HUMAN RIGHTS TRANSLATEDA Business Reference Guide

Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Faculty of Law, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Melbourne, Australia
The Castan Centre is Australia’s leading academic human rights centre. It brings together the work of national andinternational human rights scholars, practitioners and advocates in order to promote and protect human rights throughteaching, scholarly publications and public education, including conferences, seminars, internships, applied research andconsultancies. The Castan Centre’s contribution to this publication is one outcome of an Australian Research Council
Linkage grant, funded by the Australian government, Premier Oil and Futureye Pty Ltd.
http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre

International Business Leaders Forum
15-16 Cornwall Terrace, London NW1 4QP, UK
The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) works with business, governments and civil society to enhance thecontribution that companies can make to sustainable development. Founded by HRH The Prince of Wales, we are an
independent, not-for-profit organisation currently supported by over 100 of the world’s leading businesses. Since 1990, we
have worked in over 90 countries. Our work benefits from long-term relationships with regional networks across the world,many of which IBLF has helped to establish or strengthen. Our current areas of work include raising sustainable businessstandards, improving prospects for enterprise and employment, and enabling companies to contribute to health and humandevelopment issues.
http://www.iblf.org

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
OHCHR-UNOG, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is a key branch of the UN human rights
structure. The High Commissioner is responsible to the UN Secretary-General for encouraging the international communityand nation States to uphold universal human rights standards. OHCHR seeks to work with an ever wider range of actors,
including the private sector, to promote respect for and commitment to human rights as widely as possible. OHCHR serves
as Secretariat for the UN’s inter-governmental body, the Human Rights Council.
http://www.ohchr.org

United Nations Global Compact Office
2 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA
The UN Global Compact Office (GCO) is the UN entity formally entrusted with the support and overall co-ordination of the
Global Compact initiative. It has received the endorsement of the UN General Assembly (A/RES/60/215 ) and has been given
UN system-wide responsibilities for promoting the sharing of best practices. The Global Compact Office also has responsibilities with regard to advocacy and issue leadership, fostering network development, and maintaining the Global Compact
communications infrastructure. Furthermore, the GCO plays a central role in advancing the partnership agenda across theUN system and has overall responsibility for brand management and implementation of the Global Compact integrity measures.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org

HUMAN RIGHTS TRANSLATEDA Business Reference GuideAcknowledgements

Acknowledgements© 2008 Castan Centre for Human Rights Law,
International Business Leaders Forum, and Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
We must acknowledge the many people who havecontributed to this publication.
On behalf of the Castan Centre, Sarah Joseph and
Rachel Chambers were the major authors. Additional
research was conducted by Sven Edquist, Sarah
Schnider, Erica Contini, Natalie Bugalski and Katie
Mitchell.
On behalf of the International Business Leaders
Forum, Lucy Amis was the major author. Additional
contributions from Désirée Abrahams, Peter Brew,
Caroline Ersmarker, Katy Cooper, Steve Kenzie,
Caroline Leonard, Joe Phelan and Sandra Prida.
On behalf of the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights, Lene Wendland was
the main contributor. Additional input was received from
Laure-Anne Courdesse, Julian Burger, Wan-Hea Lee,
Patrice Gillibert and Noemy Barrita-Chagoya.
On behalf of the UN Global Compact Office, Ursula
Wynhoven and Sunok Lee were the main contributors.
We would also like to acknowledge the financial
contribution of the Foundation for the Global Compact
for the publication design costs.

Design: Upasana Young
Photography:
Cover © UNICEF/93-1262/Noorani;
Page v © PANOS/Alvaro Leiva; Page 1 © UN/122701/Myriam Asmani;
Page 85 © REUTERS/Nguyen Huy Kham;
Page 139 © REUTERS/STR New
ISBN: 978-0-9752442-5-8ii

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Disclaimer
The description of the rights contained in thispublication does not constitute authoritative, official
interpretation of the rights by the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR), the UN Global Compact, or by any otherpart of the United Nations system. This publication isintended strictly as a learning document. The inclusionof examples of company experiences does not in any
way constitute an endorsement or denunciation of theindividual companies nor of their human rights policies
or practices by the Castan Centre for Human Rights
Law, IBLF, OHCHR or by the UN Global Compact.

contents

Contents
Preparing to use this resource . ...................................................................................................................................v
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. vii
User notes and methodology..................................................................................................................................xv
Glossary of key selected terms............................................................................................................................. xvii
Tool: Navigating the Guide.................................................................................................................................insert
Section 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)................................................................. 1
Article 1: Right of self-determination....................................................................................................................... 3
Articles 2 to 5: Overarching principles..................................................................................................................... 7
Article 6: Right to life................................................................................................................................................ 9
Article 7: Right not to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment......... 13
Article 8: Right not to be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labour............................................................ 17
Article 9: Rights to liberty and security of person.................................................................................................. 21
Article 10: Right of detained persons to humane treatment.................................................................................. 25
Article 11: Right not to be subjected to imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contract........................................... 29
Article 12: Right to freedom of movement............................................................................................................. 31
Article 13: Right of aliens to due process when facing expulsion......................................................................... 35
Article 14: Right to a fair trial.................................................................................................................................. 37
Article 15: Right to be free from retroactive criminal law....................................................................................... 39
Article 16: Right to recognition as a person before the law................................................................................... 41
Article 17: Right to privacy..................................................................................................................................... 43
Article 18: Rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ....................................................................... 49
Article 19: Rights to freedom of opinion and expression....................................................................................... 53
Article 20: Rights to freedom from war propaganda, and freedom from incitement to racial, religious
or national hatred............................................................................................................................................................57
Article 21: Right to freedom of assembly............................................................................................................... 61
Article 22: Right to freedom of association............................................................................................................ 63
Article 23: Rights of protection of the family and the right to marry...................................................................... 67
Article 24: Rights of protection for the child.......................................................................................................... 69
Article 25: Right to participate in public life........................................................................................................... 73
Article 26: Right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and rights of non-discrimination........... 77
Article 27: Rights of minorities............................................................................................................................... 81
Section 2: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)....................................... 85
Article 1: Right of self-determination..................................................................................................................... 87
Articles 2 to 5: Overarching principles .................................................................................................................. 89
Article 6: Right to work........................................................................................................................................... 91
Article 7: Right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work............................................................................ 95
Article 8: Right to form trade unions and join the trade union, and the right to strike......................................... 101
Article 9: Right to social security, including social insurance.............................................................................. 105
Article 10: Right to a family life............................................................................................................................. 109
Article 11: Right to an adequate standard of living.............................................................................................. 113
Article 12: Right to health..................................................................................................................................... 125
Articles 13 and 14: Right to education................................................................................................................. 131
Article 15: Rights to take part in cultural life, to benefit from scientific progress, and of the material
and moral rights of authors and inventors........................................................................................................ 135
Further resources...................................................................................................................................................... 139
Appendix: UN Global Compact Ten Principles ...................................................................................................... 147

iii

iv

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

PREPARING TO USE THIS RESOURCE

Introduction

PREPARING TO USE THIS RESOURCE

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guidev

Preparing to use this resourcevi

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Introduction

introduction

Business increasingly recognises the importanceof human rights. Over 5,000 companies across 130
countries are signatories to the UN Global Compact andhave committed themselves to the Global Compact’s
ten principles,1 including six that address human rights
and labour standards. A 2006 survey of Global Fortune
500 companies found that nine out of ten companies responding to the survey reported having humanrights principles or management practices in place.2
More than half of the FTSE 100 listed companies haveadopted a human rights policy. Meanwhile, the processof clarifying and operationalising business and humanrights is being led by the United Nations Secretary General’s Special Representative on Business and Human
Rights (the Special Representative).3
The purpose of this publication is to contribute to thisprocess of clarification by explaining universally recognised human rights in a way that makes sense to business. The publication also aims to illustrate, through theuse of case studies and actions, how human rights are
relevant in a corporate context and how human rights
issues can be managed. The ‘Navigating the Guide’
card is provided to help managers make the best use ofthis reference publication.
This introduction briefly outlines the concept of ‘humanrights’ and the main categories of rights, as well as therelationship between corporations and human rights.
The aim is to give company managers a fuller understanding of what their stakeholders – including employees, shareholders, customers, local communities, civilsociety, governments and business partners – increasingly expect of them, both in terms of strategic policy
and implementation at the local level.
1 The UN Global Compact Ten Principles are reproduced in the Appendix.
2 The 2006 survey was conducted as part of the mandate of the UN
Special Representative on Business and Human Rights and is containedin A/HRC/4/2006/35/Add.3, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/
issues/trans_corporations/index.htm.
3 The Mandate of the UN Special Representative is discussed at pages
xii-xiii.

“The benefits of our humanrights programme have so
far been about reputationand the assurance process.
But they are going tobecome more and more
about the business growth
agenda and commercial
opportunity as well,giving us access to newmarkets, new suppliers
and, in particular, newconsumers.”
Neil Makin, Cadbury-Schweppes

Business and human rights
Business is a major contributor to economic growtharound the world and, as an essential vehicle for humanprogress, it helps underpin global human rights. An increasing number of companies are demonstrating theirrespect for human rights by working to embed international human rights standards within their core businesspractices. Many companies also make a substantive
contribution by supporting projects that foster humanrights, such as the enhancement of local economic
development, schemes to distribute essential drugs, or
programmes that provide training in democracy and therule of law.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

vii

Preparing to use this resource

Governments have the obligation to respect, protect
and fulfil human rights, including protecting individuals
and communities from human rights violations by third
parties. But in June 2008 the United Nations Human
Rights Council emphasised for the first time that corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights.
Corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
trade unions, and indeed private individuals, often act
in ways that can affect the rights of others. For example
an employer that discriminates against an employee
on certain grounds, such as race or gender, harms theindividual’s right to freedom from discrimination. As reflected in the statement from the Human Rights Council,
there is an increasing public expectation for companies
to respect human rights and also to strengthen theirpositive human rights contribution.
Good human rights practice may bring commercial
rewards. There is growing evidence that good practice:enhances reputation, resulting in improved staff
morale, leading to higher motivation, productivity, andthe ability to attract and retain the best employees;
strengthens the licence to operate, giving improved
access to new markets, consumers and investors;
creates more stable operating environments; andpromotes better community relations. Conversely,companies implicated in human rights scandals often
see their reputations and brand images suffer, resulting
in the loss of share value, and face increased security
and insurance costs, as well as expensive lawsuits,
such as those pursued under the US Alien Tort Claims
Act, and consumer boycotts. The price of getting it
wrong cannot be underestimated.4
4 See Human Rights – It is your Business: The Case for Corporate
Engagement (IBLF 2005).

Companies that adopt explicit human rights policies
along with mechanisms for their implementation andreporting are better prepared to prevent human rights
abuses and to deal effectively with any allegations ofhuman rights wrongdoing that may arise. Providing specific human rights training to support operational managers to become more familiar with the language andrealities of human rights, the company’s human rights
policy commitments, and the potential for human rights
to impact on day-to-day business decision-making, isincreasingly a feature of effective business operations.
Such efforts also help a business to identify business
opportunities to support human rights. It is hoped that
this publication will contribute to specific human rights
due diligence processes.
What are human rights?
Human rights are basic standards aimed at securing
dignity and equality for all. International humanrights laws constitute the most universally accepted
standards for such treatment, but there is an intuitive
aspect to the respecting of human rights that goesbeyond laws and conventions. Put simply, what feels
wrong is in all likelihood wrong.
International consensus has been achieved on what
constitutes human rights in the form of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Universal
Declaration was drawn up by representatives from manynations to prevent a recurrence of the World War II era
atrocities and is the cornerstone of modern humanrights law. At the World Conference on Human Rights in
Vienna in 1993, all 171 participating countries reaffirmed
their commitment to the aspirations expressed in the
Declaration. Companies increasingly express support
for its principles in their human rights policies.55 According to a survey of Fortune Global 500 companies conducted
on behalf of the UN Special Representative on Business and Human
Rights and published in 2006, over 60% of respondents referenced the
Universal Declaration within their human rights policies. See http://www.
reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-survey-Fortune-Global-500.pdf.

viii

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Introduction“Whatever other
differences may exist
in the world, startingwith the 1948 Universal
Declaration, human rights
are the only internationallyagreed expression of theentitlements that each andevery one of us has simply
because we are humanbeings. Thus, securingrespect for human rights
must be a central aim ofgovernance at all levels,from the local to the global,
and in the private sector noless than the public.”

The Universal Declaration is codified in international law
through two 1966 treaties: the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), each of which has been ratified byover 150 States (over three-quarters of all nations). It is
recognised that both sets of rights are indivisible andinterdependent, and equally important. Collectively thethree documents are known as the ‘the International
Bill of Rights’. The two Covenants form the basis of thispublication.
International human rights law imposes obligations on
States to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. States
are required to protect individuals against human rights
abuses by third parties, including by corporations. Thisis usually done through domestic laws. Thus, while mostinternational human rights standards are not directly legallybinding on companies, businesses can infringe humanrights by breaching the domestic laws in place to protect
those rights.

Professor John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General’sSpecial Representative on Business and Human
Rights, Interim Report, February 2006.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guideix

Preparing to use this resource

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (pages 1–83)
Civil and political rights encompass rights to enjoy
physical and spiritual freedom, fair treatment, and toparticipate meaningfully in the political process. They
include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom
from slavery, the right to privacy, freedom from arbitrary
detention, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion,
freedom of expression and assembly, as well as therights of minorities and freedom from discrimination.

States that ratify this Covenant are obliged to respect
and protect the rights it articulates and, without discrimination, ensure their enjoyment by all individuals
within their territory and under their jurisdiction. Corporations have a responsibility to respect these rights.

The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (Pages 85–137)
Economic, social and cultural rights comprise employ- economic, social and cultural rights are exercised without
ment rights, such as the right to a fair wage, the right
discrimination. Moreover, measures that reduce the existing
to safe and healthy working conditions, and the rightlevel of enjoyment of a right, or a failure to ensure minimum
to form and join trade unions, and social rights such
essential elements of each right, breach the Covenant, unas the right to education, the right to an adequate
less a State can prove that such measures are dictated by astandard of health, and adequate standard of living, as genuine lack of resources.
well as the right to participate in cultural life and freedom from discrimination in relation to the enjoyment of Companies are expected to respect economic and
the Covenant’s rights.
social rights, but that does not mean that they are
expected to solve the problems of world poverty.
Economic, social and cultural rights largely relate toInstead, they are expected to ensure that they are not“freedom from want”.* States that ratify this Covenant are interfering with the enjoyment of these rights, and, if acompany finds that it has interfered with these rights,
obliged to take steps towards the progressive realisait should take remedial action. Likewise, when comtion of the relevant rights, subject to the availability ofpanies are asked to support these rights it means that
resources. Thus, it is recognised that States may notthey are being called on to make a meaningful contribe able to achieve the full realisation of the rights in thisbution, for example by supporting human rights-relatCovenant immediately, especially if they are poor. Howed initiatives in the communities where they operate,
ever, States have immediate obligations to take steps
rather than to take over State responsibilities to ensure
towards the full realisation of the rights, to the extent
the fulfilment, for example, of the right to health.
possible within their respective resource constraints.
They also have immediate obligations to guarantee that

Limits to Rights and Striking Balances
Few human rights are absolute. Some rights, such as
the right to be free from torture, cannot be compromised under any circumstances. However, most civil
and political rights can be restricted – although not arbitrarily – by States in exceptional circumstances, suchas when limitations are necessary to protect national
security, public order, public health, public morals or therights of others. The fulfilment by States of economic,
social and cultural rights is, meanwhile, subject to available resources.

“Often some sort of balance must be
struck between competing rights, values
or interests. For example, freedom of
information has to be balanced against
privacy and confidentiality, while socialand economic rights are subject to resource availability, compelling a State to
make choices between competing claimson the public purse.”
Paul Hunt, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health**__________________* President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the expression in his “Four Freedoms” speech of 6 January 1941.
** Presentation by Professor Paul Hunt, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Novartis International Symposium, Basel, Switzerland, 2 December 2004.

x

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Introduction“The rights of transnationalfirms – their ability tooperate and expand
globally – have increased
greatly over the past
generation as a resultof trade agreements,
bilateral investment
treaties, and domestic
liberalisation … In lightof this transformation in
the institutional featuresof the world economy, it ishardly surprising that thetransnational corporate
sector – and by extension
the entire universe ofbusiness – has attracted
increased attention
by other social actors,
including civil society andStates themselves.”
Professor John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General’sSpecial Representative on Business and Human
Rights, Interim Report, February 2006.

Expectations of business
Much of the debate regarding human rights and business has focused on examples where multinational corporations have been accused of being directly responsible for, or being complicit in, human rights abuses.
Multinationals come under particular scrutiny becauseof their perceived power and the reach of their global
supply networks. Legitimate concerns are raised overthe extent to which weak or impoverished governments
may be willing or able to hold corporations to accountfor any wrongdoing. In short, should human rights
abuses occur, there is a concern as to how corporate
accountability can best be ensured.
Stakeholder anxieties may also surface when a company
enters into a commercial partnership with a governmentthat has a poor human rights record. The fear is that suchgovernments may protect their investment interests at
the expense of the rights of their people, for example byviolating the right to protest peacefully against company
operations, or by infringing the land rights of indigenous
peoples to make way for commercial activities. In poor
or inadequately governed countries, there is a growing
expectation that companies should take steps to mitigate
the worst effects of weak governance.
Companies that assume traditional government functions(e.g. the provision of infrastructure and utilities, or the running of detention or secure facilities) may face a greaterlevel of scrutiny with regard to their human rights performance, and may be exposed to a greater risk of legal
liability in the case of a breach of human rights laws.
Multinational companies can potentially be held liable intheir home countries for human rights abuses perpetrated in host countries. The highest-profile cases havebeen brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the
United States. Cases alleging corporate human rights
wrongdoing have also been launched in the courts ofother countries including the UK, Canada and Australia.
Companies will benefit from a greater understanding offundamental human rights principles to help them avoid
the possibility of such litigation.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuidexiPreparing to use this resource

International standards for corporate responsibility
on human rights
Various guidelines have been developed at the international level on the human rights responsibilities ofcompanies. These include:• The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises(1976, revised in 2000)• The ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1977,
revised in 2000)• The United Nations Global Compact (2000)• The International Finance Corporation PerformanceStandards on Social and Environmental Sustainability(2006).6
These standards are not legally binding on companies,
but all provide frameworks for appropriate company
behaviour, that are used either as tools by companies
themselves to guide performance, or as a benchmark
by which governments and other stakeholders may holdcompanies to account.7
A number of voluntary initiatives have also been established, many of them are industry-specific and involvea blend of participation from business, governments,
NGOs, trade unions and industry associations. Some involve collective action among industry peers in order tomaximise influence and shared learning. Each requires
corporate participants to adhere to, or be guided by, a
set of human rights-related principles. They include (inchronological order):• Ethical Trading Initiative (1998)• Fair Labor Association (1999)• Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights(2000)• Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (2002)• Equator Principles (2002)• International Cocoa Initiative (2002)• Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (2003)• Electronics Industry Code of Conduct (2005)
6 The International Finance Corporation is an arm of the World Bank.
7 Being held to account does not necessarily imply apportioning blameor legal responsibility, but can be interpreted as simply conforming to adecent standard of behaviour.

xii

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide“…the [corporate] responsibility to respect [humanrights] is a baseline expectation, [and] a company cannot compensate
for human rights harm byperforming good deeds
elsewhere … ‘Doing noharm’ is not merely a passive responsibility forfirms but may entail positive steps.”
Professor John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General’sSpecial Representative on Business and Human
Rights. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for
Business and Human Rights, April 2008.

Corporate responsibility to respect human rights:
an emerging standard
At present international legal human rights duties forcompanies exist only in a few cases.8 In 2005 the UN
Secretary-General appointed Professor John Ruggie
as his Special Representative on Business and Human
Rights, with a mandate to, among other things, “identify
and clarify standards of corporate responsibility accountability with regard to human rights” and shed lighton the important, but ill-defined, concepts of ‘spheres ofinfluence’ and ‘complicity’.9
8 For example, all entities, whether they are governments or privatebodies, are prohibited under international law from perpetrating genocide, certain war crimes and crimes against humanity, and slavery.
Such violations are directly enforceable against individuals, including
company directors if relevant, before the International Criminal Courtin certain circumstances. They may also be enforceable against somecompanies under the Alien Tort Claims Act (US).
9 For full details of the mandate and its progress, see: http://www.
business-humanrights.org/Gettingstarted/UNSpecialRepresentative andhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/trans_corporations/index.htm.

Introduction

In 2008, the Special Representative presented to the UN
Human Rights Council a conceptual and policy framework to guide the business and human rights agenda.
The framework rests on differentiated but complementary
responsibilities, and comprises three core principles:• the State duty to protect against human rights
abuses by third parties, including business• the corporate responsibility to respect human rights• the need for more effective access to remedies forvictims of any human rights abuses that occur.
Each principle is an essential component of the framework: the State duty to protect because it lies at thevery core of the international human rights regime; thecorporate responsibility to respect because it is the basic expectation society has of business; and access toremedy, to ensure that some form of redress is available
to victims in the case of abuses.10
Of particular interest to business is the second pillar of
the principle: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. According to the Special Representative thisis the baseline responsibility for companies, in addition
to compliance with national laws. The responsibility torespect applies in relation to all internationally recognised human rights. To discharge the responsibility torespect requires specific human rights due diligence.
This concept describes the steps a company must taketo become aware of, prevent and address adverse human rights impacts. The scope of the due diligence isinevitably inductive and fact based, but comprises: thecountry context, any human rights impact a company’s
activities may have within that context, and whether
the company might contribute to abuse through therelationships connected to their activities, such as withbusiness partners, suppliers, State agencies and othernon-State actors. How far or how deep this process
must go will depend on circumstances.

The framework by itself does not constitute a solution. But it does provide all parties concerned withcorporate-related human rights issues with a common
baseline from which to develop greater coherence andguidance. The framework was welcomed by the Human
Rights Council, which has mandated the Special Representative to operationalise it. The process is expected
to be finalised by 2011. As it evolves, the process will
have significant implications for the conceptual andpractical understanding of the nature and scope of thecorporate responsibility to respect human rights.
This publication aims to complement the efforts of theSpecial Representative by explaining the content of themain internationally recognised rights that are the subjects of the corporate responsibility to respect.
Beyond the policy framework identified by the Special
Representative, the United Nations Global Compact
asks companies to commit to engage in activities that
support human rights. This publication is also a tool forcompanies wanting to engage in activities in support ofhuman rights.

10 Companies participating in the UN Global Compact have pledged torespect and support human rights.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guidexiii

Preparing to use this resource

xiv

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

USER NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

user NOTES and Methodology

This guide can be used as a simple reference tool or
employed more thoroughly to augment a company’s
existing human rights due diligence strategy, including
the development and evolution of human rights policies,
implementation of impact assessments, and in management systems that encompass training, communication,
monitoring and reporting. See the ‘Navigating the Guide’
card accompanying this publication.

on workplace health and safety) are likely to be priorities
for all industries in all part of the world, and other rights(such as freedom from retroactive criminal law) are
unlikely to affect business, no definitive rules exist. For
example, it is not uncommon to find that rights, suchas the rights to freedom of religion or expression, may
require a different corporate response from one sector
to the next and from one location to another.

Descriptions of the rights
Readers are guided through each of the rights containedin the UN treaties – the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) – and given
a description of what each right means in general terms
and how it may be relevant to a company’s activities. The
descriptions take into account the text of the relevant
treaty, as well as subsequent interpretations of the treatiesby the relevant international bodies. Occasionally, reference is also made to the Conventions of the International
Labour Organization (ILO), particularly where there is little
guidance from the relevant UN treaty body.

“There are few if any
internationally recognised
rights business cannot
impact – or be perceived to
impact – in some manner.
Therefore, companies
should consider all suchrights.”International human rights are elaborated in many other
UN and regional treaties, conventions and declarations,some of which may already be familiar to businessreaders.11 The authors have chosen to focus on thetwo 1966 Covenants because of their wide international
acceptance and the fact that they articulate the broad
spectrum of internationally recognised human rights
contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
No attempt is made to rank the rights in order of relevance to business. While some rights (such as those
11 Among the most notable are: the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (1984), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), theInternational Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All MigrantWorkers and Members of Their Families (1990), the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance(2006), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006),
and Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), as wellas the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the American
Convention on Human Rights (1978), the African Charter on Human andPeople’s Rights (1981) and the Arab Charter of Human Rights (2004).

Professor John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General’sSpecial Representative on Business and Human
Rights. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for
Business and Human Rights, April 2008.

Case studies
To bring reality to the report, each description of aright is illustrated by one or more short case studies12
demonstrating how the right can be relevant to business. The companies profiled have been given a chance
to comment.13 The case studies are only reported tothe extent that they are relevant to that particular right –other potential rights issues are omitted to avoid confusion. No implication is intended regarding a company’s
human rights record outside the context of a given
12 The exception to this rule is where a particular right has only slightrelevance to the business community.
13 Regardless of whether a company commented, they should not be
considered to have endorsed the case study.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guidexv

Preparing to use this resourcecase study. The objective is to extract lessons fromthe sometimes complex, real-life situations companies
encounter around the world. The case studies are notmeant to represent the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ examples – they
are simply chosen as appropriate examples that illustrate the real-life relevance of the right concerned.
Some of the case studies address fluid situations, which
may be subject to change. The case studies are up
to date, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, as ofAugust 2008. For information on any recent developments, readers are encouraged to visit the Business andHuman Rights Resource Centre (http://www.businesshumanrights.org), which is a leading independent
resource on the subject. The website is updated hourlywith news and reports about companies’ human rights
impacts worldwide – positive and negative. Any reader
from a company, government or civil-society organisation wishing to submit a clarification or response to any
item is able to do so by sending an email to: contact@business-humanrights.org.
Few of the human rights challenges illustrated in the casestudies are clear-cut or have simple solutions. In a numberof instances companies seem to have turned an ostensibly
negative human rights impact around and have brought
about long-term benefits, often by working collaboratively
with industry peers or civil-society groups. Some companies that have faced difficulties in one context have learnt
from such encounters and put good-practice models andmanagement systems in place elsewhere to respect andpromote human rights. On the other hand, some companies that have undertaken positive measures with regard
to human rights in one context have been criticised byhuman rights groups regarding their actions in other contexts. Mixed records demonstrate that this is an evolving
area and that observance of human rights by companies
requires constant vigilance.
All material included in the case studies is taken,
without exception or favour, from information in the
public domain. No judgements are made in favour of,or against, the companies or activist groups profiled. In
all cases, links are supplied indicating the web-basedsources from which the case study has been taken. A
variety of sources have been used to show a range ofperspectives on the case study, including, in many instances, company corporate responsibility sites. Use ofa particular website should not be taken as an endorsement of that source.14
14 In some circumstances, weblinks may be broken or go out of date.
Information regarding the relevant case study should nevertheless beavailable using common search engines.

xvi

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

The aim of the case studies is to offer insights for othercompanies that may find themselves in similar situations. We encourage readers to approach every casestudy with an eye to the lessons that emerge.
Suggested practical actions
For each right in the report the authors offer suggested
practical actions for company managers’ consideration.
The suggested practical actions are based on relevantinternational standards, industry guidelines and existing
good practice, as well as lessons that may be derived fromthe featured case studies. Some are aimed at assisting
companies in ensuring that they respect human rights (andtherefore avoid harm), whereas others focus on ways inwhich companies can promote the positive fulfilment of
human rights. They are not a comprehensive list, but offer
a sense of the steps that companies have already tried
and tested in the given area, and which may be factored
into a company’s wider human rights due diligence.
Some suggestions are policy or strategy focused and address how to integrate human rights due diligence within
the company. Others are geared towards operational
staff and are more relevant to those working on specificfacilities or based in challenging locations. Where a right isparticularly relevant to a certain type of business, specificsuggestions are flagged for that industry using italics.
Many companies now have explicit human rights
policies and a growing number conduct social impact
assessments that factor in human rights considerations.
The suggestions in this report are intended to complement such existing human rights approaches and help
identify any risks that may have been overlooked. To
get the most from this publication, managers may find it
helpful to use it in conjunction with other tools featured
in the Further Resources section.
Further resources
A list of further resources begins at page 139. They areprovided to give company staff further practical support
in integrating human rights into day-to-day businessdecision-making. They consist of:• Country risk tools – to enable managers to spot thehuman rights violations most prevalent in countries ofoperation• Human rights impact assessment and compliancetools – that help managers identify and manage human rights-related risks effectively on the ground• Human right policy development and implementation tools – to aid companies, and particularly senior
managers, with the integration of human rights factors into their existing management approaches.

