Esta guía incluye 8 criterios de eficacia para los mecanismos de queja a nivel de la operación, tal como lo establecen los Principios Rectores de las Naciones Unidas sobre las Empresas y los Derechos Humanos, estándar internacional para los negocios y los derechos humanos.
También comparte pautas sobre cómo las compañías mineras y metalíferas deben diseñar mecanismos efectivos que brinden un sistema para gestionar y resolver las preocupaciones o quejas de las comunidades, y proporciona herramientas prácticas para ayudar a las compañías en su implementación.
Shift worked with ICMM in 2018 and 2019 to update the guidance they provide to their members on how to put in place effective operational-level grievance mechanisms, in line with the effectiveness criteria of the UN Guiding Principles. Our role included co-facilitating workshops with ICMM members; developing case studies with the support of ICMM members and inputting into the new guidance.
In Phase 1 of this study, Shift analyzed the human rights reporting of the 20 largest French companies from 2017 and early 2018, before companies were required to comply with the Duty of Vigilance Law. In this second phase, we examine their first vigilance plans and implementation reports from 2018 and 2019.
This two-part study aims to uncover whether the French Duty of Vigilance Law, which imposes mandatory human rights due diligence and reporting, would have any influence on the maturity of the companies’ public disclosure, as measured against the expectations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Since the process of improving public reporting frequently motivates more attention by companies to their underlying performance, we also considered whether improvements in companies’ human rights policies, processes and practices might be inferred from any progress in their disclosure.
We hope the key findings from this study can guide companies towards better alignment with the intent of the Duty of Vigilance Law, and the UNGPs, as well as highlight opportunities for ensuring similar legislations fully achieve their intended impact.
Under Pillar 1 of the UN Guiding Principles, all states “must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises”. To do so, states “should consider a smart mix of measures – national and international, mandatory and voluntary – to foster business respect for human rights.”
Yet despite this encouragement to consider them, mandatory measures have not been a central part of the mix considered by states in the initial years of UNGPs implementation, outside of certain reporting requirements. That is now changing, particularly in Europe. A growing number of states are actively considering the use of mandatory due diligence measures to advance business respect for human rights.
In France, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, the UK, Norway and Switzerland, we see governments and legislatures adopting or exploring mandatory measures as part of a mix of policy tools to incentivize business respect for human rights. In a growing number of cases, these measures go beyond reporting obligations to encompass comprehensive human rights due diligence. Continue reading…
“The UNGPs always envisaged that states would adopt a smart mix of measures – voluntary and mandatory – to ensure that businesses respect human rights. We’ve heard the phrase a lot over the last eight years, but it’s mostly been used to describe voluntary measures and states have generally been less willing to explore the mandatory part of the picture. That is now starting to change. As the company, government and civil society voices highlighted here show, there is a growing consensus that we need to get better at talking about what mandatory measures could look like. At Shift, we have made it a priority to support this conversation.”
Often, companies struggle to identify and implement meaningful action to address risks to trade union rights in their global value chains. This is due to a range of factors:
Also Read
January 2020 |
Realizing Trade Union Rights: Diagnosing Barriers and Moving to Action
External factors arise from the contexts in which global companies operate, and into which their global value chains extend. This includes relevant laws and regulations and their implementation, the social practices that shape perceptions of trade unions, and the local capacity of trade unions and business partners to claim or respect these rights in practice.
Business models, which can create heightened risks to trade union rights if not properly managed. These include sourcing from high-risk (and lower cost) markets, extensive use of contract or temporary labor, and a company’s own purchasing practices.
Corporate culture and business practices, which can include assumptions and attitudes towards trade unions at headquarters, and weaknesses or common pitfalls in due diligence processes.
Included in this resource is a diagnostic tool in Part 2.2 to help companies assess where and why they might face heightened risks to trade union rights.
The resource also highlights a range of practical steps companies can take depending on the risk factors that are present. Additionally, it showcases eight examples of how real companies have approached trade union rights in practice.
While there have been a growing number of initiatives in recent years to evaluate companies’ environmental and social performance, they have dealt at best tangentially with the ways in which business responses to human rights risks can destroy, protect or create value for both business and society. Yet no aspect of business practice is more relevant for evaluating companies’ so-called ‘social performance’, since negative human rights impacts are by definition the most serious impacts a company can have on people. This paper, therefore, aims to promote deeper discussion of what this reality could and should mean for the field of accounting.
The paper is divided into two parts. Part A sets the context for the discussion. It looks briefly at today’s dominant and emerging paradigms for corporate governance and accounting and the extent to which they accommodate the value of business respect for human rights. In Part B, the paper explores the ways in which accounting models could evolve to better reflect and incentivize business respect for human rights. It considers two main questions:
Can (and should) business respect for human rights be better reflected in current financial accounting methods?
The paper highlights two key constraints:
Measurable costs to business of harm to human rights are frequently missed or misunderstood;
Benefits to business from respecting human rights are often intangibles that cannot be readily measured.
__
To what extent do (or could) new innovations in accounting accommodate respect for human rights?
The paper looks at the new paradigm offered by integrated thinking and reporting through the <IR> Framework, and reviews the extent to which the following innovations can enable integrated approaches to accounting that adequately reflect respect for human rights:
We analyzed the metrics and indicators currently reported by companies and used by investors and others who seek to evaluate business respect for human rights. We reviewed over 1,200 questions in 8 major Environmental,Social and Governance (ESG) rankings, ratings and indices, including 400 that focus on the ‘S’component.
