FOCUS

Focus
Asia-PacificNewsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)

December 2020 Vol. 102

Contents

Editorial

COVID-19 and Belt and Road: Some of theIssues Impacting Business and Human
RightsThis is a short review of the situation in Asia
regarding business activities andgovernment responses to such activities in
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Surya Deva
Page 2Governments, Business and Human Rights

Japan's National Action Plan on Businessand Human Rights: An Unfinished ProjectThis is an introduction to the issues andprocess of developing the national action
plan of Japan on business and humanrights.
- Hideki Matsuoka
Page 5
Analysis of India’s Responsible Business
Framework
This is discussion on the Indian national
policies related to business and humanrights and the laws that negate thesepolicies as they adversely affect vulnerable
sectors.
- Namit Agarwal
Page 8COVID-19: Community Insights from AsiaPacificThis is an excerpt of a summary report on aperception survey on the COVID-19
pandemic in several Asian countries,
including perception on people being seen
as responsible for the spread of the virus.
- Risk Communication and Community
Engagement Working Group
Page 12The commitment of governments in Asia-Pacific to ensure thathuman rights are protected in business operations is weak. One
has to note the few national action plans (NAPs) on business andhuman rights in the region. The Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights reports two NAPs
(Thailand and Japan) having been adopted as of October 2020,and nine NAPs still being prepared (Australia, Azerbaijan, India,
Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar and Pakistan)
as of early December 2020.
But more serious concern is raised on the capacity of
governments to enforce existing laws that protect the humanrights of people affected by business operations. There is
likewise serious concern on contradictory provisions amonglaws that allow business enterprises to pursue operations without
being held accountable for human rights abuses. Laws thatprovide incentives to companies on development projects andnatural resource extraction may contradict those that protect therights of people to land, water and even health.
This is where effective participation of stakeholders in thedevelopment of policies on business and human rights isneeded. Workers, indigenous peoples, urban poor and membersof communities affected by business operations are some of the
stakeholders whose voices should be adequately heard andwhose proposals should be part of government policies andprograms on business and human rights.

1

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICDECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102

COVID-19 and Belt and Road: Some of the Issues
Impacting Business and Human Rights*
Surya DevaThe United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business andHuman Rights (UNGPs) provide
a global framework for states
and businesses to prevent,mitigate and remedy businessrelated human rights abuses.
They came into effect in June
2011 on their endorsement by
the UN Human Rights Council.
In this interview withM e l b o u r n e A s i a R e v i e w ’sManaging Editor, Cathy Harper,
Dr Deva discusses some of themain challenges in business andhuman rights in Asia and what
is being done about them.
Do you think the situation
relating to business and humanrights in Asia is any better thanit was prior to the UNGPs’
adoption?
Some governments andcompanies in Asia arebecoming more aware of theiradverse impact on human rights
and trying to manage it. The
process to develop a National
Action Plan on Business andHuman Rights is in place inseveral countries. Thailand
adopted a National Action Planin December 2019, whereas
South Korea has inserted achapter on business and humanrights in its National Action
Plan on Human Rights. The
governments of Pakistan, India,
Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia
are taking steps to develop a

National Action Plan, and there
is some momentum in Nepal,
Viet Nam, Myanmar and Sri
Lanka too. The UN Global
Compact’s national networks
and business associations acrossAsia are also trying to raiseawareness and build capacity.
However, progress is slow andinconsistent. Good practices
may exist in a particular sector
or within certain companies,
but there are large gaps incoherent action on the part ofbusinesses and governments.
Some governments which havemade a commitment to adopt a
National Action Plan are nottaking any concrete steps. The
Working Group has conducted
country visits to several Asian
countries and made specificrecommendations. But theserecommendations have notbeen implemented, which is amatter of concern. That’s why
the Working Group is assessing,as part of a new project, what
have we achieved in the last ten
years and what our ambitions
should be for the next ten years
regarding the UNGPs’
implementation. This projectwill result in somerecommendations as to what
the Working Group should dogoing forward to make more
impact.
What are the most concerning
situations now in terms of2business and human rights in
Asia?
The most immediate concern is
COVID-19, which has raised
several business and humanrights issues. COVID-19 has
been used by governments as apretext to impose restrictions onprotests: if certain projects are
not done in consultation withthe affected community
members, and they would liketo protest against such projects,
governments are using theiremergency powers on socialdistancing to restrict those
protests. COVID-19 has also
provided greater opportunities
for governments to intimidate
civil society organisations andhuman rights defenders.
M o r e ove r, a c c e s s t omechanisms for justice, whether
these are National Human
Rights Institutions or courts, hasbeen constrained. The Working
Group has issued a statement toprovide some guidance to states
and businesses on how todischarge their respective duties
and responsibilities under the
UNGPs in times of COVID-19.
Can you provide someexamples and contexts thatyou’re particularly concerned
about?
There are many examples ofbusiness-related human rights
concerns throughout Asia – it’s
not about any one country inFOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
particular. In several countries,
we have heard stories about
workers who have been laid-off
without any due process or
consultation. If these laid-off
workers or other individuals
would like to protest,
governments are saying that
because of social-distancing
linked to the COVID situation,
only a very small number ofpeople can assemble together.
We are also seeing a pattern incertain countries in Asia wherecompanies are using COVID-19
as an opportunity to move fasterin mining or other development
projects. Companies think thatthe affected communities may
not even notice adverse impacts
because the people in thosecommunities are not allowed totravel freely.
There are several other issues
that the UN Working Group isquite concerned about and I
would like to mention a few.
Apart from a ‘tick-box’
approach to conducting humanrights impact assessments,
human rights defenders arebeing targeted for exercising
their legitimate rights and theWorking Group is developing
guidance on this issue. Multiple
barriers to corporate
accountability for human rights
abuses is an ongoing concern as
well. Moreover, corruption andthe weak rule of law in many
Asian countries undermine thegoal of promoting business
respect for human rights.
Another issue I would like tohighlight is the adverse humanrights impact of the Belt andRoad Initiative (BRI). One
common problem with
development projects is a lackof meaningful consultation bybusinesses and governments

