The increasing focus on business and human rights (BHR) in civil society and policymaking has not been matched by research on corporate actions to respect and protect human rights. The lack of research on BHR is especially acute outside of Western Europe and Anglo-centric contexts. This paper seeks to investigate how the largest Russian firms conceptualize and fulfil their human rights obligations under the UN Guiding Principles and the extent to which internationalization of those firms may have impacted these behaviours. I use a unique dataset created from a sample made of the 100 largest firms listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange. Using the theoretical construct of institutional conflict, I find that cross-listing on other stock exchanges and the extent to which firms frame their broader social responsibility issues as ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ rather than ‘corporate social responsibility’ has a substantial impact on firm attention to human rights. While this attention is encouraging, firm disclosure of actions taken to mitigate against violations and protect human rights is extremely limited and the strength of domestic institutional pressures has resulted in very little firm action in the face of the extreme and widespread human rights violations being committed in Ukraine by Russia.
{"title":"Business and Human Rights in Russia: Emerging or Merging?","authors":"M. Rogerson","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.29","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The increasing focus on business and human rights (BHR) in civil society and policymaking has not been matched by research on corporate actions to respect and protect human rights. The lack of research on BHR is especially acute outside of Western Europe and Anglo-centric contexts. This paper seeks to investigate how the largest Russian firms conceptualize and fulfil their human rights obligations under the UN Guiding Principles and the extent to which internationalization of those firms may have impacted these behaviours. I use a unique dataset created from a sample made of the 100 largest firms listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange. Using the theoretical construct of institutional conflict, I find that cross-listing on other stock exchanges and the extent to which firms frame their broader social responsibility issues as ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ rather than ‘corporate social responsibility’ has a substantial impact on firm attention to human rights. While this attention is encouraging, firm disclosure of actions taken to mitigate against violations and protect human rights is extremely limited and the strength of domestic institutional pressures has resulted in very little firm action in the face of the extreme and widespread human rights violations being committed in Ukraine by Russia.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49552881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the climate and biodiversity crises gain unprecedented attention, many governments across the global north are taking legislative steps to address deforestation in supply chains linked to their domestic consumption or commercial activities, among them, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU).1
{"title":"Human Rights Violations Connected with Deforestation – Emerging and Diverging Approaches to Human Rights Due Diligence","authors":"Anouska Perram, N. Jiwan","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.38","url":null,"abstract":"As the climate and biodiversity crises gain unprecedented attention, many governments across the global north are taking legislative steps to address deforestation in supply chains linked to their domestic consumption or commercial activities, among them, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU).1","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45843007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On 24 June 2022, the Contracting Parties of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) finalized discussions on the modernization of the treaty. After fifteen rounds of negotiations, an agreement in principle was reached to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference on 22 November 2022 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.1 The ECT, adopted in 1994, establishes a legal framework that aims to promote international cooperation in the energy sector.2 It has a membership of 53 countries primarily from Europe and Central Asia, as well as the European Union (EU) and the European Atomic Energy Community. In recent years, the ECT attracted widespread public attention due to its impact on states’ environmental and climate policies. Particularly, the treaty’s provisions on investment protection, with investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the centre, allow foreign investors in the energy sector to challenge adverse state action before international arbitration and claim compensation for measures affecting their business activities. Fossil fuel investors have increasingly used the ECT to challenge environmental and climate measures, such as phasing out coal-fired power generation, banning offshore oil drilling in coastal areas, and prohibiting gas fracking projects. Such cases have fuelled concerns regarding the abilities of governments to roll-out large-scale climate action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that international investment agreements (IIAs) like the ECT could ‘be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets’.3 With some of these damage claims running into billions of euros, the ECT enables fossil fuel investors to offload the costs and risks associated with their affected assets onto society at large in the face of necessary climate action. This would go, in the words of the editorial board of the Financial Times, against the ‘heart of the capitalist social contract’ and the ‘ability of markets to deal adequately with the challenge of climate change’.4