This research was kindly supported by Fordham University Law Clinic; The Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business, the ASEAN CSR Network, Article 30, the Human Rights Centre at the University of Pretoria and Georgie Erangey.
To better understand what is working and what is not, Valuing Respect analyzed metrics and human rights reporting currently being used by companies and available to investors in three geographical regions. This paper summarizes our findings in South East Asia.
The research was conducted in collaboration with the ASEAN CSR Network from mid 2018 to early 2019.
A Quick Look at Our Findings
We did a breakdown of the types of indicators that are being used in the region. Similar to what we found in the general research, metrics in South East Asia were mostly focused on inputs, outputs and activities.
Approximately only 1 in 5 indicators measure the outcomes that activities have for the business and less than 1 in 10 measure outcomes that activities have on people’s rights.
Also Read
September 2019 | Research
The Use of Metrics in Company Human Rights Reporting in Poland
Inputs: In Malaysia and Singapore companies regularly cite exact contribution amounts to charities or philanthropic efforts. In Thailand, it is common to find information about new task forces or teams that may have human rights as part of their mandate. For example: “[The company] has since doubled its sustainability team and developed further social projects with NGOs, local authorities and the International Labor Organization (ILO).”
Activities: Evidence of activities in the form of occupational health and safety (OHS) training is prevalent in all three countries. Evidence of human rights training and impact assessments uniquely featured in Thailand. For example: “Trainings on human rights policies and procedures were provided to 10 employees and 136 hours were invested”
Outputs: Board diversity figures and OHS statistics feature in Malaysia and Singapore. In all countries one finds claims citing zero human rights complaints or violations. An outlier is that Thailand cites specific data from human rights impact assessments.
Practices and Behaviors: It is very rare to find indicators in all three countries. Companies sometimes report on worker and community satisfaction which could be seen as an indicator of good company practices. A few companies report on new protocols of management or conduct related to human rights, but do not provide evidence of those new requirements being followed.
Outcomes for People: it is very rare for indicators about outcomes for people to be reported. Where they are, the focus is on data regarding improved incomes, livelihoods, wellbeing, and job satisfaction. There is some information on remediation which can hint at better outcomes for people.
Outcomes for Business: Compared to practices and behaviors and outcomes for people, outcomes for the business is an area of emphasis and more thorough reporting. Awards appear to be a popular data point in all three countries.
To better understand what is working and what is not, Valuing Respect analyzed metrics and human rights reporting currently being used by companies and available to investors across three sectors. This paper summarizes our findings in the Food and Beverage sector.
The research was conducted from mid-2018 to early 2019. It has informed the direction and focus of the Valuing Respect project.
A Quick Look at our Findings
After reviewing fourteen food and beverage companies in the database, the analysis revealed that activities were the most frequently reported type of indicator with companies often disclosing information about training programs, audits and assessments. Additionally, the reports disclosed a fair amount of information about the outputs of activities (e.g., plans for further investigations, resolutions and initiatives). A lot of the information provided was focused on road safety and vehicle accidents. No data was provided on outcomes for business.
The full breakdown can be seen below:
Observations
Also Read
September 2019 | Research
The Use of Metrics in Company Human Rights Disclosure in the ICT Sector
A small number of companies reported data on the resources invested (inputs) into human rights issues. This generally focused on designated teams, committees and personnel.
Nearly every company disclosed information related to audits and assessments, focusing on both internal audits and third-party audits. Reporting often included information about the audits, such as where the audits were located, who was audited, what operation was audited and the audits’ length.
Data about training focuses on the number of employees trained, the number of hours of training and the training topics addressed.
For human rights issues that have been a spotlight focus for the sector such as child labor and warehouse and road safety, evidence provided is more spread across the full pathway of indicators. This tends to happen when companies are reporting on specific examples in specific locations or operations.
Some data is provided about grievance mechanisms and complaints received. Only one reviewed company provided information on output.
For the detailed explanation of each observation please download the full document below.
We did a breakdown of the types of indicators that are being used in the region. This report summarizes findings from research into the current use of metrics by South African companies in their human rights related reporting.
The research was conducted from mid 2018 to early 2019, and has informed the direction and focus of the Valuing Respect project.
A Quick Look at Our Findings
Also Read
September 2019 | Research
The Current Use of Metrics in Company Human Rights Reporting in Southeast Asia
Companies mainly provide evidence for the fact that activities (e.g., such as training, assessments and audits) have been conducted and that outputs (e.g., new products or knowledge) have been achieved. Activity and Output indicators make up 50% of all of the indicators identified in the research. Even then, much of the information is reported without reference to the effect of activities and outputs on business practices/behaviors or outcomes. This pattern was consistent across all of the industries analyzed.
70% of all indicators and evidence provided in human rights-related disclosures uses quantitative measures of things it is relatively easy to count. There is a focus on coverage data for activities (i.e., numbers of actions or people reached), or numbers of problems/issues identified (e.g., numbers of complaints or number of non-compliances found).
The lack of evidence and supporting narrative across the causal pathway – from input to activity to output and all the way to outcomes – is common even for areas where one assumes there might be relatively maturepractice (e.g., on health and safety, black economic empowerment, diversity, child labor and freedom of association.)
There are some interesting positive outlier examples where indicators and information beyond inputs, activities and outputs are reported.These tend to be in case study form and narrate the full pathway to include outcomes for people and for the business. The outliers pertain to a) company/community relationships at specific operations, health and safety; b) relocation and resettlement data or c) data about compensation by the mining industry for historical human rights harms. It is possible that this more innovative and complete approach to tracking reflects a close tie between positive outcomes for people and positive social license benefits for business.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're OK with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