Complicity:
Complicity in the business and human rights context refers
to the indirect involvement of companies in human rights
abuses. Complicity arises when a company knowingly
contributes to another’s abuse of human rights but did notactually carry out the abuse itself. Some forms of complicity attract legal penalties. Companies may, however, facecriticisms in regard to other forms of complicity: stakeholder expectations often go beyond legal minimum standards.
Complicity may be alleged in relation to knowingly contributing to any type of human rights abuse, whether of civil orpolitical rights, or economic, social or cultural rights.
Human rights due diligence:
According to the Special Representative of the UN
Secretary-General on business and human rights, humanrights due diligence is the process required by companies
to discharge their responsibility to respect human rights.
The concept describes the steps a company must take tobecome aware of, prevent and address adverse humanrights impacts. For the substantive content of the due
diligence process, companies should look, at a minimum,
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
and the core conventions of the ILO. The due diligenceprocess should consider three sets of factors: the country
contexts in which the organisation operates, the potential and actual human rights impacts resulting from theorganisation’s activities, and the relationships connectedto those activities. How far or how deep this process mustgo will depend on circumstances.
Human rights impact assessment:
A human rights impact assessment is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to thepotential human rights impacts of a business operationor project. It is designed to complement the company’sother impact assessment and due diligence processes,
to be guided by a company’s own core values andcommitments, and to be framed by appropriate international human rights principles and conventions. It is also
rooted in the realities of the particular business operation or project by recognising the context within which
it will operate from the outset, and by engaging directlywith those peoples whose rights may be at risk.

GLOSSARY OF KEY SELECTED TERMS

Glossary of Key Selected Terms

Human rights policy:
A human rights policy is an explicit statement of a company’s commitment on human rights. Some are standalone documents found on company websites or within
reporting literature; others are integrated within statements of business principles, codes of ethics or codesof conduct. A typical human rights policy consists offour elements: a general statement of commitment torespect universal human rights, typically referencing orpledging support for the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and core conventions of the International Labour Organization; specificcommitments on labour rights (e.g. on non-discrimination, workplace health and safety); specific commitments on wider (non-labour) human rights, which often
reflect industry priorities (e.g. on security arrangements,
internet privacy); and management systems to integrate
the policy.
Sphere of influence:
Beyond the responsibility to respect human rights, companies can support the promotion of human rights. The concept of ‘sphere of influence’ can be used to help map thescope of an organisation’s opportunities to support humanrights, including with respect to the categories of rightsholders and rights, and where they can have the greatest
positive impact. The Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has described
the concept of sphere of influence as encompassing acompany’s internal and external business networks, including its relationships with joint venture partners and government authorities. All companies have a sphere of influence,but larger companies will naturally have a larger sphere thansmaller companies.15
Stakeholders:
A company’s stakeholders typically include employees, people within the community in which a business
operates, clients, customers, consumers, shareholders,business partners, suppliers, franchisees, sub-contractors and governments.
15 See, generally, OHCHR Briefing Paper, The Global Compact andHuman Rights: Understanding Sphere of Influence and Complicity (OHCHR, Geneva, 2004), pages 18–19.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guidexvii

xviii

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Section 1: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 1: Right of self-determination

International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

1

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

2

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 1 Right of self-determination

Article 1:
Right of self-determination

The Right
This right allows peoples to determine their politicalstatus and their place in the international community.
It includes the right of peoples to develop and progressin social, economic and cultural terms, to dispose of
their land’s natural resources and wealth, and not to
be deprived of their own means of subsistence. The
right to self-determination is concerned with freedom
from domination by an alien power. It is a collective
or group right held by ‘peoples’, often understood as
peoples under colonial or comparable rule. The right ofself-determination of indigenous peoples has also beenrecognised by the international community. As a rightenjoyed by a group, it differs from most other humanrights, which are framed as rights of the individual.
While in some cases the right of self-determination
may lead to claims by peoples to independence froma State, self-determination also covers principles suchas the rights of peoples to choose their political status,
and to have a meaningful role in the political process.

The aspects of the right of self-determination that haveparticular relevance to companies are the rights topursue economic, social and cultural development andto dispose of a land’s natural wealth and resources.
A company’s activities may impact negatively on theright if, for example, it is allowed to build a facility onland that has traditional significance to the peoples
that inhabit the area. Likewise, if a company is given alicence to extract natural resources from the land by agovernment without consultation with the people who
inhabit the land, the company may find itself affecting
the inhabitants’ right to dispose of their natural wealthand resources or their means of subsistence. By contrast, a company may facilitate enjoyment of the rightwhen it consults with the people concerned, obtains
their consent, and takes into account their perspective
in designing the relevant project.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 25 (Right to participate in public life), page 73
ICCPR Article 27 (Rights of minorities), page 81
ICESCR Article 1 (Right of self-determination), page 87

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

3

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 1

Case studies
Energy and mining sector, Self-determination issues
West Papua, Indonesia
Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, through its
Indonesian mining affiliate, PT Freeport Indonesia,
owns a majority stake in one of the world’s largest
copper and gold mines, the Grasberg mine, inWest Papua. There is a long-standing claim to selfdetermination by the indigenous Amungme peopleof West Papua, a part of Indonesia.
The Grasberg mine concession was allegedly granted by the Indonesian government without consultation with the local peoples and without compensation for indigenous landowners. Freeport McMoRan
has faced allegations of complicity in this breach of
the Amungme’s right of self-determination, specifically their right to dispose of their natural resources.
The company says that it was the first corporation
to recognise self-determination rights in Indonesia,
particularly in a 1974 agreement with the Amungme
people, which explicitly recognised traditional land
rights (hak ulayat). It pays compensation (recognisi)
to the Amungme for the release of hak ulayat rights,
often in the form of mutually agreed community programmes. PT Freeport Indonesia has also allocateda proportion of the mine’s profits to the Amungme
people, through a land rights trust fund and sharescheme, which according to Freeport has enabled
the Amungme, “to become equity participants inthe mine”. In 2000, PT Freeport Indonesia agreed
a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with theAmungme local community organisation and anothertribal group, paving the way for continuous dialogue
between the company and the surrounding community. An MoU Forum, consisting of representatives
from various tribal community groups, the regional

government and PT Freeport, also reportedly meetsregularly to discuss implementation of the 2000 MoU.16
Critics claim that extraction of the mine’s resources
has been accompanied by degradation of the surrounding environment, most notably through the
dumping of untreated tailings into the Aghawaghon
River system where the Amungme people live. Beyond any immediate environmental impact, this has
implications because indigenous people view pollution and destruction of the natural habitat as attacks
on their sacred places and on their culture, and thus
has the potential to be viewed as a threat to the rightof self-determination, given the traditional significance of ancestral lands.
In 2006, the Norwegian government excluded
Freeport from its government pension fund on
the advice of its Council of Ethics on the groundsof “severe environmental damage”, related to its“disposal of 230,000 tonnes of tailings each day”.
In January 2006, Freeport wrote to the Council todeny the accusations. Freeport argued, among
other things, that the Council’s presentation of its
operations was inaccurate and appeared “to be
based largely on outdated information or biased
reports issued by non-governmental organisations
who are anti-mining or have a political agenda”.
The Council, however, concluded that the company
had “not provided data or scientific evidence tosupport its claims that the mining [did] not cause
severe and long-term environmental damage”.
16 The Amungme continue to assert their right to self-determination over the territory.

Web-based sources:
http://www.fcx.com/envir/wtsdeng.htm
http://www.fcx.com/envir/wtsd/pdf-wtsd/2006/WTSD.pdf
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FIN/Statens%20pensjonsfond/Recommendation%20_15_February_2006.pdf
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/list.php?r=306

4

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 1 Right of self-determination

Energy and mining sector, Land rights issues
Australia
An aspect of indigenous self-determination was
acknowledged by the High Court of Australia in 1992,
in the case Mabo v Queensland, where customary law
rights to land were recognised, known in Australian
law as ‘native title’.
In the first regional land-use agreement for a major
resource project to be concluded after the Mabo ruling, Hamersley Iron (a Rio Tinto subsidiary) signed the
Yandicoogina agreement in 1997 with a local Aboriginal community over the construction by Hamersley
Iron of an iron ore mine and associated infrastructure.
The agreement was formally negotiated over one year
and covered an area of 26,000 square kilometres inWestern Australia. From the initial stages of planning,
Hamersley Iron consulted with Aboriginal elders andcommunity representatives. The company publicised
its internal planning on the project, and establisheddirect lines of communication with the Aboriginalcommunity through face-to-face meetings and interviews with their representatives through the National
Native Title Tribunal and through the community land
councils. Following a process in which all decisions
were fully explained and ratified by a general meeting of the Aboriginal community, the parties reachedagreement.
By meeting continually, consulting and negotiatingwith the local indigenous communities, Hamersley
Iron demonstrated its respect for the significance ofland and native title to Aboriginal communities in theareas where the mining projects are located.

Web-based sources:
http://www.atns.net.au/biogs/A000875b.htm
http://www.yamatji.org.au
http://www.hamersleyiron.com/

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

5

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 1•
Suggestedpractical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to self-determination. Apply thepolicy globally.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors) toadhere to the company policy and urge them to develop
a similar standard of their own. Where the company is
not able to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, State-owned
joint ventures, franchisees and security providers, theimportance the company places on respecting the rightof self-determination, and in particular any indigenous or
marginalised peoples’ right to dispose of their land andnatural resources, and encourage business partners todevelop a similar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it determines if proposed developments encroach on the land or waterways of indigenous peoples
or other groups who claim a right to self-determination.
The findings should inform later decision-making on the
project.
• Where projects are financed by the International
Finance Corporation (IFC), comply with the IFC Performance Standards on Indigenous Peoples, and IFC
Performance Standards on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement. Other companies may also wish
to consider these standards.
• Become familiar with the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples and be guided by its provisions
in interactions with indigenous peoples.17• Consider the right to self-determination of the local
community in any decision-making process that in17 Mining companies may also wish to consult Mining and Indigenous
Peoples Issues Review published by the International Council on Mining
and Metals, see Further Resources, page 142.

6

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

volves the exploitation of natural wealth and resources
or construction on land, where stakeholders are likely
to be impacted but are not necessarily protected by thegovernment negotiating the agreement. This is particularly important where business activities may impact
on the traditional livelihoods of a local population or its
means of subsistence.
• Consult in good faith with indigenous peoples throughtheir own representative institutions prior to launching
any activity that affects their lands and resources with aview to obtaining their agreement. This means allowing
time for the community to make a considered evaluation of the activity in accordance with their cultures andtraditions, and providing full information on the impact
and benefits of the activity including in the indigenous
language concerned.
• Establish ongoing community consultation processes
and put in place mechanisms for paying adequate
compensation for losses. Consider, among otherthings, inter-generational needs, especially if the
project is likely to be of long duration. Consider using
independent third-party mediators, particularly wherecomplex differences of interest and priorities exist.
Community consultations should be completed in thelocal language.
Specific actions:• Engage with governments and other stakeholders to
explore the possibility of introducing legislation to protect land/resource-use agreements.
• While respecting community traditions, explore ways inwhich the company may be able to offer employment,
skills training and other opportunities to members of
those communities that claim a right to self-determination.

ICCPR articles 2 to 5 Overarching principles

Articles 2 to 5:
Overarching principles

The Rights
Whereas Articles 1 and 6 to 27 are substantive rights in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) and are explained in some detail, together with
their relevance to companies, Articles 2 to 5 are overarching principles and are outlined below for the sakeof completeness and to satisfy any curiosity on the partof the reader. As overarching principles, Articles 2 to 5
cannot be applied individually but only in conjunction
with a specific right in the ICCPR.
Article 2 contains the general obligations for a Stateto respect and to ensure that all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction enjoy the rights
recognised in the ICCPR without discrimination, and toprovide an effective remedy for victims.
Non-discrimination is a fundamental and overarching principle of international human rights. Everyone
is entitled to enjoy human rights irrespective of his or
her colour, gender, religion, ethnic, social or national
origin, political or other opinion, property, birth, or otherstatus. The Human Rights Committee, which monitors
and interprets the ICCPR, has further interpreted theprinciple of non-discrimination to include other groundsof discrimination such as age, nationality, disability andsexual orientation. Article 2(1) obliges States to prohibit
any distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations

by both public authorities and private bodies on thosegrounds in the enjoyment of the rights set out in the
ICCPR. This means that States have a responsibility
to ensure that businesses carry out their activities andprovide services in a non-discriminatory way. Reasonable and objective distinctions are permitted. For morediscussion of the issue of discrimination, please see thecommentary on Article 26 of the ICCPR at page 77.
Article 3 requires States to ensure that all rights areenjoyed equally by men and women. States are allowed
to adopt positive action to eliminate conditions that
contribute to gender discrimination.
Article 4 covers the issue of ‘derogation’, that is the circumstances in which a State may suspend rights due toa public emergency, such as a war or a natural disaster.
It also specifies certain non-derogable rights, such as
the right to be free from torture, which must never belimited regardless of a public emergency.
Article 5 is known as a ‘savings clause’. It specifies
that the ICCPR will not be used by anybody (whether it
be a government or another entity, such as a corporation) as a justification for engaging in an act aimed at
destroying the rights of others. Nor can it be used as an
excuse to lower domestic human rights standards.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

7

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 2 to 5

8

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 6 Right to life

Article 6:
Right to life

The Right
The right to life entails the right not to be deprived of life
arbitrarily or unlawfully, and the right to have one’s life
protected. The right not to have one’s life taken away
by arbitrary killing is a fundamental right and includes
a duty on governments to investigate such killings andpunish offenders.

safety. Companies’ actions may directly impact the rightto have one’s life protected if they adopt inadequate
standards of occupational health and safety resulting
in loss of life to workers or others. This duty extends
beyond the workplace if products with lethal flaws are
manufactured and sold.

This right is of relevance to companies that employ,
co-operate with, or benefit from protection by State security forces for their staff and installations.18 The rightis also of relevance to companies located in countries
ruled by oppressive regimes if the company derives direct benefits from human rights violations by the State:both situations could lead to complicity on the part ofthe company in the State’s violations of the right to life.

Companies may also take actions that help promote
the right to life. One example is using their distribution
channels to disseminate information about how to avoid
contracting HIV/AIDS or other infectious diseases. They
can also produce and make accessible at low cost essential goods and services.

The right to life requires governments to refrain fromunlawful or arbitrary killing. It also requires positive actions to implement the right to life. It has beeninterpreted broadly to include the right of access to thebasic necessities enabling survival (e.g. food, essential
medicines) and provision of reasonable protection fromthreats to one’s life. Such threats may arise outside thecontext of violence, for example in the context of work
18 These themes are addressed by the Voluntary Principles on Security
and Human Rights.

Allegations of complicity in violations of the right to life
may arise if the products a company manufactures are
misused by buyers in ways that the company could or
should have foreseen, such as dual-use technologies
sold to the Nazi regime and used to murder people during the Holocaust.19 Companies that produce or supply
weapons are also in a position to impinge on the rightto life. Arms manufacturers should ensure that they do
not deal in illegal weapons and that they comply withinternational arms embargoes.
19 One may note that the ICCPR postdates the Holocaust.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 7 (Right not to be subjected to torture,
cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment), page 13
ICCPR Article 9 (Rights to liberty and security of person), page 21

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

9

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 6

Case studies
Beverage sector, Violence against and killings of union activists
Colombia
Violence against trade unionists continues to be apressing human rights issue in a number of countries and is related to the right to life. In 2007, theILO’s Committee of Experts report for governments
stressed the importance of union activity being freefrom violence and threats. The report highlighted theprevalence of killings of trade unionists in Cambodia,
Colombia20 and the Philippines.
In Sinaltrainal v The Coca-Cola Company, a casebrought in the US in 2001, the claimants alleged that
The Coca-Cola Company and two independent Latin
American bottlers, Bebidas y Alimentos and Panamerican Beverages, Inc. (Panamco), knew about andbenefited from the killing of a trade union official at a
Colombian bottling plant. Collusion with a right-wingparamilitary group accused of such violence wasalso alleged.
20 The report drew attention to findings by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unionists (now the International Trade Union Confederation), which indicated that in Colombia in 2005 there
were 70 murders, 260 death threats, 56 cases of arbitrary detention,
7 attempted murders, 3 disappearances and 8 forced relocations oftrade union leaders and members.

The claim against The Coca-Cola Company was
dismissed in 2003, but was allowed to proceedagainst the bottlers. The court judged that the Bottlers Agreement that Coca-Cola had with Panamco
established that the company “did not have a duty tomonitor, enforce or control labour policies at a bottling plant”. In September 2006, a US Federal Court
dismissed the claims against the two Coca-Colabottlers and also rejected the claimants’ attempt tobring Coca-Cola back into the lawsuit. The court
concluded that the “allegations fail to plead facts
that sufficiently demonstrate the necessary relationship between the defendants and the paramilitaries”.
In 2007, The Coca-Cola Company issued a Workplace Rights Policy that includes a commitment tomaintain “a workplace that is free from violence,harassment, intimidation and other unsafe or disruptive conditions due to internal and external threats”.
The Coca-Cola Company says the policy, which is
being implemented in company-owned operations
worldwide, reinforces and reflects the company’s
practice of respecting the rights of its employees toworkplace security.

Web-based sources:
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Lawlawsuits/Lawsuitsregulatoryaction/LawsuitsSelectedcases/   Coca-ColalawsuitreColombia
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc96/pdf/rep-iii-1a.pdf
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968079.htm
http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/wn20060310_labor_review.html
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/workplace_rights_policy.html

10

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 6 Right to life

Construction materials industry, Asbestos-related health issues
Australia
James Hardie, Australia’s largest manufacturerof asbestos-containing products during the 20th
century, was involved in a case pertaining to theright to life. In 2004 a Special Commission of Inquiry(the Jackson Commission) was called in New South
Wales to investigate the Medical Research andCompensation Foundation (MRCF), a fund set up by
James Hardie in 2001 to compensate Australian victims of diseases caused by its asbestos products,
and to determine whether the fund was adequate tomeet the victims’ claims.
Asbestos causes disabling respiratory and lungdiseases, including the commonly fatal conditions ofmesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer. Victims
and their families accused James Hardie of violating their right to life by failing to warn them of thedangers associated with asbestos, alleging thatthe company was aware of the dangers as far backas the 1930s. They further claimed that the company shifted its assets offshore to the Netherlands,leaving behind an under-resourced compensation
fund (MRCF) out of which claims were to be met.
In August 2004, construction unions and several
local authorities announced plans to boycott James
Hardie products.

In September 2004, the Jackson Commission
found that the MRCF fund was under-funded byapproximately AUD 2 billion. In late 2005, an agreement was reached between the company and theAustralian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) whereby
James Hardie agreed to contribute more funds to
the MRCF. In February 2007, 99.6% of shareholders
approved the agreement.
In February 2007, the corporate regulator, theAustralian Securities and Investments Commission(ASIC), brought civil claims against the company,
as well as certain present and former James Hardie
directors in respect of the alleged inadequate funding of the MRCF. It is also investigating the possibility of criminal charges. Three directors have since
resigned, due to potential conflicts of interest in
defending themselves against the claims while thecompany is a co-defendant. Proceedings remain
pending.
James Hardie stopped making asbestos products
in 1987. However, owing to the average 35-year
latency of mesothelioma, compensation funds arelikely to be needed until mid-century.

Web-based sources:
http://www.actu.asn.au/Campaigns/PastACTUCampaigns/default.aspx [click on James Hardie]
http://www.ir.jameshardie.com.au/default.jsp?xcid=34
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

11

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 6

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to life. Apply the policy globally.
• Adopt and enforce rigorous occupational environment, health and safety standards. Companies
should apply the same standards globally, even
where local regulation may be weak or non-existent.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors andsuppliers) to adhere to the company policies and urge
them to develop similar standards of their own. Where
the company is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees andsecurity providers, the importance the company places
on respecting the right to life and encourage them todevelop a similar standard and take responsible action.
• For defence industry companies or those that produce equipment used in weapons systems, do not
produce or sell illegal weapons.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it determines any risks to the right to life of
employees, customers, local communities and otherrelevant stakeholders. The findings should inform later
decision-making on the project.
• Publish clear warnings of any potential health andsafety hazards in the workplace in the local language.
• Ensure that any products that are potentially hazardous have clear warnings and instructions for use in
the relevant, appropriate language.
• Enforce strict quality control product safety measures to prevent the likelihood of products contributing to injury or death.

12

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• For companies that use public or private security
guards to safeguard their facilities and personnel,
comply with international standards governing theuse of law enforcement officials, such as the UN
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms
by Law Enforcement Officials. Be guided by the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
• Do not enter into or condone protection arrangements with any illegitimate armed actors, particularly
in conflict areas or regions with poor human rights
records.
• For natural resource companies, adhere to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
• For defence industry companies or those that produce equipment used in weapons systems, conduct
risk assessments to avoid sales of weapons systems
and dual-use products/technologies (that can beused or misused with fatal consequences) to governments known to perpetrate gross human rights violations against their own people or those in neighbouring countries. Do not deal in illegal weapons, andcomply with international arms embargoes.

Specific actions:• Educate employees in the highest environmental,
health and safety standards. Ensure all educationalawareness campaigns are conducted in the local
language and are easy to understand.
• Consider supporting disease-prevention educationand health projects.
• Consider supporting efforts to provide human rights
training for law enforcement officials.

ICCPR article 7 Right not to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment

Article 7:
Right not to be subjected totorture, cruel, inhuman and/or
degrading treatment or punishment
The Right
This right has a special status in international humanrights law and is subject to no restrictions or provisos
in any circumstances.21 In addition to freedom from
torture, cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or
punishment, this Article also protects people from being subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
without their consent. Torture is the most serious of theprohibited acts of ill treatment: it involves a very highdegree of pain and suffering that is intentionally inflicted
for a particular purpose (e.g. extracting a confession).
Cruel and/or inhuman treatment also entails severe
suffering of the victim, though of a lesser scale than
‘torture’, while degrading treatment is characterised byextreme humiliation of the victim.22
21 See also the Convention against Torture, and other Cruel, Inhumanor Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
22 The UN bodies have not issued specific definitions of the different
types of prohibited treatment. The definitions contained in this section are
influenced by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: see,for example, Ireland v UK (1978) 2 EHRR 25. It cannot be presumed that interpretations of human rights within the separate systems will be the same,
though the interpretations are the same on many occasions.

The right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment may be relevant to companies if, for example, staff
members are subjected to severe harassment or dangerous working conditions that cause serious mental
distress and anguish. Pharmaceutical companies andothers engaging in medical or scientific research may
impact on the right if medical or scientific experimentation is conducted without consent. Companies could
potentially also face allegations of complicity in violations perpetrated by third parties, if their products are
misused to commit acts of torture. Companies may attract allegations of complicity in breaches of the right tofreedom from torture through the actions of oppressive
regimes with whom they have a business relationship.
Such relationships might be joint commercial venturesor the engagement of State security forces to protect
company installations.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 6 (Right to life), page 9
ICCPR Article 9 (Rights to liberty and security of
person), page 21
ICCPR Article 10 (Rights of detained persons tohumane treatment), page 25

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

13

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7

Case studies
Oil and gas industry, Security provision issues
Colombia
BP has conducted oil and gas exploration andproduction in Colombia since 1987. In 1997, thecompany faced media allegations of complicity inacts of torture and other ill treatment perpetrated
by security forces contracted by the company toprotect its oil installations in Colombia.
The Colombian Prosecutor General’s office (Fiscalia)
investigated and in 1998 found that the allegations against BP were without substance. Reports
nevertheless suggest that BP acted to suspend the
security chief working for its privately contracted
security firm.
Since the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human
Rights were adopted by several extractive industry
companies, NGOs and governments in December

2000, BP has tried to put them into practice in Colombia. BP has established an agreement with the Colombian government over the provision of armed forces as
security providers. The agreement provides a forum forcommunity grievances and is periodically audited.
BP Colombia has also incorporated the Voluntary
Principles on Security and Human Rights into
contracts with providers of private security, and has
introduced codes of conduct to regulate behaviour.
During 2002, an internal assurance exercise wasconducted to measure levels of compliance with
the Principles and provide a future road map. As aresult, meetings are now held twice yearly to review
compliance with the Voluntary Principles, to update
risk assessments, and to analyse the business andhuman rights situation in Colombia.

Web-based sources:
http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/corporations/colombia/Oilpat-01.htm
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/corporations.html
http://www.api.org/ehs/partnerships/community/principles-columbia.cfm
http://colombia.bp.com/go/doc/1660/195543/
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/BP_Human_Rights_2005.pdf

Pharmaceutical sector, Clinical trial issues
Worldwide
Article 7 states that “no one shall be subjected without
his free consent to medical and scientific experimentation”. Several companies and research bodies have
faced media and legal scrutiny over consent processes
used in clinical trails, irrespective of their medical
success or failure. The cases illustrate the risks andoperational challenges companies may encounter
when conducting scientific experiments, including forpotentially life-saving medicines, in a world with unevenmedical and regulatory infrastructures.
A hepatitis E drug trial conducted jointly by the American Walter Reed Army Institute and GlaxoSmithKline
in 2001 attracted attention.23 Trialled on Nepalese soldiers, questions were raised over the possible coercionof the soldiers. A GSK spokesperson, however, saysthat “a lot of procedural safeguards” were in place andparticipants “were free to say no”.
23 A. Jack, “GSK is criticised for army drug”, Financial Times (28February 2006), notes that the drug performed well and GSK was
seeking a sponsor to develop it in China or India.

14

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

In Britain in 2006, six men became critically ill in a clinical trial organised by Parexel International for drug manufacturer, TeGenero. While testing on monkeys showed
few ill-effects, bio-ethicists and the participants’ lawyers
have criticised the trial’s consent process,24 arguingthat the consent form’s language was coercive, as it
reportedly threatened withdrawal of financial incentives for non-cooperation, and that the men were notadequately warned of the risks.
Pfizer has defended claims that during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in Kano, Nigeria, it failed to comply withclinical trial regulations and allegedly infringed Article
7’s free consent provisions. In 2005 a US lawsuit was
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In May 2007 Kanoand Nigerian federal authorities began criminal proceedings against the company. The case is pending.
24 Elisabeth Rosenthal, “British rethinking rules after ill-fated drug
trial”, New York Times (8 April 2006). Martin Day, of the law firm
Leigh Day & Co., representing four of the men, said: “They thought
this was relatively risk free.”25 In the US lawsuit, representatives of the parents queried dosage
levels and linked side-effects with Trovan. A. Jack and D. Mahtani,“Pfizer to fight $9bn Nigerian class action on drug trials”, Financial
Times (6 June 2007), suggested that Trovan performed marginallybetter (more children survived) than the comparator drug ceftriaxone,
and that no clear link was demonstrated between a number of thedeaths that occurred and the drugs.

ICCPR article 7 Right not to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment

The case concerns the trial of an antibiotic, Trovan, on
children suffering from meningitis at an infectious disease
hospital during the epidemic. Approximately half of thechildren were administered Trovan with the remainder
given a comparator drug. The children’s representatives
and Pfizer have differing views on the success of thetrial.25 The former argue that Pfizer knew of risks, butfailed to warn the children or their parents, did not alert
them to the experimental nature of the treatment and theirright to refuse it, or explain that alternative conventional
medicines were available. Pfizer emphatically denies theallegations and says that, before any child was admitted, the study’s purpose was explained to each parent
or guardian and consent was obtained orally in theirnative language (due to high illiteracy rates). Pfizer says
the “study was conducted with the full knowledge of the
Nigerian government and in a responsible and ethicalway consistent with the company’s abiding commitment
to patient safety”.
Pfizer and GSK pledge adherence to international
standards governing clinical trials26 and have internal policies in place to ensure voluntary informed
consent. Pfizer’s policy is to work “with investigatorsand local health authorities or community representatives to ensure the appropriateness of the informed
consent process and the information provided duringthat process”.
26 For example, both companies pledge adherence to the ICH
Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and
Declaration of Helsinki.