{"title":"The Modernization of the Energy Charter Treaty: Fulfilled or Broken Promises?","authors":"Bart-Jaap Verbeek","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.39","url":null,"abstract":"On 24 June 2022, the Contracting Parties of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) finalized discussions on the modernization of the treaty. After fifteen rounds of negotiations, an agreement in principle was reached to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference on 22 November 2022 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.1 The ECT, adopted in 1994, establishes a legal framework that aims to promote international cooperation in the energy sector.2 It has a membership of 53 countries primarily from Europe and Central Asia, as well as the European Union (EU) and the European Atomic Energy Community. In recent years, the ECT attracted widespread public attention due to its impact on states’ environmental and climate policies. Particularly, the treaty’s provisions on investment protection, with investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the centre, allow foreign investors in the energy sector to challenge adverse state action before international arbitration and claim compensation for measures affecting their business activities. Fossil fuel investors have increasingly used the ECT to challenge environmental and climate measures, such as phasing out coal-fired power generation, banning offshore oil drilling in coastal areas, and prohibiting gas fracking projects. Such cases have fuelled concerns regarding the abilities of governments to roll-out large-scale climate action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that international investment agreements (IIAs) like the ECT could ‘be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets’.3 With some of these damage claims running into billions of euros, the ECT enables fossil fuel investors to offload the costs and risks associated with their affected assets onto society at large in the face of necessary climate action. This would go, in the words of the editorial board of the Financial Times, against the ‘heart of the capitalist social contract’ and the ‘ability of markets to deal adequately with the challenge of climate change’.4","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41483801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article presents an empirical study of six grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). It argues that key characteristics of each grievance mechanism as well as the contexts in which they operate significantly affect human rights outcomes. However, even the most successful mechanisms only manage to produce remedies in particular types of cases and contexts. The research also finds that it is prohibitively difficult to determine whether ‘effective’ remedy has been achieved in individual cases. Furthermore, the key intervention by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to prescribe a set of effectiveness criteria for designing or revising MSI grievance mechanisms, itself appears ineffective in stimulating better outcomes for rights-holders. Drawing on these findings, the article reflects on the future potential and limitations of MSI grievance mechanisms within broader struggles to ensure business respect for human rights.
{"title":"Grievance Mechanisms in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Providing Effective Remedy for Human Rights Violations?","authors":"J. Harrison, Mark Wielga","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.37","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article presents an empirical study of six grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). It argues that key characteristics of each grievance mechanism as well as the contexts in which they operate significantly affect human rights outcomes. However, even the most successful mechanisms only manage to produce remedies in particular types of cases and contexts. The research also finds that it is prohibitively difficult to determine whether ‘effective’ remedy has been achieved in individual cases. Furthermore, the key intervention by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to prescribe a set of effectiveness criteria for designing or revising MSI grievance mechanisms, itself appears ineffective in stimulating better outcomes for rights-holders. Drawing on these findings, the article reflects on the future potential and limitations of MSI grievance mechanisms within broader struggles to ensure business respect for human rights.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49322109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Human Rights Litigation against Multinationals in Practice, Richard Meeran and Jahan Meeran (eds.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021)","authors":"Björn Fasterling","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.30","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44153570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper presents an alternative epistemic worldview of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (CR2R) as a norm. It examines how an Afrocentric interpretation of the CR2R norm can contribute to a relational system where corporations promote human rights in African host communities. It uses an African norm — Ubuntu — to reframe and reinterpret Pillar II in Afrocentric terms. It argues that this reframing is important for three reasons. First, Ubuntu reframing increases the CR2R norm’s intelligibility in Africa because it clarifies and contextualizes the term ‘respect’ used in Pillar II. Second, reframing the CR2R norm through Ubuntu fills the ethical gap in the interpretation of the CR2Rnorm. Third, an Ubuntu-inspired interpretation insulates the CR2R norm from some scholars’ critique that the CR2R norm’s scope is narrow because it only encourages MNCs to avoid infringing on the human rights of others without prescribing positive obligations. This paper then examines channels through which Ubuntu can influence the CR2R norm.
