When evaluating the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), some may claim that the State’s duty to protect (Pillar 1) has been fulfilled with the adoption of National Action Plans; and that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (Pillar 2) has been fulfilled by calls for companies to act responsibly through initiatives that seek to make them aware of social expectations. However, the effectiveness of both types of initiatives to bring about real changes in people’s lives is open to criticism. Access to remedy (Pillar 3) is notoriously the weaker pillar of the UNGPs.1 In Transterritorialidade – Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos (Transterritoriality – A Theory of Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations), Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian confronts this reality. The book is law-oriented and will mainly appeal to those with a legal background, perhaps less to a business audience. The theory presented is developed from the realization that Pillar 3 is neglected by both states and businesses. The author is on a quest for instruments that can ensure corporate accountability for human rights violations. First, the book presents the reasons for choosing access to remedy as a research topic; then it analyses existing instruments and initiatives to promote redress, and how they fall short of what is promised and desired. Finally, the author proposes her own theory, which revolves around the application of extraterritoriality, but in such a way that it increases the chances that the substantive law applied is victims-centred. The first chapter delivers the backdrop to Atchabahian’s concerns, namely the postWorld War II reconstruction of countries based on consumption, and the consequent dependence on companies that produce goods and services, which are attracted to countries in exchange for a portion of sovereignty. Investments, economic prosperity, and the possibility of consumption bring a sense of security that blinds people to the human and environmental costs of this arrangement. International law coping with this situation is fragmented, leading to insecurity that is reinforced by the actions of transnational corporations. States, voluntarily or not, fail to protect individuals. The author identifies this as a violation of Douzinas’ ‘ethics of alterity’, the ‘ethics before the being and the obligation before the others’ need or interest’ (p. 22). The response proposed is based on Amartya Sen’s ‘behavioural ethic’ (p. 22) whose normative framework arises from Gunther Teubner’s transnational or global law and the norms of international human rights law. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss corporate liability in existing initiatives, and their ability to produce redress. The UNGPs, the current UN process for drafting a treaty on business and human rights and domestic models (e.g., national action plans or specific legislation like the
在评估《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》的执行情况时，有些人可能会声称，通过《国家行动计划》，国家的保护义务（支柱1）得到了履行；企业尊重人权的责任（支柱2）已通过呼吁企业采取负责任的行动来履行，这些举措旨在让企业意识到社会期望。然而，这两类举措为人们的生活带来真正改变的有效性值得批评。众所周知，获得补救的途径（支柱3）是联合国大会较弱的支柱。1在跨地区——Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos（跨地区——侵犯人权行为的企业问责理论）中，Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian面临着这一现实。这本书以法律为导向，主要吸引那些有法律背景的人，也许不太吸引商业观众。所提出的理论是在认识到支柱3被国家和企业忽视的基础上发展起来的。提交人正在寻求能够确保公司对侵犯人权行为追究责任的文书。首先，本书介绍了选择补救途径作为研究主题的原因；然后分析了现有的促进补救的文书和举措，以及它们如何达不到承诺和期望。最后，作者提出了她自己的理论，该理论围绕着治外法权的适用，但其方式增加了适用的实体法以受害者为中心的可能性。第一章介绍了Atchabahian关注的背景，即二战后基于消费的国家重建，以及随之而来的对生产商品和服务的公司的依赖，这些公司被吸引到国家以换取部分主权。投资、经济繁荣和消费的可能性带来了一种安全感，使人们对这种安排的人力和环境成本视而不见。应对这种情况的国际法支离破碎，导致不安全，跨国公司的行动加剧了这种不安全。无论国家是否自愿，都未能保护个人。作者认为这违反了Douzinas的“互变伦理”、“存在之前的伦理和他人“需要或利益”之前的义务”（第22页）。提议的回应基于Amartya Sen的“行为伦理”（第22页），其规范框架源自Gunther Teubner的跨国或全球法以及国际人权法规范。第2章和第3章讨论了现有倡议中的公司责任及其产生补救的能力。UNGP，目前联合国起草商业和人权条约的程序，以及国内模式（例如，国家行动计划或具体立法，如
{"title":"Transterritorialidade – Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos, Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian (Lumen Juris, 2020)","authors":"Danielle Anne Pamplona","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.17","url":null,"abstract":"When evaluating the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), some may claim that the State’s duty to protect (Pillar 1) has been fulfilled with the adoption of National Action Plans; and that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (Pillar 2) has been fulfilled by calls for companies to act responsibly through initiatives that seek to make them aware of social expectations. However, the effectiveness of both types of initiatives to bring about real changes in people’s lives is open to criticism. Access to remedy (Pillar 3) is notoriously the weaker pillar of the UNGPs.1 In Transterritorialidade – Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos (Transterritoriality – A Theory of Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations), Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian confronts this reality. The book is law-oriented and will mainly appeal to those with