Web-based sources:
http://www.australasianbioethics.org/Newsletters/199-2006-04-11.html#consent
http://www.leighday.co.uk/doc.asp?doc=1070&cat=852
http://www.parexel.com/
http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/cr_issues/clinical_trials.htm
http://www.pfizer.com/research/science_policy/global_clinical_trial_standards.jsp
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/54f45618-13ca-11dc-9866-000b5df10621.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601338.html

Private security sector, Prisoner treatment issues
Iraq
This case study illustrates how companies may be
exposed to allegations of human rights abuse andmay need to defend legal proceedings where they arecontracted by governing bodies.27
Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the companies Titan28 and CACI were contracted by the US
government to provide interpreting and interrogation
services to coalition forces in Iraq. The companies
have faced allegations that their treatment of Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison breached the prisoners’ rights to be free from torture.
Compensation was claimed in 2004 in Ibrahim et alv Titan and CACI, a lawsuit filed in the US under the
Alien Tort Claims Act, by the Iraqi Torture Victims
Group on behalf of five Iraqis. Plaintiff Ibrahim Nasser
Hussein, widow of a prisoner, Akram Hanoush Yakou,
who allegedly died during interrogation, claims that
her husband was tortured at the hands of the defen27 See also page xi.
28 The Titan Corporation was acquired by L-3 Communications inJuly 2005.

dants and died as a result of his injuries. In 2007, theDistrict Court of Washington DC found that Titan’s
personnel had in fact been under the direct commandof the US military rather than Titan itself. This finding
led to the dismissal of the claims against Titan. Some
claims against CACI remain pending.29
A number of CACI and Titan employees were implicatedin a classified army report into the alleged prisoner
abuse. Both companies have vigorously denied the allegations. In 2006, a CACI representative stated that “no
CACI employee or former employee has been indictedby the United States for misconduct in the treatment ofdetainees in Iraq” and no CACI employee appears in thephotographs released from Abu Ghraib, adding that thecompany was “disheartened that three of [its] employees [were] mentioned in possible connection with somealleged form of abuse and, if these acts occurred, the
29 In June 2008 additional lawsuits were brought against the twocompanies, also for alleged mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq. The
cases remain pending. CACI vigorously denies the claims, which it
regards as “malicious and unfounded”.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

15

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7

company does not condone them”. CACI no longer
provides interrogation services in Iraq or elsewhere,
having concluded its contract with the US Army in2005. A spokesperson for Titan at the time the allegations first surfaced noted that the company provided

interpreting rather than interrogation services, but
stated that the company would co-operate fully withany government investigations and would take appropriate action in the event of any unethical behaviour
being unearthed.

Web-based sources:
http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/391FSupp2d10.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20070605.html
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/torture/ibrahimtitan72704cmp.html
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/saleh-v.-titan
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXZlMqKrNDLSyKZOEj87zhuphgggD91KQABO0
http://www.titan.com/home.html
http://www.caci.com/iraq_faqs.shtml
http://www.caci.com/about/news/news2008/07_01_08_NR.html

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that itprovides for the prohibition of any form of torture,inhuman or degrading treatment. Apply the policy
globally.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors) to adhere to the company policy and urge
them to develop a similar standard of their own.
Where the company is not able to exert that levelof control, make it clear to business partners,
including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees, agents and security providers,the importance the company places on international prohibitions on torture and ill treatment, andencourage them to develop a similar standard andtake responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Ensure that working conditions for all workers, including those under contract from a third party andmigrant workers, comply with health and safety
regulations, and employees are not exposed torisks that could place them in inhuman or degrading situations.

violations. The findings should inform projectdecision-making.
• Put in place whistle-blower protection (e.g. ananonymous hotline) for employees exposing illtreatment by colleagues or on company premises.
• For companies that use public or private security
guards to safeguard their facilities and personnel,
comply with international human rights standards.
Be guided by the Voluntary Principles on Security
and Human Rights.
• For natural resource companies, adhere to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
• For pharmaceutical and related companies, comply with international standards such as the ICH
Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical
Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki governing
clinical trials across all global activities, and demand that employees or business partners secure
the informed consent of clinical trial participants(particularly for locations where national regulation
is weak or non-existent); such consent should beobtained in local languages as appropriate.
Specific actions:• Explore ways in which the company can mitigate
the likelihood of its products or services being
misused by third parties to perpetrate acts of torture and establish processes for action in the eventof such misuse.
• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it alerts the company to any of therisks associated with acting on behalf of local
authorities, which may place the company atincreased risk of complicity in human rights

16

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Consider speaking out publicly or privately –individually or in concert with other companies– against violations of this right believed to haveoccurred in the vicinity of company facilities, or in
the territory of countries in which the company has
operations.
• Consider supporting efforts to provide humanrights training for law enforcement officials.

ICCPR article 8 Right not to be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labour

Article 8:
Right not to be subjected toslavery, servitude or forced
labour
The Right
Slavery occurs when one human being effectively owns
another. The right to freedom from servitude covers
other forms of dominance, egregious economic exploitation, and degradation of human beings, whichmight arise for example in the context of the traffickingof workers (including sex workers), serfdom and debt
bondage. Given the extreme nature of these humanrights abuses, the rights to freedom from slavery andservitude are subject to no restrictions or qualifications.

Forms of bonded labour are found all over the world.
Examples might include a person in debt being forced towork without pay to pay off that debt, or where a migrant
worker lodges his or her identity papers with an employer
and is forced to work to reclaim the documents.

Forced or compulsory labour is also prohibited, and isdefined by the International Labour Organization (ILO)
as “all work or service which is exacted from any person
under menace of any penalty and for which the said
person has not offered himself voluntarily”.30 The penalty must involve a minimum level of intensity,31 but does
not have to involve violence. The fact that the person ispaid for their labour does not absolve it of being forced
if the other elements of the definition are met. Unlike
the freedoms from slavery and servitude, the right tofreedom from forced labour can be restricted in certain
circumstances such as national emergencies. Civic
obligations, such as fire-fighting and special obligations
in some circumstances on physicians to render medical
aid,32 are not classified as ‘forced labour’.

Companies risk allegations of abusing these rights ifthey directly make use of slaves, forced, bonded or
involuntary prison labour. Companies may also risk allegations of complicity if they benefit from the use of suchlabour by suppliers, subcontractors and other business
partners.

30 ILO Convention 29, Forced Labour Convention (1930), Article 2(1). It
seems likely that the definition in Article 8 will accord with that of the ILO.
31 M. Nowak, UN Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (N.P.
Engel, 2005, 2nd ed), page 206.
32 M. Nowak, UN Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (N.P.
Engel, 2005, 2nd ed), page 208.

Prison labour is permitted under Article 8; however, it
should be noted that ILO rules prohibit the use by private companies of involuntary prison labour.33

Companies in the airline, shipping and other transportation industries, as well as those in the tourism sector,
may come into contact with human trafficking whereindividuals are moved from one place to another for the
purposes of forced or bonded labour, such as forced
prostitution or domestic servitude.
When companies engage in collective action initiatives
that help raise awareness about forced labour and human trafficking, they are promoting this right.
33 See ILO Convention 29, Forced Labour Convention (1930), Article2(c).

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

17

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 8

Case studies
Cocoa industry, Forced child labour issues
Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana
Approximately 70% of the world’s cocoa is producedin West Africa, mostly grown on smallholdings,
which number approximately 1.5 million farms.34 In
2000, the US State Department estimated thataround 15,000 children worked on cocoa, coffee
and cotton plantations in Côte d’Ivoire, a proportion of whom were trafficked from Mali and brought
to Côte d’Ivoire as slaves.35 Concern for the plightof children used as forced labour (and exposed tounsafe working conditions) prompted efforts by thecocoa industry to address the problem, whilst also
prompting media scrutiny and calls for change from
campaign groups.36
In 2001 the chocolate industry joined politicians,
government officials, and civil society to endorse theHarkin-Engel Protocol and recognise “the urgent need
to identify and eliminate child labour in violation of International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 18237
with respect to the growing and processing of cocoa
beans and their derivative products”. A foundation,
the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI), was established
to “oversee and sustain efforts to eliminate the worst
forms of child labour” and the development of credible, mutually acceptable, voluntary, industry-widestandards and public certification by 2005. Researchthen conducted by the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in 2002 showed little evidence of forcedchild labour but did reveal evidence of unsafe working
conditions for children in agricultural communities.38
The ICI was set up in 2002 and involves industry,
unions, anti-slavery NGOs and governments working together to make progress.39 The ICI works with
the ILO, governments of cocoa-producing coun34 See http://www.foodanddrinkeurope.com/news/
ng.asp?n=62111-nestle-cocoa-child-labour.
35 See the US State Department, Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices – 2000 (Côte d’Ivoire).
36 In September 2000 a film was broadcast in Britain on Channel 4
television that raised concerns about slavery in cocoa production.
Anti-Slavery International, Save the Children and Free the Slaves
were among the NGOs that lobbied for change in 2000–1.
37 ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour
encompasses provisions to prohibit child trafficking and all formsof forced child labour and slavery.
38 Anti-Slavery International welcomed full details of the IITA
survey being made available in 2005.
39 ICI members include Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill (cocoa
bean processors); Mars, Hershey, Cadbury, Nestlé, Kraft andFerrero (chocolate manufacturers); the European Cocoa Association and the International Confectionery Association (tradeassociations); the International Union of Food, Agricultural,
Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), and the International Trade Union Confederation(ITUC) (unions); and US National Consumers League, Free the
Slaves and Global March (NGOs).

18

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

tries, local NGOs, farmer groups and trade unions,and encourages political and business leadershipto eliminate child and forced labour. ICI has developed a community action model for eliminating
unacceptable forms of child labour, which is being
implemented at the village level and is helping torehabilitate victims of trafficking. Another industry
group, the World Cocoa Foundation, works throughcross-sector partnerships to improve cocoa-growing practices in West Africa and elsewhere.
While the goal of having in place child labour
standards by June 2005 was not met, partly due
to armed conflict in Côte d’Ivoire, industry made acommitment to roll out the certification system toover 50% of the Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana cocoaproducing areas by July 2008.
Campaigning by activists continues; in one instancethis has involved litigation against a number of
chocolate manufacturers and cocoa-bean producers for alleged involvement in trafficking and forced
labour.40 Furthermore, media scrutiny of humanrights conditions in West African cocoa production
has not abated.41
In 2007 the Republic of Ghana released the firstcocoa-farming pilot ‘certification’ report based on
visits to farms representing more than 10% of thecountry’s cocoa production, putting it on track tomeet the July 2008 target. Progress in Côte d’Ivoirehas, according to government sources, been set
back by the country’s civil war, while ICI notes theidentification of a number of human rights trafficking cases, prompting direct action to address them.
ICI members are now replicating and scaling up
programmes to other producer countries.
In April 2008 the ICI convened a meeting of senior
government officials from Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire,cocoa and chocolate industry representatives,
members of international agencies, civil society andchild labour experts to explore lessons to be learnt
from the projects already underway and avenues for
future direction. In June 2008, a joint statement by
40 In July 2005, the International Labor Right Fund filed a suitunder the US Alien Tort Claims Act on behalf of three former Malian slaves against Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and Nestlé (seehttp://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/302655/
jump). The companies vigorously deny the allegations.
41 A BBC report entitled “Labouring for chocolate” by Orly Ryan,
27 April 2007, reported on the impact of the initiative.

ICCPR article 8 Right not to be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labour

Senator Harkin, Representative Engel and the chocolate and cocoa industry announced that “the datacollection element of the certification process covering an area that produces at least 50% of the cocoa
farming output in each country has been completed,

and reports detailing the preliminary results of thesesurveys by the respective governments are expected
to be released by July 1”. The statement said thatindependent verification “will not be fully completed
until the end of the year”.

Web-based sources:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/773.htm
http://www.cocoainitiative.org
http://www.treecrops.org
http://www.cocoafarming.org.uk
http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org
http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/commitments/cote-divoire.asp
http://www.organicconsumers.org/fair-trade/cocoa072005.cfm
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/campaign/cocoabackground.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6575713.stm
http://www.chocolateusa.org/news-and-initiatives/child-labor-in-cocoa-growing.asp

Energy sector, Forced labour issues
MyanmarUnocal faced allegations of complicity in using
forced labour when, as part of a consortium, it began exploration for natural gas deposits in Myanmar
during the 1990s.
The discovery of gas prompted construction of a
USD 1.2 billion pipeline through the southern Myanmar rainforest to neighbouring Thailand. Myanmar
troops provided security and built infrastructure
for the project. According to the claimants in Doev Unocal, a case brought in the US under the
Alien Tort Claims Act, Unocal aided and abetted
forced labour carried out by soldiers on the Yadana
pipeline project. Local people claim that the troops
forced them to work as porters, clear forests andbuild army camps. Unocal denied using forced
labour on the project.

provide funds to set up a fund to develop programmes to improve living conditions, educationand health care, and to protect the rights of people
in the pipeline region. It was anticipated that the
programmes would provide substantial assistanceto people who suffered hardships in the region. The
precise terms of the settlement remain confidential.
Unocal did not admit liability. The settlement was
accepted by the court, and the case was closed on
13 April 2005.
In a joint statement released at the time of thesettlement, Unocal reaffirmed “its principle thatthe company respects human rights in all of its
activities and commits to enhance its educational
programmes to further this principle”. The claimants
meanwhile similarly reaffirmed “their commitment toprotecting human rights”.

A settlement was finalised in April 2005 by which
the company agreed to pay compensation andWeb-based sources:
http://www.earthrights.org/legal/unocal/
http://www.unocal.com

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

19

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 8

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it prohibits
the use of forced or bonded labour, either among direct
employees, those contracted from third parties, or
those within the supply chain. Apply the policy globally.
• Ensure company policies conform to ILO Convention
29 on Forced Labour, which provides an important
foundation for companies operating in countries
where forced/bonded labour is known to exist.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors
and suppliers) to adhere to the company policy andurge them to develop a similar standard of their own.
Where the company is not able to exert that level ofcontrol, make it clear to business partners, including
governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees and security providers, the importance thecompany places on prohibitions of forced or compulsory labour, and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it alerts the company to any instances offorced or bonded labour in the vicinity of direct company operations and supplier facilities. Incorporate
within assessment processes extensive stakeholder
consultation with local trade unions and NGOs tosupport company intelligence. There is no easy way
to identify the use of forced/bonded labour but companies should familiarise themselves with the risks
when operating in countries where it is prevalent, andbe alert to the possibility of deception on the subject
by business partners. The findings should inform
later project decision-making.
• Prohibit the use of forced labour in joint venture andsupplier contracts, and encourage business partners
to avoid its use.

20

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Train staff to be alert to signs of trafficking, andforced/bonded labour, noting that bonded labour
may involve the withholding of passports, visas andother travel documents to force employees to stay intheir posts, often without pay.

Specific actions:• Consider raising concerns with host authorities,
independently or collectively with other companies
sharing similar anxieties, and make it clear that thecompany does not tolerate the use of forced orbonded labour, and that consumers and investors often look harshly upon any links to slavery or servitudeof any kind.
• Engage in collective action initiatives that help raiseawareness about forced labour and human trafficking.

ICCPR article 9 Rights to liberty and security of person

Article 9:
Rights to liberty and securityof person
The Rights
The rights to liberty and security of person prohibit
unlawful or arbitrary detention of any kind. ‘Arbitrary’ (orunreasonable) detention is prohibited even if authorised under a state’s domestic laws. ‘Lawful’ detention,
whether in a prison, a psychiatric institution, an immigration facility, or in some other incarceration facility,
must always be authorised by government organs, suchas courts or appropriate independent administrative
bodies. All detainees must be able to challenge thelegality of their detentions before judicial bodies. Corporations may attract allegations of complicity in government abuses of this Article if they facilitate the arbitraryor unlawful detention of persons.
This Article also recognises the right to security ofpeople, whether in or out of detention. This part of the

Article has the greatest potential relevance for companies. Security of the person encompasses protection
from physical attacks, threats of physical attack, orother severe instances of harassment. In this respect
the right to security of person covers less severe formsof ill-treatment than those prohibited under Article 6 (theright to life) and Article 7 (freedom from torture, cruel,inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment).
Companies can protect the security of the person when
they offer security provision and lend support to investigations into breaches of the right. Conversely, companies might negatively impact the right if, for example,
they threaten staff with physical violence or are complicit in instances of severe harassment by others, suchas contracted security personnel or other employees.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 6 (Right to life), page 9
ICCPR Article 7 (Right not to be subjected to torture,
cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment), page 13

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

21

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 9

Case studies
Textile industry, Personal security issues
Haiti
Grupo M is a major private company from the
Dominican Republic that supplies to US brand namecompanies. It is the largest apparel producer in the
Caribbean/Central American region. In 2003 Haitian
workers employed in the export processing zone (EPZ)
run by Grupo M complained of threats to their personal
security. The case was taken up by the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions,42 and later becamea pilot for the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC)
core labour performance standards.
According to civil-society organisation the Haiti Support Group, workers who tried to organise themselves into unions were subject to regular threats andviolence, and female workers complained of sexual
abuse. Haiti Support Group director, Charles Arthur(referring to independent monitors’ reports on the factory) alleged “intimidation, provocation, and humiliation” of workers by factory management. The HaitianSupport Group called on companies that source
products from Grupo M to urge their supplier to address the problems.
42 The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions mergedwith the World Confederation of Labour in November 2006 to form
the International Trade Union Confederation.

In October 2003 the IFC authorised a USD 3 million
loan to finance the Grupo M43 export zone in Haiti tohelp rejuvenate the garment sector in that country,
mobilising significant other private sector investment
and job creation. The IFC commissioned a site visitby an environmental and social specialist, and as acondition of the loan stipulated that Grupo M comply with the IFC’s performance standards, including
recognition of the rights of workers. The IFC also
instigated a bi-national mediation team (HaitianDominican) to facilitate an agreement between the
Grupo M management and Sokowa, a Haitian labour
union, to resolve their dispute. A collective bargaining
agreement was signed in December 2005 between
Grupo M and the local union.44
The IFC will evaluate the project’s compliance withthe applicable environmental and social requirements
during the lifetime of the project.
43 According to IFC’s summary project information, Grupo M “hasbeen an innovator in adopting sustainable business practices since
its founding [in 1986]. The Group has ISO9002 certification and has
won awards for labour practice and corporate citizenship.”
44 This case study is also relevant to ICESCR Article 6 (the right towork) and ICESCR Article 8 (trade union rights).

Web-based sources:
http://www.haitisupport.gn.apc.org/fea_campaign_index.html
http://www.labournet.net/world/0401/haiti2.html
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/spiwebsite1.nsf/2bc34f011b50ff6e85256a550073ff1c/9f06d27d61b3152a85256d19006a63f1?
   opendocument
http://www.grupom.com.do/

22

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 9 Rights to liberty and security of person

Security industry, Arbitrary detention issues
Australia
GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd runs immigration detention centres under a contract with the Australian government.
Australia has a policy of detaining all aliens whoenter the country without legal authority; they aredetained indefinitely until they receive a valid visa,
leave the country, or are released at the discretion of
the relevant minister. Under this policy, many asylum
seekers have been detained for very long periods oftime. According to the United Nations Human Rights
Committee (HRC),45 Australia’s policy of mandatory detention breaches the right to freedom fromarbitrary detention in Article 9 of the ICCPR.46 The
Australian government disagrees with the HRC’s
interpretations of human rights in those decisions.
In 2005, five human rights organisations submitted
a complaint against GSL to the Australian National
Contact Point (ANCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Mul45 The United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors theimplementation of the ICCPR and its Optional Protocols for thosecountries that have ratified those treaties.
46 See, for example, A v Australia, UN doc. CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993,
30 April 1997. The decision in A v Australia has been upheld innumerous instances by the HRC. These decisions are only concernedwith the actions of the Australian government; companies were nottargeted, nor were they involved in these complaints.

tinational Enterprises. The organisations alleged thatGSL was complicit in breaches of the right to freedom
from arbitrary detention by the Australian government
in “acquiescing in the mandatory detention of asylum
seekers without charge or judicial review”.
The ANCP did not consider it appropriate to receive
this part of the complaint47 on the grounds that the
Guidelines did not provide “an appropriate avenue
to review a host government’s domestic policy settings”. In other words, the ANCP found that that partof the NGO complaint was aimed at the laws andpolicies of the Australian government, rather than at
the policies and actions of GSL itself.
This case highlights that companies can face allegations of complicity in alleged human rights abuses
committed by third parties, including by governments to whom they may be contracted.48
47 The complaint also concerned allegations concerning ICCPR
Article 10 at pages 26-27.
48 See also Introduction, page xi.

Web-based sources:
http://www.bayefsky.com/./html/109_australiavws560.php
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Subm_to_AustnNCP_re_OECD_MNE_guidelines_and_GSL.pdf
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/FinalStatement_GSL_Australia.pdf
http://www.gslpl.com.au
http://www.gslglobal.com/corporate_responsibility.html
http://www.gslglobal.com/sectors/secure_environment/immigration_removal_centres.html

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

23

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 9

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it encompasses the right to liberty and security of person,and prohibits any threat of violence, harassment orabuse of any kind being directed against employees(including union representatives) or other stakeholders. Apply the policy globally.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees, andsecurity providers, the importance the company
places on the rights to liberty and security of theperson and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it identifies any known risk of threats ofviolence or abuse of any kind being directed against
employees (including union representatives) orother stakeholders. The findings should inform later
project decision-making.
• Enforce clear codes against harassment in theworkplace and institute grievance mechanisms sothat any victims of abuse have access to redress.
Standards should apply globally.

24

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Do not facilitate or condone the arbitrary detentionof persons, including protestors that object to thecompany’s activities.
• Set realistic production targets, and insist on the samefrom suppliers and sub-contractors, to help eliminate
any commercial pressures that have been shownto generate conditions leading to threats of physicalviolence.
• For companies that use public or private security
guards to safeguard their facilities and personnel,
comply with internationally recognised human rights
standards. Be guided by the Voluntary Principles on
Security and Human Rights.
• For companies that run private mental health facilities, ensure that involuntary confinements are authorised according to relevant legal standards.
• For security providers and companies that operate
or manage government detention facilities, conduct
risk analyses and take any necessary precautions
to ensure the company is unlikely to be complicit
in government breaches of the rights to liberty andsecurity of person.

ICCPR article 10 Right of detained persons to humane treatment

Article 10:
Right of detained persons
to humane treatment
The Right
The right of detained persons to humane treatment
provides special protection for detainees, a group thatis highly vulnerable to human rights abuses. Article 10
places duties upon detention authorities, such as prison
authorities and psychiatric hospitals. These duties
include: treating detainees with humanity and respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person, separating
convicted from remand prisoners, separating juveniles
from other detainees, and providing a regime

that facilitates the social rehabilitation of detainees.
‘Humane treatment’ includes the provision of a minimum of services to satisfy prisoners’ basic needs suchas adequate food, clothing, medical care and means ofcommunication.
The activities of companies that operate detention facilities or provide prison management services are thosemost likely to impact on these rights.

Related right:
ICCPR Article 7 (Right not to be subjected to torture,
cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment), page 13

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

25

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 10

Case studies
Security sector, Detention issues, US bases at Guantanamo Bay
Cuba
This case study and the next (involving GSL) highlight the role that may be played by National Contact
Points (NCPs), the national complaints mechanisms
established under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines).49
From 1993, Kværner Process Services Inc. (KPSI)50
conducted maintenance for the US Department of
Defense at installations at Guantanamo Bay. Following construction of a detention camp for terrorist suspects in 2001, KPSI’s activities expanded toinclude tasks connected to the functioning of thatfacility. KPSI’s operations in Guantanamo Bay ceased
in 2005 when its contract ended.
In June 2005, Forum for Environment and Development (ForUM) initiated a complaint with Norway’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines.
Referring to findings by the International Committeeof the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International (which highlighted serious human rights
violations at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility),
ForUM alleged that KPSI was complicit in alleged
US government human rights abuses, including theinhumane treatment of detainees.
49 National contact points (NCPs) are established by adhering governments to promote the OECD Guidelines, and to act as a forum
for discussion of all matters relating to the Guidelines (see Article
10 of the Guidelines). NCPs are often called upon to facilitate theresolution of specific complaints regarding alleged breaches of theguidelines by companies (as occurred in these case studies).
50 KPSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Norway’s Aker Kværner,
now Aker Solutions ASA.3.

The NCP met with both ForUM and the parent company Aker Kværner during September and October2005 to explore the issues and help the parties reachan understanding. In November 2005, the NCP madethe assessment that “the activities carried out by thecompany at least in part can be said to have affected
the inmates of the prison”, as the camp needed
KPSI’s services in order to function. The NCP notedthat “the provision of goods or services in situations
such as those at Guantanamo requires particular vigilance with respect to corporate social responsibility”,
and strongly encouraged Aker Kværner to draw up
ethical behaviour guidelines and to apply them in all
countries in which it operates. The Norwegian NCP
also stressed the importance of companies continually assessing activities in relation to human rights.
In response to the OECD assessment, information
director, Torbjørn Anderson, said the company would“take the comments along into other projects we arestill engaged in”. In the company’s 2006–7 Corporate
Responsibility Report, Aker Kværner states that it strives
to conduct all business in line with fundamental humanrights norms, though in relation to the Guantanamo
complaint “take[s] the position that [the company’s] previous engagement had no significance to the detention
facility operated by the US military”, as the work typically involved maintaining sewage lines and power grids,
improving drinking water and mowing lawns.

Web-based sources:
http://www.akersolutions.com/Internet/AboutUs/default.htm
http://www.akerkvaerner.com/NR/rdonlyres/02D1A90D-6AF4-4EAF-9646-B5FE8BC81B31/14483/ValuesDrivenBusiness.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/33/37439881.pdf

Security sector, Immigration detention issues
Australia
Since 2003, GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd has managed
various detention facilities for the Australian government under a contract with the Department of
Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs(DIMIA).51 This agreement places foreigners whoare in the country unlawfully under the guarded
supervision of GSL until they are granted a visa, are
51 DIMIA is now known as the Department of Immigration andCitizenship (DIAC).

26

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

released at the discretion of the relevant minister, or
are deported in accordance with national law.
In 2005, five human rights groups (the International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID), the Human Rights
Council of Australia (HRCA), Children Out of Detention (ChilOut) and the Brotherhood of St Laurence)
raised a specific instance regarding GSL in Australia,

A key outcome of the mediation session was a jointstatement on behalf of the company and human
52 The matter also alleged complicity in breaches of ICCPR Article 9
by GSL. See above, page 23.

ICCPR article 10 Right of detained persons to humane treatment

alleging that the conditions in the immigration detention centres were inhumane.52 The matter submitted
to the Australian National Contact Point (ANCP) for
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
resulted in a mediation session that took place inFebruary 2006.

rights groups, in which both parties welcomed the
ANCP mediation. GSL Australia committed to upholdthe human rights of those in its care and embed ahuman rights approach within its policy, procedures
and contracts. GSL also agreed to enhance its human rights training, monitoring and auditing systems.
The company also committed itself to an ongoing
dialogue with the complainants so that they could
monitor and assist GSL Australia’s implementationof the agreed remedies. The human rights groups
offered practical advice to assist GSL in interpreting
human rights standards and in training staff.

Web-based sources:
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Subm_to_AustnNCP_re_OECD_MNE_guidelines_and_GSL.pdf
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/FinalStatement_GSL_Australia.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/11/38297552.pdf
http://www.gslpl.com.au/South African hospitality sector, Detention issues
South Africa
The company Bosasa is contracted by South Africa’s
Department of Home Affairs to run the Lindela Detention/Repatriation Centre. According to the South
African Migration Project of Queen’s University (RSA),
more than 4,500 refugees were processed and repatriated through Lindela in 2005.
The Lindela facility has been at the centre of allegations of violations to the right of detained persons tohumane treatment. At least seven inmates died during
2005 and several thousand attended nearby clinics.
The Zimbabwe Exiles Forum claims that physical assaults and other examples of ill treatment of detainees have occurred at the complex. Media sources
reported that riots broke out in July 2006 among 58
Congolese nationals protesting their protracted period
of detention. The Congolese refugees alleged that
Bosasa officers attacked them.

This case study illustrates challenges companies mayneed to address when they take on public service
functions.53 In a presentation to the South African
Parliamentary Oversight Committee, Bosasa director, Papa Leshabane, revealed that the Departmentof Home Affairs gave the company less than ZAR
80 a day per refugee to provide food, medical care,security and sleeping accommodation. In responseto the specific allegations of assaults on detainees bycompany personnel, Leshabane said that: “Bosasa
is a sub-contractor to the department of home affairs
and the protocol dictates that the department is theone to comment on issues relating to the facilities.”
53 See also Introduction, page xi.

Web-based sources:
http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001524/Zim-exiles_Aug2005.pdf
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060903110931335C966711
http://www.bosasa.com/Social.aspx

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

27

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 10

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right of detained persons to be treatedhumanely. Apply the policy globally.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees andsecurity providers, the importance the company
places on the right of detained persons to humane
treatment and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it identifies the prevalence of prisoner
mistreatment. In particular ensure that the assessment gauges the human rights conditions at any
detention facilities for which the company provides
goods or services. The findings should inform later
project decision-making.
• For companies that run places of detention, provide detainees with the services required to satisfy
basic needs, including access to necessary medical
treatment, while ensuring respect for the detainees’
dignity.
• For companies that run places of detention, establish
human rights training for all company employees,
in particular detention facility officers, in order toincrease awareness of human rights norms and tominimise the risk of company employees breaching
human rights law.