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
and this issue is reflected quite
strongly in the BRI projects.
Since many of these projects
involve a very close statebusiness nexus (that is, thenexus between Chinese stateowned business enterprises andthe host government agencies),
meaningful consultations withthe effected communities arevery limited at best. These
projects are causing asignificant adverse impact on
the environment, labour rights
and human rights generally, so
this is definitely a serious
concern for us, and weorganised a session during the2019 UN Forum to discuss theway forward.
Does it make things different,in terms of response, that Beltand Road Initiatives are often
Chinese state-owned
enterprises?
What is unique about BRI is that
it is quite difficult to engage
with Chinese state-owned
enterprises. If affected
communities face a situation
where they cannot engage withthe relevant companies in thehost country because ofpolitical capture or because of
the state-business nexus, then
one would look at pressure
points in the home country ofsuch companies. But how doyou engage the Chinese
government when it comes tohuman rights issues? It’s very
difficult and that makes the BRI
unique. The second issue is thatmany states are at least willingto see the relationship between
development projects andadverse human rights impacts.
H o w e v e r, t h e C h i n e s egovernment often tends to thinkof the BRI as a way to promote
human rights, because the right3

to development is a humanright.
At the same time, there is a
growing realisation within the
Chinese government about the‘green’ dimension of BRI. The
government feels that they musttake on board issues aboutsustainability, climate change
and the environment. These
concerns they acknowledge. But
when it comes to human orlabour rights abuses and attacks
on human rights defenders, I
would say these are moresensitive issues for China.
Would you mind talking a bit
about the current situation withmultinational companies andbusiness and human rights in
Asia? How big an issue is thiss t i l l a n d h ow i s t h e UN
Working Group dealing with it?
There are two issues that weshould consider here. First, asignificant amount of economic
activity in Asia is linked tosmall- and medium-sizedenterprises and the informal
economy. There are serious
human rights abuses in thesesettings, and I think we should
pay greater attention to thatrather than focus merely on
multinationals.
My second point is that
historically most of themultinationals exploiting
workers in Asia were from the
Global North. But now we are
increasingly seeing many big
multinationals from the Global
South, from India, China,
Th a i l a n d , M a l ay s i a a n dIndonesia, and of course there
are many multinationals fromJapan and South Korea.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
Whether these multinationals
are from the Global North or
the Global South, many of them
are definitely indulging inpractices which are notconsistent with international
standards such as the UNGPs,
the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises, and theInternational LabourO r g a n i s a t i o n Tr i p a r t i t e
D e c l a ra t i o n o f P r i n c i p l e s
concerning Multinational
Enterprises and Social Policy.
Evidence shows that apart fromsome leading multinational
corporations, many companies
are still operating with a legal
compliance mindset, and they
are not really adopting awholistic approach torespecting human rights. We
still have a long way to go inbringing a shift in the corporate
culture of profit maximisation.
The Working Group has beenraising awareness, making
recommendations andorganising peer-learning events(including during our Annual
UN Forum on business andhuman rights) to stress theimportance of responsible
business practices.
Which sectors are most prone
to human rights abuses?
There are human rights abusesin every sector but abuses indifferent sectors are prominent
in different countries. For
example, the extractive industry
raises many concerns in thePhilippines, PNG, Indonesia
and India. Then there areconcerns in the palm oil
i n d u s t r y i n M a l ay s i a a n dIndonesia, and in the apparelindustry in China, Bangladesh,

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
Viet Nam and Cambodia.
Serious labour rights abuses arealso reported in the fishingindustry in Asian countries,
such as Thailand exporting
seafood to Europe andelsewhere. In short, there ishardly any sector in which we
don’t have human rights abuses,
but the dynamic is different
from sector to sector. Morerecently, there are growing
concerns about newtechnologies because they raisei s s u e s a b o u t p r i v a c y,surveillance on the part of thegovernment, and hate speech
on social media. Irrespective ofsectors, the adverse impact isoften faced more by vulnerable
or marginalised groups such as
children, women, migrant
workers, indigenous peoples,
LGBTI people, and persons withdisability. In 2019, the UN
Working Group made specificrecommendations to states andcompanies on integrating agender perspective in
implementing the UNGPs.
What do you see as the key
challenges in implementing the
Guiding Principles?
One thing that we notice is thatawareness of the UNGPs still
remains quite low amongst
g o v e r n m e n t o f fi c i a l s ,companies and civil society
organisations. Then there is alack of political will on the partof the governments. Many states
have made a commitment toimplement the UNGPs, but inreality they are not taking
adequate steps. Moreover, we
continue to notice thegovernment perception of aconflict between developmenta n d h u m a n r i g h t s . M a ny
governments think that if they
push companies hard to respect4

human rights, that will slow
down economic development
and reduce foreign investment.
They tend to focus on economic
development first and believe
they can take care of humanr i g h t s l a t e r. Th i s i d e a o fsequencing is quite
problematic. Challenges
concerning access to justiceand lack of corporate
accountability are also quite
severe. Last but not least, wehave issues about the statebusiness nexus, corporate
capture and corruption. These
are some of the major
challenges that we face in
implementing the UNGPs in
Asia.
The UN Working Group does
not have much power toenforce its recommendations:
we only have the power of
persuasion. Whenever we
receive reports or complaints
about alleged corporate humanrights abuses, we pass on theseinformally to the relevant
government and companies andwe have dialogues with them.
Sometimes we send formal
communications to theconcerned states andcompanies, and in some cases
we also issue a press release tohighlight the serious nature of
the issues at stake. Moreover,
we work with civil society
organisations and give them
advice on how they can use
several mechanisms ofaccountability and differentpressure points. We also workwith National Human Rights
Institutions on how they can beproactive in dealing withparticular issues. Of course, we
regularly issue general(Continued on page 15)

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICDECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102

Japan’s National Action Plan on Business and Human
Rights: An Unfinished Project
Hideki Matsuoka