a legal background, perhaps less to a business audience. The theory presented is developed from the realization that Pillar 3 is neglected by both states and businesses. The author is on a quest for instruments that can ensure corporate accountability for human rights violations. First, the book presents the reasons for choosing access to remedy as a research topic; then it analyses existing instruments and initiatives to promote redress, and how they fall short of what is promised and desired. Finally, the author proposes her own theory, which revolves around the application of extraterritoriality, but in such a way that it increases the chances that the substantive law applied is victims-centred. The first chapter delivers the backdrop to Atchabahian’s concerns, namely the postWorld War II reconstruction of countries based on consumption, and the consequent dependence on companies that produce goods and services, which are attracted to countries in exchange for a portion of sovereignty. Investments, economic prosperity, and the possibility of consumption bring a sense of security that blinds people to the human and environmental costs of this arrangement. International law coping with this situation is fragmented, leading to insecurity that is reinforced by the actions of transnational corporations. States, voluntarily or not, fail to protect individuals. The author identifies this as a violation of Douzinas’ ‘ethics of alterity’, the ‘ethics before the being and the obligation before the others’ need or interest’ (p. 22). The response proposed is based on Amartya Sen’s ‘behavioural ethic’ (p. 22) whose normative framework arises from Gunther Teubner’s transnational or global law and the norms of international human rights law. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss corporate liability in existing initiatives, and their ability to produce redress. The UNGPs, the current UN process for drafting a treaty on business and human rights and domestic models (e.g., national action plans or specific legislation like the","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47835890","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 Latin America has traditionally been both an object of great interest to business and human rights (BHR) scholars and a source of important contributions to the discussion of the most pressing challenges in the field. This article is an attempt at a systematic review of the Latin American contributions to the BHR scholarship to date. It relies on systematic data collection and qualitative analysis of an original dataset of existing literature on BHR in the Latin American context, with the hope of providing a baseline assessment of the state of the field and contributing to building an interdisciplinary and diverse research agenda moving forward. Special focus is paid to how particular regional characteristics shape Latin American contributions. More broadly, the article offers an opportunity to reflect on the place of Global South perspectives in the development of the field.
{"title":"Business and Human Rights in Latin America: A Systematic Review of Scholarship","authors":"Cristina Blanco Vizarreta, Weronika Betta","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Latin America has traditionally been both an object of great interest to business and human rights (BHR) scholars and a source of important contributions to the discussion of the most pressing challenges in the field. This article is an attempt at a systematic review of the Latin American contributions to the BHR scholarship to date. It relies on systematic data collection and qualitative analysis of an original dataset of existing literature on BHR in the Latin American context, with the hope of providing a baseline assessment of the state of the field and contributing to building an interdisciplinary and diverse research agenda moving forward. Special focus is paid to how particular regional characteristics shape Latin American contributions. More broadly, the article offers an opportunity to reflect on the place of Global South perspectives in the development of the field.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42099757","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 proposes to see the history of the international law on foreign investment as about the promotion of investor rights as much as the resistance to investor obligations. The argument is that the divide between investment protection and the responsibility of foreign investors is one of the most significant features of international investment law. The article shows that the different treatment of rights and obligations is grounded in the same business project and legal imagination. Maintaining this divide has never been easy, as this model faced resistance, particularly from Latin America, trade unions and human rights activists. The analysis concludes by noting that academics can contribute to reimagining the international law on foreign investment by bringing investment treaty law and business and human rights closer. This shift is already happening.