28

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• For companies that run places of detention, comply
with national and international standards, such as
the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, governing the treatment of persons in detention, whichever is the stronger, including requirements regarding the separate detention of adults
and minors, and the separate detention of convicted
and remand prisoners.54 Investigate any breaches ofthese standards and take appropriate remedial action
to prevent recurrences.
Specific actions:• In States where there is a record of routine prisoner
abuse, consider carefully the implications of reporting individuals to the local police or security forces inrelation to minor offences, bearing in mind the consequences for those individuals concerned. Consult
with human rights experts to explore the best courseof action.
54 See, for a comprehensive list of such standards, http://www2.ohchr.
org/english/law/index.htm.

article
ICCPR
article6 Right11
to Right
life not to be subjected to imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contract

Article 11:
Right not to be subjected to
imprisonment for inability
to fulfil a contract
The Right
This right prohibits the imprisonment of people who
are unable to pay a debt when the debt in question isa private obligation (rather than a public debt such as
the obligation to pay tax) and arises when a person isincapable (as opposed to unwilling) of paying the debt
or fulfilling the contract. This right is directed at theState, which must restrict the types of punishment thatcan be imposed for inability to fulfil private contractual
promises.

The activities of companies are unlikely to impact directly on this right, but they may need to respond in cases
where employees or other stakeholders are affected.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

29

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 11

Suggested practical actions
Specific actions:• Do not enforce any domestic avenue of redress
against a contractor who fails to meet contractual
obligations due to a genuine inability to fulfil them, if
that remedy could result in the penalty of imprisonment.
• Provide protection for employees or other relevant
stakeholders that might be unfairly imprisoned
contrary to the provisions of this Article due to theirfailure to fulfil a contractual obligation.
• On a case-by-case basis, consider speaking out
publicly or privately – individually or in concert withother companies – against violations of this rightwhere it affects company stakeholders or others in
the vicinity of company operations.
• As appropriate, provide dependants of employees
affected with financial or other support.

30

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 12 Right to freedom of movement

Article 12:
Right to freedom of movement

The Right
This right has four parts. It allows people who are lawfully in a country to move freely throughout the country, tochoose where to live within the country, and to leave thecountry. These three parts of the right may be limited by
restrictions on movement that are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or therights and freedoms of others.55 The right to freedom of
movement also gives people the right not to be arbitrarily
prevented from entering their own country.
55 These restrictions are similar to those permitted to other rights, andare discussed under ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression). For example, a person who is imprisoned after being convicted ofa crime can therefore have his/her movements restricted for the purposeof maintaining public order.

Related rights:
ICESCR Article 11 (Right to an adequate standard ofliving: right to housing), page 113

Companies’ activities may impact on the right if, forexample, a community has to be relocated becauseof company operations, which restricts the freedom of
those people to choose where they live. Developmentrelated relocation is permissible only if absolutely
necessary and so long as it is not conducted arbitrarily
or in an unreasonable manner. To this end, freedom of
movement must be recognised and considered as partof any discussions concerning relocation. Resettlement
should be lawfully achieved after consultation with,
notice and compensation for, and ideally consent from,those affected. Bonded labour,56 in situations wherea worker’s passport or travel documents are withheld,
breaches the right to freedom of movement.
56 Bonded labour is discussed in more detail under ICCPR Article 8
at page 17.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

31

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 12Case studies

57

Mining sector, Resettlement issues
Ghana
In the context of Newmont’s Ahafo mining projectin Ghana, the company has found it necessary toresettle about 500 families. Newmont has engaged instakeholder consultation to manage the resettlement
process, meeting with the Resettlement Negotiation
Committee (RNC) established by community representatives in 2004 to negotiate over resettlement andcrop compensation.
The process is being independently monitored, andNewmont has put in place a number of alleviating
measures. For example, resettled persons have been
provided compensation by way of either cash or
improved housing at new sites, and the use of theland on which the new house is built. Newmont notesthat for the first time “the homes and residential plots
came with a legal title”. The company also reportsthat it is helping to provide infrastructure at theresettlement sites, such as water and sanitation facilities, and is monitoring environmental impacts, suchas erosion, at those sites. A grievance procedure isavailable for persons who wish to make complaints
on any issue, including those related to resettlement.
The project has not, however, been without criticism.
In 2005 a number of Ghanaian and international NGOs
urged the International Finance Corporation (IFC) topostpone consideration of a loan for the project58
57 See also the case study on the Guatemala Nickel Company on
related challenges at page 115.
58 The IFC approved loans of USD 125 million in January 2006 for
Newmont Mining’s Ahafo gold mining project. An IFC board official
then explained that the “board recognised that it is a risky venture,
but agreed that it is good to have the IFC around pushing for higher
standards and social and environmental compliance”.

because of concerns over environmental and humanrights impacts. The Ghanaian Chronicle had reported
that while many families were broadly satisfied with
their new homes, some in the village of Ntotoroso
were experiencing food shortages (partly due to
inflation and the cost of having to buy – rather thangrow – food in a marketplace focused on serving
more affluent Newmont workers). Complaints havealso arisen over loss of access to farmland and thecrop compensation, which is felt by some to be inadequate and overly bureaucratic.
Newmont says that in May 2006, following a period of
consultation, it launched an Agriculture Improvementand Land Access Programme (AILAP) to “help farmers
maintain or exceed the levels of crop productivity theyexperienced prior to the start of the mine, and to ensurecompensated farmers were able to access land to farmat no charge”. The company also announced plans fora study to “identify appropriate mitigation measures
for the loss of fallow land based on recent revisions to[Ghanaian] law”. Newmont asserts that it has provided
food packages for those most in need and started ascheme for vulnerable households designed to foster
long-term self-sufficiency.
According to an independent review commissioned
jointly by the IFC and Newmont, approximately 2000
farmers had registered for the AILAP scheme by January 2007 and “100% of beneficiaries [had] managed
to find land”; others had also reportedly benefited
from in-kind and cash assistance. The counsellingcomponent of the Vulnerable People Programme
was highlighted as having been “wide ranging andresponsive to specific needs”.

Web-based sources:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801250548.html
http://www.newmont.com/en/operations/ghana/ahafo/docs/indreviews.asp
http://www.newmont.com/en/pdf/nowandbeyond/NB20 04-Ghana.pdf
http://www.newmont.com/ESR06/BtM-Values_and_Value.pdf
http://www.beyondthemine.com/?l=2&pid=240&parent=253&id=303

32

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 12 Right to freedom of movement

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring it takes account of the freedom of movement. Apply the policy
globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, franchisees and security
providers, the importance the company places on
the right to liberty of movement, including the right ofpeople to choose where they live and on respecting
international resettlement standards, and encouragethem to develop a similar position and take responsible action.

notified (in writing or by other means where illiteracy
is common) sufficiently in advance with a view tominimising the adverse impacts of evictions.
• Consult in good faith with the relevant communities
through their own representative institutions prior tolaunching any activity that affects the right of people
to choose where to live with a view to obtaining theiragreement. This means allowing time for the community to make a considered evaluation and providing
full information on the impact and benefits, and any
compensation on offer, including in the local language concerned.
• Establish ongoing community consultation processes
and provide adequate compensation to impacted
persons. Consider using independent, mutually acceptable third-party mediators. Consultations should
be completed in the local language.

Policy implementation processes / Compliance:
Specific actions:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment andensure that it gauges the likelihood of the company
infringing international norms with respect to resettlement and other aspects of freedom of movement.
The findings should inform later project decisionmaking.
• Where financed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), comply with the IFC PerformanceStandards on Indigenous Peoples, and IFC Performance Standards on Land Acquisition and Involuntary
Resettlement. Other companies may also wish toconsider these standards.

• Explore, in consultation with resettled communities,
ways in which the company may be able to contribute to sustainable education, employment andenterprise initiatives for affected groups,• When appropriate, consider making a public or
private approach to the relevant authorities to protest
any violations of the freedom of movement by theState, particularly in cases that affect a company
stakeholder.

• Population relocations should be guided by the Basic
Principles and Guidelines on Development-based
Evictions and Displacement59 developed by the
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate
Housing, which stress, inter alia, the importance ofcomprehensive impact assessments, the rights ofevicted persons to return, resettlement, and fair andjust compensation, and that all affected persons be
59 UN document E/CN.4/2006/41.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

33

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 1234

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 13 Right of aliens to due process when facing expulsion

Article 13:
Right of aliens to due process
when facing expulsion
The Right
This Article ensures that foreigners (‘aliens’) who arelegally present in a country are not expelled from thatcountry without due process in accordance with the law,
including the right for an alien to be given the opportunity to present reasons why he or she should not be
expelled and to have any expulsion decision reviewed.
Due process (that is, fair procedures) regarding a deportation need not take place under Article 13 if there arecompelling needs of national security.60

It is unlikely that the activities of a company would
have any direct impact upon this right. However, where
employees or other stakeholders are adversely affected,
they may have a positive role to play in assisting those
persons.

60 Due process is always required in certain removal cases, regardlessof concerns for national security. For example, a State cannot deporta person to another State where there is a real risk that that person
may be subjected to torture or ill-treatment (contrary to Article 7 of theCovenant) upon return to that State. Therefore, when a credible claimof possible torture upon deportation arises, a State must pay the closest scrutiny to the fairness of the procedure in determining the risk of
torture before any removal is ordered.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

35

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 13

Suggested practical actions
Specific actions:• On a case-by-case basis, consider supporting,financially or legally, any alien employee, such as a
migrant worker, who faces expulsion on contentious
grounds or who is deprived of legal counsel.
• On a case-by-case basis, contemplate a public or
private approach to the relevant authorities to protest
any violations of the right by the State, particularly incases that affect a company stakeholder.
• On a case-by-case basis, contemplate offering dependants of employees affected by alien expulsion,or pending expulsion, some degree of financial orother support.

36

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 14 Right to a fair trial

Article 14:
Right to a fair trial

The Right
The right to a fair trial and equality before the courts isrequired in both criminal and civil proceedings to ensure
the proper administration of justice. The rights include
the entitlement to a public hearing before an impartial
court or tribunal. Criminal proceedings demand extra
guarantees for the accused such as the presumption of
innocence, the right to examine witnesses on an equalbasis with the prosecution, the right to an interpreter if
the defendant does not understand the language usedin the court, and the right to a review of conviction andsentence by a higher tribunal according to law.

It is rare that the activities of a company would haveany direct impact upon this right. Companies could
negatively impact on this right if they attempt to corrupt
the judicial process, for example, by bribing judges or
jurors, or destroying relevant evidence. Companies may
facilitate the right by helping to provide legal representation to employees who cannot otherwise afford it.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

37

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 14

Case studies
Tobacco sector, Fair trial issues
Australia
The case of McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd (BAT) illustrates how a company
may find itself embroiled in matters concerning theright to a fair trial.
In a compensation case brought by a smoker against
the tobacco company, the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, struck out the company’s defence on
the grounds that BAT had hampered her case. The
trial judge found that, prior to the filing of the case,the company, allegedly acting on legal advice, hadsystematically destroyed thousands of documents,
including documents and computer disks containing evidence about the chemical effects of nicotine,
the health effects of smoking, marketing and otheraspects of the tobacco industry. The trial judge foundthat the destruction of these documents hampered
McCabe’s ability to establish her case, and thus “denied her a fair trial”.61
In December 2002, the Victoria Court of Appeal overturned the Supreme Court decision, ruling that there
is no absolute obligation to save documents thatmight one day be relevant in litigation. The Victoria
Court of Appeal did, however, warn that companies
should not destroy documents that could be relevant
to reasonably anticipated litigation with a view toperverting the course of justice.62 The Court also
highlighted some US cases where companies were
punished by courts for destroying evidence that was
likely to be relevant in future litigation.
McCabe’s family63 was reported to be seeking access to documents that allegedly detailed how otherdocuments were deliberately destroyed or hidden to
thwart McCabe’s original case. In December 2007,a Victorian court ruled that the McCabe family could
have access to certain internal BAT documents,
though BAT may appeal that ruling. Legal proceedings continue regarding access to documents createdby BAT’s former legal advisers. It is possible that thefamily will be able to reopen the original compensation case if they ultimately win their legal battle togain access to the documents.
62 McCabe did not specifically claim that BAT had sought to pervert
the course of justice, so no finding on that matter was made in the case.
63 Rolah McCabe, the original plaintiff, died in October 2002.

61 See McCabe v British American Tobacco [2002] VSC 73, paragraph 372.

Web-based sources:
http://www.austlii.edu.au
http://www.bat.com/
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/mccabe-rollercoaster-hits-high-as-saga-rolls-on/2007/12/15/1197568332300.html
http://www.vctc.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=Litigation_industry_Aus
http://www.tobacco.org/articles/lawsuit/mccabe/
http://www.tobacco.org/news/244222.html

Suggested practical actions
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:

Specific actions:• Ensure that company policies and procedures
prohibit actions to pervert the course of justice,such as by bribing or otherwise attempting to influence members of the judiciary, or by withholding or destroying evidence that might be criticalto a fair trial.

• On a case-by-case basis, consider a public
or private approach to the relevant authorities
where the company has concerns about accessto a fair trial, particularly where a company employee or other stakeholder is affected.
• On a case-by-case basis, offer legal or financial
support to any employee or stakeholder whoseright to a fair trial appears to be in jeopardy.

38

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 15 Right to be free from retroactive criminal law

Article 15:
Right to be freefrom retroactive criminal law
The Right
The right to freedom from retroactive criminal law
prohibits the State from imposing criminal penalties foran act done that was not illegal at the time it was committed. It also prevents States from imposing heavier
penalties for crimes than those that were prescribed at
the time the crime was committed. Furthermore, criminal laws must be reasonably clear and precise, so thatpeople are capable of knowing whether their conduct iscriminal under the law or not.

It is unlikely that the activities of a company would haveany direct impact upon this right, unless they somehow
lobby for or otherwise directly benefit from or facilitate
the enactment of such laws.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

39

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 15

Suggested practical actions
Specific actions:• On a case-by-case basis, contemplate a public or
private approach to the relevant authorities to protest
any violations of the right by the State, particularly incases that affect a company stakeholder.
• On a case-by-case basis, commit to support,
financially or legally, employees, direct dependants
or other stakeholders, whose right to freedom fromretroactive criminal law the company deems to havebeen breached by the State.

40

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 16 Right to recognition as a person before the law

Article 16:
Right to recognition
as a person before the law
The Right
Article 16 guarantees that an individual be endowedwith the capacity to be a person before the law. Thatis, a human being must be recognised as a person with‘legal personality’. Denial of a person’s independent
legal recognition is often a precursor to the denial ofother fundamental human rights such as the rights toliberty and to life. Examples of breaches of this Article
are laws that treat married women as the property of
their husbands, children as the property of their parents,or the property of a married woman as the property ofher husband.

It is unlikely that the activities of a company would haveany direct impact upon this right, though they may becomplicit in the abuses of this right by others.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

41

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 16

Case studies
Banking sector, Holocaust looted-assets issues
Switzerland
This case highlights the risks for companies of being
held complicit in third-party human rights abuses
even many years after those abuses occurred.
In Hitler’s Germany, Nazi laws were in place that denied
legal status to Jews and Jewish people’s property wasremoved without any compensation to or recognition of
the rights of the former owner. Decades after the eventsof the Holocaust, a class action suit was brought in the
US against a number of Swiss banks, including UBS andCredit Suisse, to recover certain assets. Most related todormant accounts held by Holocaust victims, but someclaims related to assets looted from Holocaust victimsby the Nazis and subsequently deposited in accounts
held with the banks. It was alleged that the banks knowingly accepted these looted assets and therefore werecomplicit in the denial of the recognition of Jews as legal
persons with legal rights over the looted property.64
An audit of 63 Swiss banks by the Independent
Committee of Eminent Persons (ICEP)65 found “noorganised discrimination against the accounts ofvictims of Nazi persecution, or concerted efforts todivert the funds of victims of Nazi persecution to improper purposes”. The Committee did, however, find“evidence of questionable and deceitful actions bysome individual banks in the handling of accounts ofvictims”. Regarding looted assets, some “potentiallylooted assets were identified”, but it was generally
very difficult for the ICEP to identify such assets.
64 Note that the ICCPR postdates the Holocaust.
65 ICEP (also known as the Volcker Committee) was established in
1996 by agreement between the World Jewish Restitution Organization,
the World Jewish Congress and the Swiss Bankers Association, andwas charged with the responsibility of finding bank accounts in Switzerland belonging to non-Swiss nationals, which had remained dormant
since World War II.

Web-based sources:
http://www.swissbankclaims.com
http://www.credit-suisse.com/responsibility/en/index.html
http://www.ubs.com/1/e/investors/history/1990_2000/2000.html

In 1998, the Swiss banks agreed to pay USD 1.25 billion
in settlement of all claims of Holocaust victims and theirheirs against the Swiss banks and the Swiss government. In 2000 a New York court approved this settlement. The banks did not admit liability.
The majority of the payments were to be allocated withregard to bank accounts originally held by Holocaust
victims. Of the five other groups of potential claimants,
a smaller amount was allocated to the looted assets
group. “Because all survivors had assets taken by the
Nazis, there is no claims process for this group. Instead,needy survivors may be eligible for services such as
food packages, medical assistance and emergency
cash grants to be distributed through Court-approved
humanitarian relief programmes.”66
In a joint press release in July 2000, major Swissbanks Credit Suisse and UBS welcomed the settlement and the opportunity to “compensate those who
suffered as a result of the errors and omissions of thepast” and “to mitigate the consequences of one of
the greatest tragedies in our history”.
By 23 January 2007, some USD 205 million had been
allocated to programmes serving needy survivors
who have been identified as part of the “looted assets” class of claimants.67
66 See Special Master’s “Plan of Allocation”, which dictates the
distribution of the USD 1.25 billion.
67 The Settlement Agreement, as amended, also left open thepossibility of specific actions, undertaken outside the settlement’s
framework, to recover looted or stolen artworks.

http://www.crt-ii.org/ICEP/slideshow.pdf
http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/1996/667236.pdf

Suggested practical actions
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring
any country analysis checks for violations of the rightto recognition of persons before the law. The findings
should inform later project decision-making.
• Do not acquire property that has been removed from aperson in violation of the right to recognition before the law.

42

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Do not facilitate the removal of property from a person in violation of this right.
Specific actions:• On a case-by-case basis, speak out publicly or privately
to the relevant authorities where the company has concerns that the State may have breached this right, particularly where it affects company employees or stakeholders.

ICCPR article 17 Right to privacy

Article 17:
Right to privacy

The Right
This right protects people against arbitrary, unreasonable or unlawful interference with their privacy, family,
home or correspondence, as well as attacks on theirhonour and reputation. ‘Arbitrary’, or unreasonable,
restrictions on privacy are prohibited even if authorised
under a State’s domestic laws. Governments have
duties to protect against interferences with privacy byState agents or private bodies such as employers andthe media.
The right to privacy is not absolute. Governments can,for example, authorise restrictions on privacy by measures that are necessary to protect a legitimate public
interest, such as public order (e.g., search warrants tofacilitate the detection of crime and apprehension of
criminal suspects) or national security (e.g., lawful surveillance of terrorist suspects).68
Companies’ activities may impact on the right to privacy, especially in the workplace. Privacy has becomea particularly important issue in this electronic age inwhich large amounts of data are stored and more sophisticated methods of obtaining that data are being
devised. Companies are frequently involved in the largescale gathering of personal data on customers, employ-

ees and other stakeholders; there is a consequent needto ensure the confidentiality of such information.
Companies may impinge on the right to privacy or risk
being complicit in other human rights violations, if, forexample, IT or telecommunications firms were to unlawfully or arbitrarily hand over sensitive customer data to
the State without consent.
The notion of privacy has been interpreted by theEuropean Court of Human Rights to include freedom
from unreasonable interference in the enjoyment of
one’s private space. For example, under this theory, acompany’s emission of gas fumes into a residential area
could harm the privacy rights of residents in that area.69
69 In Lopez-Ostra v Spain [1994] 20 EHRR 227, a case that came
before the European Court of Human Rights, the Court found thatgas fumes from a nearby tannery adversely affected the applicants’private and home lives. It must be noted that the European Court andConvention are institutionally separate from the UN and its human rights
system. It cannot be presumed that interpretations of human rights
within the separate systems will be the same, though the interpretations
are the same on many occasions.

68 The limits that are generally allowed to most civil and political rights
are discussed under ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression), at page 53.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

43

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17Case studies
Internet search engines, Internet user privacy issues
United States
Modern technologies like the internet have given rise
to a communications revolution, but for search engine
providers that handle enormous amounts of private
data, this poses challenges in relation to the right toprivacy.
In 2006, a team working for the search engine company
AOL made available the internet search histories ofover 650,000 of its users as a resource for academic
researchers. Although the AOL team had replaced thenames of its users with random serial numbers, NewYork Times reporters and others were able to connect
back the data to identify a number of the users. According to the New York Times, Forbes and other sources,
the search histories in question included names, social
security numbers, and information on medical conditions. Following these reports, not-for-profit organisation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, asked the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate.
AOL responded at once by removing the data from itssite and issuing an apology. AOL spokesman Andrew

Weinstein explained to Associated Press that “This wasa screw up, and we’re angry and upset about it.” He
added that it “was an innocent enough attempt to reachout to the academic community with new researchtools, but it was obviously not appropriately vetted,
and if it had been, it would have been stopped in an
instant”. Reports suggest that several AOL employees
were dismissed over the incident and that the then chief
technology officer resigned.
To prevent such a situation happening in the future,
the company’s CEO, Jon Miller, is reported to havetold employees of plans to create a task force todevelop new best practices on privacy and to look at
how search and other data should be stored. Other
steps that the company was considering included
tightening restrictions on access to databases containing search data and other sensitive member data;
looking into ways to ensure that such information
is not included in research databases; and adopting education programmes for employees on how toprotect sensitive information.

Web-based sources:
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6107830.html
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/08/aol-internet-data-cx_po_0808aol.html
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Individualcompanies/A/AOLpartofTimeWarner
http://about.aol.com/aolnetwork/aol_pp
http://www.corp.aol.com

Newspaper and publishing industry, Media intrusion issues
United Kingdom
Publishers and other news media are in a position toaffect the privacy of the subjects of the articles they
print, even where the right to privacy is not clearlyenshrined in domestic law.
An example is a case in which supermodel Naomi Campbell sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN Ltd.)70 over the
publication in its Mirror newspaper in 2001 of photographs
showing her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. In
Campbell v MGN Limited, the court had to weigh her rightto privacy against the right to freedom of expression and the
public’s legitimate interest in the activities of a celebrity who
had arguably courted media publicity.

44

to privacy had been breached.71 The House of Lords
found that while the newspaper was entitled to informthe public of Ms Campbell’s drug problem and the factthat she was seeking treatment, in order to “put therecord straight” in light of relevant denials by Ms Campbell, it was deemed to be too great an intrusion into her
private life to secretly photograph her using a long lensat the place of treatment.
Lord Hope, who voted in the majority in favour of Ms
Campbell, said:

In 2004, the House of Lords (Britain’s highest court)
voted by a three-to-two majority to overturn an earlier
Court of Appeal ruling to find that Ms Campbell’s right

Despite the weight that must be given to the right tofreedom of expression that the press needs if it is toplay its role effectively, I would hold that there washere an infringement of Miss Campbell’s right to privacy that cannot be justified.

70 MGN Ltd. is part of the Trinity Mirror Group, one of the largest
newspaper publishers in the UK.

71 In legal parlance, the newspaper was found to have breached Ms
Campbell’s rights regarding confidential information.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 17 Right to privacy

Web-based sources:
http://www.legalday.co.uk/current/cases/campbellmgn.htm
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1212887,00.html
http://www.trinitymirror.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3689049.stm
http://www.kemplittle.com/html/stay-posted/archive/short-lines/naomi-campbell-0504.html

Providers of clinical and laboratory genetic testing, Privacy of medical records and genetic data issues
Australia
Victorian Clinical Genetics Service (VCGS)72 is theprimary provider of clinical and laboratory genetic
diagnosis and counselling to the people of Victoria
and Tasmania, Australia. The storage and uses madeof health records and the results of genetic tests
raise questions in relation to the right to privacy.
VCGS is funded and contracted by the Victoriangovernment to perform these services on behalf ofVictoria’s Department of Human Services (DHS) as a
not-for-profit company. The privacy of patient records
is protected according to the principles of Victorianand federal privacy legislation. According to thecompany, all staff sign a confidentiality agreement as acondition of employment and annual privacy training isprovided as part of ongoing professional development.
Amongst the laboratory test VCGS provides is the
newborn screening (NBS) programme, started in thelate 1960s. This screening aims to alert a hospital
to a serious heath condition that might be treatable
if detected in time, before the baby gets sick. NBS
cards have been stored indefinitely since the start ofthe programme, which has an uptake of more than98%. The cards are stored in a secure off-site facility. After a minimum period of two years the cards
may be transferred to the parents on request. The
Department of Health Services owns the cards and
VCGS is charged with delivering the programme andis custodian of the NBS cards.
Media sources have alleged that the company
believes that it owns the newborn screening cards
containing the blood samples and thus “ultimately
controls who can get access to the blood, and DNA,of more than 2 million people born in Victoria. Its collection is the largest in Australia and the only one notin government hands.”

This case raises questions about the right to privacyof the people from whom the samples were taken.
There has, for example, been concern that samples ofthis kind could be used in paternity suits or to assess
health insurance risks. Currently the samples can only
be accessed in an identified way with permission, andmay only be accessed for research if approval is gained
from a Research Ethics Committee. The samples areused for forensic identification at the request of theCoroner’s Court or by court order.
Retention of the samples has significant potential
public health benefits, such as retrospective diagnosis
from the stored blood spot, even after the individual
is deceased, to help provide counselling to the family.
Approved research can provide information that is of
public health interest or information that can provide a
better understanding on how diseases develop, identifying potential opportunities for intervention.
The company’s website highlights improvements
it has made to the newborn screening programmethat affect the right to privacy. These include theconclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Victoria police to ensure screening cards canonly be requested with an appropriate court order,
and a safeguard so that “parents can nominate that
there is no secondary access to the card without
their explicit permission”. Mechanisms have also
been put in place to carry out regular audits of thecompany’s practices and to review the protocols foraccessing sensitive data. According to the company,
no information held by Genetic Health is sharedwith insurers. The company states that it follows
comprehensive national guidelines on the collection
and testing of genetic material, and the retention oflaboratory records and diagnostic materials.

72 VCGS trades as Genetic Health Services Victoria and VCGS
Pathology.

Web-based sources:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/04/1088879374782.html
http://www.vcgspathology.com.au
http://www.genetichealthvic.net.au
Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

45

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17

Internet search engine providers, Internet user privacy issues
China
A subsidiary of the internet company Yahoo! Inc., Yahoo! Hong Kong (YHKL),73 and Chinese firm Alibaba74
have faced scrutiny from NGOs, including Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders, for allegedly passing personal data to theChinese authorities that reportedly led to the imprisonment of several political dissidents. Privacy rights issues
are central to the allegations.
In one instance the NGOs claim Yahoo! Hong Kong (YHKL)
provided information that helped convict a journalist called
Shi Tao, who was sentenced in April 2005 to 10 years injail in mainland China for allegedly leaking state secrets.
In March 2006, Hong Kong lawmaker Albert Ho filed acomplaint with Hong Kong’s privacy commissioner in which
he presented a document reported to be a copy of the Chinese court’s criminal verdict for Shi Tao, in which it said that
YHKL had provided the material that confirmed the journalist’s identity. In March 2007 the Hong Kong privacy commissioner announced that there was insufficient evidence
to prove YHKL’s involvement. The commissioner also notedthat the case fell outside of Hong Kong’s jurisdiction. Mr Ho
has disputed the findings.
In 2007 the Shi Tao allegations became part of a lawsuit pursued against Yahoo! Inc. in a US Federal Court
under the US Alien Tort Claims Act. The lawsuit endedin November 2007 when the case was settled out ofcourt. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
Yahoo! had earlier asked for the case to be dismissed,arguing that it had no choice but to comply with alawful Chinese government request for information
connected to an investigation by the authorities, as
not to do so might place Yahoo’s Chinese staff in legal
jeopardy. The company said:
Yahoo! deeply sympathizes with the plaintiffs and theirfamilies and does not condone the suppression of theirrights and liberty by their government. But Yahoo! has nocontrol over the sovereign government of the People’s Re-

public of China (‘PRC’), the laws it passes, and the mannerin which it enforces its laws. Neither Yahoo Inc. or YHKL
therefore, can be held liable for the independent acts of
the PRC just because a former Yahoo subsidiary in Chinaobeyed a lawful government request for the collection ofevidence relevant to a pending investigation.
In a statement welcomed by a number of NGOs,
Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang noted that “Yahoo! isdismayed and distressed by the impact of people
imprisoned in China and around the world,” and is“fully committed to protecting human rights in thebusiness world’s most challenging markets”. Yahoo!
has opposed unsuccessful shareholder proposals
to force the adoption of stronger policies regarding
government requests for user information. Yahoo!
argues that to do so would give the company “insufficient flexibility” to respond to legal requirements andlegitimate government requests.
Since January 2007, Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft
have participated in an initiative with the Center for
Democracy and Technology, Business for Social
Responsibility, and other companies, academics,
investors, technology leaders and rights organisations to produce a set of principles to guide company
behaviour on privacy issues (and related humanrights issues such as freedom of expression).
In February 2008, Jerry Yang wrote to US Secretary ofState, Condoleezza Rice, reportedly urging the US State
Department’s diplomatic assistance in the release of Shi
Tao and other political dissidents. In May 2008, as part of a
new Yahoo! Business and Human Rights Programme that
includes Guiding Principles and Operational Guidelines forthe company, Yahoo! said, “We’re committed to the international foundation of freedom of expression75 and privacy,
and we’ll continue translating those principles into practicalsteps to be followed by our employees.”
75 See also case study on freedom of expression at page 54.

