Discussions about business and human rights are likely to cover a wide set of issues including problems resulting from company operations that impact on people and environment, trade policies and human development, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the legal measures to address the issues, the corporate initiatives on business and human rights, and tools that help companies assess the extent of their respect for human rights. A workshop entitled “Profitable Partnerships: A Workshop on Business and Human Rights in Select Countries in Asia” held in Makati city in early November 2014 discussed these issues.
Representatives of various Philippine government agencies, non-governmental organizations, the Philippine business community, academe, embassies and also participants from Mongolia, China and Japan attended the workshop. The Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP), Ms Loretta Ann Rosales, also participated in the workshop as a panel presentor.
The workshop was jointly organized by RAFI-SHIFT and the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Asia (ESCR- Asia), in cooperation with the Makati Business Club (MBC), CHRP, the Asia Pacific Pathways to Progress Foundation (APPFI) and the Asian Consortium on Human Rights-based Access to Justice (HRBA2J-Asia).
One of the most discussed issues regarding company operations during the workshop was the impact of the mining industry. The experience of Mongolia was a case in point. A presentation on Mongolia1 cited the huge contribution of the mining industry to the Mongolian economy, the significant presence of non-Mongolian mining companies in the industry, and the significant adverse impact of the industry on the rights of workers, the right to livelihood and health of the people living in the areas of operation (particularly the traditional animal herders), and the physical environment. There were other problems presented during the workshop that arose from company operations such as the occurrence of “cancer villages” and the worsening air pollution in China,2 and the continuing problems of labor that ranged from workers’ deaths or suicides, to discriminatory treatment, to the slow resolution of industrial pollution cases and to the weakening of organized labor in Japan.3
By and large laws regarding these issues exist in the countries involved, but their full and effective implementation was the major problem.
The presentation on trade policies and human rights pointed to the macro-economic structure that impinged on industrial operations. Trade policies, especially those linked to foreign investment and participation in international trade agreements and systems, have impact on human rights. The presentation4 cited the case of the World Trade Organization agreement on textiles and clothing5 whose expiration had impact on national trade policy and on the relevant industries. The presentation stressed the consequences of the expiration of this trade agreement in the form of lowered volume of exports and lowered price of garments, which resulted in reduced national trade revenue. This in turn caused factory closures, job losses, and decline in real wages. Also, with lesser trade revenue, there could have been reduction of public expenditure on social services by the government. Ultimately, the adverse impact was the deterioration of the family economic and social well- being. In such situation, should there be pro-poor trade competitiveness policies to address it? Should there be parallel social, labor, human resource development (education and training) and budgetary policies to address the adverse impact?
The presentation likewise pointed out the complexity of the operations of multinational companies, which involve many factories in different countries that supply materials to manufacture products. The supply chain of the hard-disk drive assembly in Thailand shows such complex production system.
In this situation, how can trade policymakers be convinced of the need to incorporate human rights principles into the trade policies? Certainly, for human rights advocates, a good understanding of the trade/ industrial system is needed to be able to effectively translate human rights language into trade policy discourse.
The corporate code of conduct project led by the Makati Business Club, the Management Association of the Philippines, the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines and the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) was presented as an example of business community initiative.6 The project, known as the “Integrity Initiative” promotes fair competition, good corporate governance, and social responsibility. Involving both the private and public sectors, it includes an “Integrity Pledge” that prohibits bribery in any form and requires the adoption of a code of conduct, training of employees, maintenance of reporting channels and refraining from engaging in business with “unethical companies.” The institutions that adopt the Integrity Pledge are required to employ a self-assessment tool and allow an external review to “address gaps through learning interventions and [by] reinforc[ing] integrity habits.” While the Integrity Initiative does not have any explicit reference to human rights, it promotes the United Nations Global Compact, International Guidance Standard on Organisational Social Responsibility (ISO 26000), the 1976 Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Global Reporting Initiative, and the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration) of the International Labour Organization. In this sense, the project implicitly covers human rights. The project has counterparts in other Southeast Asian countries including those initiated by the Thai Institute of Directors, the Anti-Corruption Organization of Thailand (ACT) and Indonesia Business Links.