T

he Japanese government
launched its National Action
Plan on Business and Human
Rights (2020-2025) (NAP) on
16 October 2020, almost four
years since the government
announced its intention toprepare such plan at the United
N a t i o n s ( U N ) Fo r u m o nBusiness and Human Rights in
November 2016. Japan is the24th country in the world tohave a standalone NAP, and thesecond in Asia after Thailand,
which published its NAP in
October 2019. It should also be
noted that it is the first NAP tobe completed since the start of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The formulation of NAP has
been urged by the UN Working
Group on Business and Human
Rights to implement the UN
Guiding Principles on Businessand Human Rights (UNGPs).
Th e U N Wo r k i n g G r o u p ,through its Guidance on
National Action Plans on
Business and Human Rights,
d e fi n e d t h e N A P a s a n“ e vo l v i n g p o l i cy s t ra t e g ydeveloped by a State to protect
against adverse human rights
impacts by business enterprises
in conformity with the UN
Guiding Principles on Businessand Human Rights (UNGPs).”1
The Formulation Process
Th e Ja p a n e s e g ove r n m e n t
undertook a baseline study in2018 “with the aim of capturing
the current landscape to what
extent current legislation andpolicies provide for theprotection of human rights inthe context of business.”2 Afterten consultation meetings, areport on the results of the study
was published by the end of theyear.
International and other relevantorganizations in the field ofindustry, labor, law, consumers
and civil society took part in thedrafting process of the NAP,
including in the consultation
meetings.
Since 2019, discussions
continued in the Advisory
Committee for the NAP on
Business and Human Rights andthe Working Group on the NAP
on Business and Human Rights
to formulate the structure of the
NAP.
Overview of the NAP
The NAP consists of fourchapters: Chapter 1 explains thesituation in Japan regarding
business and human rights aswell as the formulation processof the NAP; Chapter 2 sets forth
the contents of the NAP;
Chapter 3 expresses thegovernment’s expectations forthe business sector; and Chapter
4 provides the frameworks for
implementation as well as forthe update of the plan.

5

National Action Plan on Businessand Human Rights (2020-2025)

In Chapter 1, it is notable that
there is an emphasis on therelationship with the
Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), as seen in the phrase“the achievement of the SDGs
and the protection andpromotion of human rights aremutually complementary andare two sides of the same coin.”
It also acknowledges the impact
of COVID-19 on human rights
around the world that create
hardships, particularly for themost vulnerable people insociety.
Five general priority areas arelisted in Chapter 2, as well as
Action Plans for Individual
Sectors with fifty-five “specificmeasures to be taken” along

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICDECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102

with the names of responsible
ministries and agencies. The
measures are described inrelation to each of the threepillars of the UNGPs, namely“the State duty to protect humanr i g h t s ,” “ t h e c o r p o r a t e
responsibility to respect humanrights,” and “access to remedy.”
The section also introducescross-sectoral issues, such aslabor (including promotion ofdecent work), protection andpromotion of child rights,
human rights associated with
development of newtechnologies, rights and roles ofconsumers, equality before thelaw (including for people withdisabilities, women, and thosewith different types of sexual
orientation and gender identity),
and acceptance andcoexistence of foreign nationals,
with corresponding measuresfor each of the issues.

NAP, and states that it is “central
to a rights-compatible approachand the degree to which
relevant stakeholders participate
in the NAP process will
determin e , a m o n g s t o t h e rthings, the legitimacy andeffectiveness of a NAP.”3 Inorder to understand how thegovernment considered thenumerous views collectedduring the formulation process
and how they were reflected in
the NAP, the discussions during
the process must be carefully
followed and verified. While therecord of the discussions was
published to a certain degree on
the Foreign Ministry’s website,
there was still a need to validate
whether or not the transparencyof the process was sufficient toenable such verification.

Inclusiveness and Transparency

The members of the Working
Group, who have been directly
involved in the formulation
process submitted two“Stakeholder Common
Requests.” The first, submitted in
November 2019, included
requests on inclusion of
p r o p o s a l s i n fi v e a r e a s ,“disclosure of non-financial
reporting,” “foreign workers,”“human rights due diligenceand supply chain,” “public
procurement,” and “access tor e m e d y.” T h e r e q u e s t sconstituted the minimum set of
proposals that the stakeholders
coming from different
backgrounds, such as industry,labor and civil society, could all
agree on.

In February 2020, eight months
before the publication of the
NAP, a draft NAP was publishedwith request for comments fromthe public. Out of the seventyeight comments received, one
hundred twenty-nine issues
were listed and published alongwith the response from thegovernment in October 2020. In
addition, the organizations
participating in the formulation
process discussions since 2018
also provided numerous viewsin their statements anddocuments in the meetings.
The Guidance on National
Action Plans on Business andHuman Rights includes“inclusivenessandtransparency” as “essential
criteria” for the formulation
process and implementation ofCollaboration among
Stakeholders

The second, submitted in June
2020, repeated the request to
have the issues in the five areas
set forth in the first submission

6

reflected in the NAP, and also
called for formulation ofs p e c i fi c p r o c e s s f o r
implementation, monitoring andupdate with the participation of
all stakeholders, as well as ofinclusion in the NAP of thehuman rights impact of
COVID-19
andthecorresponding government
response.
On 9 November 2020, after the
publication of the NAP, theAdvisory Committee and theWorking Group issued theirjoint comments respectively.
Such collaboration among
stakeholders representing
different positions is noteworthy.
Remaining Issues
On 16 October 2020, the day
the NAP was published, theCivil Society Platform for Japan’s
National Action Plan on
Business and Human Rights(BHR-NAP Platform) in which
HURIGHTS Osaka is also
participating, issued a statementsaying that everything depends
on future efforts.
In the statement, the eight issues
which the Platform has beenrequesting consistently
throughout the formulation
process were reiterated, namely:(1) ensure an inclusive andtransparent formulation
process;(2) ensure that the plan isbased on international
human rights standards andthe UNGPs;(3) ensure policy coherence,(4) e n s u r e m e a n i n g f u lconsultation withstakeholders;FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC(5) identify adverse humanrights impacts and analyze
the gaps;(6) ful ly co nsider spe ci fi cmeasures to address theadverse impacts,(7) t a k e f u l l a c c o u n t o fvulnerable
andmarginalized people, as
well as of the principle ofequality and nondiscrimination, and(8) include a concrete roadmap
towards establishing anational human rights
institution.
The draft NAP underwent a
number of revisions andadditions based on some of theviews of the BHR-NAP Platform
on the eight issues, views
expressed in the publiccomments, and views andrequests from stakeholders andexperts. BHR-NAP Platform
again requested for theconsideration of the eight issues
even though they were partiallyreferred to in the NAP, whose
effective implementation“depends on future efforts.”
The fact that the formulation
process went ahead without
analyzing the gaps in order toexamine whether or not thecurrent policies were sufficient
to identify adverse human rights
impacts and to address them inparticular, may create major
problems ahead. Many of the“measures” listed in the NAP
are taken from existing policies,and do not consider results ofsufficient analysis of gaps. Also,
the five “general priority areas”
have not been determinedthrough identification of adverse
human rights impacts and gap
analysis.

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
Unfinished Project

Endnotes

The NAP is an “evolving policy
strategy” and is supposed to bea living document that would becontinuously updated. Japan’s
NAP will also be revised after
five years. In that sense, the
NAP remains essentially“unfinished.”