73 The company was formerly know as Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd.
74 Yahoo! Inc. acquired a 40% stake in the Chinese e-commerce
firm Alibaba in August 2005. Alibaba now owns and has day-to-day
operational management over China Yahoo!.

Web-based
Web-based sources:
sources:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b5726d0-3f6a-11da-932f-00000e2511c8.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19yahoo.html?ex=1334635200&en=ab9e05d7726fe430&ei=
5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/14/asia/AS-GEN-Hong-Kong-Yahoo-Jailed-Reporter.php
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/yahoo-to-court-dismiss-torture-case/
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IB13Cb01.html
http://www.cdt.org/press/20070118press-humanrights.php
http://ycorpblog.com/2008/05/07/business-and-human-rights/#comments

46

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 17 Right to privacy

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to privacy. Apply the policy
globally.

• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuringthat it identifies any situations where governments havea record of violating the right to privacy. The findings
should inform later project decision-making.

• Assess the continuing appropriateness of existing policies regarding the monitoring of employees, such as surveillance of emails at work, in light of the right to privacy,
and revise policies as appropriate.
• For genetic testing and related companies, make aclear policy commitment not to take, test or store any
genetic material without the informed consent of theindividuals concerned.
• For media companies, adopt and apply a strict codeof practice on issues of privacy, stipulating wherea line must be drawn between the rights of a freepress to report in the national interest and the risks of
invading privacy.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany’s privacy policy and urge them to develop
a similar standard of their own. Where the company
is not able to exert that level of control, make it clear
to business partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, sub-contractors, suppliers,
franchisees and agents, the importance the company
places on respecting the right to privacy, and encourage them to develop a similar standard and takeresponsible action.

• Disclose the details of the company’s privacy policy,
in particular by alerting employees, consumers andother stakeholders in advance of any likely recording,storage, transfer or resale of correspondence (e.g.
electronic communication and telephone conversations) or other private personal data or genetic
material.
• Take steps to avoid the arbitrary disclosure of personal information held by the company to third parties without the consent of the individual(s) affected.
• Consult with human rights experts and key stakeholders on acceptable solutions to situations where thecompany is at risk of violating its stakeholders’ right toprivacy, including in circumstances where the company
is required to comply with lawful government requests
to hand over data to aid criminal investigations.
• In contexts where local authorities are known to improperly limit freedom of expression and to prosecutedissidents, develop management criteria for deciding
the precise circumstances under which the company
may be prepared to comply with government requests
for the transfer of private data.76
76 See also Human Rights Watch, Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship (2006) and Amnesty International
UK, Undermining Freedom of Expression in China (2006). See also
ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression).

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

47

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17• Put in place clear policies and procedures for thereceipt, processing and retention of personal data,
including material involved in genetic tests, with due
regard to the right to privacy.
• For information technology, electronics and otherhigh-tech businesses, conduct an assessment of therisks that may arise from selling high-tech surveillance/screening technologies to governments known to havea record of violating people’s right to privacy and weighup any long-term benefits that may derive from prohibiting the sale to such governments.

Specific actions:• In countries where the State may be in violation of theright to privacy, consider registering a public or private
protest with the relevant authorities, particularly where
the invasion of privacy affects a company stakeholder
or involves the improper use of a company product orservice, such as surveillance technology.
• Do not inquire about a person’s private life when considering job applications (e.g. inquiries about the sexual
orientation of the candidate).
• Do not request pregnancy tests when considering job
applications.

48

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 18
Rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 18:
Rights to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion
The Right
The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
encompasses a person’s freedom to choose, practise andobserve his or her chosen religion or belief. The freedomalso protects atheists and the right not to profess any religion or belief. Article 18 prohibits coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including
the use of threats of physical force, or penal or civil sanctions to compel adherence to or recanting from particularbeliefs. The right to manifest a religion or belief includes
the right to worship, as well as to teach and observe rituals
such as the wearing of particular clothes or headwear. The
right to manifest religious or other beliefs may be limitedby law where it is necessary to protect public safety, order,
health, morals, or the rights of other people.77 Impositionof such restrictions might occur if, for example, a religion
advocated the use of dangerous drugs and was therefore
considered to be a threat to public order and public health.
Breaches of this right often occur in the context of
discrimination on religious grounds. However, the right77 Similar restrictions are discussed with regard to ICCPR Article 19(freedom of opinion and expression).

can be breached in the absence of discrimination, suchas in the hypothetical situation of a secular State thatsuppresses all manifestations of any religion.
Companies’ activities are most likely to impact on thisright with regard to their workforces. For example, companies may need to accommodate the religious practices of workers who are required to pray during work
hours or who request time off in order to observe certain
holy days. Issues may arise regarding religious clothing,headwear or jewellery that affects commercial activities.
Companies need to balance the freedom to manifest
one’s religion with competing legitimate interests suchas health and safety, the rights of other workers, andthe legitimate needs of the business. Companies may
also encounter these issues if they operate in contexts
where the rights to freedom of thought, conscience andreligion are commonly violated and employees or otherstakeholders are among the victimised. Companies canfacilitate enjoyment of the right by promoting a cultureof religious tolerance and understanding within theirworkplaces.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

49

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 18

Case studies
Internet and network service providers, Freedom of worship issues
Australia
An Islamic employee of Australian IT company, TPG,
who wished to practise his religion during work
hours, alleged that his right to freedom of worship
was infringed when the company disciplined him fortaking time out of his working day to pray.

a vote by TPG staff to change the lunch time tofacilitate his Friday prayers, the company respondedby agreeing that the worker would be allowed to takefive minutes for an afternoon prayer break, and that
the Friday lunch break time would be changed toaccommodate his midday prayer.

After a campaign backed by the union movement
and Australia’s major religious denominations, andWeb-based sources:
http://www.actu.asn.au/Archive/MediaandCommunication/ACTUNews/MuslimWorkerWinsRightToPray.aspx
http://www.tpg.com.au

Information technology industry, Religious expression issues
United States
This case, involving the computer manufacturer
HP, typifies the occasional conflict that can exist
between manifestations of religious practice and theconsideration companies need to give to the rights
of other stakeholders, including fellow employees.
A fundamentalist Christian, Richard Peterson, whoworked for HP, actively opposed the company’s efforts to promote diversity and tolerance towards homosexuals in the workplace because of his religious
view that homosexuality was sinful. As part of efforts
to promote workplace diversity, HP displayed “diversity posters” in its Boise, Idaho, office that were specifically designed to combat the negative stereotyping of certain groups, including gays and lesbians.
In response, Peterson posted quotes from biblicalscriptures (critical of homosexuality) in the office forother workers to see. The company management requested that he remove the quotes as they breached
the company’s anti-harassment policy.

passages were “intended to be hurtful” in order toencourage homosexual co-workers to “repent andbe saved”, adding that “as long as [HP] is condoning[homosexuality] I’m going to oppose it”. EventuallyPeterson was dismissed after he refused to stop
posting the scriptural passages.
Peterson sued HP, claiming that he had been discriminated against when his employment was terminated,
and that the company had failed to accommodate his
religious beliefs. It was not in dispute that Peterson’s
job performance had been satisfactory.
The court found that the company was not required
to accommodate Peterson’s religious beliefs in thiscase, as to do so would result in discrimination
against, and harassment of, his co-workers. The
court observed that “HP managers acknowledged
the sincerity of his beliefs” and accommodated otherexpressions of his religious views where they did not
violate the company’s harassment policy.

During negotiations aimed at resolving the situation,Peterson reportedly informed management that theWeb-based sources:
http://www.hp.com/go/report
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C1027D97C4AA46F388256E1200823D1F/$file/0135795.
   pdf?openelement50

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 18

In September 2006, British Airways (BA) faced allegations of infringing religious freedom when a check-in
worker, Nadia Eweida, said she had been suspended79
for contravening the company’s dress code by wearing a visible Christian cross on a necklace. Although
BA permitted Muslim and Sikh employees to wear
visible religious symbols such as headscarves andSikh bangles while in uniform, it was alleged that thecompany would not make an exception to the generalcompany policy of banning all visible jewellery for uniformed employees to allow for the wearing of a crucifix. Ms Eweida pursued her case through an industrial
tribunal where it was eventually dismissed.
Ms Eweida, who had worked for BA for seven years
prior to the incident, began legal proceedings against
the company after she was suspended for failing tocomply with a management request to remove her
crucifix or conceal it. The case received considerable
media attention. Pressure on the company culminatedin a threat by the Church of England to sell its GBP
6.6 million worth of BA shares. A letter sent to the Daily Mail newspaper from the British Airways Christian
Fellowship on 25 October 2006, however, suggested
that the case was less clear-cut. “As Christians who
work for BA … we would like to express our appreciation of the equality of treatment we experience in BA
and feel the recent press coverage to have been unfair
and imbalanced.”
78 The Tribunal’s decision in this case was about discrimination on
the basis of religion, rather than freedom of religion itself.
79 British Airways maintained she had not been suspended but took
“voluntary unpaid leave”.

Rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Airline industry, Religious expression issues78
UK
British Airways retracted its ban on wearing crosses
and reinstated Ms Eweida. From February 2007, all ofBA’s 34,000 uniformed employees became entitled to
openly wear a symbol of faith, including on a chain.
According to BA chief executive, Willie Walsh, thepolicy change followed extensive consultation withthe company’s own staff and religious leaders. British
Airways’ diversity strategy states that its “Uniform
Committee has adapted the new uniform to ensurethat it upholds the corporate image whilst allowing
flexibility to meet key religious needs”. According to
the company, BA also reflects the range of religions
followed by its employees by providing prayer facilities, catering to specific religious dietary needs, andby publishing an awareness-raising monthly religious
festivals newsletter.
In January 2008 an industrial tribunal ruled that Ms
Eweida had not been discriminated against on thebasis of her religion. The tribunal chairman stated thatthe “complaint of direct discrimination fails because
we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than acomparator in identical circumstances”. The tribunal
found that the original uniform policy, which applied tovisible jewellery, was reasonable. The exemption forpeople wearing mandatory religious items that could
not be concealed, such as Muslim headscarves, wasalso found to be reasonable. Eweida’s crucifix did
not fall into the exempted category; its prohibition
had not posed a barrier for Christians to work at BA.
Responding to the ruling, BA said it was pleased withthe tribunal’s decision.

Web-based sources:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112701.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224378,00.html
http://www.britishairways.com/travel/crdivstrategy/public/en_gb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/09/religion.world
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/terry_sanderson/2008/01/a_cross_to_bear.html.printer.friendly
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/05/15/44221/dress-code-eweida-v-british-airways-plc-tribunal.html

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

51

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 18

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Specific actions:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the need to respect and accommodate
religious diversity. Apply the policy globally.

• Companies can facilitate enjoyment of the right bypromoting a culture of religious tolerance and understanding within their workplaces.

• Prohibit discrimination on the grounds of thought,
conscience or religion.

• On a case-by-case basis, or as part of a wider human rights policy, speak out publicly or in private to
the relevant authorities where governments may be
guilty of restricting the rights to worship and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, particularly
where it affects company employees or stakeholders.

• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees,
suppliers, agents and security providers, the importance the company places on respecting religious
freedoms and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Put in place clear and reasonable policies and practices on the wearing of religious symbols or dress,
having regard to health and safety requirements andthe potential impact on co-workers.
• Make efforts to accommodate reasonable prayer
requirements.
• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that any country analysis identifies routine violations of religious freedom that could have an impact
in the workplace or on employees, or other stakeholders in the community. The findings should inform
later project decision-making.
• Consult with employees and immediate stakeholders
to determine any areas where the company could improve its practices with regard to issues of freedomof thought and religion.

52

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• In contexts where one religious group is routinely
discriminated against, for example in the labour market, explore the possibility of recruiting from thosedisadvantaged groups or working in partnership withcivil-society organisations to support projects thatbridge community differences.

ICCPR article 19 Rights to freedom of opinion and expression

Article 19:
Rights to freedom of opinionand expression
The Right
Article 19 protects the right of each person to hold opinions free from outside interference. This right cannot be
restricted in any circumstances. Article 19 also protects
the right to freedom of expression, which is the rightto seek, receive and impart ideas in whatever media orform. This right can be restricted by measures provided
by law and necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, or to protect national security, publicorder, public health or morals.
‘Public order’ refers to the rules of a country that ensure
the peaceful and effective functioning of society. An
example of the protection of public order is a prohibition
on speeches that are likely to provoke riots. ‘National
security’ refers to a situation where the political independence of a country or the country’s territory isthreatened. For example, it will normally be permissible
for a State to render it illegal for its active intelligenceagents to be identified. An example of the protection of‘public health’ is a ban or restriction of the advertising of
tobacco products. An example of protection of ‘public
morals’ is the television watershed imposed in certain
countries that prevents sexually explicit programmes
from being aired until late in the evening. Undue exercise of free expression can also occasionally prejudice
the rights of others, such as a person’s right to privacy(e.g. in the case of the revelation of personal

confidential information) or, in the case of contempt of
court, another’s right to a fair trial.80
This right has particular significance for the media
industry, including filmmakers and distributors, publishers, the television and music industries, and internetcompanies. Companies can help promote the right bylobbying against censorship. On the other hand, excessive concentration of the mass media in a small numberof hands may negatively affect people’s enjoyment of
the right to freedom of expression and information.
Issues regarding freedom of expression also arise when
governments put pressure on media or technology companies to censor their output or limit customers’ accessto information.
Other industries may also face these issues if they
operate in countries that routinely violate the right tofreedom of expression and information, such as wherean employee or stakeholder is unfairly persecuted forexercising his or her right to freedom of opinion or
expression.
80 See Sarah Joseph, Jenny Schultz and Melissa Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials andCommentary (OUP, 2004, 2nd ed), pages 524–44.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 20 (Rights to freedom from war propaganda, and freedom from incitement to racial, religious or
national hatred), page 57
ICCPR Article 21 (Right to freedom of assembly), page 61
ICCPR Article 22 (Right to freedom of association), page 63
ICCPR Article 25 (Right to participate in public life), page 73

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

53

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 19Case studies
Internet search engine providers, Freedom of expression issues
China
In January 2006, internet search engine Google faced
accusations of complicity in alleged infringements of
the right to freedom of expression, when it launcheda Chinese domain version (Google.cn) of its internet
search engine. Google launched the new domain
after access from users inside China to Google.com,
in both English and Chinese, was restricted.
Google.cn filters search results to comply with
Chinese law and cannot be used to access information about certain subjects, such as ‘Falun Gong’,‘Tiananmen Square protests (1989)’, and ‘Tibet
independence’, although it informs the user wheneversearch results are blocked. Human Rights Watch
reports that: “Google.cn displays a message at thebottom of the screen which says: ‘These search
results are not complete, in accordance with Chinese
laws and regulations.’”81 Other search engines, suchas those provided by China Yahoo!,82 Microsoft, andChinese company Baidu, also filter search results tocomply with government demands. MSN’s search
removes content access only in the country issuing the order and notifies users “where access has
been limited due to a government restriction”. At thebottom of every China Yahoo! search-results page,a message also appears saying that: “In accordancewith relevant laws and regulations, a portion of search
results may not appear.”
Representatives of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! andCisco Systems were asked to appear before a Congressional hearing in February 2006 to give evidence
on the issue of censorship in China. Since the hearings, Google co-founder Sergey Brin suggested that if
81 Details of company policies on filtering and disclosure are elaborated in the Human Rights Watch publication Race to the Bottom(2006), Chapter IV, “How multinational internet companies assist
government censorship in China”.
82 Yahoo! Inc. has a 40% stake in the Chinese e-commerce firm
Alibaba, which in turn owns and manages the day-to-day operations ofChina Yahoo!.

the company was unable to strike a balance between
its objective of providing the Chinese people with unprecedented levels of information and accommodating the demands of the Chinese government, it would
consider withdrawing the Google.cn version.
According to the Associated Press, Google began
to lobby Congress and the US Trade Representative(USTR) during 2007 to treat internet restrictions asinternational trade barriers, which are illegal underinternational trade laws. In testimony to Congress,83
Google’s representative said that:
The United States government has a role to play incontributing to the global expansion of free expression. For example, the U.S. Departments of State andCommerce and the office of the U.S. Trade Representatives should continue to make censorship a central
element of our bilateral and multilateral agendas …
the U.S. should treat censorship as a barrier to trade,and raise that issue in appropriate fora.
Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s director of public policy
and government affairs, said, “it’s fair to say that censorship is the No. 1 barrier to trade that we face.”
Since January 2007, Google, Microsoft Corp., andYahoo! Inc., as well as a number of telecommunications companies, have participated in an initiativewith the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT),
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), humanrights experts, academics, investors and others in aneffort to produce guiding principles on protecting free
expression and privacy84 in contexts where theserights are not well safeguarded, and to create a forum
for collective action and shared learning.
83 The US House of Representatives Committee, Joint Hearing:“The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?” 15
February 2006.
84 See also case study on ICCPR Article 17 (the right to privacy) atpage 46.

Web-based sources:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16262
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1710616,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500364_pf.html
http://www.cdt.org/press/20070118press-humanrights.php
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/5.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/02/business/cybercrime.php
http://www.coe.int/t/dc/files/themes/cybercrime/default_EN.asp
http://www.google.com/corporate
http://yahoo.client.shareholder.com/press/human-rights-free-expression.cfm
http://www.microsoft.com
http://www.ciscosystems.com

54

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 19

Major global retailer, Wal-Mart, is one of the world’s
largest vendors of compact discs (CDs). The company prides itself on being a ‘family’ store and has apolicy of not stocking merchandise that it believes its
customers may find objectionable. Wal-Mart has reservations about any ratings body that might “interfere
unduly with consumer choice and discretion in thepurchase of constitutionally protected free speech”.
However, owing to the company’s substantial market
share, its exclusion policy has the potential to impact
on freedom of expression.

tal guidance sticker’ policy, many big-name artists
often issue two versions of the same album, producing a sanitised version of their products for Wal-Martand other mega-stores. Many record labels now
reportedly consider this practice “another stage ofediting”. The band Nirvana, for example, is said tohave changed the lyrics of one song from ‘Rape
Me’ to ‘Waif Me’ for the CD sold in Wal-Mart. Somemagazines are also reported to “send advance copies
to large retailers like Wal-Mart for their approval” and“alter cover artwork to avoid losing sales”.

To determine what movies and computer games tosell, Wal-Mart typically uses entertainment industry
rating systems, with individual store buyers employing
their discretion on which R-rated movies or M-rated
titles to stock based on knowledge of their customers’
tastes. In the case of music, where there is no ratingssystem to follow, the company reportedly declines tosell CDs with cover art or lyrics deemed overtly sexualor that deal with the issues of abortion, homosexuality
and Satanism. The company also has a policy of notstocking CDs that carry parental guidance stickers, on
the basis that this “helps eliminate the most objectionable material from Wal-Mart’s shelves”.

Wal-Mart representatives have insisted that the company “does not restrict the sale of any music products”.
Wal-Mart’s policies do, however, have the potential toaffect the types of CDs that record labels are prepared torelease. The potential implications on freedom of expression are more pronounced for lesser-known bands who,
due to financial constraints, may feel obliged to offer‘sanitised’ albums from the outset.

PBS television in the United States asserts that in2003 Wal-Mart sold 20% of the US’s music products.
In the context of such a substantial market share,
PBS’s Online Newshour claims that to safeguard theirmusic sales and accommodate Wal-Mart’s ‘no paren-

Rights to freedom of opinion and expression

Retail sector, Freedom of expression issues
United States

Doug McMillon of Wal-Mart said that the company“attempts to sell entertainment products in a way thatallows our customers to make informed decisions,and to exclude from our shelves merchandise that ourcustomers find objectionable due to its sexually
explicit or extremely violent nature”. A Wal-Mart
spokesperson has also pointed out that “the ‘store of
the community’ is a policy we have, and we feel ourcustomers are comfortable with it”.

Web-based sources:
http://www.walmartstores.com
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/wal-mart/impact.html
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/072501_mcmillon.htm

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

55

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 19

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring it takes
account of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Apply the policy globally.
• Establish a framework of policies and procedures
within which decisions not to release a film, publication or music recording on political or moral grounds
can be reached and explained. When reaching suchdecisions, companies may wish to consult the viewsof a range of stakeholders, to avoid responding only
to those that lobby most vocally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to the company
policy and urge them to develop a similar standardof their own. Where the company is not able to exertthat level of control, make it clear to business partners,
including governments, State-owned joint ventures,
suppliers, franchisees and agents, the importance thecompany places on expression and opinion rights, andencourage them to develop a similar standard and takeresponsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:

56

authorities.85 In any event, companies should strive
to be as transparent as possible about any acts ofself-censorship.
• Consider and weigh up issues regarding freedomof expression before withdrawing sponsorship oradvertising from, or curtailing the sale of, products,
programming or services due to their ‘controversial’
nature – for example, material that may be regarded
by some as blasphemous, sexually unacceptable orpolitically contentious.
Specific actions:• Bear in mind the right to freedom of expression
before engaging in litigation against people who havespoken out or demonstrated against a company’s
activities, including employees. Such litigation may
raise free speech issues if there is an extreme imbalance in the parties’ capacities to fund litigation.
• Do not retaliate against employees who exercise theirfreedom of expression.

• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that any country analysis alerts the company toroutine violations of the freedom of expression. The
findings should inform later project decision-making.

• On a case-by-case basis, or as part of a wider human rights policy, speak out publicly or in private to
the relevant authorities against government bodies
that restrict the rights to freedom of information andexpression, particularly where it affects company
employees or other stakeholders.

• For internet service providers and other media
outlets, consider the right to freedom of expression
before censoring or self-censoring the information provided via company channels or networks,
particularly when facing demands to do so by local

85 See also Human Rights Watch, Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship (2006), and Amnesty International
UK, Undermining Freedom of Expression in China (2006). See also
Article 17 ICCPR (right to privacy), at page 43. See also the recommendations of the NGO, Reporters without Borders at http://www.rsf.org/
article.php3?id_article=16110.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 20 Rights to freedom from war propaganda, and freedom from incitement to racial, religious or national hatred

Article 20:
Rights to freedom from war propaganda, and freedom from incitement
to racial, religious or national hatred
The Right
This Article requires the prohibition of war propaganda
and the prohibition of any advocacy of national,
racial or religious hatred that amounts to incitement
to discrimination, hostility or violence. In that sense
the Article carves out an area of speech that is notprotected by the right to freedom of expression in
Article 19. The prohibition on war propaganda extends
to all forms of propaganda threatening or resulting inan act of aggression or breach of the peace that isillegal under the Charter of the United Nations. It is notprohibited to advocate for a war in self-defence, or forthe exercise of a people’s right of self-determination.

The second part of the Article is directed against‘hate speech’, which is speech that vilifies people andincites hatred against them on the basis of their race,
religion or nationality. This aspect of the right is ofparticular significance to media companies and also
telecommunications companies that host chat-lines,
websites, or other means of public communication
through which hate speech might be aired. Companies
that support or participate in campaigns to tackle
racism and promote diversity help to facilitate
enjoyment of this right.

Related right:
ICCPR Article 19 (Rights to freedom of opinion andexpression), page 53

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

57

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 20

Case studies
Internet search engine providers, Third-party race-hate issues
FranceThis case highlights the complex dilemmas thatcompanies may encounter when needing to balancecompliance with the anti-race-hate laws in one country’s jurisdiction with freedom of expression expectations elsewhere.
French law strictly prohibits the sale or display of objects that incite racial hatred, including items of Nazi
memorabilia. In the case of LICRA and UEJF86 v Yahoo!, a French High Court found in 2000 that Yahoo!
had violated France’s Code Penal by allowing Frenchinternet users to buy Nazi memorabilia offered on
its US-based auction site. Nazi-related items are
not available on Yahoo!’s French site (yahoo.fr), but
French users were able to access such items via thecompany’s US-based site (yahoo.com). The court
ordered that Yahoo! Inc. prevent French users fromaccessing internet sites auctioning race-hate memorabilia, or face heavy fines. The French judge heard
evidence from court experts who concluded that system checks could block up to 90% of French users
from buying Nazi memorabilia, but concurred with

Yahoo!’s own assessment that it would be technically
impossible to block every French user from accessing every racist site.
Yahoo! sought a judgement from a federal court in
the United States that the French order was invalid
against its US arm under the provisions of the US
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Yahoo! Inc. eventually lost its case in the Californianfederal appeals court in January 2006.
In 2001, prior to the US court proceedings, Yahoo!
Inc. amended its user policies to no longer “allow
items that are associated with groups which promote
or glorify hatred and violence, to be listed on any ofYahoo’s commerce properties”. In a public statement, Nazi and Ku Klux Klan items were singled out.
Yahoo! said trained representatives would monitor
the site regularly and that it would use software to
identify potentially objectionable items. The company
cited ethical rather than legal reasons for the change.
Internet auction company eBay has also instituted a
global ban on the sale of hate-related items.

86 The suit was filed by two French groups, the League Against
Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) and the Union of Jewish Students(UEJF), against Yahoo! Inc. and Société Yahoo! France.

Web-based sources:
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,124367,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1032605.stm
http://www.news.com/2100-1017-250452.html
http://www.out-law.com/page-6536
http://www.digitalworldtokyo.com/index.php/digital_tokyo/articles/supreme_court_passes_on_yahoo_nazi_case/58

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 20 Rights to freedom from war propaganda, and freedom from incitement to racial, religious or national hatredSports and leisure industry, Anti-racism campaigns
United Kingdom
During the 1970s and 1980s racist chanting andincitements to racial hatred were endemic in English
football and played an important factor in the spreadof football hooliganism. Racism remains a problem
for football across Europe. In England, the Professional Footballers Association (PFA), the FA Premier
League, the Football Foundation and The Football
Association (FA) have been instrumental in campaigning for the elimination of incitement of racial hatred
and the fostering of racial equality both on and off thefootball field.
During the 1993–4 football season, the Professional
Footballers Association and Commission of Racial
Equality launched the “Let’s Kick Racism Out ofFootball” campaign. In 1997 this campaign gave riseto Kick It Out, an organisation that “works throughout
the football, educational and community sectors tochallenge racism and work for positive change”. Kick
It Out is supported and funded by the FA, PFA andthe Football Foundation.

Each year Kick It Out holds an annual week of action
with a strong community focus. In launching its 2005
annual week of action the FA stressed that it was“very committed to tackling racism in all its forms”.
In 2006 more than 800 events took place, including
anti-racism matches at all 92 professional footballclubs in England and Wales. Kick It Out was also behind the development of the Racial Equality Standard
for professional football clubs, which is designed tocombat race hatred and foster racial equality.
Kick It Out played a decisive role in the Football Against Racism in Europe network and FIFA
anti-racism activities during the 2006 World Cup in
Germany, and has also been cited as an example ofgood practice by, among others, UEFA (European
Football’s governing body), FIFA (the world governing body), the Council of Europe and the European
Commission.

Web-based sources:
http://www.kickitout.org
http://www.sirc.org/publik/fvracism.html

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

59

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 20

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring it encompasses Article 20 freedoms. Apply the policy globally.

• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies any areas where the company
may be at risk of aiding the dissemination of hatematerial (e.g. websites, music recordings, publications, films). The findings should inform later projectdecision-making.

• Make it clear that the company does not tolerate
incitement to racial, religious or national hatred by
its employees and is prepared to take strong and
immediate action against anyone found to haveengaged in such contact at work, whether verballyor by use of company communication systems, suchas intranet and email.

• Take steps to avoid allowing or facilitating the public
release of race-hate material.
Specific actions:• Be prepared to take a public position against hatespeech.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees andagents, the importance the company places onprohibitions against incitement to race hatred andwar propaganda, and encourage them to develop asimilar standard and take responsible action.

60

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Explore innovative ways in which to combat racism
within the workplace and communities, for example
by sponsoring team-building sporting and leisureactivities.
• Through core business activities and skills transfers,
support civil-society organisations in campaigns thattackle racism and religious intolerance.
• Do not produce advertising that could contain messages that violate the right to freedom from incitement to race, religious or national hatred.

ICCPR article 21 Right to freedom of assembly

Article 21:
Right to freedom of assembly

The Right
The right to assemble and gather together peacefully
is protected by Article 21, subject only to those
restrictions that are imposed by law as necessary toprotect the interests of national security, public safety,
public order, public health or morals, or the protectionof the rights and freedoms of others.87 Assembly in thiscontext may refer to a gathering that takes place fora specific purpose, where there is public discussion,or where ideas are proclaimed. Freedom of assembly
encompasses the right to demonstrate in groups,
whether in stationary gatherings or marches.
Governments are in the most obvious position toviolate the freedom of assembly. However, there
have been cases where companies have beenaccused of complicity in government actions to quell
demonstrations against company operations.

