for labour exploitation occurring in their supply chains. The ball is now in the court of the prosecutor’s office, it’s up to them to decide whether they choose to let the corporations off the hook or to tackle the issue of slavery and forced labour in supply chains head-on by criminalising the irresponsible behaviour of certain corporations.


[1] Remco Breuker & Imke van Gardingen (eds.), North Korean Forced Labour in the EU, the Polish case: How the Supply of a Captive DPRK workforce fits our demand for cheap labour, Leiden: LeidenAsiaCentre, 2016; Remco Breuker & Imke van Gardingen (eds.), People for Profit; North Korean Forced Labour on a Global Scale, Leiden: LeidenAsiaCentre, 2018.

[2] The conclusions are substantiated in detail in a chapter forthcoming and to be published by Seoul National University.

[3] This question of accountability also raised and examined in more detail in the report, People for Profit, See Imke van Gardingen, ‘Accountability for DPRK Workers in the Value Chain: The Case of Partner Shipyard, a Polish Shipbuilder and its Dutch Partners’, p. 12-42

[4] The case study on Partner Shipyard and the possible legal routes, is extensively laid out in People for Profit, See Imke van Gardingen, ‘Accountability for DPRK Workers in the Value Chain: The Case of Partner Shipyard, a Polish Shipbuilder and its Dutch Partners’, p. 12-42

[5] See Cedric Ryngaert, ‘Domestic Criminal Accountability for Dutch Corporations Profiting from North Korean Forced Labour,’ in People for profit. p. 201

[6] Judgment of the court of Rotterdam, three-judge economic division for criminal matters, Court of Rotterdam, date of judgment: 15-03-2018, case number: 10/994550-15, p. 1 (translated version)

[7] Ibid., p. 2

[8] Ibid., p. 34

[9] Ibid., p. 35

[10] Ibid., p. 36-37

Comments are closed
Doing Business Right Blog | The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part V): Does it Foster Respect for Human Rights by Business?

Doing Business Right Blog

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part V): Does it Foster Respect for Human Rights by Business?

29. June 2019 Antoine Duval (0)

Editor’s note: Shamistha Selvaratnam is a LLM Candidate of the Advanced Masters of European and International Human Rights Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Prior to commencing the LLM, she worked as a business and human rights solicitor in Australia where she specialised in promoting business respect for human rights through engagement with policy, law and practice.

 

Human rights due diligence (HRDD) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for doing business with respect for human rights. It is a central concept to the UNGPs and describes what ‘steps a company must take to become aware of, prevent and address adverse human rights impacts’ in order to discharge the responsibility to respect.[1] The case studies examining Adidas’ and Unilever’s HRDD practices (the Case Studies) have demonstrated how businesses are working with the concept of HRDD and translating it into practice. They provide an opportunity to consider the adaptable nature of HRDD and whether it has the potential to transform business internal frameworks in order to generate greater corporate respect for human rights. This will be reflected on in this final blog of our series of articles dedicated to HRDD. It will also reflect on the role that hard law initiatives play in incentivising substantive human rights compliance by business (in addition to soft law initiatives such as the UNGPs).

 

The Adaptable Nature of HRDD

There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that can be taken by businesses when implementing HRDD. Although the elements and parameters of HRDD are defined in the UNGPs (discussed in detail in a previous blog in this series), it is, by its very nature, an open-ended concept that has been ‘articulated at a certain level of abstraction’. Indeed, this level of abstraction was arguably intentional given the use of the term ‘due’ in HRDD, which ‘implies variation of effort and resources necessary to address effectively adverse impacts in a particular context’.[2]

The flexibility built into the concept of HRDD acknowledges that there are more than ‘80,000 multinational corporations, ten times as many subsidiaries and countless national firms’ globally that differ in many respects.[3] Accordingly, the shape of HRDD within one business cannot be the same as that of another business – it should be ‘determined by the context in which a company is operating, its activities, and the relationships associated with those activities’.[4] As Ruggie acknowledged in 2010, his aim was to ‘provide companies with universally applicable guiding principles for … conducting due diligence’, rather than prescriptive guidance. Therefore, the ‘complexity of tools and the magnitude of processes’ employed by businesses will vary depending on the circumstances. As such, businesses can exercise a great deal of discretion as to how to translate HRDD into practice.

However, this adaptable nature of HRDD has been critiqued for lacking clarity, embodying a ‘high degree of fragility and flexibility’ and for containing an ‘inbuilt looseness’.[5] These complexities arise due to the absence of ‘sufficient specificity of expected action’.[6] Bijlmakers argues that the ‘ambiguity and openness’ of HRDD can ‘lead to uncertainty about what conduct is required from companies for the effective implementation of their responsibilities’.[7] This can result in a lack of compliance by businesses or differing levels of compliance, which ultimately means that HRDD ‘may or may not achieve the desired outcome – i.e. non-violation of human rights – in all cases’.[8] Indeed from the Case Studies it is clear that despite the extensive efforts made by Adidas and Unilever to put HRDD into practice, there are still gaps between the paper-based processes and practices of both businesses, e.g. there are human rights abuses present within their supply chains that are not being identified by their current HRDD practices and therefore not being addressed. Mares also argues that the looseness surrounding HRDD as a concept can also result in ineffective implementation, whereby businesses take action that is ‘largely symbolic, generates limited improvements, and fails to address underlying issues’.[9] As a result, businesses are not addressing the root causes of human rights issues within their business, but rather ‘applying bandaids to symptoms’. [10]

The flexibility of HRDD as a concept also allows businesses to employ various tools and processes in order to ‘create plausible deniability’, instead of discovering and understanding issues within their supply chains and how they should be managed.[11] Through conducting on the ground research at the local level, Bartley demonstrates that businesses appear to be using these tools and processes in order to ‘collect just enough information to produce assurances of due diligence’, allowing human rights issues and impacts to be kept out of sight.[12] Accordingly, their is a risk that businesses take advantage of the open-ended nature of HRDD by implementing HRDD processes as window-dressing to give the impression that they are engaging with the human rights risks and impacts in the context of their business, when in fact they are not.

However, despite these critiques the Case Studies demonstrate that the adaptable nature of HRDD has proven to be transformative on businesses. Embracing HRDD has led Adidas and Unilever to transform their operations to fit the different phases of the HRDD process. In doing so, they have avoided using a cookie-cutter approach that does not account for the differences between the businesses and they way they operate.

The use of customised HRDD approaches is of particular importance given that the salient human rights risks and impacts identified by a business will always differ in some respects to those of another business. With respect to Adidas and Unilever, despite having some overlapping identified risks (e.g. discrimination, working hours, freedom of association and fair wages), both businesses also focus on a number of specific salient risks, which are determined using various factors including the assessed risks of the countries in which they operate. On one hand, land rights are a particular focus for Unilever given the negative impacts it can have on individual’s and communities’ land tenure rights, particularly through its suppliers. On the other hand, child labour is more of a salient risk for Adidas given the pressure on brands in the apparel sector to produce garments at low costs in a quick time frame. In light of this, the HRDD processes followed by each business after identifying these risk areas are different such that the actions taken to integrate and address risks and impacts are directly responsive to those risks.

 

Is HRDD Effective to Foster Corporate Respect of Human Rights? 

The Case Studies also demonstrate that HRDD is not solely a paper tiger. Businesses that truly engage with the HRDD process can indeed transform internal processes, enhancing corporate attention on human rights. Both Adidas and Unilever have not sought to use HRDD as a buzzword with no institutional consequences. Instead they have introduced concrete mechanisms aimed at preventing human rights impacts from arising within their business context. 