{"title":"Bridging the Gap between Foreign Investor Rights and Obligations: Towards Reimagining the International Law on Foreign Investment","authors":"Nicolás M. Perrone","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.16","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article proposes to see the history of the international law on foreign investment as about the promotion of investor rights as much as the resistance to investor obligations. The argument is that the divide between investment protection and the responsibility of foreign investors is one of the most significant features of international investment law. The article shows that the different treatment of rights and obligations is grounded in the same business project and legal imagination. Maintaining this divide has never been easy, as this model faced resistance, particularly from Latin America, trade unions and human rights activists. The analysis concludes by noting that academics can contribute to reimagining the international law on foreign investment by bringing investment treaty law and business and human rights closer. This shift is already happening.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46256884","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}
In response to a forced labour review by the International Labour Organization (ILO) that threatened to turn into a formal international inquiry,1 the government of Qatar commenced an ambitious programme of labour reforms aimed largely at addressing concerns about its treatment of migrant workers. About 2.4 million men and women,2 an estimated 88.4 per cent of the small Gulf nation’s population,3 are migrant workers. It has the second largest known gas reserves in the world, and its airbases are home to the largest United States military installation in the Middle East.4 Yet, the small Gulf emirate garnered little international scrutiny until it was awarded in 2010 the right to host the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) men’s Football World Cup tournament in 2022.
{"title":"Qatar Labour Reforms Ahead of the FIFA 2022 World Cup","authors":"Mustafa Qadri","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.14","url":null,"abstract":"In response to a forced labour review by the International Labour Organization (ILO) that threatened to turn into a formal international inquiry,1 the government of Qatar commenced an ambitious programme of labour reforms aimed largely at addressing concerns about its treatment of migrant workers. About 2.4 million men and women,2 an estimated 88.4 per cent of the small Gulf nation’s population,3 are migrant workers. It has the second largest known gas reserves in the world, and its airbases are home to the largest United States military installation in the Middle East.4 Yet, the small Gulf emirate garnered little international scrutiny until it was awarded in 2010 the right to host the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) men’s Football World Cup tournament in 2022.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48387475","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}
In February this year, the European Commission finally released its proposal for an EU-wide Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (‘the draft directive’).1 The draft directive, which follows the 2017 French devoir du vigilance (Duty of Vigilance) and the 2021 German Lieferkettengesetz (Supply Chain Law) as well as a 2020 European Parliament draft law on the same topic,2 is in various respects the most ambitious of its kind.3 Nonetheless, the move to legalize the concept of human rights and environmental due diligence as derived from the international standards has once again tempted European policy-makers (often in the name of ‘legal certainty’) to amend and limit aspects of the internationally agreed and -established concept, with the ultimate effect of reducing decade-long established responsibilities for companies.
{"title":"The EU’s Draft Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive: A First Assessment","authors":"Christopher Patz","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.19","url":null,"abstract":"In February this year, the European Commission finally released its proposal for an EU-wide Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (‘the draft directive’).1 The draft directive, which follows the 2017 French devoir du vigilance (Duty of Vigilance) and the 2021 German Lieferkettengesetz (Supply Chain Law) as well as a 2020 European Parliament draft law on the same topic,2 is in various respects the most ambitious of its kind.3 Nonetheless, the move to legalize the concept of human rights and environmental due diligence as derived from the international standards has once again tempted European policy-makers (often in the name of ‘legal certainty’) to amend and limit aspects of the internationally agreed and -established concept, with the ultimate effect of reducing decade-long established responsibilities for companies.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47885157","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":"BHJ volume 7 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.23","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43415973","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}
David Alfrey, L. Amis, Stephen M. Nickelsburg, William Rook
Since 2017, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has incorporated human rights risk assessments into its bidding requirements for major events, beginning with the competition to host the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup.1 This process began at a time of increased scrutiny on the impact of major events and greater focus on the applicability of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) to sport. In 2014, the Centre for Sport and Human Rights’ founding Chair Mary Robinson, together with John Ruggie (author of the UNGPs), wrote to FIFA in their respective capacities as Patron and Chair of the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) to stress the need for ‘sustained due diligence […] with respect to decisions about host nations and how major sporting events are planned and implemented’.2 Following recommendations set forth in the letter, expanded upon in Ruggie’s 2016 report ‘For the Game, For the World’, FIFA introduced robust bidding requirements that any country or region wishing to bid to host a World Cup will have to conduct a human rights risk assessment and outline how they intend to mitigate each of the risks identified.3 These requirements are designed to align the World Cup bidding process with the UNGPs.