87 See ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression) for discussion of similar restrictions.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 19 (Rights to freedom of opinion andexpression), page 53
ICCPR Article 22 (Right to freedom of association), page 63
ICCPR Article 25 (Right to participate in public life), page 73

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

61

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 21

Case studies
Energy sector (oil and gas), Freedom of association issues
Nigeria
The oil-rich Niger Delta in Nigeria has long been thesite of confrontation between the local people andNigerian State security forces used to protect oil
installations. It is within this context that, over theyears, several oil companies have faced allegationsof complicity in alleged abuses of protestors’ rights,
including the right to freedom of assembly.
In May 1998, Chevron allegedly transported members of the State security forces to remove over 100
Ilaje tribesmen who claimed to have been unarmed
peaceful protestors and who had closed down production on Chevron’s Parabe platform. During altercations that followed, State security forces reportedly
killed two unarmed youths.

These events prompted legal proceedings in the
United States in Bowoto v Chevron-Texaco, in which
the company was accused of complicity in violationsof the right to freedom of assembly, among other human rights abuses. The case is pending.
Chevron denies the charges saying that the invaders
had threatened sea piracy and violence if Chevron’s
subsidiary did not give them jobs and money, andthat they then stormed the platform, held workers
hostage for three days, and demanded money for
their release.

Web-based sources:
http://www.chevron.com/social_responsibility/
http://www.ccrjustice.org/corporate-human-rights-abuse
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/07/BUGIHQAH2O1.DTL&type=business

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to freedom of assembly. Apply
the policy globally.
• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agents and security providers, the importance the company places on the right to freedom ofassembly, and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that any country analysis identifies routine
violations of the right to freedom of assembly.
The findings should inform later project decisionmaking.

62

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• In contexts where violations of the freedom of assembly are known to occur, take steps to ensurethat company personnel and any security forces
sub-contracted by the company are given humanrights training and are not complicit in any violations of the rights of demonstrators to assemble
freely. Be guided by Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
Specific actions:• Investigate any alleged curtailment of the right tofree assembly caused by company staff, its subcontractors, or authorised by company personnel.
• Be prepared to speak out publicly or in private
against any violations of freedom of assembly bygovernment forces or officials, particularly wherean employee or stakeholder is unfairly treated.

ICCPR article 22 Right to freedom of association

Article 22:
Right to freedom of association

The Right
Article 22 protects the right to form or join all types ofassociation such as political parties, religious societies,
sporting and other recreational clubs, non-governmentalorganisations and trade unions. This right shall not be
restricted, except by lawful regulation necessary toprotect the interests of national security, public safety,
public order, public health or morals, or the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others.88
Companies’ activities are most likely to impact on theright insofar as it relates to trade unions and other
employee representative bodies. Article 8 of theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights (ICESCR) focuses on trade unions alone.
Companies respect the right when they respect the rightof workers to form trade unions or, when operating incountries where trade union activity is unlawful, theyrecognise legitimate employee associations with whom
the company can enter into dialogue about workplaceissues. Companies should also ensure that their activities do not undermine other legitimate organisations,such as political parties. Companies may also promote
enjoyment of the right by speaking out in appropriate
circumstances, publicly or privately, about laws thatcurtail the right.

88 The meaning of these limitations is discussed in relation to ICCPR
Article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression), see page 53.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 19 (Rights to freedom of opinion and expression), page 53
ICCPR Article 21 (Right to freedom of assembly), page 61
ICCPR Article 25 (Right to participate in public life), page 73
ICESCR Article 8 (Right to form trade unions and join the
trade union, and the right to strike), page 101

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

63

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 22

Case studies
Energy sector (oil and gas), Freedom of political association issues
Nigeria
Royal Dutch Shell has faced accusations of complicity in serious human rights abuses, including breachesof an activist group’s freedom of association, while
conducting its operations in Ogoniland in Nigeria.

Saro-Wiwa, on falsified charges.90 The claimants also
allege violations of “the right to peaceful assembly
and association”. Shell denies the allegations. The
case is pending.

Many Ogoni people have long opposed oil operations (including those of Shell) in Ogoniland owing to
the environmental impacts and the lack of community benefit from the region’s oil revenues. In 1990, agroup called MOSOP (Movement for the Survival of
the Ogoni People) was formed to campaign for greater development, human rights and environmental
protection for the Ogoni people. From 1990, MOSOP
co-ordinated protests against the oil operations of the
Shell-operated SPDC,89 and by 1993 its membership
had reportedly grown to over a quarter of a million.
Faced with growing hostility, Shell withdrew from
Ogoniland in early 1993 (though it continues to operate elsewhere in Nigeria).

Since 1999, there have been attempts at reconciliation. Nigeria’s federal government first initiated aprocess that saw the establishment of a Human
Rights Violations Investigation Commission headedby retired Supreme Court Justice Oputa. In 2005, thiswas superseded by a second initiative, also instigated by the federal government, facilitated by Father
Matthew Kukah, assisted by the International Centre
for Reconciliation of Coventry Cathedral, and withthe support of the Rivers State government, Shell
and MOSOP. There is some dispute over the extent
of actual progress made and the situation remains
delicate. Amnesty International USA noted in May
2005 that “disagreement between different groups
representing the Ogoni community has led to recent
tensions as to how to deal with the reconciliation
process”.91

In Wiwa v Shell, a case brought in the US under the
Alien Tort Claims Act by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s relatives,the company (together with Nigeria’s then military
regime) was accused of participating in a campaign“to discredit MOSOP leaders” and of using “force andintimidation to silence any opposition to their activities in Nigeria”. Shell was also accused of complicity
in the government’s decision to execute MOSOP
leaders, including the writer and co-founder Ken
89 Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. (SPDC) isa Shell-operated joint venture.

As part of ongoing human rights efforts, in 2005 Shellarranged for a Nigerian legal expert on human rights,
Olisa Agbakoba, to run workshops for Shell personnel in Nigeria. The Danish Institute for Human Rights
has since been invited to provide human rights andconflict-resolution training.
90 In 1995 Ken Saro-Wiwa was hanged with eight other Ogoni activists
on the orders of the then Nigerian dictator General Abacha, having been
convicted of murdering four rival chiefs. The legal process was widelycondemned as flawed and the executions generated an international
outcry.
91 Urgent Action Network Office of AIUSA notice concerning Bariara Kpalap of MOSOP, 25 May 2007.

Web-based sources:
http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/wiwa-v.-royal-dutch-petroleum%2C-wiwa-v.-anderson-and-wiwav.-shell-petroleum-d
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=nigeria
http://www.mosop.netwww.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=54763

64

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 22 Right to freedom of association

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Specific actions:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the freedom of association. Apply thepolicy globally.

• Do not retaliate against employees who exercise theirfreedom of association.

• Ensure company procedures, for example regarding
recruitment, do not discriminate against members oforganisations that are protected under Article 22.

• In countries where freedom of association is restricted, be prepared to speak out publicly or in
private against violations by the authorities, particularly where company stakeholders may have been
victimised.

• Require all business partners (e.g. sub-contractors)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees,
agents, suppliers and security providers, the importance the company places on respecting the right tofreedom of association and encourage them to develop a similar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that any country analysis identifies routine
violations of the right to freedom of association. The
findings should inform later project decision-making.
• Ensure workers are made aware of their right to freedom of association and consider setting up a safe
mechanism for the reporting of grievances.
• Do not harass members of any group exercising its
right to freedom of association, whether it takes theform of a trade union, a political grouping, or someother form of association.
• Consider entering into union recognition agreementswith the principal unions representing workers in therespective industry and country context.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

65

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 2266

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 23 Rights of protection of the family and the right to marry

Article 23:
Rights of protection of thefamily and the right to marry
The Right
The right to family life requires protection of the family
by society and the State. The concept of a family varies
throughout the world; each society’s own definition of afamily is generally applied. This includes the rights of men
and women of marriageable age to marry and start a family, and for marriage to be entered into freely and with fullconsent. States must take appropriate steps to ensure thatthe rights and responsibilities of spouses during their marriage and after its dissolution are divided equally.

This Article is relevant to companies insofar as certain
work practices may hinder or enhance the ability ofpeople to adopt a healthy work/life balance and spend
quality time with their families. Relevant case studies inthis respect may be found at page 109 with regard to
the similar right articulated in Article 10 (right to a familylife) of the International Covenant on Economic Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 24 (Rights of protection for the child),
page 69
ICESCR Article 7 (Right to enjoy just and favourable
conditions of work), page 95
ICESCR Article 10 (Right to a family life), page 109

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

67

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 23

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to family life and to marry. Apply
the policy globally.

• Comply with national laws governing parental leave.

• Ensure that company policies and procedures do
not discriminate against women on the grounds ofmarital or reproductive status.
• Require all business partners (e.g. primary suppliers)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees,
agents and suppliers, the importance the company
places on protections of family and marital rights andencourage them to develop a similar standard andtake responsible action.

68

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Do not mandate unreasonable working hours for
employees. Be guided by relevant ILO Conventions
that stipulate that employees should not generally berequired to work more than 48 hours per week, or ten
hours a day, and should have one day off per sevendays (see ICESCR Article 7 at page 95).
• Consult with employee representatives regularly todetermine the company’s strengths and weaknesses
with respect to work/life balance issues such as
flexible hours and the provision of childcare facilities. Apply at least local best practice standards in all
locations where the company has operations.

ICCPR article 24 Rights of protection for the child

Article 24:
Rights of protection
for the child
The Right
Children are recognised by this Article as being in needof special protection as required by their status asminors. The duty to protect a child attaches to his or her
family, community and the State. A child has the right tobe registered and given a name immediately after being
born, and the right to acquire a nationality. The age at
which a child achieves majority and no longer requires
the protections of Article 24 is determined by governments in light of the relevant social and cultural conditions, so long as the age of majority is not unreasonably
low or high.92
Protection of the child includes protection from sexualand economic exploitation. A company’s activities are
more likely to impact on the latter, but a company (forexample a hotel) may be considered complicit if it turns
a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of minors within
the vicinity of its business in countries where the childsex trade is known to be pervasive.93 Children may not
be engaged to do work that is hazardous, arduous, andfor which they are underpaid, or to work for the same
number of hours as adults. Child labourers are frequently denied the opportunity to undertake education as aresult of going to work, and their mental and physicalhealth can suffer due to poor working conditions, longhours of work, and ill-treatment by employers.
92 The issue of children’s rights is the subject of a specific treaty, theUN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). That Convention
prescribes that the age of majority is 18 years, unless a State prescribes
a lower age.
93 The protection of children from sexual exploitation is addressed in
more detail by the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2000).

The restriction on child labour under Article 24 will likely
be influenced by International Labour Organization (ILO)
standards in this regard. ILO standards prohibit labour
for those under the age of 15.94 However, developing States may prescribe a minimum age of 14 andmay even initially limit the scope of application of ILO
standards if its economy and administrative facilities
are insufficiently developed. It is acknowledged that theelimination of child labour is a difficult issue, as somefamilies rely on the income from children to ensure
their access to food and other necessities. Hazardous
work, however, is prohibited by the ILO for all persons
under 18.95 There are some well-understood instanceswhere children may work, such as when children assist
families for short periods during farming harvests, or
children over 15 working in non-hazardous conditions.
Companies respect the right when they observe theminimum ages for employment. However, the blanket dismissal of children can be problematic, as they
may move into more hazardous employment, such as
prostitution or drug trafficking. Therefore, companies
also promote the right in a variety of ways beyond thesimple removal of child labourers from their value chain,including through helping to create educational opportunities for any such children, participating in collective
action approaches to tackle child labour, and paying
adult employees a living wage so that their children do
not need to work.
94 See Minimum Age Convention 138 (1973), Article 2(3).
95 See Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention 182 (1999).

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 23 (Rights of protection of the family
and the right to marry), page 67
ICESCR Article 10 (Right to a family life), page 109
ICESCR Articles 13 and 14 (Right to education),
page 131

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

69

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 24

Case studies
Cottonseed industry, Child labour issues96
India
Since 2001 several Indian and international NGOs have
put the spotlight on child labour in the cottonseedindustry in the state of Andhra Pradesh. India’s National
Census (2001) estimated that more than 12 million children under the age of 14 were engaged in child labour.
Also in 2001, the India Committee of the Netherlands,
an NGO, alleged that farms producing seed for multinational companies “accounted for about 19% of the total
children working (53,500 out of 247,830) in cottonseed
production in the state”.97
In 2003, Indian and international members of the Associationof Seed Industry (ASI) joined with Indian NGO, the MV Foundation, to form a Child Labour Eradication Group. Thoughinitial progress did not reach everyone’s satisfaction, in 2005
the ASI, Seedsmen Association (SA), CEASE (Consortium of
Employers’ Associations for the Elimination of Child Labour)and the International Labour Organization (ILO) launcheda campaign to discourage child labour in seed collection.
Known as the Child Labour Eradication Project (CLEP),98 thisinitiative was joined in 2005 by Bayer CropScience99 andEmergent Genetics (a Monsanto subsidiary).100 CLEP activities for crop season 2005–6 entailed commitments regarding
the inclusion of ‘no child labour’ clauses in contracts, theformation of joint monitoring committees, the development of
incentives and disincentive schemes for the farmers, financing for educational programmes to rehabilitate child labourers, and measures for farmers on the safe use of pesticides
and ways to improve crop productivity.
In June 2007, an NGO-commissioned study,101 Seeds ofChange, concluded that the two companies had “started toaddress the issue of child labour in their cottonseed supply
chain”, with statistics indicating an approximate
96 See also the case study regarding ICCPR Article 8 (right not tobe subjected to slavery, servitude and forced labour), page 18, which
explores issues of forced child labour in the cocoa industry.
97 The figures were based on a detailed field study conducted in 2001
and referenced in a 2004 report commissioned by the India Committeeof the Netherlands (ICN), Child Labour in Hybrid Cottonseed Productionin Andhra Pradesh: Recent Developments.
98 The initiative is now known as the Child Care Programme (CCP).
99 In 2002, Bayer CropScience bought Proagro, an Indian seed company now called Bayer BioScience Pvt. Ltd. This was part of the global
acquisition of Aventis CropScience.
100 Monsanto completed the acquisition of Emergent Genetics in April 2005.
101 These NGOs were: OECD Watch, Deutsche Welthungerhilfe(DWHH), India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN), Eine Welt Netz
NRW (EWN NRW) and International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF).

halving of the percentage of child workers (under 15)
employed by Bayer and Monsanto’s suppliers in Andhra
Pradesh over the period of the study.102 The study highlighted serious efforts during 2006–7 “to motivate farmers not to
employ children”, noting Bayer’s “two training programmes
on best agricultural practices” and Monsanto’s implementation of “incentive schemes for its farmers”.
The study, however, also urged the companies to tackle
child labour systematically in other Indian states andto insist on ‘no child labour’ policies being extended totheir business partners. The authors also questioned
how effective the Creative Learning Centres (CLCs) wereat reaching and rehabilitating children who had actually
worked on the fields, and reiterated concerns over the
allegedly low procurement prices being offered to farmers,
which it saw as an obstacle to whole-hearted farmer support for the no child labour policy.
Monsanto’s response to the study highlighted the phasedroll-out of its human rights policy commitments on childlabour and ongoing support for ASI’s multi-stakeholder Child
Care Programme (CCP), which involves representatives fromthe seed industry, NGOs, state and local government, andthe ILO. Monsanto acknowledged that the CLCs had fallen
short of expectations, but said lessons would be learnt andwould be incorporated in future eradication initiatives. The
company stressed its ongoing commitment to “a collaborative, systemic and sustainable resolution to the issue of childlabour in cottonseed production”.
Bayer has challenged the study’s calculations. The
company estimates a steeper decline in the percentage ofchild labourers in the total workforce and notes that its results “have been generated by independent teams including NGOs [and] scrutinized by the company and externallyby Ernst & Young”. Bayer says that the proportion ofchildren admitted to its CLCs from outside its immediate
sphere of influence has risen as the numbers of children
working on the fields of its own suppliers has fallen. Bayerasserts that the Child Care Programme’s success “demonstrate that zero child labour can be achieved effectively
without raising the procurement price”.
102 The Seeds of Change study identified a fall in the use of childlabour by suppliers from 20% and 10% in 2005–6, to 11% and 5% in
2006–7 for Bayer and Monsanto respectively.

Web-based sources:
http://www.indianet.nl/elimchl.pdf
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/06/17/stories/2006061703641900.htm
http://www.laborrights.org/publications/SeedsofChangeCottonReport0607.pdf
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/BayerresponseSeedsofChange
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Monsanto-response-Seeds-of-Change-18-Jun-2007.doc
http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/our_pledge/human_rights.asp>
http://www.bayer.com

70

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 24 Rights of protection for the child

Manufacturers of consumer electronics and home appliances (sewing machines), Child labour issues
Bangladesh
Singer has established over 70 sewing schools in
Bangladesh to help combat child labour.
Singer has collaborated with the International Labour
Organization (ILO) to provide vocational training forunderage, unskilled workers who were displaced fromthe garment industry due to international pressure toeradicate child labour. On completion of the vocational training courses and reaching the qualifying age(14 years), the children have been reinstated in theexport-oriented garments industry. In most cases, asa result of the skills attained through the Singer sewing training, they have joined with a better positionand salary.
This approach has an advantage over the simple
termination of the jobs of child labourers advocatedby some, as it avoids pushing children, who aresometimes the family breadwinner, into more hazardous employment.

Web-based sources:
http://www.singerbd.com/socialcommitment.htm

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

71

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 24

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
into account the rights of the child and is guided by
the ILO Minimum Age Convention (138) and the ILO
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (182), andin particular prohibit the use of harmful child labour.
Apply the policy globally.
• Require all business partners (e.g. primary suppliers)
to adhere to the company policy and urge them todevelop a similar standard of their own. Where thecompany is not able to exert that level of control,
make it clear to business partners, including governments, State-owned joint ventures, franchisees,
agents, and other suppliers or sub-contractors, theimportance the company places on international
protections of the rights of the child and encouragethem to develop a similar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, and ensure that any country analysis checks for the prevalence of child labour. The findings should inform later
project decision-making.
• Comply with minimum age standards established byrelevant national law reflecting international standards.
• Establish processes to ensure that if the company
finds children below the minimum age in its workplace or in its supply chain, the children are removed

72

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

from the working environment. Take steps, however,to ensure that the affected children are not forced
by economic necessity into even worse forms oflabour, such as prostitution or drug trafficking. If thecompany finds harmful child labour within its value
chain, take immediate steps to provide safe alternatives. Consult with human rights experts for guidancein this area.
• Establish guidelines committing the company tothe progressive eradication of child labour within
its sphere of influence on the basis of continuing
improvement.
Specific actions:• Incentivise farmers and other suppliers or subcontractors with fair procurement pricing to deter themfrom resorting to cheap child labour.
• Contribute to the overall elimination of child labour,for example by supporting schooling and vocational
training for any children found to be employed by
the company or its suppliers, with the aim of progressively abolishing child labour.
• Explore the possibility of offering job opportunities andskills training to unemployed family members of childworkers to reduce the economic burdens that often
force parents to send their children to work.

ICCPR article 25 Right to participate in public life

Article 25:
Right to participate
in public life
The Right
The right to participate in public life concerns the ability of
citizens103 to take part in the conduct of public affairs andto freely choose representatives to perform governmental
functions on their behalf. This right also delineates specificaspects of the right to political participation such as therights to vote and to be elected in free and fair elections,and a right of equal access to positions within the public
service. Any conditions that restrict political rights must be established by law and be based on objective and reasonable
criteria. An example of such a condition is the requirementof a reasonable minimum age for voters.
Positive measures should be taken by governments toovercome barriers to free and fair voting, such as illiteracy,
inadequate transport and communication networks
in remote regions, language barriers or poverty. It is

important that information and ideas about public andpolitical issues are communicated freely.
Media companies have a role in ensuring balanced
reporting and that they are not unduly influenced by
the government or other political parties or persuasions. Media monopolies are a cause for concern in thisregard as they may restrict the airing of diverse politicalopinions. The right of equal access to the public service
is of relevance to private companies that take on public
service contracts and therefore take over traditional
functions of government, such as utilities companies
and private prisons. Companies can also facilitate enjoyment of this right by allowing employees time off tovote, and participating in campaigns to promote greater
civic participation.

103 Some States may choose to permit certain non-citizens (e.g. longterm residents) to vote.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 1 (Right of self-determination), page 3
ICCPR Article 19 (Rights to freedom of opinion and expression), page 53
ICCPR Article 21 (Right to freedom of assembly), page 61
ICCPR Article 22 (Right to freedom of association), page 63
ICESCR Article 1 (Right of self-determination), page 87

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide73

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 25

Case studies
Consumer products sector, Voter participation issues
United States
In the months prior to the 2004 US elections, businesses across America decided to play an active role ingetting employees, customers, business peers and local
community members registered to vote, through the“Voteworks: Businesses Promote the Vote” campaign.
The campaign was in part a response to the failure of
75 million eligible citizens to vote in the 2000 UnitedStates presidential election and that the rate of voting
among Latinos was half the national average. The
2004 campaign also encouraged citizens to become
educated on the issues and candidates.

In 2004, Unilever Bestfoods (UBF) saw an opportunity
in its participation in numerous Hispanic festivals thatyear to register Latinos to vote and aimed to reach apotential audience of 3.3 million people. “Democracy
cannot work without participation by all sectors ofsociety,” said James Fish, UBF customer marketing
manager and Hispanic team leader.
Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream company and Starbucks
were among other companies also supporting voter
registration schemes in the build-up to the 2004
presidential election.

Web-based sources:
http://www.voteworks.org/servlet/vw/business/whatCompaniesAreDoing.htm
http://www.unileverusa.com/ourvalues/

Energy sector, Corruption and political influence issues
France and Africa
The right to participate in public life can be impededby improper use of influence or financial inducements. Political corruption such as vote-buying andthe giving of bribes or kickbacks to politicians, political candidates and parties has a direct impact on theright of participation in public life as it impedes free
and fair elections, distorts the political process, andmay improperly influence government policies.
Following a seven-year investigation into a corruption scandal at the formerly State-owned oil company
Elf-Aquitaine, the three men who ran the company
during the late 1980s and early 1990s went on trial
in France. Chief executive Loik Le Floch-Prigent andtwo senior colleagues, Alfred Sirven and Andre Tarallo, were convicted of siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars of company money and sentenced toseveral years in jail. The company was found to havebribed numerous African leaders to ensure it gained

privileged access to oil reserves, and also to ensure
the allegiance of certain African leaders to France.
According to BBC reports, Mr Le Floch-Prigent andMr Sirven stated that part of the money in Elf’s secretfunds also ended up financing politicians and parties
in France. Leading corruption magistrate, Eva Joly,
also asserted that, frequently, “percentages of bribes
end[ed] up enriching individual officials and in the coffers of political parties”.
In the context of Africa, campaign group, Global Witness, has alleged that “Elf treated Congo (Brazzaville)
as its colony, buying off the ruling elite, and helping it to mortgage the country’s future oil income inexchange for expensive loans.” Reports featured by
the Global Policy Forum also described Elf as acting
as “a state within a state” in Gabon, where it was also
alleged to have wielded a profound and undemocratic
influence.

Web-based sources:
http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/115/en/time_for_transparency
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2973267.stm
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2087522.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/nov/13/france.oilandpetrol
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2003/1118elf.htm

74

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 25 Right to participate in public life

Energy sector (oil and gas), Political participation issues
South Africa
In 1994, Shell South Africa (a division of Royal Dutch
Shell) assisted a South African NGO in publishing a
171-page handbook, Ukuphemba Umthethosisekelo
Wakho / Creating Your Constitution, in both the English and Zulu languages, and could thus be said tohave promoted the right to participate in public life.

The book was designed to facilitate input by rural
South Africans into the creation of post-apartheid
South Africa’s new constitution. The publication wasa guide to the main provisions of the interim constitution and highlighted issues that were likely to cause
the greatest concern to readers.

Web-based sources:
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Creating-Your-Constitution-acknowledgements.htm
http://www.shell.com

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

75

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 25

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to participate in political life. Apply the policy globally.
• Ensure the company’s policy prevents it from interfering in any way with normal political processes wherever
it is located and that it prohibits the paying of bribes forpolitical advantage in any country of operation.
• Consider a policy against paying political donations
to political parties – this is a growing trend in somecountries.
• Require all business partners to adhere to the company policy and urge them to develop a similar standardof their own. Where the company is not able to exertthat level of control, make it clear to business partners, including State-owned joint ventures, suppliers,
franchisees and agents, the importance the company
places on the right to participate in the political process, and encourage them to develop a similar standard
and take responsible action.

relevant) the OECD Convention on Combating Briberyof Foreign Public Officials in International BusinessTransactions, Transparency International’s Business
Principles, and the World Economic Forum’s Partnership Against Corruption Initiative.
• For natural resource and energy companies, explore
the benefits of becoming a supporter of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Other
sectors should also look to the possible applicationof the EITI Sourcebook.
• For media companies or those in a position to use
communications leverage to affect election results, do
not aggressively favour one party in a political process.
While editors may express a preference for one party,
coverage should be balanced and fair, and comply
with reasonable national regulations.
• For companies that take on public service contracts,
such as utilities and private prisons, ensure that practices in respect of hiring, promoting and retaining
personnel are reasonable and not discriminatory.
Specific actions:

Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, and ensure any country analysis identifies restrictions to theright to participate in public life. The findings should
inform later project decision-making.
• Do not restrict the political participation of employees and allow workers reasonable time off to participate in elections and the political process.
• When developing policies and processes to combat
bribery and corruption, be guided by the UN Convention Against Corruption, national regulation, and (where76

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Consider using core business competencies andknow-how to bolster the political process by, forexample, providing technology to assist with voter
registration systems.
• Consider offering company communication and distribution networks to raise awareness about voting
and other political processes; ensure impartiality.
• Consider speaking out publicly or in private against
State restrictions on the right to participate in public
life, especially where company stakeholders areaffected.

ICCPR article 26 Right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and rights of non-discrimination

Article 26:
Right to equality before the law,equal protection of the law, andrights of non-discrimination
The Right
This Article guarantees equality before the law, andthe equal protection of the law without discrimination.
Individuals should be protected from discrimination ondifferent grounds including race, colour, sex,104 language, religion, political or other opinion, national orsocial origin, property, and birth or other status. The
latter ground is open-ended and has been interpreted toinclude statuses such as health status (e.g. HIV/AIDS),
disability, marital status, age and sexual orientation.
Discrimination means any distinction, exclusion or
preference made on one or more of the grounds listed
above that has the effect of reducing or removing
altogether equality of opportunity or treatment for thevictim. Article 26 prohibits discrimination in relation to
the enjoyment of all rights, including economic, socialand cultural rights, as well as other legal rights that may
be offered by a State. Prohibited discrimination may bedirect (e.g. ‘no Irish need apply’ would constitute directdiscrimination on the basis of nationality) or indirect (e.g.
a voluntary management training programme that increases a candidate’s chances of promotion that is onlyoffered on Friday lunchtimes would constitute indirectdiscrimination on the grounds of religion or belief affecting those committed to Friday religious observance).
Distinctions are permitted under this right if they arebased on reasonable and objective criteria. For example, it is legitimate for a film company to discriminate on
the grounds of sex when casting for a female character.
Companies’ activities can impact on the right of nondiscrimination of their workforce, business partners
and customers. Each of these stakeholders should betreated without discrimination, for example in recruitment, pay and training for workers and in the provisionof services to customers. Workers are particularly vulnerable to discrimination by employers. They should not
be discriminated against or harassed, nor should they
be disciplined without fair procedures.
In certain circumstances, it is acceptable for companies
to take ‘affirmative action’ – positive steps taken to help aparticular group that has suffered serious long-term discrimination in order to reverse that trend. These measures
may sometimes entail ‘positive’ or ‘reverse’ discrimination.
For example, there may be a set quota for the number ofwomen to receive management training by a company inorder to increase the representation of women in senior
positions, if women are seriously under-represented at thatlevel. In many instances, rules governing affirmative action
will be covered by national law and companies should lookto such laws for guidance.