The Human Rights Reporting & Assurance Frameworks Initiative (RAFI) was presented as a new international initiative in the business and human rights field. RAFI aims to develop a twin set of global, public frameworks that can provide a guide to companies on what good reporting on human rights performance looks like and to assurance providers on what good assurance of human rights reports looks like (with similar benefits to internal auditors). The frameworks are meant to be both meaningful and viable, do not require stand-alone human rights reporting, and to be owned by appropriate, independent bodies who can further develop them over time. It is designed as a useful tool to support internal discussions on policies, processes and practices.
RAFI is a response to the current situation of corporate reporting on human rights which is “highly varied across companies and across years, often very anecdotal, with unclear basis for selection of focus, and often focuses on projects with unclear connection to core business.” It is being developed through consultation with all stakeholders in different parts of the world and through research of current practices and lessons from related fields.
The comments and questions raised during the open forum in each of the sessions included issues such as the difficulty of monitoring company operations and seeking their accountability for the damages sustained by workers and the people in the nearby communities; the perception of human rights as part of the agenda of groups with either “right or left” ideological orientation; the proper arguments that would convince companies to voluntarily and effectively adopt measures to respect human rights.
There was a strong indication in the workshop of the need to promote the business and human rights principles. Many participants suggested the need to mainstream these principles in the educational programs of the different institutions and groups (companies, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, labor unions and community organizations) that represent the different stakeholders in the issue.
For further information, please contact: ESCR-Asia, Inc./HRBA2J-Asia, Rm. 209, Benigno Mayo Hall, JJCICSI Bldg., ISO Complex, Ateneo De Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines; ph (632) 4266001 loc. 4664; fax (632) 4266070; e-mail: escasia2003@yahoo.com; www. hrbajustice.asia.
1. Ms Erdenechimeg Dashdorg, representing the Centre for Human Rights and Development, gave the presentation.
2. Ms Huang Zhong, representing Wuhan University Public Interest and Development Law Institute (PIDLI), gave the presentation.
3. Jefferson R. Plantilla of HURIGHTS OSAKA gave the presentation. See the following articles published in this newsletter for more details on the issues: Centre for Human Rights and Development, Human Rights in the Mining Industry of Mongolia in www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section3/2014/09/human-rights-in-the-mining-industry-of-mongolia.html; Huang Zhong and Cheng Qian, Merging Business and Human Rights in China: Still A Long Way to Go i n www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section3/2014/06/merging-business-and-human-rights-in-china-still-a-long-way-to-go.html; Jefferson R. Plantilla, Human Rights in Japanese Companies in www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2013/12/human-rights-in-japanese-companies.html.
4. Ms Marina Durano, PhD, of the Asian Center of the University of the Philippines gave the presentation entitled “Human Rights Impact Assessments & Trade Policy.”
5. “The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) and all restrictions thereunder terminated on January 1, 2005. The expiry of the ten- year transition period of ATC implementation means that trade in textile and clothing products is no longer subject to quotas under a special regime outside normal WTO/GATT rules but is now governed by the general rules and disciplines embodied in the multilateral trading system.” Text from Uruguay Round Agreement, Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, World Trade Organization, www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/16-tex_e.htm. This means that quotas that “specified how much the importing country was going to accept from individual exporting countries” were no longer allowed from 2 January 2005. See Understanding The WTO: The Agreements - Textiles: back in the mainstream, www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm5_e.htm.
6. Mr Peter Angelo V. Perfecto, Executive Director, Makati Business Club, gave a presentation entitled “Integrity Initiative Can Help Make Human Rights Everybody’s Business.”
7. Ms Caroline Rees, President, SHIFT, one of the two co- organizers of the RAFI, gave a presentation entitled “Human Rights Reporting & Assurance Frameworks Initiative (RAFI).”