So how has HRDD had a transformative impact on Adidas and Unilever? As I have shown in the Case Studies, it has provided a framework for embedding institutional and regulatory changes geared towards the prevention of adverse human rights impacts. On paper, they have translated the cycle of HRDD into a maze of internal procedures involving different stages of their activities as well as different corporate entities integrated in their supply chains. Moreover, they have built-up enforcement mechanisms in an attempt to trigger change if a potential human rights risk is identified. In short, the transformative impact of HRDD on the structure and operations of the two corporations is clear, whether this impact is effective to tackle human rights violations in their supply chains is another matter. The Case Studies conducted cannot evidence effectiveness, as it would require much more time-consuming and expensive on-field studies to observe whether the compliance of, for example, the working conditions of Adidas’ or Unilever’s suppliers with core labour rights improves thanks to these changes.    

It is certain that neither Adidas nor Unilever have a perfect HRDD process in place – gaps and blindspots will always exist which allow serious human rights issues to continue to emerge in their supply chains. Nonetheless, as evidenced above, it is also true that embracing HRDD had a transformative impact in the way these businesses operate. Whether these transformations are correlated with a decrease in human rights violations across their supply chains is a fundamental question that cannot be answered by my research, even though it will be at the centre of future assessments of the practical effects of HRDD on human rights throughout supply chains.    

 

The Catalyst Role of Hard Law Initiatives

Soft law HRDD initiatives such as the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines have been primarily relied upon to date in order to regulate corporate human rights behaviour. Over the past years, however, several countries have either adopted or started to consider adopting legislation that embeds HRDD into their legal framework. For example:

  • The UK and Australia have both adopted legislation requiring specific businesses to report on their HRDD processes and efforts in their operations and supply chains in relation to modern slavery.
  • The Netherlands has adopted legislation that requires specific companies to undertake HRDD related to child labour in their supply chains.
  • France has taken a broader approach, rather than focusing on thematic issues, and adopted legislation that requires certain businesses to undertake HRDD to identify and prevent serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, health and safety as well as the environment.
  • Further, the Human Rights Council’s Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights is in the process of developing a binding business and human rights treaty. The current draft of the treaty includes a HRDD article requiring state parties to ensure that their domestic legislation requires all businesses to which the treaty applies to undertake HRDD throughout their business activities.[13]

The rapid rise of such hard law initiatives imposing HRDD across the board means that transformation observed in the context of Unilever and Adidas will spread to many more businesses in the coming years. The turn to binding HRDD might be a response to the lack of willingness of businesses to embrace HRDD voluntarily. This is particularly the case in light of the dire landscape highlighted by benchmarking initiatives. For example, the results of the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark demonstrates that 40% of the companies ranked scored no points at all in relation to the systems they have in place to ensure that due diligence processes are implemented.

Hard law that complements the business and human rights soft law already in existence might create the ‘compliance pull’ that is needed to ensure that businesses undertake HRDD by legally mandating that they engage in the process. Further, it can clarify and create greater certainty as to the expectations on business with respect to HRDD, as well as incentivise meaningful HRDD by imposing the risk of civil liability onto businesses failing to conduct proper HRDD. The turn to binding HRDD will necessarily have transformative effects on the way affected businesses operate. It will trigger the emergence of a whole HRDD bureaucracy involving rules, processes and institutions. Yet, whether it will lead to greater respect for human rights remains to be seen in practice and depends on the way HRDD will be implemented as well as on the intensity of control exercised by national authorities.

 

Conclusion

This blog series has delved into the operationalisation of HRDD from theory to practice by business. Through the detailed examination of the HRDD practices of Adidas and Unilever in their supply chains, it has demonstrated that HRDD can profoundly change the internal operations of businesses embracing it.

Despite the fragility and flexibility of the concept that gives rise to uncertainty and ambiguity as to how it should be complied with, businesses that choose to fully engage with the process are transformed by it with a potential effect on their human rights footprint. Truly implementing HRDD throughout a business’ operations and supply chains has the potential to result in human rights risks and impacts being better embedded within the business’ corporate governance framework. This is because HRDD focuses on identifying and managing these risks and impacts and to use those findings to inform business decisions, such as whether to engage in business activities in a particular country or whether to enter into contractual relations with a particular supplier. The development and adoption of hard law imposing HRDD complementing existing soft law initiatives contributes to the diffusion of HRDD into a greater number of businesses.

This blog series paves the way for further research into whether the HRDD mechanisms implemented by Adidas, Unilever and other businesses are truly effective to protect human rights. On the ground research at a local level involving engagement with the relevant business being assessed and its stakeholders is crucial to determining the effectiveness of specific HRDD mechanisms in practice. A broader examination of a greater number of businesses’ HRDD practices will allow for conclusions to be drawn as to how businesses can effectively conduct HRDD and whether there are particular practices and mechanisms that are more effective.

[1] Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie: Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights (7 April 2008), UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5, [56] [2008 Report].

[2] Radu Mares, “Respect” Human Rights: Concept and Convergence, in R Bird, D Cahoy and J Darin (eds) Law, Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap, Edward Elgar Publishing (2014), p 8.

[3] John Ruggie, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (2010).

[4] 2008 Report, supra note 1, [25].

[5] Justine Nolan, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: Soft Law of Not Law?, in S Deva and D Bilchitz (eds), Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? (2013), p 140 [Nolan]; Radu Mares, Human Rights Due Diligence and the Root Causes of Harm in Business Operations: A Textual and Contextual Analysis of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 10(1) Northeastern University Law Review 1 (2018), p 45 [Mares].

[6] Mares, ibid, p 6.

[7] Stephanie Bijlmakers, Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Rights, and the Law, London: Routledge (2018), p 120.

[8] Ibid; Surya Deva, Treating Human Rights Lightly: A Critique of the Consensus Rhetoric and the Language Employed by the Guiding Principles, in S Deva and D Bilchitz (eds) Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect?, Cambridge University Press (2013), p 101.

[9] Mares, supra note 5, p 45.

[10] Ibid, p 1.

[11] Tim Bartley, Rules without Rights: Land, Labor, and Private Authority in the Global Economy, Oxford University Press (2018), p 178.

[12] Ibid.

[13] The HRDD article of the treaty is discussed in further detail in a previous blog.

Comments are closed
Doing Business Right Blog | Doing Business Right – Monthly Report – May & June 2019 - By Shamistha Selvaratnam & Maisie Biggs

Doing Business Right Blog

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

Doing Business Right – Monthly Report – May & June 2019 - By Shamistha Selvaratnam & Maisie Biggs

9. July 2019 Antoine Duval (0)

Doing Business Right – Monthly Report – May & June 2019

 

Editor’s note: Shamistha Selvaratnam is a LLM Candidate of the Advanced Masters of European and International Human Rights Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Prior to commencing the LLM, she worked as a business and human rights solicitor in Australia where she specialised in promoting business respect for human rights through engagement with policy, law and practice. Maisie Biggs graduated with a MSc in Global Crime, Justice and Security from the University of Edinburgh and holds a LLB from University College London. She is currently working with the Asser Institute in The Hague. She has previously worked for International Justice Mission in South Asia and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) in Amsterdam.

 

Introduction

This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on Doing Business Right based on the coverage provided on our twitter feed @DoinBizRight and on various websites. You are invited to contribute to this compilation via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we may have overlooked.

 

The Headlines

Dutch Court allows Case against Shell to Proceed

On 1 May the Hague District Court rules that it has jurisdiction to hear a suit brought against the Royal Dutch Shell by four Nigerian widows. The widows are still seeking redress for the killing of their husbands in 1995 in Nigeria. They claim the defendants are accomplices in the execution of their husbands by the Abasha regime. Allegedly, Shell and related companies provided material support, which led to the arrests and deaths of the activists. Although Shell denies wrongdoing in this case, the Court has allowed the suit to proceed. The judgment is accessible in Dutch here. An English translation is yet to be provided.

