Embedding the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights Within Company Culture

Summary

A company’s ability to carry out human rights due diligence depends on the extent to which respect for human rights is embedded in company culture. Company personnel should be:

  • aware of the human rights risks related to their functional responsibilities;
  • empowered and incentivized to conduct their work in a manner that respects human rights.

The challenge of embedding new values within company culture is not exclusive to human rights. The field of change management and environmental, health, and safety management processes both seek to transform corporate cultures that are insufficiently responsive to issues that inhibit improved business performance.

Based on twelve interviews with company representatives and corporate sustainability advisors spanning four continents, this study identifies four common gaps in progress towards embedding respect for human rights in corporate culture:

  1. Abstract language used to frame human rights: Although the International Bill of Human Rights and the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work enumerate internationally recognized human rights and can be an important reference point for corporate-level policies, personnel’s national and professional cultures shape their understanding of how human rights relate to their business activities. If human rights issues are not described in a manner that is consistent with their national and professional background, people fail to appreciate the scope of applicable human rights and the scale of individuals and communities that can be affected by their work. Consequently, corporate-level commitments will not be incorporated into operational practices.
  2. Excessive “happy talk”: Companies publicize their positive human rights performance and community leadership internally. Yet, employees are only exposed to potential and actual human rights impacts through such happy talk. The geographic distance of desk-based staff from vulnerable individuals and the narrow functional responsibilities of operational-level staff prevent adequate recognition of the human rights risks linked to their professional conduct. Without explicit guidance, training, or incentives to consider the connection between business practices and human rights, internal happy talk fosters a culture of complacency regarding human rights risks.
  3. Delegating ownership of impacts to those who can’t fix them directly: While human rights specialists are needed to provide expertise, the responsibility for human rights compliance is rarely shared between specialists and the appropriate functions or business units. The dependence of both business unit managers and operational-level staff on such specialists separates the responsibility for exercising due diligence from the actual function or business unit associated with the risk. When this responsibility is delegated almost entirely to specialists, the effectiveness of human rights due diligence processes depends on their ability to convince business functions to modify their conduct. Yet, they often lack the necessary seniority and influence internally to do so.
  4. Toothless cross-functional committees: Cross-functional working groups are intended to facilitate the coordinated implementation of human rights commitments but several company representatives reported no involvement by business unit management. The participation of business units provides such committees with the influence, credibility, and expertise needed to change operational-level conduct.

An in-depth analysis of change management literature, and environmental, health, and safety consultancy guidelines reveals processes that have been successful in promoting the shared ownership of other forms of due diligence. Companies can apply the following five lessons on embedding to more effectively exercise human rights due diligence:

  1. Consistently communicate human rights in accessible terms.
  2. “Seeing is believing”: expose relevant personnel to the realities of the company’s impact on human rights, and its management of those impacts.
  3. Tailor guidance on human rights risk management for specific functions, to make human rights risk management more tangible and actionable on a day-to-day basis.
  4. Develop leading human rights indicators: Leading indicators focus peoples’ attention on the consequences of their own decisions and practices.
  5. Create broad-based performance evaluation criteria for exercising due diligence: Peoples’ sense of professional responsibility is reinforced by explicit incentive and accountability measures.

These lessons demonstrate that the successful embedding of human rights occurs neither unintentionally nor as the result of a single incident. Rather, embedding involves a deliberate set of processes that incrementally foster a company culture that respects human rights.

Human Rights Translated: A Business and Reference Guide

This comprehensive, baseline resource for businesses lays out what human rights are and how businesses can impact them. With an effort to make language understandable for people working in companies, the guide includes case studies, quotes, suggested practical actions companies can take and links to further resources. It is published by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The resource complements the Guiding Principles by explaining the content of the “internationally recognized human rights” as referenced in the Guiding Principles. This guide was published before the Guiding Principles, but its explanations of internationally recognized human rights are of course still valid today. However, the suggested practical actions should be understood as having been developed prior to the standard set by the Guiding Principles.

This resource also provides a basis for shorter guidance developed by Shift and Mazars to support the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework.

Mapping Grievance Mechanisms in the Business and Human Rights Arena

Please note that this resource was published in 2008 and there have been a number of new non-judicial mechanisms developed since that time, and some of the mechanisms described in this resource have refined their processes. The summary here is excerpted from the resource.

Summary 

This report examines the strengths and weaknesses of existing grievance mechanisms in order to highlight lessons to be drawn from their experience, consider how they might be improved and explore what model mechanisms might look like for the field of business and human rights.

This mapping sets out in summary form a range of existing grievance mechanisms from a variety of different contexts, whether industry or multi-industry, national, regional or international, private or public, based on law or voluntary standards. The aim here is to describe the mechanisms as factually as possible in order to provide a platform for further analysis as to how effective these mechanisms are and how well they are implemented in practice, but such judgments are not the purpose of this work.

The common denominator among the mechanisms is that they a) address the impacts of corporations, b) explicitly or implicitly reference human rights and c) are non-judicial. Their purpose is to find resolutions to grievances outside the judicial process for various reasons such as cost saving, time saving, a desire to avoid confrontation and a need to protect the integrity of an institution or initiative.

The report includes a review of the following grievance mechanisms:

Company Level

  • BTC Pipeline/BP, Azerbaijan
  • Gap Inc., Lesotho
  • Hewlett-Packard, Mexico
  • Xstrata Copper, Peru

Industry Level

  • Clear Voice Hotline
  • Fair Labor Association
  • Fair Wear Foundation
  • International Council of Toy Industries
  • Voluntary Principles Security & Human Rights
  • Workers Rights Consortium

Multi-Industry Level

  • Ethical Trading Initiative
  • Social Accountability International

National Level

  • National Human Rights Institutions: India, Kenya, New Zealand
  • Labor Dispute Systems: Cambodia, South Africa, United Kingdom

Regional Level

  • African Development Bank
  • Asian Development Bank
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  • Inter-American Development Bank

International Level

  • Global Union Federations/TNCs
  • International Labour Organization
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development
  • United Nations Global Compact
  • World Bank Group – Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman
  • World Bank Group – Inspection Panel