1 Guidance on National Action Plans
on Business and Human Rights, UN
Working Group on Business andHuman Rights, page i,
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/B
usiness/UNWG_NAPGuidance.pdf.
2 “Business and Human Rights,”
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
www.mofa.go.jp/fp/hr_ha/page2
3e_000551.html.
3 Guidance on National Action
Plans on Business and Human
Rights, op. cit., page 4.

However, Japan’s NAP is an
unfinished project in anothersense. It is also unfinished in thesense that at the moment there
is no confirmation that the fiftyfive “specific measures to betaken” are based on the UNGPs
and therefore are designed toaddress the adverse humanrights impacts. That
confirmation is left to the future
implementation, monitoring andrevision process.
Meanwhile, the NAP has beenlaunched. Regardless of its
substance, it will have certain
impact in the Japanese society
and will be discussed in many
ways. The most important pointin the UNGPs, and hence in the
NAP, is to protect people fromadverse human rights impacts
caused by business enterprises,
and to provide remedies. Would
we be any closer to even a little
lessening of the adverse humanrights impacts exacerbated by
the COVID-19 pandemic andclimate change crisis within andoutside of Japan, and to creatinga society in which people aretreated with respect? Everything
depends on future efforts.
Hideki Matsuoka is a Researcher
of HURIGHTS OSAKA.
For further information, pleasecontact HURIGHTS OSAKA.

7

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICDECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102

Analysis of India’s Responsible Business Framework
Namit Agarwal

In India, the concept of
responsible business conduct
finds semblance with theGandhian principle ofTrusteeship. 1 During India’s
independence struggle, Gandhi
introduced the concept ofTrusteeship as an economic
construct for the protection ofhuman dignity instead of merematerial prosperity. Under the
Tr u s t e e s h i p p r i n c i p l e ,businesses are considered
trustees of societal wealth.
Businesses as trustees must act
in the best interest of thesociety. Much like the conceptof stakeholder capitalism,
Trusteeship prioritizes business
responsibility towards
stakeholders over that towards
the shareholders.
Commitment to Human Rights
The fundamental rights andfreedoms enshrined in the
Indian Constitution provide arobust constitutional framework
to locate the responsibilities andobligations of businessenterprises. Right to Equality
prohibits discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste,sex, or place of birth. Rightagainst Exploitation prohibits
forced and child labor. The
Constitution also includes
provisions for just and humane
working conditions, maternity
relief, living wages,
participation of workers inmanaging industries, affirmative
action, and environmental
protection.

India is signatory to several
international treaties andconventions with many
exceptions such as theInternational Convention on theProtection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Their
Families (2003), Collective
Bargaining Convention (1981),
Occupational Safety and Health(1981), etc.
Before the COVID-19
pandemic, India was one offastest growing economies in
the world. India’s annual grossdomestic product (GDP) growthrate for the last decade has beenover 6 percent on an average.2
India added thirty-four new
billionaires3 in 2019 to attainthe third spot on the global listof ultra-rich persons. However,this is in contrast with highlevels of economic inequality,
environmental degradation, 4high unemployment,5 and risingdissent.6 In 2019, the richest 1
percent in India held more thanfour times7 the wealth held by
the bottom 70 percent of thecountry’s population.
Policy Timeline
In the last decade, India hastaken several policy actions tostrengthen the transparency, andaccountability of businesses
towards societal andenvironmental impacts.
In 2011, the Indian government
introduced National Voluntary
Guidelines (NVGs) on Social,

8

Environmental and Economic
responsibilities of business.8 The
NVGs, for the first time,
provided a government
framework on business
responsibility. The NVGs were
updated to National Guidelines
on Responsible BusinessConduct (NGRBC)9 in 2019.
Two prominent changes in the
updated guidelines were – theterm “voluntary” was dropped
from the name and NGRBC wasaligned with internationalframeworks such as the Social
Development Goals (SDGs),
United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business andHuman Rights (UNGPs) andOECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises(OECD MNE Guidelines).
In 2012, India’s securities
market regulator the Securities
Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
adopted the NVGs frameworkand introduced a mandatory
reporting framework, BusinessResponsibility Report (BRR)10
for the top one hundredcompanies listed on Indian
stock exchanges by market
value. The mandatory reporting
requirements were expandedfrom top one hundred to top
one thousand listed companies
between 2012 – 2019.
Recently, SEBI invited publiccomments on an updated BRR
renamed as BusinessResponsibility and Sustainability
Reporting11 in alignment withthe changes from NVGs to
NGRBC.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
In 2013, a provision was
introduced in the Companies
Act for mandatory spending on
corporate social responsibility
and recognized the Directors’
fiduciary duties towards all
stakeholders. More recently,
SEBI introduced a StewardshipCode12 for all mutual funds andAlternative Investment Funds. It
is expected that other categories
of financial institutions will
come under the ambit of the
Stewardship Code soon.
In 2018, with the release of zerodraft National Action Plan (NAP)
on Business and Human Rights,
the Indian government officiallycommitted to developing a NAP
by 2020. The NAP zero draft
was merely a listing of relevant
existing legislations and policies
categorized under the three
UNGPs pillars - protect, respect,
and remedy. In early 2020, theMinistry of Corporate Affairs
invited public comments andinputs to “inform the NAP
development process.” An
extensive and participatory
national baseline assessment isa crucial next step for the NAP
to anticipate and address key
implementation challenges. Asof early December 2020, theIndian NAP has not yet beenlaunched.
Policy actions on strengthening
company disclosures onenvironmental, social andgovernance factors has led toincreased awareness with large
companies to a large extent.
Corporate disclosures are a verysignificant first step towards
accountability and positive
impact. However, disclosuresalone do not translate into
impact. An assessment13 of thedisclosures of top one hundredcompanies listed on Bombay