The Netherlands Adopts Child Labour Due Diligence Law

On 14 May the Dutch Government passed legislation requiring certain companies to carry out due diligence related to child labour in their supply chains. The law applies to companies that are either registered in the Netherlands that sell or deliver goods or services to Dutch consumers or that are registered overseas but sell or deliver goods or services to Dutch consumers. These companies will have to submit a statement declaring that they have due diligence procedures in place to prevent child labour from being used in the production of their goods or services.

While it is not yet clear when the law will come into force, it is unlikely to do so before 1 January 2020. The Dutch law is part of the growing movement to embed human rights due diligence into national legislative frameworks. The law is accessible in Dutch here.

First case under the French Due Diligence law initiated against Total

French NGOs Amis de la Terre FR and Survie have initiated civil proceedings against French energy company Total for the planned Tilenga mining project in Uganda. These organisations and CRED, Friends of the Earth Uganda and NAVODA have sent a formal notice to Total in relation to concerns over the potential expropriation of people in proximity to the site of the Tilenga project and threats to the environment. Information on the case from the initiating civil society organisations can be found here. This is the first initiated case under the new French Due Diligence law, and may act as a test case for future litigation.

In a similar vein, civil society organisations CCFD-Terre Solidaire and Sherpa have launched Le Radar du Devoir de Vigilance [The Vigilance Duty Radar], a resource to track the compliance of French companies to the law. The site lists potentially subjected companies, and their published vigilance plans (or lack thereof).

Bolstering the UK Modern Slavery Act

During a speech at the International Labour Organisation’s centenary conference on 11 June 2019, Theresa May outlined the UK Government’s further commitments to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act 2015; these included a central public registry of modern slavery transparency statements by businesses (in a similar vein to the Gender Pay Gap Service), and the extension of reporting requirements to the public sector. Individual ministerial departments will be obliged to publish modern slavery statements from 2021, while central Government has committed to publish voluntarily this year. The focus on public sector procurement will apparently also include a “new programme that will improve responsible recruitment in parts of our public sector supply chains that pass through Asia.”

The Final Report of the Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was released in May, and considered in Westminster Hall on 19th June.

 

UN and International Organisations Publications and Statements 

•       European Commission – Corporate Social Responsibility, Responsible Business Conduct, and Business & Human Rights: Overview of Progress

•       International Labour Organisation – Public sector clients pledge action to foster fair recruitment

•       OHCHR – Statement by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights: Time for the G20 to act on commitments and step up leadership on business and human rights

 

NGOs, NHRIs, CSOs and Human Rights Organisations Publications and Statements

•       Amnesty International – Thailand: Defamation charges for exposing labour abuse

•       Business & Human Rights Resource Centre – Out of Sight: Modern Slavery in Pacific Supply Chains of Canned Tuna: A Survey & Analysis of Company Action

•       Business & Human Rights Resource Centre – Out of Sight: Modern Slavery in Pacific Supply Chains of Canned Tuna: A Survey & Analysis of Company Action

•       Center for International Legal Cooperation – Summary of Sounding Board Consultation Round 1 – Results Elements Paper on the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

•       Clean Clothes Campaign – Questions raised after agreement reached on Bangladesh Accord

•       Coalition for Human Rights in Development – Uncalculated Risks: Threats and attacks against human rights defenders and the role of development financiers

•       Conectas – Following Pressure, Vale Withdraws from UN Social Responsibility Network

•       Conflict and Environment Observatory – New UN legal report addresses the responsibility of states and corporations for environmental damage in conflict

•       CORE – 49 global CSOs call for justice for Nigerian villages devastated by Shell oil spill

•       CORE – Improving the effectiveness of the supply chain reporting requirement in UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and moving towards mandatory human rights due diligence

•       European Coalition of Corporate Justice – Finnish Government commits to HRDD legislation

•       FERN, Tropenbos International and Fair Trade Advocacy Office – Towards sustainable cocoa supply chains: Regulatory options for the EU

•       Justice Project Pakistan & Equidem Research and Consulting – Through the Cracks: The Exploitation of Pakistani Migrant Workers in the Gulf Recruitment Regime

•       Mahidol University, ASEAN CSR Network & Article Thirty – Human Rights Disclosure in ASEAN

•       MVO Platform – MVO Platform position paper on due diligence and certification

•       MVO Platform – The Netherlands takes an historic step by adopting child labour due diligence law

•       OECD Watch – The State of Remedy under the OECD Guidelines: Understanding NCP cases concluded in 2018 through the lens of remedy

•       OECD Watch – Use with caution: The role of the OECD National Contact Points in protecting human rights defenders

•       Sancroft – The Sancroft-Tussell Report: Eliminating modern slavery in public procurement

•       SOMO – European Development Bank significantly strengthens its grievance mechanism

•       SOMO – Shell put Nigeria under pressure with ISDS process to obtain oil field OPL 245

•       SwedWatch – Copper with a Cost: Human rights and environmental risks in the mineral supply chains of ICT: A case study from Zambia

•       The Danish Institute for Human Rights – Nestlé first company to publicly share its human rights training for employees

•       The Freedom Fund – Going Dutch: The Netherlands’ Adoption of a Child Labour Law Reaffirms Trend of Mandating Corporate Due Diligence

•       Treaty Alliance Germany – Briefing Paper on Zero Draft: Unpacking Arguments against a Treaty

•       Trial International – German and Belgian Prosecutors Urged to Shed Light on Exports of Dual-Use Goods to Syria

 

Government Press Releases and Publications

•       Canadian Government – Consultation on labour exploitation in global supply chains

•       Dutch Working Group on Enabling Remediation – Discussion Paper

•       G7 – G7 Social Communique

•       United Kingdom Modern Slavery Unit – Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015: Final Report

 

In Court 

•       Court of The Hague – Kiobel v Shell

•       Sydney Morning Herald – 'It's game on': BHP hit with record $7b claim in UK over deadly dam collapse

 

In the News 

•       Aljazeera – Brazil indigenous affairs head fired amid push to develop Amazon

•       Amnesty International – Nigeria/Netherlands: Shell ruling “a vital step towards justice”

•       Bloomberg - Kenya Cancels Environment License of $2 Billion Coal-Power Plant

•       Ethical Corporation – 'UK multinationals will face greater scrutiny after the Vedanta decision'

•       EUReporter Economy – Europe takes a big step towards companies having ‘duty of care’ on #HumanRights

•       Financial Times – National courts have global companies in their sights

•       Financial Times – Pressure builds on mining industry over supply chains

•       Financial Times – Vedanta starts arbitration against Zambia after mines seized

•       Financial Times has launched Moral Money, a platform and newsletter to cover ESG, impact investing and sustainable business practice.

•       Ground Up – Aussie company show big profits from South African West Coast mine

•       Japan Times – 'Culture of fear': Report alleges low pay and overwork for laborers at Tokyo Olympics sites

•       Khaleej Times – Worker injured at work in UAE gets Dh1.5 million compensation

•       Le Monde – Bolloré sued by ten NGOs

•       Mail Online – PM to unveil new measures to tackle `abhorrent´ modern slavery

•       Nikkei Asian Review – Uniqlo discloses all garment factories for first time

•       Reuters – UK urged to 'lead by example' on slavery as top state suppliers flout law

•       Reuters – UPDATE 1-BNP Paribas must face revived lawsuit over Sudanese genocide- U.S. appeals court

•       Reuters – Widows of hanged Nigeria activists can continue case vs Shell: Dutch court

•       The Guardian – 'I had pain all over my body': Italy’s tainted tobacco industry

•       The Guardian – Are your tinned tomatoes picked by slave labour?