{"title":"Localizing the UNGPs – An Afrocentric Approach to Interpreting Pillar II","authors":"Akinwumi Ogunranti","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.35","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents an alternative epistemic worldview of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (CR2R) as a norm. It examines how an Afrocentric interpretation of the CR2R norm can contribute to a relational system where corporations promote human rights in African host communities. It uses an African norm — Ubuntu — to reframe and reinterpret Pillar II in Afrocentric terms. It argues that this reframing is important for three reasons. First, Ubuntu reframing increases the CR2R norm’s intelligibility in Africa because it clarifies and contextualizes the term ‘respect’ used in Pillar II. Second, reframing the CR2R norm through Ubuntu fills the ethical gap in the interpretation of the CR2Rnorm. Third, an Ubuntu-inspired interpretation insulates the CR2R norm from some scholars’ critique that the CR2R norm’s scope is narrow because it only encourages MNCs to avoid infringing on the human rights of others without prescribing positive obligations. This paper then examines channels through which Ubuntu can influence the CR2R norm.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46221556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A lot has happened since 2005, when the late John Ruggie was appointed as the UN Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations.Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have continued to grow, despite concerns about their limited accomplishments. NGOs have developed a variety of score cards to rank the human rights and sustainability practices of leading brands and retailers. ESG (environmental, social and governance) ratings have moved into themainstreamof the investmentworld, spurring debates aboutwhether they are meaningful and ‘material’ to corporate returns. Recently, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – which Ruggie helped to forge – have inspired an EU draft directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, moving towards mandatory rather than voluntary standards. In Incorporating Rights, Erika George makes a hopeful argument about how these types of initiatives – particularly the voluntary ones – can gradually lead to greater respect for the human rights of workers in labour-intensive industries, communities in extractive zones, and individuals subject to high-tech surveillance. While occasionally acknowledging limitations, she argues that MSIs, score cards and demand from responsible investors and consumers have combined to make attention to human rights essentially obligatory rather than voluntary for large corporations. This is especially significant, she argues, because international law offers few meaningful paths for corporations to be held accountable to human rights norms, especially as courts have narrowed the scope of extra-territorial claims. In essence, George carries on Ruggie’s legacy in making the case that norms for international business are changing and that this is no small accomplishment. Empirically, George traces the discourse of corporate social responsibility in several large food/beverage, apparel/footwear, oil/gas and information technology companies (e.g., Coca-Cola, Adidas, ExxonMobil and Microsoft). Looking over time, she shows that human rights were increasingly incorporated into policies and reports as the companies faced controversies (roughly 2005 to 2017 in most cases). Beyond this, George draws on her observations of various meetings (e.g., UN Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights) and interviews with developers of MSIs and score cards to paint a multi-faceted portrait of the expectations that large companies face to respect human rights throughout their global operations and supply chains. In each chapter, she examines a different piece of the puzzle – such as business and human rights norms, MSIs, score cards, shareholder and consumer pressures – highlighting the evolution and expansion of expectations. Her analysis ends prior to the development of the EU mandatory due diligence directive – and earlier laws, such as the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance law, are not in her purview – but these developments would seemingly bolster her overall point: global h
{"title":"Incorporating Rights: Strategies to Advance Corporate Accountability, Erika George (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021)","authors":"Tim Bartley","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.32","url":null,"abstract":"A lot has happened since 2005, when the late John Ruggie was appointed as the UN Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations.Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have continued to grow, despite concerns about their limited accomplishments. NGOs have developed a variety of score cards to rank the human rights and sustainability practices of leading brands and retailers. ESG (environmental, social and governance) ratings have moved into themainstreamof the investmentworld, spurring debates aboutwhether they are meaningful and ‘material’ to corporate returns. Recently, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – which Ruggie helped to forge – have inspired an EU draft directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, moving towards mandatory rather than voluntary standards. In Incorporating Rights, Erika George makes a hopeful argument about how these types of initiatives – particularly the voluntary ones – can gradually lead to greater respect for the human rights of workers in labour-intensive industries, communities in extractive zones, and individuals subject to