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
Stock Exchange between 2014 –2016 finds shortcomings indisclosure quality andconsistency. On one hand, atrend of increasing disclosures
was observed on issues such as
non-discrimination andcorporate social responsibility.
On the other hand, not muchchange in disclosures wasobserved on issues such as
stakeholder engagement andtransparency in supply chains.
Investing based on
environmental, social, andgovernance (ESG) considerations
has gained significant traction14g l o b a l l y. Th e g l o b a l E S G
investment market is calculated
to be over thirty trillion US
dollars15 growing at a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16
percent. In comparison, the ESG
investments market in India iscalculated to be around twentyeight billion US dollars growing
marginally at one-third the rateof global ESG market. Several
domestic Asset Management
Companies (AMCs) haveintroduced 16 mutual fundsaligned with ESG principles. Twoof the major stock exchanges inIndia, Bombay Stock Exchange
and National Stock Exchange,
have both introduced ESG
indices in recent years. ESG
investors have a high potential
leverage to influence company
actions, it is perhaps too early tomeasure their influence on
Indian companies at this point.
Ground Realities
Th e I n d i a n e c o n o my i s
predominantly informal withover 90 percent employment int h e i n f o r m a l s e c t o r. A
significantly large part ofbusiness impact on society andenvironment is therefore likely

9

to be outside the formal sector.
One of the limitations of the
responsible business policies inIndia is that these policies aredesigned for the formal sector
leaving a significantly large partof business sector outside its
direct scope.
In a stark contrast to theencouraging policy actions on
responsible business front,
recent changes in labor, land,
environment, and agriculture
laws have been criticized to be
detrimental for communities
and the environment. Some ofthese changes even contradict
NGRBC principles. The IndianParliament recently enacted fourLabour Codes17 presented by
the government as a historiclabor reform, consolidating overtwenty-nine central labor laws.
Trade unions have opposed
these changes in labor laws as
being “anti-worker.”18 A draft
notification on Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA) issued
by the government was
criticised 19 for weakening
environmental regulations anddesigned to silence affected
communities. It is important tonote that existing policies on
responsible business rely on
self-disclosures, with a provision
on comply or explain. There are
no provisions to ensure or tovalidate implementation of theprinciples and disclosures.
Effective implementation andmonitoring of compliance relies
on front-line state capacity inthe hands of local labor
inspectors, pollution control
officers and law enforcement
agencies. The paradox of India’s
well-designed policies is anelite well-functioning national
bureaucracy coupled with achaotic and dysfunctional 20

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
l o c a l g ove r n m e n t s y s t e m .
Implementation of policy issignificantly impacted21 due tobureaucratic overload22 andinadequate resourcing at thefront-line. This weak
implementation capacity often
means that large parts ofbusiness operations in lower
tiers, supply chains, farms andcommunities practically remainout of policy scope. Land
conflicts have impacted23 an
estimated 7.2 percent of India’s
GDP and over 6.5 million
people in 2018-2019. Access toremedy and justice is severely
constrained due to an extremely
overburdened judiciary withover thirty-four million24 cases
pending in lower courts in
2020.
Way Forward
Policy contradictions, weak
implementation mechanisms
and an overburdened access tojustice system can besignificantly counter-productive
to India’s responsible businessagenda. It is important to enable
the large micro, small andmedium enterprises (MSMEs) toadopt NGRBC. SEBI’s newreporting framework includes alighter reporting format for the
M S M E s e c t o r. E c o n o m i cviability and capacity
constraints of the MSME sector
could impact greater adoptionof responsible business policies.
Role of lead firms in supply
chains that source from MSMEs,
business membershiporganizations and financial
institutions is crucial in
facilitating responsibility andtransparency of MSMEs in
supply chains.
Addressing
policycontradictions in labor laws,

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
environment laws, landownership and agriculture canprovide a consistent policy
framework that supports
sustainable development.
Strengthening community
consultation processes andcommunity-based institutions
can address the power
imbalance
betweencommunities, corporations, andgovernment. Empowered
community collectives canbetter engage in negotiation
processes (e.g., land acquisition,
environment, and social impact,etc.) and overcome existing
challenges of informationa s y m m e t r y. C o n s i d e r i n gchallenges of state capacity inimplementing policies andlegislations it is perhaps betterto rely on local, participatory,
and agile governancemechanisms. Strengthening
access to justice in the context
of responsible business is matterof urgency. Enhancing access ton o n - s t a t e - b a s e d g r i e va n c emechanisms in cooperation andcollaboration with necessary
stakeholders could possibly
overcome the situation of an
overburdened local judicial
system.
Namit Agarwal is Asia Policy
Lead at World Benchmarking
Alliance.
For further information, pleasecontact: Namit Agarwal, World
Benchmarking Alliance,
Rhijnspoorplein 10-38, 1018 TX
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; email:n.agarwal@worldbenchmarking
alliance.org; twitter handle:
h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r. c o m /s o c i o p r e n e u r / ;www.worldbenchmarkingallianc
e.org.

10

Endnotes
1 Y. K e s a v u l u , G a n d h i a n
Trusteeship as an 'Instrument of
Human Dignity’, Comprehensive
Website by GandhianInstitutions-Bombay Sarvodaya
Mandal & Gandhi Research
Foundation, www.mkgandhi.org/
articles/trusteeship.htm.
2 GDP growth (annual %) - India,
Th e Wo r l d B a n k , h t t p s : / /data.worldbank.org/indicator/
N Y. G D P. M K T P. K D . Z G ?
end=2019&locations=IN&start=
2009.
3 Sai Ishwarbharath, “India Mints
Three Billionaires A Month:H u r u n R i c h L i s t 2 0 2 0 ,”Bloomberg, 26 February 2020,www.bloombergquint.com/
global-economics/india-is-nowhome-to-most-billionaires-afterchina-us-hurun-rich-list-2020.
4 “Air pollution now biggest healthrisk in India, says report,” The
Hindu, 22 October 2020,
www.thehindu.com/news/cities/
Delhi/air-pollution-now-biggesthealth-risk-in-india-says-report/
article32912916.ece.
5 Madan Sabnavis, “NSSO data
confirms India's jobs crisis:
Unemployment at 45-year highof 6.1%, way out is to makeeconomy grow,” Firstpost, 31
January
2019,
www.firstpost.com/business/
nsso-data-confirms-indias-jobcrisis-with-unemployment-at-45year-high-of-6-1-solution-lies-ine c o n o m i c growth-5998071.html.
6 Meenakshi Ganguly, “Dissent Is‘Anti-National’ in Modi’s IndiaGovernment Continues to Clamp
Down on Criticism,” Human
Rights Watch, www.hrw.org/
news/2019/12/13/dissent-antinational-modis-india.
7 “Wealth of India's richest 1%
more than 4-times of total for
70% poorest: Oxfam, The
E c o n o m i c Ti m e s , h t t p s : / /economictimes.indiatimes.com/
news/economy/indicators/
wealth-of-indias-richest-1-more-FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
than-4-times-of-total-for-70poorest-oxfam/articleshow/
73416122.cms?from=mdr.
8 National Voluntary Guidelines on
Social, Environmental andEconomical Responsibilities ofBusiness, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, Government of India,
2011,
w w w. m c a . g ov. i n /Ministry/latestnews/
National_Voluntary_Guidelines_
2011_12jul2011.pdf.
9 National Guidelines on
Responsible Business Conduct,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India, 2019,www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/
NationalGuildeline_15032019.p
df.
10 F o r m a t f o r B u s i n e s s
Responsibility Report (BRR),
Securities and Exchange Boardof India, www.sebi.gov.in/legal/
circulars/nov-2015/format-forbusiness-responsibility-reportbrr-_30954.html.
11 Consultation Paper on the format
for Business Responsibility andSustainability Reporting,
Securities and Exchange Boardof India, www.sebi.gov.in/reports-and-statistics/reports/
aug-2020/consultation-paper-ont h e - f o r m a t - f o r- b u s i n e s s responsibility-and-sustainabilityreporting_47345.html.
12 Stewardship Code for all Mutual
Funds and all categories of AIFs,
in relation to their investment inlisted equities, Securities andExchange Board of India,
www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/dec-2019/stewardship-code-forall-mutual-funds-and-allcategories-of-aifs-in-relation-tot h e i r- i n v e s t m e n t - i n - l i s t e d equities_45451.html.
13 Namit Agarwal, “Measuring
Business Responsibility
Disclosures of IndianCompanies: A Data-Driven
Approach to Influence Action,”
Cambridge University Press: 23
November
2017,
w w w. c a m b r i d g e . o r g / c o r e /journals/business-and-humanrights-journal/article/measuring-