•       The Guardian – Dozens killed in DRC Glencore copper mine accident

•       The Guardian – Low pay in the garment industry still a reality despite pledges – study

•       The Guardian – Murder, rape and claims of contamination at a Tanzanian goldmine

•       The Guardian – WhatsApp spyware: UK firm promises new 'respect for human rights' following allegations

•       The Sunday Times – Law on parent company liability moving in right direction

•       The Sydney Morning Herald – BHP faces beefed up class action over Samarco disaster

•       Triple Pundit – Companies Need More Than CSR To Tackle Modern Slavery

 

Academic Materials

•       Amy Sinclair and Justine Nolan – Modern Slavery Laws in Australia: Steps in the Right Direction? – Business and Human Rights Journal

•       Bernice Yeung – In a Day's Work: The Fight to End Sexual Violence Against America's Most Vulnerable Workers – Human Rights Quarterly

•       Charlotte Villiers – Global Supply Chains and Sustainability: The Role of Disclosure and Due Diligence Regulation – In Beate Sjåfjell and Christopher M. Bruner (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Sustainability (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming).

•       David Strouss – Bringing Pesticide Injury Cases to US Courts: The Challenges of Transnational Litigation – Business and Human Rights Journal

•       Dorota Weziak-Blalowolska, Piotr Bialowolski and Eileen McNeely – Worker’s well-being. Evidence from the apparel industry in Mexico – Intelligent Buildings International

•       Girogia Papalia – Doing Business Right: The Case for a Business and Human Rights Treaty – Perth International Law Journal

•       Karin Buhmann, Jonas Jonsson and Mette Fisker – Do No Harm and Do More Good Too: Connecting Business and Human Rights with Political CSR to Identify Business Opportunities for Contributing to the SDGs – The International Journal of Business in Society (Forthcoming)

•       Maddalena Neglia – Striking the Right(s) Balance: Conflicts between Human Rights and Freedom to Conduct a Business in the ILVA Case in Italy – Business and Human Rights Journal

•       Samentha Goethals – Exploring Migrant Employees’ ‘Rights-Talk’ in the British Hospitality Sector – Business and Human Rights Journal

 

Blogs           

Asser Institute Doing Business Right Blog

•       Maisie Biggs – Background Information to the Lundin Case

•       Maisie Biggs – International Criminal Law and Corporate Actors - Part 1: From Slave Trade Tribunals to Nuremberg 

•       Maisie Biggs – International Criminal Law and Corporate Actors - Part 2: The Rome Statute and its Aftermath

•       Maisie Biggs – International Criminal Law and Corporate Actors - Part 3: War Crimes before Domestic Courts

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part II): The Pluralist Struggle to Shape the Practical Meaning of the Concept

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part III): A Deep Dive into Adidas’ Practices

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part IV): A Deep Dive into Unilever’s Practices

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part V): Does it Foster Respect for Human Rights by Business?

Other Blogs

•       Alessandro Runci – Critical shareholding as a tool to hold Italian corporations accountable – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Anne Manschot – Audits are failing – brands should cut out waste so suppliers can pay their workers a living wage – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Benjamin Hoffman – Many segments of the business and human rights field have been co-opted & captured by corporate actors – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Bobbie Sta. Maria, BHHRC and JJ Rosenbaum – Why women workers in global garment supply chains are saying #MeToo – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Chiara Macchi – The Human Rights Obligations of International Organisations towards their Civilian Personnel – BHR Journal Blog

•       Daniela Chimisso dos Santos – The Effect on Business: The Reality of the Nevsun Case in Canada – BHR Journal Blog

•       Dr Bärbel Kofler – Duty-bound to protect – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Ekaterina Aristova – Clarifying the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction of English courts to try business-related human rights violations – BHR Journal Blog

•       Elena Blanco – Jurisdiction, access to remedy in business and human rights cases and the corporate structure: A tale of two cases – BHR Journal Blog

•       Emily Dwyer – Canada's 'toothless' new corporate watchdog is a broken promise and a major setback for human rights – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Geert Van Calster – Kiobel v Shell in The Netherlands – GAVC LAW

•       Genevieve LeBaron – How to Spur Corporate Accountability with Modern Slavery Legislation – Delta87

•       Heidi Hautala – Responsible Business Conduct - the European Business model of the 2020s – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Jolyon Ford – Can consumers and market actors ‘regulate’ corporate reporting on Modern Slavery risk? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Joseph Wilde – Going Dutch: Four things you should know about the Netherlands’ new law to eliminate child labour – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Kelly Groen and Lis Cunha – Due diligence laws must not leave women behind – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Kristen Casper – Reality bites: Fossil fuel companies face climate liability claims after decades of denial – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Larry Cata Backer – Norwegian Ethics Information Committee Seeks Input on Methods to Improve Respect For Human Rights Through Supply Chain Transparency Mechanisms – Law at the End of the Day

•       Lauren Armistead and Mark Dummett – Why the UK Supreme Court must hear Nigerian oil pollution appeal – Medium

•       Maria Khan – What are the legal tools for holding corporations to account globally? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Marilyn Croser – Towards mandatory human rights due diligence in the UK: Developments and opportunities – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Martijn Boersma & Justine Nolan – Blockchain can help break the chains of modern slavery, but it is not a complete solution – The Conversation

•       Maysa Zorob and Antonella Angelini – Are shareholders the new champions of climate justice? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Miriam Saage- Maaβ – Jabir et al vs. KiK: Do EU companies have an extraterritorial duty towards suppliers in global production chains? – BHR Journal Blog

•       Nora Götzmann – New UN Gender Guidance is a reminder that real equality requires tackling discrimination – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Peter Barnett – Shareholder litigation as the next frontier in shareholder climate action – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Phil Bloomer – Europe takes a big step towards companies having a ‘duty of care’ on human rights – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Sara Seck – Extraterritoriality: A Problem of Terminology – BHR Journal Blog

•       Sara Thornton – Listening to survivors, the role of business and supporting law enforcement  – Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Blog

•       Seunghyun Nam and Changrok Soh – Business and Human Rights in the Republic of Korea and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction – BHR Journal Blog

•       Shannan Burrow and Phil Bloomer – Could Finnish presidency fix labour-chain abuse? – EU Observer

•       Sonia HIerzig – Investors need to hold all sectors to account on climate change – not just the fossil fuel industry  – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Tom Wills – Stop Making The 'Business Case' For A Responsible Private Sector – Huffpost Blog

•       Urs Rybi – What does Switzerland's vote on mandatory due diligence mean - and what happens next? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Walker Syachalinga – Vedanta v Lungowe: An irreconcilable regulatory outreach? – BHR Journal Blog

•       William Anderson – Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence: A business perspective – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Yousuf Aftab – Business, Human Rights & the Limits of Law – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

 

Call for Papers, Submissions and Abstracts 

•       Call for blogs – Business and Human Rights Journal Blog – Cambridge University

•       Call for session proposals and snapshot proposals – UN Forum on Business and Human Rights

•       Call for public consultation on the first draft of The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights - CILC

 

Upcoming Events 

•       22-26 July 2019 – International Summer Course Human Rights Law in Context (special focus on business and human rights) – Centre for Human Rights Erlangen-Nürnberg in cooperation with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Nuremberg, Germany

•       12-13 September 2019 – Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association 5th Annual Conference – University of Essex, Colchester, England

•       16-18 October 2019 – 4th Coimbra International Conference on Human Rights: a transdisciplinary approach – CIDH Coimba, Portugal

•       25-27 November 2019 – UN Forum on Business and Human Rights – Geneva, Switzerland

Comments are closed
Doing Business Right Blog | The Dutch Banking Sector Agreement on Human Rights: Changing the Paradigm from ‘Opportunity to Affect’ to ‘Responsibility to Respect’ – By Benjamin Thompson

Doing Business Right Blog

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

The Dutch Banking Sector Agreement on Human Rights: Changing the Paradigm from ‘Opportunity to Affect’ to ‘Responsibility to Respect’ – By Benjamin Thompson

24. August 2018 Antoine Duval (0)

Editor’s note: Benjamin Thompson is a PhD candidate in business and human rights at Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands. His PhD research deals with the effects of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights' endorsement of operational level, non-judicial grievance mechanisms and their role in improving access to remedy. He recently published an article for Utrecht Law Review’s Special Issue on Accountability of Multinational Corporations for Human Rights Abuses which discussed the roles the new Dutch multistakeholder initiative with the Dutch banking sector might play in improving banks’ performance with respect to human rights.