high-tech surveillance. While occasionally acknowledging limitations, she argues that MSIs, score cards and demand from responsible investors and consumers have combined to make attention to human rights essentially obligatory rather than voluntary for large corporations. This is especially significant, she argues, because international law offers few meaningful paths for corporations to be held accountable to human rights norms, especially as courts have narrowed the scope of extra-territorial claims. In essence, George carries on Ruggie’s legacy in making the case that norms for international business are changing and that this is no small accomplishment. Empirically, George traces the discourse of corporate social responsibility in several large food/beverage, apparel/footwear, oil/gas and information technology companies (e.g., Coca-Cola, Adidas, ExxonMobil and Microsoft). Looking over time, she shows that human rights were increasingly incorporated into policies and reports as the companies faced controversies (roughly 2005 to 2017 in most cases). Beyond this, George draws on her observations of various meetings (e.g., UN Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights) and interviews with developers of MSIs and score cards to paint a multi-faceted portrait of the expectations that large companies face to respect human rights throughout their global operations and supply chains. In each chapter, she examines a different piece of the puzzle – such as business and human rights norms, MSIs, score cards, shareholder and consumer pressures – highlighting the evolution and expansion of expectations. Her analysis ends prior to the development of the EU mandatory due diligence directive – and earlier laws, such as the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance law, are not in her purview – but these developments would seemingly bolster her overall point: global h","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47091811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Economic inequality, in particular vertical inequality in income and wealth within countries,1 has widened considerably with potentially dramatic economic, political and social consequences.2 Reflecting the need for urgent action on inequality, the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10 focuses on the reduction of various forms of inequality within and between countries.3 In that context, a number of recent interventions have sought to highlight how business affects inequality,4 recognizing that businesses have a central function in creating and distributing economic value in society. Significantly, two emerging initiatives, the Task Force on Inequality-Related Financial Disclosure (TIFD)5 and the Business Commission to Tackle Inequality (BCTI) by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,6 seek to notably identify business impacts on inequality and provide approaches for their alleviation.
经济不平等，特别是国家内部收入和财富的纵向不平等1已大大扩大，可能造成严重的经济、政治和社会后果2 .联合国可持续发展目标(SDG) 10侧重于减少国家内部和国家之间各种形式的不平等，反映了对不平等采取紧急行动的必要性在这种背景下，最近的一些干预措施试图强调商业如何影响不平等，4认识到企业在创造和分配社会经济价值方面具有核心作用。值得注意的是，世界可持续发展工商理事会(World Business Council for Sustainable Development)成立的与不平等相关的财务披露特别工作组(TIFD)和解决不平等问题工商委员会(BCTI)这两项新举措，旨在明确企业对不平等的影响，并提供缓解不平等的方法。
{"title":"Business Impacts on Economic Inequality: An Agenda for Defining Related Human Rights Impacts and Economic Inequality Due Diligence","authors":"D. Litwin","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.27","url":null,"abstract":"Economic inequality, in particular vertical inequality in income and wealth within countries,1 has widened considerably with potentially dramatic economic, political and social consequences.2 Reflecting the need for urgent action on inequality, the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10 focuses on the reduction of various forms of inequality within and between countries.3 In that context, a number of recent interventions have sought to highlight how business affects inequality,4 recognizing that businesses have a central function in creating and distributing economic value in society. Significantly, two emerging initiatives, the Task Force on Inequality-Related Financial Disclosure (TIFD)5 and the Business Commission to Tackle Inequality (BCTI) by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,6 seek to notably identify business impacts on inequality and provide approaches for their alleviation.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46316748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Humberto Cantú Rivera, Danielle Anne Pamplona, Ulf Thoene
In his landmark 1967 novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez wrote about the ‘Banana Massacre’, where plantation workers that had been striking against the United Fruit Company to improve their working conditions were killed by the military. Despite being an event depicted in a magic realism novel, this example also shows some of the characteristics of Latin America, where colonialism, the close relationship between business and governments, and the incessant fight to protect people from human rights abuses, often converge not just in literature, but in real life. Indeed, Latin America is marked by contradictions between very progressive domestic human rights frameworks and increasing levels of social inequality and poverty; by being part of global value chains while also having an important percentage of informal economy; and by promoting the development of rules and practices without a sufficiently strong rule of law and fragile democracies. To some extent, as the land of magic realism, the business and human rights field in many cases is a real-life example of the nuances and complexities of the region, where progress and challenges are frequently intertwined.
