Untangling the authority of external experts in the corporate implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Human Rights Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1080/14754835.2022.2105646
Marisa McVey
{"title":"Untangling the authority of external experts in the corporate implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights","authors":"Marisa McVey","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2105646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human (UNGPs) explicitly ask corporations to rely on “external expertise” for policy guidance, human rights due diligence (HRDD), and remedy. The broad conceptualization of expertise in the UNGPs signifies an amorphous, neutral, and largely unregulated community of consultants, human rights institutions, NGOs, impact assessors, and auditors (among other actors). I argue that external experts exert significant governance authority in the business and human rights space. Through empirical analysis of experts orbiting two multinational corporations, I identify experts as knowledge providers, diplomats, critics, and legitimizers in the corporate implementation of the UNGPs. In doing so, this work adds nuanced political dimensions to expert authority in business and human rights, offering evidence of its manifestations and limitations. Finally, I advance some considerations and suggestions for future research, particularly vital in the context of incoming mandatory HRDD legislation.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"21 1","pages":"620 - 638"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2105646","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human (UNGPs) explicitly ask corporations to rely on “external expertise” for policy guidance, human rights due diligence (HRDD), and remedy. The broad conceptualization of expertise in the UNGPs signifies an amorphous, neutral, and largely unregulated community of consultants, human rights institutions, NGOs, impact assessors, and auditors (among other actors). I argue that external experts exert significant governance authority in the business and human rights space. Through empirical analysis of experts orbiting two multinational corporations, I identify experts as knowledge providers, diplomats, critics, and legitimizers in the corporate implementation of the UNGPs. In doing so, this work adds nuanced political dimensions to expert authority in business and human rights, offering evidence of its manifestations and limitations. Finally, I advance some considerations and suggestions for future research, particularly vital in the context of incoming mandatory HRDD legislation.
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
在企业执行《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》过程中削弱外部专家的权威
摘要联合国商业与人类指导原则明确要求企业依靠“外部专业知识”进行政策指导、人权尽职调查和补救。联合国大会专业知识的广泛概念化意味着一个由顾问、人权机构、非政府组织、影响评估员和审计员(以及其他行为者)组成的无定形、中立且基本上不受监管的群体。我认为,外部专家在商业和人权领域发挥着重要的治理权威。通过对两家跨国公司的专家进行实证分析,我将专家确定为联合国大会企业实施过程中的知识提供者、外交官、批评者和合法化者。在这样做的过程中,这项工作为商业和人权领域的专家权威增加了微妙的政治层面,为其表现形式和局限性提供了证据。最后,我对未来的研究提出了一些考虑和建议,特别是在即将出台的强制性人力资源开发和尽职调查立法的背景下。
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
3.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Copy thy neighbor: Spatial interdependences in the democracy-repression nexus From human rights to “righteous humans”: Brazilian foreign policy in the Bolsonaro era Disruption and emergence: How to think about human rights futures How to consolidate quickly: The cases of Algeria and Tunisia Meanings of the human rights concept: Tunisian activism in the 1970s
×
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