In November of last year the Asser Institute offered me the opportunity to take part in a roundtable on the Dutch Banking Sector Agreement (DBA), as part of their Doing Business Right Project. Signed in December 2017, the DBA is a collaboration between the banking sector, the government, trade unions and civil society organisations (CSOs), all based within the Netherlands: the first of its kind. It focuses on banks’ responsibility to respect human rights, as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines), within their corporate lending and project finance activities. The DBA has been something of a hot topic in business and human rights circles. However, it has not yet published a public monitoring report, making any evaluation of its performance at this stage difficult. During the roundtable, we discussed the role of the DBA as a potential means to improve the practices of Dutch banks with respect to human rights. A key challenge identified from this discussion, as reported here, was the various ‘interpretive ambiguities inherent in the UNGPs’. A key conclusion was that ‘further dialogue is required... to ascertain what conduct on the part of the banks is consistent with international obligations’.

This is not a unique conclusion to arise from multistakeholder discussions on banks and human rights; the discussion often focuses on what financial institutions are required to do to meet their responsibility to respect human rights under the UNGPs. So much so that questions concerning implementation or evaluation are often left by the wayside. As a result, when presenting my research on the DBA for the Utrecht Centre of Accountability and Liability Law’s Conference on ‘Accountability and International Business Operations’, published here, I decided to focus on how the DBA had responded to those key points of friction where there is the greatest disagreement between how different stakeholders conceive banks’ human rights responsibilities. This blog post seeks to build on this previous entry, hopefully without too much repetition.


Banks and Human Rights

So, how do the UNGPs apply to banks? Well, there is hardly a dearth of initiatives set up with exactly that question in mind. We have had various OECD initiatives providing analysis on banks’ human rights responsibilities, the UN Environmental Programme’s Financial Initiative, the OHCHR and UN Working Group on transnational corporations and human rights’ pronouncements on this matter, the Thun Group’s discussion papers (2013, 2017a and 2017b) on the UN Guiding Principles and now the DBA. While some have pointed to the interpretive ambiguities within the UNGPs as themselves preventing any emerging consensus, and I am certainly not denying there are interpretive ambiguities (there are), I would suggest this is not, in practice, the key challenge in banks developing practices consistent with the UNGPs. Banks’ interpretation of the UNGPs is largely eclipsed by their own preconceived understandings of their existing due diligence processes with respect to social and environmental risks (E&S due diligence), which originate before the UNGPs and are arguably rooted more robustly in a market-based paradigm. While banks have, at times, expressed concerns over whether their existing E&S due diligence procedures can adequately incorporate the full range of behaviour required under the UNGPs,[1] there has been a considerable effort amongst some banks to interpret the UNGPs in line with their existing practices.

This is perhaps best illustrated in the Thun Group’s 2017 discussion papers which dealt with questions as to how the UNGPs applied to banks, in particular how banks should understand their involvement in human rights impacts related to their financing activities. The paper suffered from various deficits of interpretation (that banks cannot contribute to human rights harms, they have no role in remedy, due diligence is largely limited to whether and how to approve a financial transaction etc.). The paper was such an affront to the UNGPs that it prompted John Ruggie, the main architect of the UNGPs, to write an open letter pointing at many of these failings. A representative of the Thun Group, Christian Leitz responded to say the paper was an ‘industry perspective’ and that he would welcome Ruggie and other stakeholders’ views in order to foster a discussion. Ruggie responded stating that many of the (quite stark) failings of the Thun Group paper to encapsulate the intention of the UNGPs did not amount to rival ‘opinions’ or ‘interpretations’ but were ‘factually incorrect’ and that it would be difficult to have a dialogue based on ‘alternative facts’.

While it might be true that the banks interpretations are ‘factually incorrect’ or, as David Kinley put it, that the recent Thun Group paper is simply an attempt by banks to dodge their human rights responsibilities all-together, how are we to understand this misalignment between banks’ understanding of the UNGPs and the logics of the UNGPs themselves (assuming ‘we’ share a kinship with the business and human rights project)? One can say that the Thun Group is failing to take its human rights responsibilities seriously; one can probably also cast that claim to include a much broader range of business enterprises and industries. However, to the extent to which businesses are not accepting and internalising the norms of the UNGPs, it is perhaps equally accurate to say both that businesses are failing to meet the UNGPs and that the UNGPs are failing in their ‘norm-building’ mission, with its key objective of ensuring business enterprises accept their responsibility to respect human rights as part of their business practices. Any serious proponent of the ‘business and human rights project’, must therefore understand the need to identify where the tensions are between industry perspectives and the UNGPs, and seek to evaluate which initiatives (if any) are successful (or partly successful) in bringing business enterprises’ understanding of their human rights responsibilities closer to that understood in the UNGPs. It is from this question of the extent to which banks are moved to a greater alignment with the normative requirements of the UNGPs that I will evaluate the Dutch Banking Agreement (DBA) as a multistakeholder agreement.

Given the backdrop of divergences over attitudes to banks and human rights, the DBA plays an important role. It is the only initiative which has actually reached any output on banks responsibility to respect human rights which is based on consensus. The initiatives cited above stem from organisations which represent a single type of stakeholder (States or banks), which may or may not consult other stakeholders but never require multistakeholder consensus for an output to be reached. Below is an analysis in how these divergences have been bridged somewhat in the text of the DBA, according to five identified divergences between the UNGPs and banks E&S due diligence processes. The description of banks’ perspectives with respect to their own E&S due diligence processes and human rights in the subsequent sections are principally taken from financial institutions’ responses to an OECD survey on environmental and social risks and the Thun Group papers: the Thun Group represents some of the world’s largest banks.

1.     ‘responsibility to respect’ vs ‘opportunity to affect’

While the UNGPs understand the actions businesses must take with respect to human rights as one of ‘responsibility’, E&S due diligence is more often understood as good business or ‘opportunity’.[2] This not only has connotations for both how banks see the nature of their practices with respect to human rights but also how they define the content of what is required. For instance, the contexts in which banks take action is often understood by the extent to which they have the opportunity to enact change in a client’s behaviour, rather than their responsibility for an impact (e.g., causing, contributing, directly linked, no link). Banks are happy to include ‘forward looking’ risk mitigation measures as part of their practices but are often reluctant to accept that they should take actions which imply a greater responsibility for the impact on their part. When understanding the application of the UNGPs, banks have often not considered themselves to be in even the lowest category of involvement (directly linked) in relation to human rights harms connected to their activities, preferring to consider themselves as not involved or ‘indirectly linked’.[3] Some have completely ruled out the relevance of remedy.[4] Banks have received more approval when they have discussed what they ‘could do’ compared to what they ‘should do’, where they are notably more ambitious. This led to a much more welcomed reaction to the first Thun Group paper in 2013, which focussed on operational principles, compared to more criticised Thun Group papers in 2017, which focussed on foundational principles.