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
business-responsibilitydisclosures-of-indian-companiesa - d a t a d r iv e n - a p p r o a ch - t o i n f l u e n c e - a c t i o n /DAD9852706B2C1DF89E5688F
4AAF0E7B.
14 Elliot Smith, “The numberssuggest the green investing‘mega trend’ is here to stay,”
CNBC, 14 February 2020,www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/esginvesting-numbers-suggestgreen-investing-mega-trend-ishere.html.
15 Global Sustainable Investment
Review 2018, Global
Sustainable Investment Alliance,
www.gsi-alliance.org/trendsreport-2018/.
16 “Sustainable investing: Why
investing in ethically soundcompanies is a trend that is here
to stay,” 14 October 2020,
Financial
Express,
www.financialexpress.com/
market/cafeinvest/sustainableinvesting-why-investing-inethically-sound-companies-is-at r e n d - t h a t - i s - h e r e - t o - s t ay /2105107/.
17 See Ministry of Labour and
Employment website, https://labour.gov.in/labour-codes.
18 “Labour codes passed are antiworker, say trade unions,” The
Hindu, www.thehindu.com/
news/national/labour-codes-antiw o r k e r- s a y - t r a d e - u n i o n s /article32680053.ece.
19 Satyajit Sarna, “Draft EIA
Notification is an attempt toweaken regulation, silence
affected communities,” Indian
Express, 27 June 2020, https://indianexpress.com/article/
opinion/columns/ease-ofharming-environment-6478163/.
20 Lant Pritchett, “Is India a FlailingState?: Detours on the Four Lane
Highway to Modernization,”
Harvard Business School Faculty
Research Working Paper Series
RWP09-013, 2009, John F.
Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/
1/4449106.

11

21 Akshay Mangla, “Bureaucratic
Norms and State Capacity inIndia: Implementing Primary
Education in the Himalayan
Region,” Working Paper, Harvard
Business School Working Paper
Series, 2015, www.hbs.edu/
f a c u l t y / Pa g e s / i t e m . a s p x ?
num=46981.
22 Dasgupta, Aditya and Kapur,
Devesh, The Political Economy
of Bureaucratic Overload:
Evidence from Rural
Development Officials in India(October 23, 2017). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=3057602 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.
3057602.
23 Thomas Worsdell and Kumar
S a m b h a v, “ L o c a t i n g t h e
Breach,” Land Conflict Watch,
2020, https://globalu p l o a d s . w e b f l o w. c o m /5d70c9269b8d7bd25d8b1696/5
ecd20dd626f166d67f67461_Loc
ating_the_Breach_Feb_2020.pdf.
24 Sasmit Patra, “Pending Cases in
Courts”, Unstarred question No.
1381, Rajya Sabha, Governmentof India, 2020, page 31, https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/
RS-22.9.20.pdf.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICDECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102

COVID-19: Community Insights from Asia-Pacific*
Risk Communication and Community Engagement Working GroupC

ommunities are key instopping the spread of
COVID-19. Only by
understanding how people
communicate, what they know,
their needs and gaps inunderstanding about
COVID-19, can humanitarianorganizations achieve acommunity-driven response thatwill reduce the spread of thevirus.
Perception Survey
As part of the inter-agency Risk
Communication andCommunity Engagement (RCCE)
Working Group, theInternational Federation of Red
Cross and Red CrescentSocieties (IFRC), Red Cross and
Red Crescent National
Societies, United Nations Officefor the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),
UNICEF and World HealthOrganization (WHO) undertooka perception survey on
C OV I D - 1 9 i n I n d o n e s i a ,Malaysia, Myanmar andPakistan from 29 May to 20 July
2020 with a two-weekcollection time frame in eachcountry.
In total, 4,993 respondents(52.4 percent male, 47.28
percent female, and 0.67
percent not disclosed)
participated in the four
countries. Of these participants,
the majority were aged 18 to
29, followed by 30 to 39 years
old.

