In the Wake of Bonsucro: Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives and Third-Party Certifiers at the Test Bench of OECD National Contact Points

IF 2.3 Q3 BUSINESS Business and Human Rights Journal Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1017/bhj.2023.17
Elena Corcione
{"title":"In the Wake of Bonsucro: Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives and Third-Party Certifiers at the Test Bench of OECD National Contact Points","authors":"Elena Corcione","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2023.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In January 2022, the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) issued a final statement in a specific instance claim brought against Bonsucro, a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) that aims to promote sustainable production of sugarcane. The claim alleged that Bonsucro had failed to comply with the OECD Guidelines because it had not carried out appropriate due diligence towards one of its members, accused of human rights abuses. While NCP complaints had been brought against MSIs and certifiers before, the UK NCP’s final statement is the first to recognize the leverage MSIs have over members due to their ability to deny membership and related reputational benefits to companies wishing to show sustainability logos, and to affirm their responsibility to use this leverage to avoid abuses. The statement sheds light on the accountability of actors involved in private voluntary sustainability standard systems, with possible impacts on other actors such as third-party certifiers.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"8 1","pages":"271 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business and Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2023.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In January 2022, the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) issued a final statement in a specific instance claim brought against Bonsucro, a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) that aims to promote sustainable production of sugarcane. The claim alleged that Bonsucro had failed to comply with the OECD Guidelines because it had not carried out appropriate due diligence towards one of its members, accused of human rights abuses. While NCP complaints had been brought against MSIs and certifiers before, the UK NCP’s final statement is the first to recognize the leverage MSIs have over members due to their ability to deny membership and related reputational benefits to companies wishing to show sustainability logos, and to affirm their responsibility to use this leverage to avoid abuses. The statement sheds light on the accountability of actors involved in private voluntary sustainability standard systems, with possible impacts on other actors such as third-party certifiers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
继Bonsucro之后:经合组织国家联络点试验台的多方利益相关者倡议和第三方认证机构
2022年1月,英国国家联络点(UK NCP)就针对Bonsucro提起的具体案件索赔发表了最终声明,Bonsucro是一个旨在促进甘蔗可持续生产的多方利益相关者倡议(MSI)。该声明称,邦苏克罗未能遵守经合组织的指导方针,因为它没有对被指控侵犯人权的一名成员进行适当的尽职调查。虽然之前也有针对msi和认证机构的投诉,但英国NCP的最终声明是第一次承认msi对成员的影响力,因为他们有能力拒绝那些希望展示可持续发展标志的公司的会员资格和相关的声誉利益,并确认他们有责任利用这种影响力来避免滥用。该声明阐明了参与私营自愿可持续性标准体系的行为者的问责制,并可能对第三方认证机构等其他行为者产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Business and Human Rights Journal (BHRJ) provides an authoritative platform for scholarly debate on all issues concerning the intersection of business and human rights in an open, critical and interdisciplinary manner. It seeks to advance the academic discussion on business and human rights as well as promote concern for human rights in business practice. BHRJ strives for the broadest possible scope, authorship and readership. Its scope encompasses interface of any type of business enterprise with human rights, environmental rights, labour rights and the collective rights of vulnerable groups. The Editors welcome theoretical, empirical and policy / reform-oriented perspectives and encourage submissions from academics and practitioners in all global regions and all relevant disciplines. A dialogue beyond academia is fostered as peer-reviewed articles are published alongside shorter ‘Developments in the Field’ items that include policy, legal and regulatory developments, as well as case studies and insight pieces.
期刊最新文献
Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (mHRDD) Laws Caught Between Rituals and Ritualism: The Forms and Limits of Business Authority in the Global Governance of Business and Human Rights Seeking Justice. Access to Remedy for Corporate Human Rights Abuse, by Tricia D. Olsen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023) Creating an Effective Mediation Scheme for Business-Related Human Rights Abuses: The Case of Ukraine Vulnerability Theory as a Paradigm Shift in International Investment Law: Reimagining the Role of the State Corporate Social Irresponsibility, an Elastic Wall, and a Fragile State: Sign of Hope’s Unfinished Quest to Mitigate Human Rights Violations in South Sudan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1