加布里埃尔·加西亚·马尔克斯（Gabriel García Márquez）在其1967年的里程碑式小说《百年孤独》（One Years of Solitude）中写到了“香蕉大屠杀”，在那场大屠杀中，为改善工作条件而罢工反对联合果品公司的种植园工人被军方杀害。尽管这是魔幻现实主义小说中描绘的一个事件，但这个例子也展示了拉丁美洲的一些特点，在那里，殖民主义、企业和政府之间的密切关系，以及保护人民免受侵犯人权的持续斗争，不仅在文学中，而且在现实生活中经常融合在一起。事实上，拉丁美洲的特点是非常进步的国内人权框架与日益严重的社会不平等和贫困之间存在矛盾；作为全球价值链的一部分，同时在非正规经济中也占有重要比例；以及在没有足够强大的法治和脆弱的民主的情况下促进规则和做法的发展。在某种程度上，作为魔幻现实主义的土地，商业和人权领域在许多情况下都是该地区细微差别和复杂性的真实例子，该地区的进步和挑战经常交织在一起。
{"title":"Business and Human Rights in Latin America: An Introduction to the Special Issue","authors":"Humberto Cantú Rivera, Danielle Anne Pamplona, Ulf Thoene","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.28","url":null,"abstract":"In his landmark 1967 novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez wrote about the ‘Banana Massacre’, where plantation workers that had been striking against the United Fruit Company to improve their working conditions were killed by the military. Despite being an event depicted in a magic realism novel, this example also shows some of the characteristics of Latin America, where colonialism, the close relationship between business and governments, and the incessant fight to protect people from human rights abuses, often converge not just in literature, but in real life. Indeed, Latin America is marked by contradictions between very progressive domestic human rights frameworks and increasing levels of social inequality and poverty; by being part of global value chains while also having an important percentage of informal economy; and by promoting the development of rules and practices without a sufficiently strong rule of law and fragile democracies. To some extent, as the land of magic realism, the business and human rights field in many cases is a real-life example of the nuances and complexities of the region, where progress and challenges are frequently intertwined.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45398648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Across the United States (US), farmworkers and their allies are mobilizing to encourage companies to join a Worker-driven Social Responsibility (WSR) program. On May Day, hundreds marched in support of Migrant Justice’s campaign to convince the Hannaford supermarket chain to join the Milk With Dignity program, a WSR program focused on working conditions in the dairy industry.1 At the most recent annual shareholder meeting of Wendy’s, a US-based fast food franchise, several members of the board of directors faced opposition to renewal of their positions in response to what some shareholders perceived as Wendy’s inadequate disclosure on its efforts to protect workers in its supply chain.2 The opposition forms part of a years-long campaign by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and its allies to convince Wendy’s to join the Fair Food Program, the inaugural WSR program.3
{"title":"The Overlooked Advantages of the Independent Monitoring and Complaint Investigation System in the Worker-driven Social Responsibility Model in US Agriculture","authors":"A. Angelini, Shauna Curphey","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.25","url":null,"abstract":"Across the United States (US), farmworkers and their allies are mobilizing to encourage companies to join a Worker-driven Social Responsibility (WSR) program. On May Day, hundreds marched in support of Migrant Justice’s campaign to convince the Hannaford supermarket chain to join the Milk With Dignity program, a WSR program focused on working conditions in the dairy industry.1 At the most recent annual shareholder meeting of Wendy’s, a US-based fast food franchise, several members of the board of directors faced opposition to renewal of their positions in response to what some shareholders perceived as Wendy’s inadequate disclosure on its efforts to protect workers in its supply chain.2 The opposition forms part of a years-long campaign by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and its allies to convince Wendy’s to join the Fair Food Program, the inaugural WSR program.3","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48398567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：