Education levels of participants
differed across the four
countries, with Pakistan having
the greatest proportion ofparticipants without any formal
education (7.9 percent) or withprimary education only (24.4
percent). In contrast, only 1.1
percent of respondents inIndonesia stated to have notattended or attended only
primary school, and 82.2
percent shared that they held asecondary school degree. Thisstrong discrepancy is likely also
due to the much smaller sample
size in Indonesia which was
only collected online.
Question on COVID-19 Stigma
One survey question dealt withstigma (Question 11): Do you
think a specific group is
responsible for spreading
COVID-19?
Around one in three
respondents across the four
countries fully believe that a
specific group is responsible fors p r e a d i n g C OV I D - 1 9 ( 3 5p e rc e n t i n I n d o n e s i a , 5 0
percent in Malaysia, 28 percent
in Myanmar, and 17 percent
Pakistan said Yes to the question
whether they thought a specificgroup was responsible for
spreading COVID-19). If we
combine the groups thatthought that a specific group
was responsible with those who
thought a specific group was “alittle responsible” the number
rises to one in two respondents

12(55 percent in Indonesia, 69
percent in Malaysia, 32 percent
in Myanmar, 30 percent inPakistan). The belief that a
specific group is responsible for
spreading COVID-19 is mostprevalent in Malaysia (one in
two respondents), and lowest in
P a k i s t a n ( o n e i n fi v e
respondents).
In Myanmar, the groups mostoften thought to be responsible
are people from China andpeople coming back from aforeign country. This can likely
be attributed to the facts that thevirus originated in China, which
has a long, porous land borderwith Myanmar; and that –according to OCHA at the time
when this survey was
conducted – there was “limited
local transmission with [the]majority of cases confirmed
among returning migrants.” In
Myanmar, respondents who are
male, over fifty years old, andwithout education, were more
likely to believe that a specificgroup is responsible for
spreading the virus.
In Malaysia, 69 percent ofrespondents believe that a
specific group is responsible for
spreading COVID-19, withpeople who are fifty years andabove agreeing about 9 percent
more than under fifty-year-olds.
Malaysian respondents with
only secondary-level education
and below tend to agree moret h a t a s p e c i fi c g r o u p i s
responsible by about 4 percent

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
than respondents with tertiarye d u c a t i o n . M o r e o v e r,
respondents from urban areas
agree slightly more (3 percent)than from rural Malaysia.
Among the Malaysian
respondents who believe a
specific group is responsible,
foreigners are mentioned
frequently with respondents
specifically naming Chinese
people, returning migrants,
foreign tourists, “illegal
foreigners,” migrant workers,
and foreigners in general. This isfollowed closely by COVID-19
positive people and people whoare not following government
regulations. This is consistent
with reports of moves made by
Malaysia on foreign tourists andmigrants during COVID-19(particularly undocumented
migrants), including tightening
regulations to restrict entry1 andincreasing detention anddeportation efforts,2 and also
supports evidence of declining
positive public opinion on
foreigners3 in general since thebeginning of the pandemic.
In Indonesia, a large proportion(55 percent) of respondents
believes COVID-19 is spread bya specific group. The majority
believe the spread occurs
because of some people who
refuse to follow government
regulations such as not wearing
masks, going out unnecessarily,
and travelling to and fromCOVID-19 high-risk areas.
There is also a small but notablegroup that believes that
COVID-19 spread because thegovernment did not anticipate
the level of spread and did noteffectively implement lockdown
and strict regulations. In
Pakistan, most respondents
think that insufficient control

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
measures related to travel,i s o l a t i o n , a n d q u a ra n t i n efacilities established by thegovernment at the Iranianborder as the cause for the
spread of COVID-19. Secondly,
nationals (for instance pilgrims
coming back from Iran and
Syria and settling in Sindh andPunjab) and foreigners returning
to Pakistan, and finally, people
from China are held responsible
for the spread of COVID-19.
For all four countries, higher
education had a small impact
on whether respondents thoughta s p e c i fi c g r o u p w a s
responsible for COVID-19, withthose having tertiary education
being slightly less likely to holda specific group responsible.
Information Needs andCommunity Engagement
There is a common trend of
COVID-19 information needs
and community engagement
preferences across the four
countries. Overall, therespondents suggest they
primarily stay informed about
COVID-19 through the Ministryof Health, Social Media, andTelevision (Question 14). As ayoung woman in Myanmar said:“In COVID times, [our TV tuned
in on] MRTV [government
channel] is constantly on. Ourfamily gathers around it all day.”“I always check – is the MOHS
logo there?” reported a young
man in Myanmar, “I only
believe the guidance if theirlogo is there. Others are justadvertising products.”
This suggests that in Myanmar
communications about
COVID-19 should be made via
government agency websites
and TV, radio stations, and print

13

media alongside popular social
networking channels, such as
Facebook and WhatsApp, toensure that information is not
restricted to those with internet
access.
In Indonesia, the respondents
explain they stay informed
mostly through online channels
including websites or online
news pages, social media, andsearch engines such as Google.
However, these findings aremost likely a correlation withthe fact that data in Indonesia
was exclusively collected
through online surveys.
Therefore respondents weremore likely to be digital natives
with regular internet access.
While there is some variety interms of most used information
channels, the most trusted
information source in reporting
about the COVID-19 (Question15) across all four countries istelevision with 61.13 percent,followed by radio stations andprinted newspapers. This isfollowed by radio stations andprinted newspapers in both
Malaysia and Myanmar. Unlike
those in these two countries, therespondents in Pakistan say they
trust more the search engines
and websites or online news
p a g e s , a f t e r T V. W h i l e
respondents in Indonesia reportthat they mostly trust
information from WHO,
community health workers,
UNICEF, Ministry of Health(MoH), and Red Cross
volunteers over television.
Interestingly, in Indonesia andMalaysia, while online channels
such as social media, websites/o n l i n e n e w s , a n d s e a r ch
engines are used frequently,
they are not as well trusted asother less frequently used

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
channels and sources such as
WHO, radio, community healthworkers, UNICEF and Red Cross
volunteers. This suggests that tohave effective communication,
we need to engage people
through well-trusted sources
and frequently used channels;
for example, MoH or WHO
representatives communicating
through TV or social media.
Respondents across the four
countries say they received
information about protection
measures, symptoms, andt ra n s m i s s i o n o f t h e v i r u s(Question 13). This information
is distributed almost equally
between male and female
groups in the communities.
Recommendations• Stigma is a key challenge inall four countries. Almost halfof all respondents in
Pa k i s t a n , I n d o n e s i a ,Malaysia, and Myanmar
believed that a specific groupis at fault for the spread of
COVID-19. Those perceived
to be at fault differs bycountry.
Findings suggest that morework on addressing stigma isessential to foster community
cohesion and address
discrimination, particularly
against vulnerable groups
such as migrants. Continuing
to listen and analyze whom
individuals hold responsible
for the spread of COVID-19
is key to making people feelheard, while also clarifying
misconceptions about groups
perceived to be responsible
for spreading the virus.
• Awareness of COVID-19 is
u n i v e r s a l i n M y a n m a r,

