United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Developed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) John Ruggie, these Guiding Principles provided the first global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity, and continue to provide the internationally accepted framework for enhancing standards and practice regarding business and human rights.

In the early 1970s, the United Nations Economic and Social Council requested that the Secretary General create a commission group to study the impact of transnational corporations (TNCs) on development processes and international relations.

The debate concerning the responsibilities of business in relation to human rights became prominent in the 1990s, as oil, gas, and mining companies expanded into increasingly difficult areas, and as the practice of off-shore production in clothing and footwear drew attention to poor working conditions in global supply chains.

[4] While the Norms received support from some NGO’s, such as the Europe-Third World Centre (CETIM) or Amnesty International, the document encountered significant opposition from the business sector, and key influential states.

In 2008, on completion of his first three-year mandate, Ruggie presented the United Nations Human Rights Council with the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" framework as a conceptual way to anchor the debate.

OHCHR provides ongoing support and advice to the Working Group, which consists of five independent experts, of balanced regional representation, for a three-year period.

This terminology was employed by the SRSG to reflect the intention to expand the principles coverage beyond definitions of armed conflict in international humanitarian law.

[14] He conveys that where the guiding principles fall short is that they set out to identify obstacles and encourage States to overcome them, but fail to ensure it occurs in practice.

[15] Another issue relates to the Commentary to Guiding Principle 2 which provides that home states "are permitted" to take measures ensuring access to remedies.

This language has been heavily criticised for being timid and unambiguous where victims of abuse by multinational corporations routinely face insurmountable obstacles to remedy in the host state and have no other place to turn for help.

For example, the Coca-Cola Company "strongly endorsed" the UNGPs, calling them "a foundation and flexible framework for companies like ours",[17] and General Electric wrote that the UNGPs "helped to clarify the distinct interrelated roles and responsibilities of states and business entities in this area" and that they would "no doubt serve as a lasting beacon for businesses entities seeking (to) grow their service and product offerings while respecting human rights".

[23][20] The debate about the sufficiency of a voluntary soft-law approach that underlie the Guiding Principles, however, reopened in September 2013 when Ecuador, backed by 84 governments proposed a binding legal instrument for TNC operations in order "to provide appropriate protection, justice and remedy to the victims of human rights abuses directly resulting from or related to the activities of some transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

[26] An issue raised by Ruggie with regards to the introduction of a legally binding international business and human rights treaty is determining the scope and scale of such an instrument.

[27] Conversely, Ruggie has long illustrated his strong objection to any attempt to shoehorning the entire complex of business and human rights issues into a single, overarching international legal instrument.

[14] His explanation is that business and human rights involves a wide range of diverse problems, legal and institutional variations, as well as conflicting interest between and within States.

This perspective depicts a proposed treaty to be just one aspect within a developing comprehensive system aimed at regulating business and human rights.

In his analysis, Ruggie sided with the former highlighting that where a State ratifies a treaty, it already has obligations to protect individuals against human rights breaches by third parties within their territories.

States that have not ratified a core UN or ILO human rights instrument are very unlikely to support or enforce a treaty imposing obligations on the overseas operations of their MNCs.