The DBA commits adhering banks to meeting the responsibility to respect human rights, as understood in the OECD Guidelines and UNGPs (article 1). Adhering banks have all signed declarations of adherence to the Agreement stating that they are bound by the Agreement. However, as some of the requirements of the DBA go beyond the responsibility to respect (e.g., article 10 on Sustainable Development), it is not always clear which aspects of the DBA the stakeholders consider to be part of their responsibility to respect human rights and which arise solely from the Agreement itself.

One particularly progressive element of the DBA is its inclusion of remedy, referred to under the article ‘Enabling Remediation’. This article looks at the steps a bank can take to ensure their client’s provide remedy for human rights harms, and it also raises the question of how impacts can be addressed or remediated based on the categories of a bank’s involvement in human rights impacts. However, it omits any explanation of the categories of a bank’s involvement, leaving this to further exploration by a working group, which promises to incorporate guidance provided by the OECD. The findings of the working group are to be integrated into the practices of the adhering banks. Banks are required to have individual complaints mechanisms open to clients and third parties, but the DBA makes clear these are not grievance mechanisms as understood in the UNGPs/Guidelines (article 3.5). Banks seem to need only to report on steps taken to prevent and mitigate impacts in their annual reports used by the DBA’s monitoring committee, covering their implementation of articles 3 (on policies) and 4 (on due diligence) but not article 7 (on enabling remediation).

2.      ‘risks to people’ vs. ‘risks to bank’

E&S due diligence is principally concerned with risks that could present a liability to the financial institution; human rights risks are considered risks to the bank rather than risks to people, although these risks may coincide. This market-based paradigm depends on adverse impacts on a bank’s bottom line as the key incentive for a bank to carry out due diligence, and it also acts as a disincentive for banks to take action where doing so might deprive them of a business opportunity.[5]

When responding to an OECD survey on how financial institutions understand how the OECD Guidelines apply to them, financial institutions were asked what factors influences how much leverage they had. Banks largely identified risks falling under ‘risks to the bank’[6] as the main factors rather than factors that an outsider might see as more linked to the UNGPs understanding of leverage: the ability to influence a situation. Commercial providers of E&S risk information for use in E&S due diligence, such as Reprisk, still view environmental and social risks as those risks to the bank: to a bank's reputation, to banks complying with national law and to a bank’s finances.

The DBA looks to risks to people as the basis for what action should be taken (article 4.2). It recognises that this goes beyond existing E&S due diligence practices, and it expects banks to report on their human rights performance under the UNGPs Reporting Framework which requires that businesses look at impacts on people not themselves. Two occasions where a ‘risks to bank’ lens may enter the Agreement’s implementation is through the cross referencing of initiatives which do adopt this paradigm (the IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles) and through mentioning that banks terminate their relationships where the client has broken ‘material due diligence requirements’ (article 4.3.b).

There is also reference to a concern over the potential financial implications for banks resulting from more robust human rights practices: the need to produce a ‘level playing field’ internationally (article 4.5.b).  However, at no point is it suggested that banks’ compliance with the DBA is contingent on them not being placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result. Overall, the ‘risks to bank’ paradigm is minimal and the ‘rights to people’ paradigm is kept central to the DBA.

3.     ‘transactional due diligence’ vs. ‘human rights due diligence’

Banks’ due diligence is commonly understood to primarily cover those actions taken by banks up to the point where the transaction takes place as opposed to the full duration of the business relationship as under the UNGPs. The types of measures expected will depend primarily on the type of financial product offered, the type of client and their overall risk profile. Banks have consequently interpreted those terms within the UNGPs/Guidelines which refer to actions moving beyond the client of actions required after the point of transaction narrowly, understanding value/supply chains as limited to their own suppliers[7] and not recognising any role for termination of relationships or remediation.[8] The Thun Group papers introduced ‘new’ terms to the UNGPs – unit of analysis and proximity – which largely sought to reconstruct the UNGPs to fit within this transaction based model, limiting how directly linked a bank was, and the actions a bank should take, to the type of transaction and which member of a corporate group the bank made the transaction with.

The DBA recognises that adhering banks should base what kinds of action they take based on the severity of the (potential) impact rather than the nature of the transaction (article 4.3(a)). The due diligence provisions do not state that actions to identify, prevent and mitigate human rights impacts are limited to the lead up to the transaction, and they expressly require the banks to monitor, track and assess the outcomes of their due diligence. It also stresses the need to look to creative means of exercising leverage (article 9).

The DBA covers many of those aspects of the UNGPs which banks have been reluctant to include in their policies and which have been hitherto overlooked by the Thun Group – termination of business relationships, value chains and remediation – albeit in a more diminished way than some of the other responsibilities under the UNGPs. Value chains are limited to those mapping exercises under the text and decided upon by the parties to the DBA, and identification of impacts in value chains is not expressly part-and-parcel of a bank’s human rights due diligence processes, which are largely limited to actions to be taken with respect to the client (article 4). Termination of relationships is mentioned as a possible action where a client is repeatedly not able or willing to comply with material due diligence requirements, but this is left entirely to the discretion of the bank (article 4.3(b)). Thus, the DBA accepts the need for more than a transactional due diligence approach, adopting an understanding closer to the human rights due diligence approach in the UNGP/Guidelines.

4.     ‘client-only engagement’ vs. ‘stakeholder engagement’

Banks limit themselves primarily to engaging with their client and not external stakeholders, as understood in the UNGPs. Engagement with external stakeholders is often considered the responsibility of the client, not the bank. Unfortunately, client-only engagement plays a dominant role in the DBA. All mention of meaningful consultations with stakeholders is the duty of the client, with banks expected to influence clients to do so, rather than also the responsibility of the bank. The DBA itself seeks to collaborate with the OECD, but does not expressly set up platforms for engagement with rights-holders. Inclusion of the CSOs and unions which are party to the DBA is itself seen as stakeholder engagement, and the CSOs and unions are expected to empower ways of interaction with affected stakeholders (article 12(a)), but this requirement is placed only on CSOs and there is no equivalent requirement on the adhering banks. Within the DBA itself, inclusion of rights-holders appears to depend on representation through the CSOs and unions. The text of the DBA sets up a dispute resolution mechanism, but this is again only open to parties of agreement; the DBA has no grievance mechanism open to external stakeholders to complain about its implementation, despite this being required under the UNGPs (article 13.3).

5.     ‘knowing and withholding’ vs. ‘knowing and showing’

In the UNGPs, there is an understanding that the relationship between civil society and business will move from ‘naming and shaming’ – whereby outsiders shame businesses for human rights impacts – to ‘knowing and showing’ – where businesses themselves understand and deal with their human rights impacts – showing what actions they are taking. However, banks are largely opposed to such a level of transparency, often glossing over any responsibility to ‘account for’ what actions they take publicly, beyond publishing their policies, sometimes citing regulatory rules or client confidentiality as a reason for not doing so.[9]

Client confidentiality plays a dominant role in banks’ reasons for not disclosing their human rights performance. The DBA states that all of the commitments of the banks are subject to law, and disclosure of banks’ actions in pursuance of the DBA’s provisions is limited by client confidentiality and banks’ internal policies (article 14.8(a)). It also states that banks should engage in being as transparent as possible and that the parties should discuss options for greater transparency (article 6.10).

The first and only public output of the DBA to date was legal advice on what forms of information banks could share with the CSOs and the public. It did not limit itself to law, including provisions of loan agreements that banks enter into and market practice. It concluded that individual client information cannot be discussed unless there is the consent of the client, this information is released in compliance with a statutory obligation of disclosure or it is made anonymous. This is likely to significantly impact what banks can ‘know and show’ in the course of their activities and in their reports under the DBA.