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
Indonesia and Malaysia.
However, in Pakistan, nearly
10 percent of respondents
were not aware of
COVID-19.
Findings suggest that inPakistan more information on
COVID-19 through multiple
channels needs to beprovided, with a focus onreaching people relying on
traditional media and faceto-face communication.
• Washing hands, wearing
masks, and staying at homea r e t h e t o p C OV I D - 1 9
prevention measures acrossthe four countries.
Overall, participants areclear on COVID-19
preventative measures.
Instead of blanket messaging
t h a t m ay c o n t r i b u t e t o“ m e s s a g i n g f a t i g u e ,”communicators should findout which questions remainunanswered in local contexts
and seek to answer these.
• Information most sought by
surveyed communities
includes treatment options
and what to do if a family
member is sick. Additionalr e s e a r ch a n d l i t e r a t u r eemphasize that individuals
are more likely to follow
instructions to keep otherssafe rather than themselves.
Findings suggest that people
are interested to hear about
what is being done to findtreatments and vaccines
against COVID-19.
M o r e o v e r, t h e fi n d i n g ssuggest that content should
give practical tips on how tokeep family members andothers vulnerable to thedisease safe.

14• More than half of allparticipants shared that they
have worries and fears
related to COVID-19. The
main worries for respondents
were around losing a loved
one and getting sick (73p e rc e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s
frequently worry about).
Respondents also reported
that they are frequently
worried about the healthsystem being overloaded (72p e rc e n t ) . Th i s s h ow s asignificant emotional andmental stress that individuals
are facing in addition toother challenges (e.g.,
economic) and highlights theimportance of a responset h a t a ck n ow l e d g e s a n daddresses psycho-social
needs.
Accessible and localized
mental health and psychosocial support are key.
Engagement should focus onactionable advice on how tokeep family members safe
and care for them.
*This is an edited excerpt of thereport released by the interagency RCCE working group on
17 September 2020, and isavailable at Reliefweb,
COVID-19: Community Insightsfrom the Asia Pacific Region Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar,and Pakistan (September 2020),
https://reliefweb.int/report/
indonesia/covid-19-communityinsights-asia-pacific-regionindonesia-malaysia-myanmarand.
For further information, pleasecontact: RCCE working group
Co-Chairs:• L j u b i c a L a t i n ov i c , R i s kCommunication Advisor,

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICWorld Health Organization(WHO) – e-mail:latinovicl@who.int;• Viviane Fluck, Regional
Community Engagement andAccountability Coordinator,
International Federation of
Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties (IFRC) – e-mail:viviane.fluck@ifrc.org;• Husni Husni, Humanitarian
Affairs Officer, (Community
Engagement / Accountability
to Affected Populations),
Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) – e-mail:husni.husni@un.org.

COVID-19 and Belt and Road
(Continued from page 4)
recommendations in ourthematic reports to all states andall companies on how theyshould respond to businessrelated human rights abuses.
In terms of the implementationof the UN Guiding Principles,what do you see as the role ofpolitics and society?
A lack of political will is one of
the major issues. The political
will to promote business respectfor human rights could be built
through political processes. I
would say that the business andhuman rights agenda should beon the political manifestos ofdifferent political parties. Whenelections are taking place, at thenational level or at theprovincial or local level,business and human rights
issues should be at the centre of
the political discourse. Let’s say

DECEMBER 2020 VOLUME 102
Endnotes
1 “Covid-19: Immigration releases
list of countries whose citizens
are barred from entering M'sia,”
The Star, www.thestar.com.my/
news/nation/2020/09/07/
covid-19-immigration-releaseslist-of-countries-whose-citizens-are-barred-from-enteringm039sia.
2 E m i l y D i n g , “ M a l a y s i a ’s
C o r o n av i r u s S c a p e g o a t s ,”Foreign Policy, 19 June 2020,
h t t p s : / / f o r e i g n p o l i cy. c o m /2020/06/19/malaysiascoronavirus-scapegoats/.
3 Charles Hector and Adrian
Pereira, “End discrimination
against foreigners and migrants
i n C OV I D - 1 9 r e s p o n s e s ,”if I’m a candidate, I should besaying that if I win this election,
I will do “a, b, c” to addresslabour rights issues, climatechange and environmental
pollution. Business and humanrights is something which
impacts everyone, and that’s
why current political culture
could be changed if all of us
more proactively engage inthese election processes.
Moreover, I think we also needto involve other institutions suchas universities, schools, religious
institutions, investors, consumer
councils and trade unions in thebusiness and human rights
agenda—everyone has a role toplay in their own settings. The
UN Working Group very muchhopes that in coming years all
societal institutions begin
recognising these connections
and start playing a moreproactive role in the future inpromoting business respect forhuman rights.

15

Malaysiakini, 30 Jun 2020.
w w w. m a l a y s i a k i n i . c o m /announcement/532379; A.
Ananthalakshmi, Rozanna Latiff,“Rohingya targeted in Malaysia
as coronavirus stokes
x e n o p h o b i a ,” R e u t e r s ,www.reuters.com/article/ushealth-coronavirus-ma-laysiarohingya/rohingya-targeted-inmalaysia-as-coronavi-rus-stokesxenophobia-idUSKBN22Z00K.

*This article was originallypublished in the Melbourne Asia
Review, Asia Institute. It isavailable at: https://
melbourneasiareview.edu.au/interview-covid-19-and-beltand-road-some-of-the-issuesimpacting-business-and-humanrights/
Dr Surya Deva is a Member of
the United Nations Working
Group on Business and Human
Rights, a five-member groupwhich promotes theimplementation of the UN
Guiding Principles on Businessand Human Rights (UNGPs).
He is also an Associate Professor
at the School of Law of City
University Hong Kong.
For further information pleasecontact: Surya Deva, School ofLaw, City University Hong Kong;e-mail: suryad@cityu.edu.hk.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

The 10th volume of Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific is planned to be printed in December
2020.

JAPON

TAXE PERCUEPRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally opened in December 1994. It has the following aims: 1) to engender popular understanding in Osaka of the international human rights standards; 2) to support international exchange
between Osaka and countries in Asia-Pacific through collection and dissemination of information andmaterials on human rights; and 3) to promote human rights in Asia-Pacific in cooperation with nationaland regional institutions and civil society organizations as well as the United Nations. In order to achievethese goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study, Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to human rights in
the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA for inclusion in thenext editions of the newsletter.
Sender: HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
8F, CE Nishihonmachi Bldg., 1-7-7 Nishihonmachi, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0005
Japan
Phone: (816) 6543-7002
Fax: (816) 6543-7004
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Website: www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA