I will try to set the scene. This document on UN human rights norms reflects worldwide interest in encouraging companies that are committed to protecting human rights. It tries to provide them with some guidance as to what the meaning of their commitment might be. The Government in Ireland is very committed to the universal declaration of human rights and has ratified the principal human rights treaties. Many companies have mentioned their commitment to the universal declaration of human rights. It is not easy to convert that commitment to something that is related to business. In this document, we have taken those commitments and translated them into business friendly language. At the same time, the document is intended to apply to all companies and not just those that have made a previous commitment to human rights.
There were some situations that gave rise to our concerns. There were potential violations of employment rights by companies, such as discrimination against union members or women. There might be production processes that have consequences for neighbouring communities. Companies may be implicated through close association with repressive governments that commit human rights abuses. However, we recognise companies bring great prosperity. Ireland successfully encouraged dialogue between the business community, unions, civil society and government to achieve the prosperity it accomplished. We want to fit within that context.
The document states the facts best, and it is better that members read it. They should look at it, rather than having people tell them about it.
The most important principal is contained at the bottom of page 21 and the top of 22: "States have the primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights ... Within their respective spheres of activity and influence, transnational corporations and other business enterprises have the same obligation...". Everything in the document should be regarded in light of these words. We are not trying to displace responsibilities of governments which have the primary role in making and obeying human rights norms. These words refer to a complex problem, namely how do we pitch the obligations of big companies, such as transnational corporations, and smaller companies? The document states that within their respective spheres of activity and influence, transnational corporations and other business enterprises have responsibilities. Big companies have big responsibilities; little companies have smaller responsibilities.
Another issue is how to define human rights. In that context, we looked at previous experience, of which there is much with regard to corporate social responsibility. For example, the International Labour Organisation developed a number of conventions many of which Ireland is party to. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has a series of guidelines for multinational corporations which apply to a number of issues, although it only mentions human rights once. The UN Global Compact is a prominent effort, whereby the Secretary General has announced ten brief sentences covering human and labour rights, environmental issues and, most recently, anti-corruption. In addition, a number of companies have issued their own codes of conduct. We looked at all of these efforts and with due humility, tried to provide the most comprehensive guidance possible in these areas.
One can see from the document sub-headings that we dealt with equality of opportunity and treatment, security, the rights of workers, the right to a healthy working environment, the right to collective bargaining, and protecting law and the rule of law. The document also has a balanced approach to intellectual property rights and responsibilities. We said there should be transparency and avoidance of corruption. We also added, within the sphere of activity and influence, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, but only within the remit of the company's responsibilities. Consumer and environmental protection are also covered in the document. It is quite a comprehensive list. However, it takes into account all previous efforts in this area, and the norms reflect, restate and refer to existing norms.
Those are the three basic orientations of the document. However, there were certain evolutions in the drafting process, one of the most important of which related to implementation. I was first asked to draft the document by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1999. I asked the sub-commission whether it wanted a voluntary code of conduct like so many codes of conduct and the UN Global Compact, or one that was not voluntary and applied to all companies? The sub-commission responded that it respected voluntary efforts as extremely important in getting company buy-in to corporate social responsibility. They represent an important educational effort for companies, industry sectors and also globally in terms of the UN Global Compact.
However, there are problems regarding voluntary undertaking, which require additional effort. If a company puts a code of conduct on its website it can remove or modify it the next day. I have looked at hundreds of company codes of conduct, and only 80 of them mention human rights.
The UN Global Compact is an important educational exercise, and one that I applaud and support. Approximately 1,700 companies are signed up to it, including the Musgrave Group, the only company based in Ireland to do so. However, as an international company, Diageo has also accepted the Global Compact. It is estimated, though, that some 75,000 transnational corporations in the world have not signed up. What do we do with these others? We need a document that applies more broadly.
The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights did not believe the world was ready for a binding treaty with regard to this subject matter. Instead we drafted an instrument, like so many other declarations, principles, norms, guidelines and recommendations produced by the UN, which interpret existing international law and do not reach the status of a treaty. Eventually, the norms might be used as the basis for treaty, but we are not there yet.
However, the norms set forth some effort to establish implementation mechanisms. Within the context of the sub-commission and civil society which supported our work, there was a feeling it was not enough to set up basic principles with regard to security, the rights of workers or environment issues and summarise existing terms of treaties and documents. Application is needed, or at least standards for application. We identified five techniques for implementation.
When a company wishes to create its own code of conduct, or already has one, it should look at the norms and decide if its document is consistent with all the issues identified. It is something of a checklist to ascertain how well we are doing as compared with these global standards. Second, if a company is anticipating a major activity, it should consider the impact of that activity with regard to the basic standards found in the norms.
These first two methods for applying the norms depend on companies' self-assessment. This is important because if a company buys into these principles of corporate social responsibility, it is more effective than external enforcement. Nonetheless, this is not enough. Therefore, the third method we identified called in a general way for some degree of independent and transparent monitoring, which would involve input from stakeholders. Fourth, we noted that in many countries, there are mechanisms for finding reparation for injury. In continental countries, for example, there is a concept of social or civil responsibility for injury. In common law countries, we call this "torts", or the "law of tort". Assuming these mechanisms exist in all countries that we know of, we said that if there were violations of the norms, which cause injury, then those mechanisms for reparations should be invoked.