 

The future of the DBA

In this blog, I have focussed on how the DBA may help bridge the current deficit between how banks have traditionally sought to interpret the UNGPs in relation to their activities and the logics of the UNGPs themselves. To the extent the text of the DBA has bridged some of these gaps, the question remains to what purpose. Although it is too early to tell how the DBA will be implemented in practice, in my full article, which this blog is based on, I go into three roles that the DBA might play: regulation, experimentalism, and advocacy.

Regulation depends on ‘rules’ which will require a greater degree of conciseness than is in the UNGPs themselves. In those areas where there is the greatest convergence between the UNGPs and existing E&S due diligence processes, e.g., risk mitigation at the point of transaction, the DBA does have relatively precise requirements. In practice, enforcement of these requirements may, to some extent, be compromised by the DBA’s less-than-ideal enforcement apparatus, as there are some conflicts of interest between the different bodies responsible for the DBA’s implementation.[10]

Experimentalism is particularly relevant for those parts of the DBA where there is less consensus between the parties, e.g., remediation. Experimentalism is based on an iterative and reflexive cycle whereby broadly defined goals and metrics are agreed on, preliminary actions are taken, these actions are assessed against the goals and metrics, and then the goals and metrics are revised in light of lessons learned before the cycle begins again.

Advocacy refers to the DBA’s potential as possibly the only initiative in banking and human rights to result from a genuine multistakeholder consensus to advocate for the uptake of similar norms at the international level. For instance, the outcomes of the remedy working group and the exchange of best due diligence practices is expected to feed into the OECD processes on banking and human rights. This will depend on the DBA not only reaching new normative consensuses but also a) advocating for them internationally and b) demonstrating their added value in practice. While the DBA shows promise, it is yet to be seen what role it will actually play (if any) in the wider business and human rights project.                                        

[1] OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct, ‘Environmental and Social Risk Due Diligence in the Financial Sector: Current Approaches and Practices’ (June 2013), (OECD Survey), p. 53.

[2] Ibid., p. 54.

[3] Ibid., p. 51.

[4] Thun Group, ‘Discussion Paper on the Implications of UN Guiding Principles 13 & 17 in a Corporate and Investment Banking Context’,(January 2017), p. 15.

[5] OECD, ‘Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct 26-27 June 2013 Summary Report’ (2013), p. 17.

[6] OECD Survey, p. 61.

[7] Ibid, p. 52.

[8] Thun Group 2017 paper.

[9] Benjamin Thompson, ‘The Dutch Banking Sector Agreement on Human Rights: An Exercise in Regulation, Experimentation or Advocacy?’ (2018) 14(2) Utrecht Law Review 84, p.89.

[10] Ibid., p. 96.

Comments are closed
Doing Business Right Blog | International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights Disputes: Part 3 - Case study of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh’s binding arbitration process - By Catherine Dunmore

Doing Business Right Blog

T.M.C. Asser Instituut

International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights Disputes: Part 3 - Case study of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh’s binding arbitration process - By Catherine Dunmore

18. December 2017 Antoine Duval (0)

Editor's Note: Catherine Dunmore is an experienced international lawyer who practised international arbitration for multinational law firms in London and Paris. She recently received her LL.M. from the University of Toronto and her main fields of interest include international criminal law and human rights. Since October 2017, she is part of the team of the Doing Business Right project at the Asser Institute.

Background

At the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights from 27-29 November 2017 in Geneva, discussions focused on the central theme of Realizing Access to Effective Remedy. With an increasing focus on this third pillar of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a working group of international law, human rights and conflict management specialists (Claes Cronstedt, Jan Eijsbouts, Adrienne Margolis, Steven Ratner, Martijn Scheltema and Robert C. Thompson) has spent several years exploring the use of arbitration to resolve business and human rights disputes. This culminated in the publication on 13 February 2017 of a proposal for International Business and Human Rights Arbitration. On 17 August 2017, a follow-up Questions and Answers document was published by the working group to address the principal questions raised about the proposal during the three-year consultation with stakeholders. Now, a drafting team is being assembled, chaired by Bruno Simma, to prepare a set of rules designed specifically for international business and human rights arbitration (the Hague International Business and Human Rights Arbitration Rules) in consultation with a wide range of business and human rights stakeholders. Once drafted, the rules will be offered to the Permanent Court of Arbitration and other international arbitration institutions and could be used in arbitration proceedings managed by parties on an ad hoc basis.


Introduction

Part 1 of this three-part blog series gave an overview introduction to the proposal for international business and human rights arbitration. Part 2 focused on the potential advantages of using international arbitration to resolve such disputes, as well as the substantial challenges the proposal will face in practice. This Part 3 now provides a case study of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh’s binding arbitration process. More particularly, it will provide (1) a brief background to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, as well as (2) an analysis of its binding arbitration process, before (3) discussing the arbitrations brought by IndustriALL Global Union and UNI Global Union against two global fashion brands under the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh.


1.     Background to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh

The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (the Accord) is a five year independent, legally binding agreement between global brands, retailers and trade unions created in the immediate aftermath of the Rana Plaza building collapse, which led to the death of more than 1,100 people and injured over 2,000. Its purpose is to create a safe and sustainable Bangladeshi Ready Made Garment Industry in which no textile worker need fear fires, building collapses or other accidents that could be prevented with reasonable health and safety measures. The Accord was signed on 15 May 2013 and in June 2013 an implementation plan was agreed, leading to the incorporation of the Bangladesh Accord Foundation in the Netherlands in October 2013. The agreement notably consists of six key components:

  • A five year legally binding agreement between brands and trade unions to ensure a safe working environment in the Bangladeshi Ready Made Garment Industry.
  • An independent inspection program supported by brands in which workers and trade unions are involved.
  • Public disclosure of all factories, inspection reports and corrective action plans.
  • A commitment by signatory brands to ensure sufficient funds are available for remediation and to maintain sourcing relationships.
  • Democratically elected health and safety committees in all factories to identify and act on health and safety risks.
  • Worker empowerment through an extensive training program, complaints mechanism and right to refuse unsafe work.

To date, the Accord has been signed by over 200 apparel brands, retailers and importers from over twenty countries in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia, as well as two global trade unions, eight Bangladesh trade unions and four non-governmental organisation witnesses. As of October 2017, the Accord’s inspectors have identified thousands of safety hazards, but nearly 80% of workplace dangers discovered in the original round of inspections have been remediated whilst over 600 factories have completed 90% or more of the necessary remediation works.

In June 2017, a second term was agreed for the Accord which will enter into effect when the current agreement ends in May 2018 (the 2018 Accord), expiring in 2021. The concept is then for the work to be handed over to a national regulatory body, supported by the International Labor Organization, to be carried forward from that point.


2.     The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh’s binding arbitration process

Article 5 of the Accord contains the agreement’s dispute resolution mechanism, which includes appeal to a final and binding arbitration process. It states that:

“Any dispute between the parties to, and arising under, the terms of this Agreement shall first be presented to and decided by the SC [Steering Committee], which shall decide the dispute by majority vote of the SC within a maximum of 21 days of a petition being filed by one of the parties. Upon request of either party, the decision of the SC may be appealed to a final and binding arbitration process. Any arbitration award shall be enforceable in a court of law of the domicile of the signatory against whom enforcement is sought and shall be subject to The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (The New York Convention), where applicable. The process for binding arbitration, including, but not limited to, the allocation of costs relating to any arbitration and the process for selection of the Arbitrator, shall be governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (with amendments as adopted in 2006)”.