104 This ground has been interpreted to include categories that are
gender-specific, such as the capacity to bear children, and pregnancy.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 2 (Ensure rights without discrimination), page 7
ICCPR Article 3 (Ensure equal enjoyment of rights by men
and women), page 7
ICESCR Article 2 (Ensure rights without discrimination),
page 89
ICESCR Article 3 (Ensure equal enjoyment of rights by men
and women), page 89

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

77

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 26

Case studies

105

Restaurant and leisure industry, Racial discrimination issues
United States
In 2004, a lawsuit was brought against Cracker Barrel
Old Country Restaurants (owned by the CBRL Group,Inc.) for racial discrimination against customers. The US
Justice Department alleged that the restaurant chain
discriminated against African-American customers andprospective customers in some southern US statesby sometimes segregating customers by race andgiving superior service to white customers, and evenoccasionally refusing to serve African-Americans. An
investigation by the US Justice Department identified
evidence of discrimination in approximately 50 restaurants in seven southern states.
The case was resolved when Cracker Barrel agreed toadopt and enforce effective non-discrimination policies and procedures, including the implementation oftraining programmes for employees and systems todeal with discrimination complaints, and to
105 See also the case studies regarding ICCPR Article 18 (freedomof thought, conscience and religion), as well as the case study
regarding Malaysian Airlines at ICESCR Article 10 (right to family life)
at page 110.

permit external auditing of its practices for five years.
The company did not, however, admit to any wrongdoing and maintains that it has long had policies inplace banning discrimination.
In 2004, the company also settled a separate seriesof lawsuits brought or supported by the NAACP(National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People). Donald Turner, the chain’s president andchief operating officer, noted that: “This matter has
been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and the parties are now ready to move forward.” He added that
“Cracker Barrel is very pleased with this settlement.”
Cracker Barrel’s Public Accommodation Policy Statement stipulates that: “No Cracker Barrel employee
may discriminate against any Cracker Barrel guest
or would-be guest on the basis of race, colour, age,national origin, gender, religion, disability, or sexual
orientation.” Employees are required to report violations of the policy to management. The company also
pledged not to penalise any employee that in goodfaith reports violations of the policy to the authorities.

Web-based sources:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_crt_288.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07-cracker-barrel_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131897,00.html
http://www.crackerbarrel.com
http://www.cbrlgroup.com/tempj.cfm?doc_id=93

78

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 26

Cisco Systems specialises in networking and communications technology and is based in the UnitedStates. Cisco has made an effort to boost the number of women within its networks, thereby helping
to address the issue of gender discrimination. It hascreated a Gender Diversity Council, which seeks to
identify barriers to the effective participation of women, such as the lack of mentors and role models.
Cisco has also partnered with the NCWIT (National
Center for Women & Information Technology), among
others, to boost the number of women who pursue a
career in science and technology, aiming to redress
the under-representation of women in engineeringand computer science courses in the United States.
Cisco Systems states that it “intends to create apool of females ready to enter the IT workforce”.
Cisco Systems also runs a Networking Academy
Programme, in conjunction with partners such as the
UN and USAID, aimed at generating information andRight to equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and rights of non-discrimination

IT industry, Gender discrimination issues
Worldwide
communication technology skills in less-developed
countries. It now aims for 30% female participation in these programmes through the provision ofscholarships in countries such as Algeria, Morocco,
Jordan, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Mongolia and
Sri Lanka.
In April 2008, Cisco Systems announced that its
efforts had led to a 47% increase in the total numberof students enrolled in its Networking Academy Programme in Morocco over 12 months and that 31%of the 7,500+ enrolled students were women. Cisco
Systems’ focus on training women to enter the IT
industry stemmed from its belief that “empowering
women with the technical knowledge and demanddriven networking skills helps ensure a gendersensitive policy environment, thus giving women acompetitive edge in the job market”.

Web-based sources:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac227/ac222/employees/employee_diversity/womens_initiatives.html
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_042308.html

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

79

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 26

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Specific actions:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring it includes
specific commitments against discrimination in
recruitment and promotion on the grounds of race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or otherstatus. Apply the policy globally.

• Engage in employee mentoring, skills training, orsponsoring of programmes to combat discrimination
and/or to bolster the career prospects of disadvantaged groups.

• Make it clear that the company does not tolerateharassment of any employees on the basis of race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth orother status.
• Require all business partners (e.g. suppliers andsub-contractors) to adhere to the company policy
and urge them to develop a similar standard of theirown. Where the company is not able to exert thatlevel of control, make it clear to business partners,
including governments, State-owned joint ventures,
suppliers, franchisees and agents, the importancethe company places on protections against discrimination, and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies any long-standing marginalisationof particular ethnic, religious or other groups in thelocal context of company operations, and consider
appropriate affirmative action policies.
• In countries where HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, leprosy
and other medical conditions are prevalent thatcarry a social stigma, consider adopting educationalawareness schemes to minimise the risk of discrimination on these grounds.

80

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideICCPR article 27
Rights of minorities

Article 27:
Rights of minorities

The Right
This Article recognises the rights of members of ethnic,
religious or linguistic minorities to enjoy their own
culture, to practise their religion, and to speak theirlanguage. Indigenous peoples106 are included within
the protection of Article 27. Their interests may also beprotected under Article 1 (the right to self-determination)of both International Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR).107
The Article also applies to migrants, including recently
arrived migrants.
Companies can facilitate enjoyment of this right by, forexample, promoting diversity in their workplaces andplaces of business. This may take the form of permitting employees to observe religious holidays, wear
traditional attire, or through the provision of employment
opportunities for minorities.

Protection of the culture of minority groups may include
protection of a way of life associated with use of theland through traditional activities such as hunting or
fishing. With as many as 350 million indigenous people
living worldwide, companies may find themselves dealing with an evolving set of claims and social pressuresat the intersection of corporate activity and indigenous
rights. Consultation is crucial and should take placewith indigenous and minority communities wheneverdecisions are made that may impact on their lands,
livelihoods and culture. The claims of minorities will
sometimes come into conflict with economic development projects. Such projects are more likely to be compatible with Article 27 if the affected peoples have been
consulted and their cultural needs taken into account in
the design of the relevant projects.

106 Examples include Native Americans in the United States, the Aboriginal peoples in Australia, and the Sami peoples of Scandinavia.
107 While indigenous peoples often constitute a minority in the States inwhich they live, they are groups that have distinct identities and corresponding rights under international law distinct from those of ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities. ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are considered more specific and helpful
instruments in protecting indigenous peoples’ rights.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 1 (Right of self-determination), page 3
ICESCR Article 1 (Right of self-determination), page 87
ICESCR Article 15 (Rights to take part in cultural life, tobenefit from scientific progress, and of the material andmoral rights of authors and inventors), page 135

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

81

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 27

Case studies

108

Socially responsible investment industry, Indigenous peoples’ rights issues
United States
The natural resources located on the tribal lands ofindigenous peoples are often sought for commercial use
by, among others, extractive companies, loggers andentrepreneurs. There have been a number of instanceswhere commercial exploitation has been carried out
without appropriate consultation or compensationand has led to allegations by activists and community
groups in many parts of the world of negative impacts
on traditional lifestyles.
In an attempt to address the potentially harmful effectsof commercial ventures upon the livelihoods and lifestyles of indigenous minorities, a number of investment
108 See also the case study regarding TPG at page 50 regarding
minority rights in the workplace. Also see the case studies regarding
PT Freeport Indonesia at page 4, Hamersley Iron at page 5, Guatemala Nickel Company at page 115, Lafayette Mining at page 119,Starbucks at page 133, and RiceTec at page 136.

Web-based sources:
http://www.calvertgroup.com/sri_IBIndigenousPeoplesRights.html

82

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

firms offering ‘socially responsible investment’products have responded. Calvert Socially Responsible
Mutual Funds, for example, states that it “was the first
U.S. mutual fund investment company to develop an
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights criteria”.
Calvert’s criteria address both the concerns about thesurvival, security and dignity of indigenous peoples, aswell as the inappropriate commercial “use of images
and symbols” that promote racial, cultural or religious
stereotyping of indigenous peoples, including Native Americans. The criteria also analyse companies’
impacts on indigenous peoples’ self-determination, landuse, resource use, intellectual property, and company
policies regarding interaction with indigenous people.
The criteria are used to exclude companies from certain
investment portfolios if they fail to meet particular criteria regarding respect for indigenous rights.

ICCPR article 27
Rights of minorities

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring it commits thecompany to respecting the rights of minorities. Apply
the policy globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to the company
policy and urge them to develop a similar standardof their own. Where the company is not able to exertthat level of control, make it clear to business partners,
including governments, State-owned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agents, security providers and othersub-contractors, the importance the company places on
the rights of minorities, and encourage them to develop asimilar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, in
co-operation with affected communities, to identify
any environment and health hazards associated withprojects that could affect indigenous or other minority communities, and the impacts of any forced relocations that may occur. The findings should inform
later decision-making on the project.
• Where financed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), comply with the IFC PerformanceStandards on Indigenous Peoples and IFC Performance Standards on Land Acquisition and Involuntary
Resettlement. Other companies may also wish toconsider these standards.
• Become familiar with the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and be guided by its
provisions in interactions with indigenous peoples.109• Population relocation should be guided by the Basic
Principles and Guidelines on Development-based
Evictions and Displacement developed by the
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate

Housing,110 which stress the importance, for example, of comprehensive impact assessments, consultation with affected persons throughout the entire
process, the rights of evicted persons to return,resettlement, and fair and just compensation, andthat all affected persons be notified in writing andsufficiently in advance with a view to minimising theadverse impacts of evictions.111• Consult in good faith with indigenous peoples
through their own representative institutions prior
to launching any activity that affects their lands andresources, with a view to obtaining their agreement.
This means allowing time for the community to makea considered evaluation of the activity in accordancewith their cultures and traditions, and providing full
information on the impact and benefits of the activity
including in the indigenous language concerned.
Specific actions:• Be aware of the wealth of knowledge that indigenous communities have that may be relevant toproject decision-making, for example with respect toweather fluctuations or geological activity. Engage
directly with such communities, and try to develop
strong stakeholder relations with them.
• Consider proactive employment policies to include
minorities in the workforce.
• Consider promotion of minority rights throughfinancial or other support for community educationalor cultural institutions for minorities where large numbers are employed.
110 UN document E/CN.4/2006/41.
111 See also ICCPR Article 12 (freedom of movement) and ICESCR
Article 11 (right to an adequate standard of living (right to housing)), on
the issue of resettlement.

109 Mining companies may also wish to consult Mining and Indigenous
Peoples Issues Review published by the International Council on Mining
and Metals, see Further Resources, page 142.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

83

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

84

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Section 2: IInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Article 1: Right of self-determination  International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

85

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 1

86

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 1
Right of self-determination

Article 1:
Right of self-determination

The Right
Please refer to the commentary regarding Article 1 ofthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) at page 3, which is identical to Article 1 of theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

87

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 1

88

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR Articles 2 to 5 Overarching Principles

Articles 2 to 5:
Overarching principles

The Rights
Whereas Articles 1 and 6 to 15 are substantive rights
in the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights and are therefore explained in some detail, together with their relevance to companies, Articles
2 to 5 are overarching principles and are outlined below
for the sake of completeness and to satisfy any curiosity on the part of the reader. As overarching principles,
Articles 2 to 5 cannot be applied individually but only in
conjunction with a specific right in the ICESCR.
Article 2 contains the general obligations for a Statein relation to the economic, social and cultural rights
contained in Articles 1 and 6 to 15. Article 2(1) recognises that not all States have the resources to ensure full
implementation of all the rights immediately and allows
a State to implement the rights progressively to the
maximum of its available resources.
Non-discrimination is a fundamental and overarching
principle of international human rights. Everyone isentitled to enjoy human rights irrespective of his or hercolour, gender, religion, ethnic, social or national origin,political or other opinion, property, birth or other status.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR) has further interpreted the principle ofnon-discrimination to include discrimination based onage, health status (such as HIV/AIDS) and disability.
Article 2(2) obliges States to prohibit any distinctions,exclusions, restrictions and limitations by both publicauthorities and private bodies on those grounds in theenjoyment of the rights set out in the ICESCR. Whileeconomic, social and cultural rights may be implemented progressively, States have immediate obligations toguarantee their enjoyment without discrimination. Thismeans that States have a responsibility to ensure thatbusinesses carry out their activities and provide services
in a non-discriminatory way. Reasonable and objective
distinctions are permitted. For more discussion of theissue of discrimination, please see the commentary on
Article 26 of the ICCPR (page 77).
A limited exemption from the principle of non-discrimination is contained in Article 2(3), which gives developing States the right to decide the extent to which they
will guarantee the economic, social and cultural rights
of non-nationals, bearing in mind their human rights
obligations and level of development.
Article 3 requires States to ensure that all rights areenjoyed equally by men and women. States are allowed
to adopt positive action to eliminate conditions that
contribute to gender discrimination. States are not permitted to condition their actions to ensure non-discrimination and gender equality on the extent of available
resources; these obligations must be respected fully
and immediately.
Article 4 specifies that the rights in the ICESCR canbe limited by the State “only in so far as this may becompatible with the nature of these rights and solely
for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a
democratic society”.
Article 5 is known as a ‘savings clause’. It specifies
that the ICESCR will not be used by anybody (whether
it be government or another entity, such as a corporation) as a justification for engaging in an act aimed at
destroying the rights of others. Nor can it be used as an
excuse to lower domestic standards.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

89

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Articles 2 to 5

90

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 6
Right to work

Article 6:
Right to work

The Right
The right to work recognises the right of everyone tothe opportunity to make their living by work which they
freely choose or accept.112 This implies that one should
not be forced to engage in employment and that Statesdevelop a system designed to guarantee all workers
access to employment. Workers should not be unfairly
deprived of employment. Work as specified in Article 6
must be ‘decent work’, that is work that respects a person’s human rights including workers’ rights regarding
conditions of remuneration and work safety. The rightto work includes the prohibition of arbitrary dismissal.113
The right to work is closely linked to rights in Article 7 tojust and favourable working conditions and trade union
rights in Article 8. These rights are components of theoverall right to work.
The right to work does not guarantee that everyone will havethe job they want, or even a job, but it requires that full employment be an explicit aim of governments and outlines the
progressive steps that should be taken by governments inorder to help people find employment. These steps include
the provision of technical and vocational guidance, training
programmes, policies and programmes to promote full andproductive employment, and other initiatives to give people
the necessary skills to find decent work. Governments
also have an obligation to ensure non-discrimination andequal protection of employment. This means that governments have an obligation to ensure the right of access toemployment, especially for marginalised and disadvantaged
individuals and groups, and to avoid measures that generate
discrimination in the public and private sectors against suchindividuals or groups.114 For persons who are unable to findjobs, other provisions of the Covenant provide for relevant
rights, such as a right to social security (ICESCR
Article 9, page 105).
A company that has significant activities as one of the‘main players’ regarding the provision of employment,in areas where a government lacks the capacity or
willingness to fulfil its commitments, may be expectedby stakeholders to play a part in helping to secure fulfilment of the right to work. Companies of all sizes andin all locations may impact on their workers’ right towork if they arbitrarily or unfairly dismiss workers. Even
where such practice may be legally permissible underlocal law, many stakeholders now expect companies toexhibit a higher standard of behaviour in line with international standards and good practice.

114 See also ILO Convention 111 on Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (1960). See also UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 18, “The Right to Work”, 6
February 2006, E/C.12/GC/18.

112 See ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
1998, ILO Convention 122 concerning Employment Policy (1964), andILO Recommendation 169 on Employment Policy (Supplementary Provisions) (1984).
113 See also ILO Convention 158 concerning Termination of Employment (1982). 	

Related rights:
ICESCR Article 7 (Right to enjoy just and favourable
conditions of work), page 95
ICESCR Article 8 (Right to form trade unions and join
the trade union, and the right to strike), page 101

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

91

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 6

Case studies
Aluminium production sector, Work skills training
USA and worldwide
American aluminium producer, Alcoa, organises anannual week of employee volunteering designed tohelp improve education and workplace skills. In 2003,
5,000 Alcoa employees worldwide took part in thecompany’s Worldwide Week of Community Service
and, in 2004, volunteers in 25 countries participatedin activities involving 170 communities worldwide.
An example of the kind of activity undertaken
involved a joint initiative with the Texas Workforce
Centre to engage juvenile offenders in a programme

known as “Future Builders”. This provided the juvenile offenders with IT training, mentoring and career
options to help them find work in the future.
According to Alain Belda, chairman and chief executive officer of Alcoa, “investing in our communities
means helping them to develop tomorrow’s workforce, which must be literate, highly skilled, andculturally diverse, to succeed”.

Web-based sources:
http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/news_detail.asp?pageID=20041004005656&newsYear=2004

92

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 6

In a long-running dispute, Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation (TMPC) faced accusations of infringing one
aspect of the right to work of one-time employees byallegedly unfairly dismissing union workers in 2001.
In February 2001, members of the Toyota Motors
Philippines Corporation Workers Association(TMPCWA) participated in protests as they awaited
a ruling by the Philippines labour department regarding the legitimacy of their union (which had beenchallenged by the car company). On 16 March 2001,
the Philippine authorities confirmed the legitimacy of
the TMPCWA as the “sole and exclusive collective
bargaining agent”; however, on that same day it wasalleged by the union’s supporters that the company
unfairly dismissed 227 of its leaders and members,
and suspended 64 others, for participating in the
February protest.
The Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation claimed
that the February protests did not constitute alegal strike and also breached Toyota’s Code of
Conduct,116 the penalty for which was dismissal, andthat its actions were therefore justified. The company
reported that due to the February protests it experienced an acute lack of manpower and was unable
to meet production goals resulting in losses thatexceeded PHP 50 million.
In August 2001, the National Labour Relations Commission ruled the February strike illegal under thecountry’s Labour Code and that the dismissals were
justified, but ordered the company “to pay the 227
Union members who participated in the illegal strikeseverance compensation ... as an alternative relief tocontinued employment”. An appeal court upheld thedecision in June 2003.
In February 2003, the union lodged a complaint with theInternational Labour Organization (ILO) Committee
115 This case is also relevant to the union rights outlined in ICESCR
Article 8. 	
116 The Toyota Code of Conduct prohibits “inciting or participatingin riots, disorders, alleged strikes or concerted actions detrimental to[Toyota’s] interest”.

Right to work

Car manufacturing industry, Right to work issues
The Philippines115
on Freedom of Association over the alleged unfair
dismissals and other workers rights infringements. In
November 2003 and 2004, the ILO called on the Filipino government to “take measures so that TMPCWA
and the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation negotiate in good faith” and “initiate discussions to consider
the reinstatement of the 227 workers dismissed or,
if reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation”. In March 2004, the TMPCWA
union also filed a complaint with the OECD National
Contact Point in Japan alleging infringement by the
Toyota Motor Corporation’s Philippine subsidiary of
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.117
By June 2006, pending a Supreme Court decision on
the issue of severance pay, 105 of the 227 dismissed
workers had availed themselves of a compensation
package offered by the company. However, in October 2007 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of thecompany over the legality of the strikes and dismissals, and also found that, “based on existing jurisprudence, the award of separation pay to the Union
officials and members in the instant petitions” could
not be sustained. The Supreme Court remarked that“it is high time that employer and employees cease toview each other as adversaries and instead recognisethat theirs is a symbiotic relationship”. The TMPCWA
union strongly rejects the Supreme Court verdict andcontinues to protest the dismissals and to fight to berecognised as the workers’ sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent.
As of June 2007 the ILO Committee on Freedom of
Association continued to monitor the case. In its June2007 report, the ILO Committee noted that a bill was
being considered by the Philippine legislature to address some of the long-standing union certification
grievances also central to this case, including guarantees to eliminate “employer interference, which is anincessant cause of delay in certification proceedings”.
The OECD case is ongoing.
117 See also the case studies on Kværner Process Services Inc(KPSI) and GSL at pages 26-27 for other case studies concerning theOECD Guidelines and National Contact Points.

Web-based sources:
http://www.peuples-solidaires.org/article138.html
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actrav/new/wg/cfa338.htm
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb296/pdf/gb-4.pdf
http://www.imfmetal.org/main/files/06051509405779/TPtimeline2.pdf
http://www.toyota.com/about/community/
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/158786_158789.htm
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/11/38297552.pdf
Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

93

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 6

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of labour and working conditions and isbased on standards established by the International
Labour Organization and, where relevant, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
and the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards. Apply the policy globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agentsand other sub-contractors, the importance thecompany places on protecting the right to work, andencourage them to develop a similar standard andtake responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies risks related to the right to work.
Act on the findings.
• Adopt grievance mechanisms and procedures ofredress and mediation for workers in employmentrelated matters.
• Do not arbitrarily or unfairly dismiss workers, andinstitute disciplinary mechanisms to ensure the fairtreatment of workers accused of misconduct.
• Establish processes to ensure that the company
does not hinder the reasonable career advancement
aspirations of employees.
• Monitor complaints about recruitment and promotions to discern possible patterns of discrimination.

94

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Where possible, recruit staff locally in order to generate jobs and community goodwill.
• Establish procedures to consult with trade union
representatives.
• Establish work/life balance employment proceduresthat take account of the different needs of male andfemale employees and of family responsibilities.
• Institute vocational/skills training opportunities for direct employees, their dependants, and/or membersof local communities.
• Explore a policy of procuring supplies from local enterprises, where possible, to bolster the local market.
• Where patterns of discrimination in employment are
discernible, for example with respect to a dominanceof women in low-paying manufacturing positions
or of men in decision-making positions, investigate
what can be done to identify and overcome suchdiscriminatory barriers.
Specific actions:• Sponsor employee volunteering for skills transfers to
local communities, e.g. computer and communication skills, management and book-keeping practices.
• Support employee business mentoring of membersof local communities to help increase their employability.

ICESCR article 7 Right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work

Article 7:
Right to enjoy just andfavourable conditions of work
The Right
The right to enjoy just and favourable working conditions has various components, which are all highly
relevant to the actions of companies as they concern
the treatment of employees. This Article recognisesthat States must protect the right to remuneration thatprovides workers with fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value, and that women must be
guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to thoseenjoyed by men. Remuneration must also be enough toprovide workers with a decent living for themselves andtheir families. Article 7 furthermore comprises a right tohealthy and safe conditions of work, a right to equalityof opportunity for promotion, and a right to rest, leisureand holidays as part of conditions at work. The interpretation of Article 7 is influenced by the corresponding
International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions,which elaborate in greater detail the labour standards
set out in the Covenant.
ILO standards generally prescribe that employees should
not be required to work more than 48 hours per week, or
ten hours a day, though these rules are subject to some
exceptions.118 ILO conventions relating to the issue ofrest and leisure are also relevant to the issue of working
hours. For example, it is specified that there should be atleast one day off in every seven, and that a minimum of
three weeks’ paid holiday (not including public holidays) beavailable for every year of full-time service.119
A minimum wage should be ‘fair’ and enable families
to enjoy the right to a standard of living that includes
118 See ILO Convention 1 on Hours of Work (Industry) (1919), and ILO
Convention 30 on Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) (1930). See
also ILO Convention 47 on the Forty Hour Week (1935).
119 See ILO Convention 132 on Holidays with Pay (1970). See also, on
rest and leisure, ILO Convention 14 on Weekly Rest (Industry) (1921)
and ILO Convention 106 on Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention (1957). See, generally, Report of the Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Hours of Work:
From Fixed to Flexible? (International Labour Office, Geneva, 2005).

adequate food, clothing and housing (Article 11 of theCovenant). This is reinforced by the corresponding ILO
convention,120 which dictates that the setting of minimum
wages should, for example, take into account issues suchas the cost of living and the needs of workers and theirfamilies. Companies should at least comply with minimum
wages mandated by government minimum wage legislation. Wages should be paid regularly and in full, without
unauthorised deductions or restrictions.121
ILO standards require governments to adopt, in consultation with appropriate employer and employee organisations, a national occupational health and safety (OHS)
policy aimed at reducing accidents and injuries to healtharising in the course of employment, and to minimise
the causes of inherent workplace hazards. That policy
should address, for example, the provision of adequate
OHS training regarding the use and maintenance ofthe ‘material elements of work’, including workplaceenvironment, tools, machinery and equipment. Workers
must be able to remove themselves from work situations where imminent and serious health dangers arereasonably perceived, without undue consequences.122
With regard to all working conditions, States should require
employers to co-operate with independent inspection
services to ensure compliance with legal requirements.123
Companies can have a significant impact on the enjoyment of the various rights in Article 7 in their capacity as
employers.
120 ILO Convention 131 on Minimum Wage Fixing (1970). See also ILO
Convention 94 on Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) (1949).
121 See ILO Convention 95 on Protection of Wages (1949).
122 See ILO Convention 155 Concerning Occupational Health and
Safety and the Working Environment (1981), Articles 4, 5 and 13. See
also ILO Convention 161 on Occupational Health Services (1985).
123 See ILO Convention on 81 on Labour Inspection (1947), and Protocol of 1995.

Related rights:
ICESCR Article 6 (Right to work), page 91
ICESCR Article 8 (Right to form trade unions and join
the trade union, and the right to strike), page 101
Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

95

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 7

Case studies
Footwear industry, Working conditions issues
Vietnam
In 1997 it was widely reported that a range of violations of the right to enjoy just and favourable working
conditions had been found at the Tae Kwang Vina
(VT) factory in Vietnam. The shoe factory was run
by a Vietnamese sub-contractor of Nike. The media
reports were based on Vietnamese Labor Watch findings, and research by an independent analyst, Dara
O’Rourke, and data contained in a leaked Ernst &Young audit conducted for Nike.
The reports alleged that factory managers encouraged excessive working hours and exposed workers
to hazardous chemicals, noise, heat and dust. Employees were also reported to lack adequate drinking
water supplies and adequate safety equipment. Ernst& Young noted that 77% of a sample of 165 employees suffered from respiratory disease. Some workers
reported working a basic week that exceeded theVietnamese legal annual limit of 200 hours overtime.
Nike responded to the findings, which coincided withintense media and activist scrutiny, by entering into a
six-month process involving Nike personnel, VT factory managers and independent analysts (including
Mr O’Rourke), to identify and evaluate the full extent
of the workplace health and safety problems inside
the factory. By 1999, independent auditors foundthat, despite some continuing health and safety problems, significant improvements had occurred in thefactory. Exposure to harmful chemicals was reduced,
better occupational health and safety training had
been implemented, and the incidence of nose andthroat diseases among VT workers fell by 68% over
one year.
Nike introduced a Code of Conduct in Vietnam in1999 based on ILO conventions, and subsequently
developed tools and systems to monitor its delivery.
Since fiscal year 2004, Nike has shifted its global

approach to take “a more holistic look at [its] supply
chain, to focus on root cause identification, and solutions that will drive systematic change” by building
the capacity of local management, publicly disclosing
factory locations, and setting targets to, among otherthings, eliminate all “excessive overtime” from its
supplier factories by 2011.
In the context of Vietnam, Nike, Adidas-Salomon andPentland helped set up the Vietnam Business Links
Initiative (VBLI) in 1999 to achieve systemic improvement in the working conditions in footwear factories.
The VBLI is managed by the Vietnam Chamber ofCommerce and Industry, with facilitation and advice
from the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF)
and support from a coalition of government departments, industry representatives, and domestic andinternational NGOs (including the National Institute forLabour Protection and ActionAid).
By 2004 the VBLI had put in place a Code of Conduct for the footwear industry. It has developed andpiloted a Management Support System approved by
the Vietnamese Ministry of Industry as a standard,
which was rolled out to 60% of Vietnam’s footwear
factories. It has also devised and delivered training
courses for factory managers and workers responsible for health and safety. The initiative had also
benefited from a study by the participating NGOs
to identify the key health problems facing footwear
industry workers.
The VBLI has been recognised by the World Bank,
Harvard University and the German Development
Agency (GTZ) as an effective example of corporateled cross-sector partnership in action. Its methodologies are now being applied to the wider garment
sector in Vietnam.

Web-based sources:
http://nature.berkeley.edu/orourke/PDF/pwc.pdf
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/nike/vt.html
http://nikeresponsibility.com/#crreport/main
http://poverty2.forumone.com/library/view/14826
http://www.iblf.org/regions/asia/vietnam.jsp

96

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 7

In 2000 and 2001 concerns started to be raised over thejust and favourable working conditions of outsourced
cleaners, catering and security personnel at the officesof major firms in the Canary Wharf area of London’sDocklands. Often drawn from poor inner-city areas
and migrant communities, the workers were typicallyfound to receive low wages, no sick pay, and few otherentitlements. Their plight prompted The East London Community Organisation (TELCO), an alliance ofchurches, mosques, unions and community groups, tolaunch a living wage124 campaign. TELCO argued thatthe high cost of living in London meant that the national
minimum wage was inadequate and called upon major
financial and legal firms with Canary Wharf offices to
exceed it.
Barclays Bank responded by accepting responsibility for the minimum pay and conditions of both direct
employees and contracted staff when it moved to its
new Canary Wharf Headquarters. Barclays agreed to
124 The term ‘living wage’ is said to reflect the costs associated with abasket of goods required to provide an adequate standard of living, andis often higher than the minimum wage prescribed in certain countries.