The fifth principle of implementation is a recognition of the important role of governments. We said there should be a framework of application of the norms at a national level, without indicating precisely what that would be. There is a good deal of room for figuring out what a government might do in this regard. I understand from the discussions I have had in Dublin with business and trade union associations that there is quite a robust framework of laws and regulations in Ireland that cover the issues found in the norms. This may not be so much the case in some other countries.
That is a summary of the document. Before I take members' questions, I would like to say something about the procedural preparation of this document and our progress with regard to the UN process. The document was prepared in an entirely open process. There were four public hearings, each of which was attended by several hundred people, including representatives of business, unions, civil society and governments. The draft was reviewed in these public fora and we heard comments from many individuals, all of which we took into account. In addition, there were redrafting exercises in the context of two seminars to which we invited business, union, civil society, academic and government representatives, and other experts, to help with the drafting process. The public hearings took place in July and August of 2002 and 2003, while the seminars took place in March of 2001 and 2003. These were very helpful in terms of redrafting the document and attaining more input.
In addition, every time we produced a draft, of which there was quite a number, it was posted on the Internet and comments invited. All those drafts are still available to view on the Internet. Everyone who had ever been in touch with the sub-commission about the issue was alerted to the existence of these drafts. Every comment we received was taken into account and almost all were responded to specifically by a return e-mail.
In August 2003, after receiving all these comments and engaging in this open process, the working group on transnational corporations of the sub-commission decided that the document was ready for consideration by the sub-commission. The working group is comprised of five individuals from five different regions of the world, Latin America, eastern Europe, western Europe, Asia and Africa. The sub-commission, comprised of 26 individuals from 26 different countries, including China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Senegal, France, Britain, The Netherlands, Norway, Brazil, and others, made its decision on the document on 13 August 2003. I was the member from the United States, though I participated as an independent expert rather than as a representative of my country. The document was unanimously adopted.
The sub-commission is a sub-body of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is comprised of 53 governments. The commission meets in March and April every year and received our recommendations in those months of 2004. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, of which Ireland is a member, accepted the sub-commission's primary procedural recommendation that the document needed further dissemination and comment. We felt that a more substantive discussion should take place in March and April of 2005 and the commission accepted that proposal and asked for comment. The deadline for comment, 30 September, has passed but the commission held an open hearing on 22 October and there are a large number of written and oral comments on the norms, which will be made available in a report by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I understand this report will be published in the coming December or January, in preparation for the March-April session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
The commission also welcomed the norms but said it had not specifically requested the document and commission members expressed a certain amount of surprise at its production. This is somewhat strange because the member governments had been attending these sessions for the past four years. There was a balance involved in this decision of the commission. The commission also did something extremely important, which was to put corporate social responsibility and human rights on its agenda. For the first time in the more than 50 years of the commission's existence, this issue is recognised as an important subject for its consideration.
The commission recognises that there are important actors in the world, including governments. We are all aware these days of the existence of armed opposition groups and terrorist organisations and there are international legal principles that apply to both governments and armed opposition groups. If one considers the powerful forces in the world, however, one must conclude that companies represent a significant force. Very few international principles, such as the norms, have been developed with regard to companies, particularly transnational companies. The commission recognised that corporate social responsibility is a subject upon which it needs to focus and this is a tremendously important development.
I anticipate that the next step will be taken at the March-April session of the Commission on Human Rights. There will be a call for a standard approach to standard-setting and for the commission to establish an open-ended working group so as to continue the drafting process, looking at the issue from the government perspective rather than from the perspective of the human rights experts. That will take a number of years. These documents are not drafted immediately. I was involved with the drafting of the declaration on disappearances undertaken by the Commission on Human Rights which took only a couple of years. However, I was also involved with the drafting of the declaration on religious intolerance which took 19 years. Therefore, there is quite a diversity in the length of time required.
While that is going on, a number of important developments are taking place whereby the norms have an impact in today's world. The first of the impacts is that investment companies which, for example, deal with mutual funds, design their funds with regard to corporate social responsibility and have begun to use the norms as a standard for determining which companies are socially responsible and which are not. For example, the International Security Information Service, located in London, has done this and I heard just this morning that Vancouver Investments in Canada has begun to cite the norms in this context. This is very important because we are talking about a market solution for handling this problem and of the impact of the norms being calculated in billions of euro.
Second, non-government organisations such as Amnesty International and Christian Aid have begun to use the norms as a basis for their assessment of company conduct. Both organisations jumped the gun somewhat in that even before August 2003 they had already begun to use the norms because they saw them as a useful summary of existing international law as applicable to companies. They wanted to make sure they could use this document as an easy way of figuring out their human rights concerns.
Third, some companies, for example, companies that have been inspired by a former President of Ireland, Mrs. Mary Robinson, have begun to use the norms in their own company codes of conduct. For example, Barclays Bank, Novo Nordisk and other companies have pledged to road test the norms to find whether they can be used in the company context. This is also an important initiative whereby the norms are having an effect. The norms fill an extremely important gap in the international human rights system and deserve the support of the committee.
