This panel was moderated by our Vice President, Rachel Davis. The panelists were:
Au cours de la phase 1 de cette étude, Shift a analysé le reporting en matière de droits de l’homme des 20 plus grandes entreprises françaises de 2017 et début 2018, avant que les entreprises ne soient tenues de se conformer à la loi sur le devoir de vigilance. Dans cette deuxième phase, nous examinons leurs premiers plans de vigilance et leurs rapports de mise en œuvre de 2018 et 2019.
Cette étude en deux parties avait pour objectif de déterminer si la loi française sur le devoir de vigilance, qui impose une obligation de divulgation et de diligence raisonnable en matière de respect des droits de l’homme, aurait une influence sur la maturité du reporting des sociétés, par rapport aux attentes des Principes directeurs des Nations Unies relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme (UNGP). Étant donné que le processus d’amélioration du reporting attire souvent l’attention des sociétés sur leur performance sous-jacente, nous avons également considéré si des améliorations pratiques pouvaient être déduites de leur reporting.
Nous espérons que les conclusions de cette étude guideront les entreprises vers un meilleur alignement avec la loi sur le devoir de vigilance et les UNGP, tout en soulignant les opportunités pour des lois similaires de mieux obtenir l’impact escompté.
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.”
Rachel Davis – Vice President of Shift
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:
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:
The paper highlights two key constraints:
__
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.
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.