{"title":"Candidate City Human Rights Proposals for the 2026 World Cup: The Promise of a Positive Legacy","authors":"David Alfrey, L. Amis, Stephen M. Nickelsburg, William Rook","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"Since 2017, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has incorporated human rights risk assessments into its bidding requirements for major events, beginning with the competition to host the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup.1 This process began at a time of increased scrutiny on the impact of major events and greater focus on the applicability of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) to sport. In 2014, the Centre for Sport and Human Rights’ founding Chair Mary Robinson, together with John Ruggie (author of the UNGPs), wrote to FIFA in their respective capacities as Patron and Chair of the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) to stress the need for ‘sustained due diligence […] with respect to decisions about host nations and how major sporting events are planned and implemented’.2 Following recommendations set forth in the letter, expanded upon in Ruggie’s 2016 report ‘For the Game, For the World’, FIFA introduced robust bidding requirements that any country or region wishing to bid to host a World Cup will have to conduct a human rights risk assessment and outline how they intend to mitigate each of the risks identified.3 These requirements are designed to align the World Cup bidding process with the UNGPs.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47715090","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}
Victims of transnational human rights violations caused by multinational corporations (MNCs) are often confronted with substantial impediments to effective remedies. While justice is de facto unattainable in host state courts, due to weak government or the absence of judicial independence, barriers that prevent victims from litigating in home states are no less insurmountable. Transnational litigation in home states has faced jurisdictional challenges. Defendant corporations have argued that home state courts are not the most appropriate forum to hear a case involving foreign torts.1
{"title":"Vietnam Marine Life Disaster: A Test Case of a Home State’s Jurisdiction in Taiwan","authors":"Chia-Yun Po","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.20","url":null,"abstract":"Victims of transnational human rights violations caused by multinational corporations (MNCs) are often confronted with substantial impediments to effective remedies. While justice is de facto unattainable in host state courts, due to weak government or the absence of judicial independence, barriers that prevent victims from litigating in home states are no less insurmountable. Transnational litigation in home states has faced jurisdictional challenges. Defendant corporations have argued that home state courts are not the most appropriate forum to hear a case involving foreign torts.1","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41992167","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":"Jena Martin, Karen E Bravo and Tara Van Ho (eds), When Business Harms Human Rights: Affected Communities That Are Dying to Be Heard (New York, Anthem Press, 2020)","authors":"K. Buhmann","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.18","url":null,"abstract":"legal in access to","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46231376","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 In this article, we explore what intersectionality, as an analytic tool, can contribute to business and human rights (BHR) scholarship. To date, few BHR scholars have explicitly engaged in intersectional analysis. While gender analysis of BHR issues remains crucial to expose inequality in business activity, we argue that engagement with intersectionality can enrich and support this and other BHR scholarship. Intersectional approaches allow us to move beyond single-axis analysis, contest simplistic representations about gender issues and expose the complexity of human relations. It draws our attention to structures that sustain disadvantage such as racism, colonialism, social and economic marginalization and systematic discrimination. Moreover, intersectionality emphasizes the need to centre the contributions of those who have been marginalized. It can be used to challenge the legitimacy of the state and support subaltern, decolonized or postcolonial, including indigenous, perspectives. Adopting an intersectional approach can help problematize the neoliberal capitalist system and its constructs, in which the BHR normative framework is embedded, calling into question the reification of economic growth and its impact on individuals, communities and the planet. We must, however, remain cautious of attempts to co-opt intersectionality in the service of neoliberalism and remain conscious of our own privilege and discursive practices.
{"title":"Gender and Intersectionality in Business and Human Rights Scholarship","authors":"Melisa Handl, S. Seck, Penelope Simons","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.12","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we explore what intersectionality, as an analytic tool, can contribute to business and human rights (BHR) scholarship. To date, few BHR scholars have explicitly engaged in intersectional analysis. While gender analysis of BHR issues remains crucial to expose inequality in business activity, we argue that engagement with intersectionality can enrich and support this and other BHR scholarship. Intersectional approaches allow us to move beyond single-axis analysis, contest simplistic representations about gender issues and expose the complexity of human relations. It draws our attention to structures that sustain disadvantage such as racism, colonialism, social and economic marginalization and systematic discrimination. Moreover, intersectionality emphasizes the need to centre the contributions of those who have been marginalized. It can be used to challenge the legitimacy of the state and support subaltern, decolonized or postcolonial, including indigenous, perspectives. Adopting an intersectional approach can help problematize the neoliberal capitalist system and its constructs, in which the BHR normative framework is embedded, calling into question the reification of economic growth and its impact on individuals, communities and the planet. We must, however, remain cautious of attempts to co-opt intersectionality in the service of neoliberalism and remain conscious of our own privilege and discursive practices.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49580656","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：