{"title":"The Role of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the National Contact Points in Shaping the Future of Corporate Accountability","authors":"Patrick Simon Perillo","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">OECD</span> Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (<span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">OECD</span> Guidelines) are one of the few measures that were successfully realised on the international plane in the decades-long pursuit of corporate accountability. For 20 years, the <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">OECD</span> Guidelines and their non-judicial grievance mechanism, the National Contact Point (<span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">NCP</span>), have been continuously resorted to by victims and advocates in holding businesses to account for various abuses and misbehaviours. Interestingly, <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">NCP</span> cases (specific instances) have only steadily increased through the years despite the challenges, limitations and criticisms that the mechanism has been confronted with. And more states continue to adhere to the Guidelines, <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">OECD</span> members and non-members alike, and bind themselves to the obligation of establishing an <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">NCP</span> within their territory. Such mechanism accordingly remains relevant, valuable and indispensable. This article seeks to revisit and examine the <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">OECD</span> Guidelines and the <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">NCP</span>s in light of the two United Nations (UN) pathways initiated by the UN Human Rights Council: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (<span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">UNGP</span>) and the elaboration of a potential treaty on business and human rights (<span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">BHR</span>). It will identify and evaluate three important features that make the mechanism unique vis-à-vis other <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">BHR</span> mechanisms. The article will focus its analysis and discussion on how these features are able to or can meaningfully contribute to the UN pathways, as well as how they could be harnessed to improve existing propositions and drafts leading to the desired legally binding instrument. It will also identify some of the mechanism’s shortcomings, and understand some of the points made in this regard. Finally, it will conclude with recommendations on how the mechanism could be improved and how these features could assist in shaping the future of corporate accountability.</p>","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Community Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines) are one of the few measures that were successfully realised on the international plane in the decades-long pursuit of corporate accountability. For 20 years, the OECD Guidelines and their non-judicial grievance mechanism, the National Contact Point (NCP), have been continuously resorted to by victims and advocates in holding businesses to account for various abuses and misbehaviours. Interestingly, NCP cases (specific instances) have only steadily increased through the years despite the challenges, limitations and criticisms that the mechanism has been confronted with. And more states continue to adhere to the Guidelines, OECD members and non-members alike, and bind themselves to the obligation of establishing an NCP within their territory. Such mechanism accordingly remains relevant, valuable and indispensable. This article seeks to revisit and examine the OECD Guidelines and the NCPs in light of the two United Nations (UN) pathways initiated by the UN Human Rights Council: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the elaboration of a potential treaty on business and human rights (BHR). It will identify and evaluate three important features that make the mechanism unique vis-à-vis other BHR mechanisms. The article will focus its analysis and discussion on how these features are able to or can meaningfully contribute to the UN pathways, as well as how they could be harnessed to improve existing propositions and drafts leading to the desired legally binding instrument. It will also identify some of the mechanism’s shortcomings, and understand some of the points made in this regard. Finally, it will conclude with recommendations on how the mechanism could be improved and how these features could assist in shaping the future of corporate accountability.
经合组织跨国企业指导方针(经合组织指导方针)是几十年来在国际层面上成功实施的少数措施之一。20年来,受害者和倡导者不断利用经合组织指南及其非司法申诉机制——国家联络点(National Contact Point, NCP),要求企业对各种侵权和不当行为负责。有趣的是,尽管该机制面临着挑战、限制和批评,但近年来,新冠肺炎病例(具体病例)仍在稳步增加。越来越多的国家,无论是经合组织成员国还是非成员国,都继续遵守《指导方针》,并承担在其领土内建立NCP的义务。因此,这种机制仍然是相关的、宝贵的和不可或缺的。本文试图根据联合国人权理事会发起的两条联合国途径:《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》(UNGP)和拟定一项潜在的工商业与人权条约(BHR),重新审视和审查经合组织指南和国家行动纲领。它将确定和评价使该机制有别于-à-vis其他BHR机制的三个重要特征。本文将重点分析和讨论这些特点如何能够或能够对联合国的途径作出有意义的贡献,以及如何利用它们来改进现有的主张和草案,从而形成理想的具有法律约束力的文书。它还将查明该机制的一些缺点,并了解在这方面提出的一些观点。最后,报告将就如何改进这一机制以及这些特点如何有助于塑造公司问责制的未来提出建议。
期刊介绍:
The Journal aims to explore the implications of various traditions of international law, as well as more current perceived hegemonic trends for the idea of an international community. The Journal will also look at the ways and means in which the international community uses and adapts international law to deal with new and emerging challenges. Non-state actors , intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, individuals, peoples, transnational corporations and civil society as a whole - have changed our outlook on contemporary international law. In addition to States and intergovernmental organizations, they now play an important role.