A number of critiques have been levied of this arbitration mechanism. For instance, Roger Alford highlighted that the mechanism contains no governing law clause and no seat of arbitration. Accordingly, if a party were to refuse to arbitrate then there is no evident national court in which the claimant might file a motion to compel arbitration. Additionally, although reference is made to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, no specific arbitration rules are selected. Another constraint is that only disputes arising under the terms of the Accord are subject to arbitration, which may restrict the mechanism’s scope to breach of contract and potentially exclude disputes relating to third-party injuries. The article also appears on one reading to limit arbitration to an exclusively appellate function, with the arbitral tribunal only able to review the Steering Committee’s decision for legal or factual errors as opposed to considering the case afresh. Finally, whilst arbitration awards rendered following an appeal of the Steering Committee decision are subject to enforcement under the New York Convention, there is no stated procedure for directly enforcing the Steering Committee decision and creating binding obligations for the parties without recourse to arbitration.

Article 3 of the 2018 Accord contains some notable alterations to the agreement’s dispute resolution mechanism, stating that:

“Any dispute between the parties to, and arising under, the terms of this Agreement shall be presented to and decided by the SC.

The Steering Committee shall adopt a revised Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) to specify the timelines and procedures involved when disputes are presented to the SC, with the aim to 3 establish a fair and efficient process. The decision making process of the SC shall be supported by a member of Accord secretariat who will perform an initial investigation for the parties and present facts and their recommendations.

The DRP will also incorporate the opportunity for parties to participate in a mediation process in order to make arbitration unnecessary where there is no resolution of the dispute by the SC. Upon request of either party, the decision of the SC may be appealed to a final and binding arbitration process. Any arbitration award shall be enforceable in a court of law of the domicile of the signatory against whom enforcement is sought and shall be subject to The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (The New York Convention), where applicable. The process for binding arbitration, including, but not limited to, the allocation of costs relating to any arbitration and the process for selection of the Arbitrator, shall be governed by the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as in its last revision) unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The arbitration shall be seated in The Hague and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration”.

By specifying a seat in The Hague and administration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the 2018 Accord’s dispute resolution article addresses the previous Accord’s silence on arbitral institution and seat of arbitration. It notably also incorporates a mediation process into the dispute resolution mechanism, providing parties with an alternative to arbitration proceedings. However, a number of lacunas remain in the 2018 Accord’s dispute resolution mechanism, leaving questions as to the practical implementation of its binding arbitration process.


3.     IndustriALL Global Union and UNI Global Union’s arbitrations against two global fashion brands under the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh

In July and October 2016, IndustriALL Global Union and UNI Global Union, non-governmental labour organisations based in Switzerland, commenced arbitrations against two global fashion brands under the Accord and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010. The claims include that the fashion brands failed to compel suppliers to remediate facilities within the Accord’s deadline and negotiate commercial terms to make it financially feasible for their suppliers to cover the costs of remediation. The Claimants sought a declaration that the fashion brands violated their Accord obligations alongside a contribution to remediation costs.

Subsequently, the Parties in both PCA Case No. 2016-36 and PCA Case No. 2016-37 agreed that while remaining formally distinct, the two cases would be heard by the same tribunal. The Parties agreed that the seat of the arbitrations would be The Hague, with the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration acting as appointing authority. The Tribunal, composed of Professor Hans Petter Graver, Mr Graham Dunning QC and presiding arbitrator Mr Donald Francis Donovan, was formally constituted on 3 February 2017.

The Tribunal issued its Procedural Order No. 1 on 19 April 2017 which dealt with, amongst other matters, the complex issues of transparency and confidentiality discussed in Part 2 of this blog series. Clause 15 of Procedural Order No. 1 notably cited the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010 for authority that:

  • Any hearing would be held in camera unless the parties agreed otherwise (article 28(3)).
  • Any award would be made public only with the consent of all parties or where and to the extent disclosure is required of a party by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right or in relation to legal proceedings before a court or other competent authority (article (35(2)).

Accordingly the Tribunal confirmed its direction that all details of the proceedings, including that they were pending, be kept confidential pending an agreement or ruling on confidentiality.

The Respondents raised challenges to the admissibility of the claims on the basis that the pre-conditions to arbitrate under Article 5 of the Accord had not been met, and even questioned the Article’s validity as a mechanism to arbitrate. They further argued that because the deadlocked Steering Committee did not produce a majority decision, there was no final decision which could be appealed to a final and binding arbitration process. The Respondents also argued that the term ‘appealed’ in Article 5 of the Accord expressed a clear and unambiguous intent to limit a tribunal’s role to that of an appellate body, providing simply an additional layer of scrutiny as opposed to a de novo appraisal.

Subsequently on 4 September 2017, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 2 containing its Decision on Admissibility Objection and Directions on Confidentiality and Transparency. The Tribunal unanimously rejected the Respondents’ interpretation, finding that the pre-conditions to arbitrate had indeed been met. It found that the Steering Committee “went through a deliberative process and arrived at a ‘decision’ for each charge within the meaning of Article 5” of the Accord. The Tribunal pointed to the “pointless consequences” that would arise from following the Respondent’s argument that the claims were inadmissible due to the deadlocked Steering Committee, explaining that:

  • “At this point, there is nothing further that the Claimants could do to pursue their petition except to refile it with the Steering Committee. But that body has already given it the consideration contemplated by Article 5. Hence, the only way to release the petition from Steering Committee limbo would be for one of the union or brand representatives – presumably here, one of the union representatives – to ‘cross the floor’ and vote to reject it, which would then produce the majority vote that the Respondents contend is the condition to invoking arbitration. The Accord signatories could not have intended to promote that kind of gamesmanship as the only way to access arbitration in the event of an evenly divided Steering Committee. Equally, they could not have intended to deny a claimant access to arbitration in the event of a tie but make it available if the claimant lost by a majority or unanimous vote”.

It also emphasised that the term ‘appealed’ on its own did not bring any limitation to a body’s scope of review. Rather, the Tribunal held that particularly given the “non-legal, industry-based character of the first level of decision-making” by the Steering Committee, “there is every reason to believe that the Accord signatories considered that the ‘arbitration’ to which that initial decision could be ‘appealed’ would involve the full fact-finding and law-deciding authority of standard arbitral processes”.

The Tribunal accordingly held the claims admissible and within its jurisdiction. The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s press release noted that the case would proceed to a merits phase, with hearings scheduled for the first half of 2018.

The Tribunal also issued directions on confidentiality and transparency. It noted the particularity of the case, as neither “a classic ‘public law’ arbitration” involving a State nor a “traditional commercial arbitration” between private parties. In its deliberations, the Tribunal accounted for the interest in the Accord from the public, numerous signatories and other stakeholders, but also the need to protect the business information and reputational interests of the fashion brands. To strike a balance between these competing interests, the Tribunal ordered that some basic information about the arbitration’s existence and progress be disclosed but that the identity of the Respondents be kept confidential. Pursuant to a protocol developed in consultation with the Parties, redacted copies of certain documents might be published, including awards, decisions and orders of the Tribunal.

In relation to one of these two Accord arbitrations, on 15 December 2017 IndustriALL Global Union announced that the Parties had reached a settlement agreement. The settlement will ensure that the fashion brand’s supplier factories are remediated and that substantial funds are available for that remediation work consistent with the Accord.


Conclusions

The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh represents a ground-breaking accountability structure and, despite its notable deficiencies and uncertainties, its arbitration process provides a binding enforcement mechanism unique in its resolution of human rights disputes. The arbitrations brought by IndustriALL Global Union and UNI Global Union under the Accord presented the first tests of this mechanism. The Tribunal’s unanimous decision in holding the claims admissible bolstered its credibility, whilst it also acknowledged the challenges arising when adjudicating on disputes of a hybrid nature involving public interests and private concerns. The Accord’s binding arbitration process, as well as the ongoing arbitration proceedings, will undoubtedly be of significant interest to the business and human rights community as a promising example of an alternate means to resolve business and human rights disputes. The working group and drafting team must both reflect and build upon the Accord’s arbitration process as they seek to create strong, binding rules for arbitrating business and human rights disputes.

Comments are closed