Right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work

Financial services sector, Working conditions and wage issues
UK
offer a salary above the minimum wage, a pension
with 4.5% employer contribution, 15 days’ sick pay, 8
paid public holidays, and 20 days’ leave per year, as
well as training and bonuses. In July 2007, Barclays
announced that it would also meet renewed demands
by London Citizens/TELCO and the T&G union to
exceed the London living wage, established by the
Mayor of London and Greater London Authority, forall support staff across its buildings in London.
Barclays’ facilities management director, Jon Couret, said:
The increase ensures that all of our staff in Greater
London will earn more than the recommended London Living Wage. Although these employees are notdirectly employed by Barclays, we have a responsibility to ensure they receive a fair, well-rounded remuneration package and this delivers that.
Reverend Paul Regan of London Citizens/TELCO,
said, “London Citizens and T&G applaud Barclays’
groundbreaking move that will lift 1000 families out ofworking poverty.”Web-based sources:
http://bbc.net.uk/radio4/news/nicework/transcripts/20050322_nice_work.pdf
http://www.telcocitizens.org.uk
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content_print.asp?ContentID=5039
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=93540&int1stParentNodeID=92090
http://www.newsroom.barclays.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1102&NewsAreaID=2

Pharmaceutical sector, Living wage commitments
Worldwide
Swiss pharmaceutical company, Novartis, has committed to go beyond legal compliance to ensure highstandards of corporate citizenship across its global
operations. Novartis’ Policy on Corporate Citizenshipincludes a pledge to “pay competitive and fair wages,
which clearly exceed what is needed to cover basic
living needs”. In addition, the company has said that
“annualised full-time wages must be set at or above
a level that covers the market price of a basket ofgoods and services representing the subsistencelevel for an average worker in the town or region inquestion”. To deliver on these commitments, thecompany initiated a living wage project to ensure justand favourable working conditions for its workers.

At the start of the initiative, Novartis recognised theimportance of determining the extent to which living
wage standards were met for its employees acrossthe world. In the absence of a generally accepted
methodology for determining a living wage, thecompany partnered with not-for-profit business association, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR),
to develop a methodology and strategy to calculate
and implement a living wage in every country in which
it operates and to review current best practices orleadership models from other industries.
The company has since implemented an approachthat targets employees earning the lowest wages,
whereby a Novartis Human Resources team first

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

97

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 7

proposes a living wage for each country based on theagreed Novartis/BSR methodology. Thereafter local
management is consulted and has the opportunity topropose an alternative based on local conditions.
For both OECD and developing countries, the living
wage figure tends to lie between the average andminimum wage for that location. Novartis reports thatthe involvement of local management in the decisionmaking process has been critical in creating awareness and commitment, with the additional benefit ofbetter understanding differences between regions
and rural and urban areas. Following the 2005 roundof consultations, Novartis reported “that 93 employees, out of a workforce of more than 90,000 people,
were being paid less than the living wage level inthe country”. By 2006, it had aligned the pay of all
employees with living wage levels. Annual monitoringof living wage compliance subsequently showed thatin 2006, 21 associates were being paid below living
wage levels and were later adjusted, and in 2007 a
total of 11 associates (0.001% of total associates)
experienced below living wage levels and needed tobe adjusted.
Novartis continues to work on the living wage with
BSR each year to make adjustments that take into
account inflation or newly available data. The company has pledged to begin extending the living wage
concept to third parties and has asked major suppliers and service providers to pay employees who workon Novartis sites a living wage in line with Novartis’
standard. Novartis also gives preference to suppliers
that meet the living wage commitment or other Novartis standards aligned to the UN Global Compact.
The company has expressed a willingness to discussand share its methodology and results relating to theliving wage initiative with other companies.

Web-based sources:
http://www.corporatecitizenship.novartis.com/people-communities/human-rights/living-wage.shtml
http://www.bsr.org/research/issue-brief-details.cfm?DocumentID=50678#leadership
http://www.corporatecitizenship.novartis.com/downloads/cc-in-action/Living_Wage.pdf

Energy and mining sector, Health and safety issues
Worldwide
BHP Billiton has established an occupational healthand safety programme in an effort to reduce thenumber of work-related accidents, with the aim of
ensuring zero fatalities.125 The company began byconducting a safety review to identify the causes offatal accidents and opportunities for improvement.
Once the safety review was completed, recommendations were presented to mine management for all
identified hazards. In April 2003, BHP Billiton’s Fatal
Risk Control Protocols (FRCPs) were establishedand a review process was developed to monitor anddrive the implementation of the protocols.
In 2005, on the basis of feedback from workshops
held in South Africa, South America and Australia,
the protocols were refined. The re-released FRCPs
cover the ten most dangerous areas of work identified by the company, including Underground Mobile
Equipment, Hazardous Materials Management, andWorking at Heights. The company has also madea tool-box of communications materials available
125 This case study is also relevant to ICCPR Article 6 (right to life).

to assist with communication and implementationof the FRCPs across the organisation. In addition,
global facilitators for each of the key risk areas wereappointed to assist and support sites to ensure
effective implementation.
In 2006, the company placed greater emphasis onlearning from significant incidents and contractor
safety by sharing learning from significant and nearmiss accidents, ensuring the standards and procedures adopted by contractors were consistent with
BHP Billiton’s own protocols, and by implementing
the protocols and reporting on them more fully.
According to the company, fatalities at work havedecreased following the initiation of this programme.
Although BHP Billiton has yet to achieve its targetof zero work fatalities, the company reports that for
activities where BHP Billiton directly supervises and enforces health and safety standards, the figure had fallenfrom 17 fatalities in 2003–4 to 3 fatalities for 2005–6.
However, 8 fatalities were reported for 2006–7.

Web-based sources:
http://sustainability.bhpbilliton.com/2006/sustainability/challenges/
http://www.bhp.com/bbContentRepository/bhpbsustainreport07web.pdf
http://hsecreport.bhpbilliton.com/2005/repository/safety/caseStudies/caseStudies13.asp

98

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 7
Right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it provides
for a healthy and safe working environment and decent working conditions. Apply the policy globally.
• Ensure that remuneration policies throughout thecompany are based on the principle of equal pay for
equal work and incorporate equal opportunities forpromotion based on merit.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agentsand other sub-contractors, the importance thecompany places on the provision of decent working
conditions, and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies risks relating to working conditions. Act on the findings.
• Comply with the more demanding of national andinternational regulation governing occupational healthand safety. Ensure that managers and staff receive
appropriate health and safety training, and conduct
regular health and safety audits (the findings should
be discussed at senior management level).
• Ensure that health and safety information is readily
available to workers in local languages, put in place
adequate first-aid arrangements, and liaise withworkers’ representatives on the subject.

• Be transparent in reporting health and safety accidents and set targets to encourage continuous
improvement.
• Put systems in place to limit the working hours of
direct employees and those of key suppliers andsub-contractors, and make provision for reasonable
time off. Be guided by ILO standards that dictate that
employees should not be required to work more than
48 hours per week or more than 10 hours in one day.
Voluntary overtime should also be limited in hours
and should not be expected on a regular basis. Employees should be given at least one day off in every
seven-day period.
• Comply with minimum wage regulations and develop
systems to ensure that the company and its subcontractors pay a living wage.
• Develop mechanisms for fixing, monitoring andenforcing fair wage levels, tailored to take account of
increases in the cost of living in a locally appropriate
way. Any deductions from wages should accord withnational laws.
• Consider instituting transparency in wage scales
for employees, in the interests of openness aroundgender wage issues.
Specific actions:• Follow, and attempt to exceed as appropriate, industry and local good practice with respect to working
hours, sick pay and leave allowances, in the interestsof being an employer of choice, good staff morale
and increased productivity.
• Engage in stakeholder dialogue on the issue of paying a living wage and good practice.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

99

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 7• Ensure that, wherever the company does business,
women are guaranteed conditions of work that are notinferior to those enjoyed by men. Where this is effectively impossible under local laws (for example if theState prohibits the employment of women in certain
sectors), companies should consider engaging withcivil-society groups to assess how they may best live
up to the spirit of Article 7 and principles of nondiscrimination.

100

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 8
Right to form trade unions and join the trade union, and the right to strike

Article 8:
Right to form trade unions
and join the trade union,
and the right to strike
The Right
This Article concerns the right of everyone to form tradeunions and to join the trade union of his or her choice,subject to the union’s own membership rules. This
right may only be restricted by States in circumstancesthat are set down in law and are necessary to protect
national security, public order, or the rights and freedoms of others. Trade unions themselves have rights
to establish national federations or confederations, andfor the latter to form or join international trade uniongroupings. Trade unions are permitted to function freely,
subject only to limitations that are lawful and necessary
to protect national security, public order or the rights ofothers.126 Finally, the Article recognises a right to strike,which must be exercised in conformity with the reasonable requirements of a particular country’s laws.
The core ILO Conventions governing freedom of association, the right to organise and collective bargain126 Similar restrictions apply to ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of opinion andexpression), and are discussed more extensively in relation to that right.

Related rights:

ing127 complement the interpretation of this right. These
Conventions dictate that workers should not be discriminated against because of trade union membership.
Governments should implement measures and develop
appropriate mechanisms to promote voluntary goodfaith negotiations between employers and employees’organisations, with a view to enabling them to workout collective agreements regarding the regulation of
employment.
Company actions may impact on these rights if they
prevent union membership and activity amongst
employees or are in any way complicit in actions that
restrict employees’ rights to participate in union activity.
This case highlights some of the complexities involvedin supply chain management, including the challengeof respecting both worker representation rights andprotecting jobs.128
127 ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of
Right to Organise (1948) and ILO Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (1949).
128 In the latter respect, this case study is also relevant to ICESCR
Article 6 (right to work).

ICCPR Article 22 (Right to freedom of association), page 63
ICESCR Article 6 (Right to work), page 91
ICESCR Article 7 (Right to enjoy just and favourable
conditions of work), page 95

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

101

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 8

Case studies
Optical frames suppliers, Worker representation issues
China
Mod-Style is a wholly owned commercial company that
was acquired in 2000 by the Australian-based charity,
the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL). Mod-Style is in
the business of sourcing optical frames from Asia. The
majority of Mod-Style’s factories are located in China
where only one federation of trade unions, the All-China
Federation of Trade Unions, is recognised.
The Brotherhood of St Laurence and Mod-Style“actively embrace corporate social responsibility”
and have established business standards based on
the conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises. To live up to their commitments, an
Ethical Business Project was set up to investigate thebusiness’s supply chain and handle any ethical considerations associated with manufacturing in China,
including any pertaining to union rights.

To enhance workers’ rights in the absence of independent trade unions, BSL and Mod-Style haveattempted to offer worker empowerment training andcapacity building within supplier factories to ensure that, in the absence of adequate national tradeunion rights, workers’ voices may still be heard andrespected. However, no factory to date has agreed
to this training. In response, the supply chain in
China has been consolidated to assist in developing
long-term, direct, stable relationships with factoryowners and managers in an effort to create a business relationship that allows consideration of not only
products, quality, price and delivery, but also fair anddecent working and living conditions in compliancewith China’s Labour Law.

Web-based sources:
http://www.bsl.org.au/main.asp?PageId=3568

Sporting goods industry, Union representation issues
Indonesia
In January 2004, the German sporting goods company Adidas-Salomon and Oxfam Australia jointly
agreed to invite an independent third party, the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC), to investigate allegations of labour violations at the PT Panarub factory,
Tangerang, Indonesia. PT Panarub supplied AdidasSalomon with athletic footwear. The WRC reportfound, among other things, that in an infringement of
the workers’ rights to join a union of their own choice,
PT Panarub management “actively and systematicallydiscriminates against one union in the plant, Perbupas, in favour of the other union present, SPN”.129
Among its recommendations, WRC called for a union
membership verification process.
Oxfam Australia and the Clean Clothes Campaign
have acknowledged that “Adidas responded positively and worked with factory management and localorganisations, including both unions in the factory, toimprove conditions and to end discrimination against
129 According to Adidas Group, of the roughly 11,000 employees at
PT Panarub approximately half (5,600) are members of the majority
SNP union, with a minority (2,380) belonging to the Perbupas union.
See also the case study on Toyota at page 93.

102

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

the Perbupas union.” The company worked with PT
Panarub to identify a qualified and independent third
party to facilitate the union membership verification
process. Adidas-Salomon also encouraged PT Panarub to conduct training for all supervisors and administrative staff on the union rights of its workers andthe obligation of management and other employees
to respect workers’ choices about union membership.
The training was conducted with ILO assistance inAugust 2004. In 2006, Adidas-Salomon revealed that“agreement could not be reached on the principles ormechanisms for conducting a factory wide ballot onunion membership”.
Despite efforts to resolve the tensions between thefactory and the Perbupas union, matters escalated in
October 2005 when PT Panarub dismissed 33 workers and placed the entire leadership of Perbupas on
suspension for allegedly organising an illegal strike.
Adidas-Salomon says it repeatedly urged the factory
to review the dismissals and sought assurances thatthe affected workers would continue to be paid untila resolution was reached. Adidas-Salomon did notAdidas has since said that it is unable to guarantee
employment for the dismissed workers, but would ask
other suppliers to consider employing those affected
and pledged to “monitor this to ensure that theirapplications are treated in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner”. Oxfam Australia and the Clean
Clothes Campaign continue to press the company
to find jobs for the affected workers. The NGOs also
continue to call for delivery of the union membershipverification process.

130 William Anderson, Adidas-Salomon’s regional head of social andenvironmental affairs, is quoted in John Aglionby, “Adidas ‘fails to act’
over sacked workers”, The Guardian, 6 July 2006.

Web-based sources:
http://www.workersrights.org/PT_Panarub_Updated_Summary_of_Findings_and_Recommendations.pdf
http://www.adidas-group.com/en/sustainability/statements/2006/correspondence_adidas_Panarub_July_2006.asp
http://www.adidas-group.com/en/sustainability/statements/2007/Panarub_May_2007.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jul/06/indonesia.worldcup2006
http://www.oxfam.org/en/files/offside_labor_report/download
http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/labour/06report/docs/adidasstatement1.pdf
http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/labour/reports/dialogue.html
http://www.cleanclothes.org/urgent/08-01-29.htm

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Right to form trade unions and join the trade union, and the right to strike

Although the Manpower Department initially supported 30 of the 33 dismissals, in May 2006 the Indonesian Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) foundthat there was no legal basis for the dismissals andrecommended that the workers be reinstated. In June
2006, William Anderson of Adidas-Salomon said thatthe company had asked the factory to reinstate theworkers, but had had its requests refused and was notprepared to issue a formal warning to the factory because “If we do and the company refuses to comply,
we would have no choice but to terminate relations
with them. We don’t want to play high stakes because
eleven thousand people could then lose their jobs.”130
Adidas did, however, write to the management again,
requesting reinstatement of the workers, oralternatively the setting up of a satisfactory arbitration
process. In a letter of August 2006, Adidas stated that
it would cap the growth in its orders from Panarub“until a satisfactory conclusion [was] reached in thecase”. In April 2007 PT Panarub and the Perbupas
union reached an agreement whereby the dismissed
workers received a severance package, but were notreinstated.

ICESCR article 8

intervene in the dismissal procedure directly, preferring that local dispute resolution mechanisms be exhausted. The company’s policy of respecting due legal
process in all circumstances drew criticism from someNGOs, who questioned the reliability of the Indonesian
Manpower Department.

103International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 8

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of union rights. Apply the policy globally.
• Ensure that the company’s policy is based on theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights and ILO Conventions 87 and 98,
which together establish the right of all workers andemployers to form and join trade unions, and toallow unions to function freely without restrictions or
discrimination.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agentsand other sub-contractors, the importance thecompany places on the rights of workers to jointrade unions and exercise union rights, and encourage them to develop a similar standard and takeresponsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies any potentially negative impacts
on union rights. Act on the findings.
• Do not hinder the ability of workers to exercise
their right of association and their involvement in

104

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

workplace issues and conditions of employment. In
countries where union activity is illegal, or where
there is no trade union movement in practice, consult with international and local NGOs and labour
organisations on ways in which the company may
be able to facilitate alternative worker representative
frameworks.
• Ensure that workers are aware of their rights bymaking company policies available in local languages, clearly accessible, and available orally whereilliteracy is prevalent.
• Adopt a worker communication mechanism that allows for the safe and confidential reporting of worker
grievances, including any allegations of interferencewith union activity. Establish guarantees to prevent,or punish where violations are found, reprisals
against complainants or their representatives.
Specific actions:• Consider entering into union recognition agreementswith local unions that represent the interests of workers in the given industry sector. A growing numberof companies are pursuing this course of action withsome success.
• Be prepared to raise concerns with the relevant
authorities publicly or in private – individually or inconcert with other companies – over restrictions tounion rights that may affect company stakeholders.

ICESCR article 9
Right to social security, including social insurance

Article 9:
Right to social security,
including social insurance
The Right
The right to social security encompasses the right toaccess and maintain benefits without discrimination.
Governments are obliged to make available a systemof social security. Such systems may involve contributory or insurance-based schemes, which normally entail
compulsory contributions from the beneficiary and thebeneficiary’s employer (and sometimes the State), as
well as universal or targeted schemes funded out ofthe public purpose. Social security benefits should beavailable to cover the following areas: health care andsickness, old age, unemployment, employment injury,
family and child support, maternity, disability, and survivors and orphans.131 Social security systems should beaffordable and sustainable, so as to provide for present and future generations, and should also provide foradequate benefits. The right is essential in combating
poverty, given its redistributive character;132 its realisation can, for example, have a significant impact on theenjoyment of other related rights, such as the right to an
adequate standard of living and the right to health.
According to some estimates, only about 20% of the
131 See ILO Convention 102 on Social Security (Minimum Standards)(1952).
132 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment 19, 4 February 2008, available via http://www2.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm.

world’s population currently has access to appropriate
and adequate social protection.133
The role of companies in relation to the right to social
security will vary depending on the national context.
Generally, companies have a basic duty to ensure thatlegally mandated contributions to the system, in addition to those deducted from employee salaries andwages, are paid promptly to ensure that the government’s ability to deliver social security payments or services is not undermined. Increasingly, employment lawsalso create obligations on companies to provide income
and benefits on maternity, injury and the like. If companies operate private social security schemes, they havethe responsibility to do so in a non-discriminatory manner and they should not impose unreasonable eligibility
conditions. Finally, if a company denied its workers theircontractually agreed employment injury benefits, itsactions would impact negatively on the workers’ rights
under Article 9.
133 See Michael Cochon and Krysztof Hagemejer, “Social Security for
All: Investing in Global and Economic Development. A Consultation”, Issues in Social Security Series, Discussion Paper 16, ILO Social Security
Department, 2006.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

105

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 9

Case studies
Energy sector, Pension scheme and other social security issues
USA
In the United States, provision of social security
benefits (e.g. health care, pensions) is a common
component of employee remuneration packages atmany corporations. In such situations, an employee’s
enjoyment of those social security rights is, in part,
directly dependent upon his or her employer.
When Enron filed for one of largest bankruptcies inhistory in December 2001, 4,500 workers immediately lost their jobs (almost one quarter of the company’s
workforce), which in practical terms affected theirright to social security.
Prior to the financial collapse, Enron workers who
were laid off had been entitled to one week’s pay foreach year of work and one week’s pay for each USD
10,000 a year in salary. In the event, workers laid off
in December 2001 received a severance payment
worth only USD 4,500, irrespective of how many
years they had served with the company. Health insurance that had been provided by the company was
also reportedly cancelled immediately, in violation offederal law. Money for retirement plans was lost, asmuch of the employer and employee contributions

had taken the form of Enron stock, which was rendered worthless by the bankruptcy.
In September 2003, a federal judge in Texas ruledthat former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay and Northern Trust Corp., trustee of Enron’s retirement plan,
could be sued under federal pension law for allegedly
failing to protect Enron employees. The judge foundthat they had a responsibility to ensure that the retirement plans’ investments were prudent and that thisobligation extended to decisions about the percentage of Enron stock employees held in their retirement
accounts.
By 2005 a final partial settlement had been reached,
whereby the claimants would share in distributions
under Enron’s bankruptcy plan. While the claimants were to receive only a small amount of the lost
investments, the deal ensured they would get somecompensation without the uncertainty of litigation.
Further partial settlements were reached in 2006 with
Enron’s former accountants, as well as former Director Jeff Skilling and the estate of former Chairman
Kenneth Lay.

Web-based sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1822042.stm
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr02262002.cfm
http://www.hagens-berman.com/enron_lawsuit
http://www.kellersettlements.com/enron.html
http://www.erisafraud.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1046
http://www.employeecommittee.org/sr-401klitigation.asp
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=news_index&sid=aNsg3JDAdyRw

106

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 9

In 1992, apparel company Levi Strauss & Co.
became the first Fortune 500 company to offer healthinsurance benefits to unmarried couples and in 1996
entertainment giant the Walt Disney Corporation wasamong the first firms in the US to extend employee
health coverage to the partners of gay and lesbian
employees.
According to findings by the Washington-based advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, by 2006 morethan half the companies in the Fortune 500 offered
the same health benefits to employees who live withdomestic partners as they did for married employees. In its 2008 Corporate Equality Index, Human
Rights Campaign also found that of those employersthat offered domestic partner health coverage, 66%
provide it to both same and opposite-sex partners of
employees.
During the late 1990s, Brendan Keegan, the executive vice president of human resources at hotel chain
Marriott International Inc., recognised that a lack ofhealth benefits for domestic partners was a growing
concern among employees. Keegan reports that thecompany realised “this was the right thing to do, butalso was a growing competitive thing to do”, andin 1999 responded by becoming the first firm in its
industry to implement the benefit.
By 2006, the Washington Post was reporting that
253 out of the Fortune 500 companies offered such
benefits.
Companies that provide domestic partner benefits
in the United States are faced with the dilemma that
because a domestic partner is not currently recognised as a spouse under federal law, any portion ofan employer-paid insurance premium that covers adomestic partner is treated as taxable income. To
combat this, Helga Ying of Levi Strauss’s worldwide
government affairs department has explained that thecompany raised the wages of employees to compensate for the federal tax they had to pay to cover theirpartners.

Right to social security, including social insurance

Apparel, lodging and entertainment industries, Employee social security benefitsUSA

Web-based sources:
http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2008.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902049.html
http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/corporate_responsibility.html
http://www.levistrauss.com/Citizenship/
http://www.marriott.com/corporateinfo/default.mi

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

107

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 9

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring it takes
account of the right to social security. Apply thepolicy globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop asimilar standard of their own. Where the company
is not able to exert that level of control, make it
clear to business partners, including governments,
State-owned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees,
agents and other sub-contractors, the importancethe company places on respect for social security
rights, and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment,
ensuring that it identifies any risks related to social
security rights. Act on the findings.
• Ensure that internal governance and management
policies comply with national regulations andstock market listing requirements to safeguard
workers’ rights to legal and contractual benefit
entitlements.

108

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Honour all legal and contractual benefit commitments to workers and to State social security
schemes and mechanisms.
• Commit to offering workers benefit entitlementsthat conform to industry and local good practice.
Specific actions:• In contexts where government social security provision is inadequate, or where the State is unwilling or unable to enact and enforce social security
laws, consider any extraordinary support andsafeguards the company might wish to offer its
employees and direct stakeholders. Engage with
relevant experts, industry peers and stakeholders
for guidance on what form that support might take.

ICESCR article 10
Right to a family life

Article 10:
Right to a family life

The Right
According to this Article the widest possible protection
and assistance should be given to the family, particularly
during its establishment, and while it is responsible forthe care and education of dependent children. Special
protection is given to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. Of particular relevanceto companies, the right requires that during this period
working mothers should be given paid leave or leave
with adequate social security benefits.
Enhanced measures of protection and assistanceshould also be taken on behalf of all children and young
people. Human rights standards do not impose an
absolute prohibition of work by children, defined under
the Convention on the Rights of the Child as persons
less than 18 years of age. In some cases, work may be
an important element of vocational training, such as
in apprenticeships, or a way of earning supplementary income. Children should, however, be protectedfrom economic and social exploitation and in particularthey should not be exposed to work that is harmful totheir morals or health, or dangerous to life, or likely tohamper their normal development. The ‘worst forms ofchild labour’ are absolutely prohibited, as is work that is
incompatible with the right of children to free and compulsory education. Work by children must not interferewith their ability to attend school. States are required to
set age limits below which the paid employment of childlabour should be prohibited and punishable by law.
This Article is relevant to companies insofar as certain
work practices (including working hours and eligibility
for leave) may hinder or enhance the ability of people
to adopt a healthy work/life balance and spend quality
time with their families. Companies also impact on theright if child labourers are found to be working directly
for the company or within their supply chains.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 23 (Rights of protection of the family and theright to marry), page 67
ICCPR Article 24 (Rights of protection for the child), page 69
ICESCR Article 7 (Right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work), page 95

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

109

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 10

Case studies
Airline industry, Family-life issues
Malaysia
This case highlights the challenges companies can facewhen stakeholder expectations on what constitutes
good practice in relation to the right to a family life differ
from national legal requirements.
In 1991, airline company Malaysia Airlines (MAS) was a party
to a case that concerned the right to family life of a flightstewardess, Beatrice Fernandez. Under the terms of a 1988
collective agreement, female stewardesses were compelled
to resign if they became pregnant, or face dismissal. Ms Fernandez, who had worked for Malaysian Airlines for 11 years
before becoming pregnant, refused to resign and as a result
had her services terminated by the company.
Ms Fernandez brought her case before the Malaysiancourts. The Malaysian High Court, the Court of Appeal
and the Federal Court all held that no discrimination had
been practised by MAS (the decisions of the latter two
courts were unanimous). Though Ms Fernandez lost thelegal battle,134 Malaysian Airlines subsequently reviewed
134 In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled that constitutional law could
offer Ms Fernandez no protection as it applied only to public authorities and not private companies. The Court also found that gender
discrimination laws of 2001 could not be applied retroactively.

its policies. Under the terms of a 2002 collective agreement with the Malaysian Airline System Employees Union(MASEU), married female cabin crew who had served
for five or more years became entitled to maternity leaveof 60 days. In 2005, new provisions in the MAS termsof service for its cabin crew, agreed in negotiations with
MASEU, increased the limit on the number of children astewardess could have from two to three before being
expected to resign or risk having her contract terminated.
Critics, including the Joint Action Group against
Violence Against Women, point out that despite theimprovements, unmarried stewardesses and thosewith less than five years’ experience still have noprotection and the company has retained the rightto terminate contracts where stewardesses become
pregnant for a fourth time. In 2005, the International
Transport Workers’ Federation wrote to the company
expressing concern over the limits placed on stewardesses, and that “pregnant women are not redeployed to other duties, but instead are forced to takeseven months unpaid leave”.

Web-based sources:
http://www.wao.org.my/news/20050103mas.htm
http://www.wao.org.my/newslinks/MASimproves.pdf
http://www.wao.org.my/news/20050106masmemo.htm
http://www.itfglobal.org/solidarity/itflettertomas.cfm
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/uk/en/corp/corp/relations/info/reports/annual-reports.aspx
http://malaysiaairlines.listedcompany.com/misc/AR2006.pdf

110

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

IBM’s flexible working options allow for one thirdof its 140,000 employees worldwide to work either
off-site or remotely on any given day. The company
provides 100 day-care centres across its operations

for those working mothers who are unable to workfrom home. All new parents are granted full healthbenefits for an unpaid leave period of up to 156
weeks, during which their jobs are guaranteed.
Ronald C. Glover, IBM’s vice president for global
workforce diversity, further explains that:

Right to a family life

Technology company IBM has appeared regularly in
Working Mother magazine’s 100 Best Companies,
which lists companies that lead the way in providing
family-friendly work conditions. In 2007, the company
was ranked in the top ten alongside Ernst & Young,
KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and UBS. IBM also
featured in the magazine’s 2007 Best Companies Hallof Fame for firms that had been listed in the top 100
consistently for more than 15 years, along with othercompanies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Hewlett Packard
and Johnson & Johnson.

ICESCR article 10

Technology, accounting, finance and pharmaceutical sectors, Family-friendly workplace issues
USA

Women have been asking for greater flexibility [and]they’re also asking for tools that enable them to
network with colleagues, develop their skills, andgrow their career. To help them, we offer a rangeof programmes, from flexible work schedules andmeeting-free Fridays to online resources that identify
job and learning opportunities.

Web-based sources:
http://www.workingmother.com
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/s4_4.shtml
http://www.ubs.com/1/e/about/ouremployees/diversity/program_initivatives/worklife_balance.html

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

111

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 10

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to a family life. Apply thepolicy globally.
• Ensure that the company’s policy includes clear
commitments and procedures to prevent child
exploitation. Be guided by ILO Convention 138 on
Minimum Age (1970) and ILO Convention 182 on
the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999).
• Ensure that any work/life balance policies encourage the development of family life.

• For companies that house employees, or subcontracted employees, in dormitory facilities or onsites that are not within easy travelling distancefrom the worker’s home, ensure that the management and operation of these facilities is conducive
to and supportive of family life. Where employees
work for extended periods of time on facilities
away from home, ensure that procedures are
established to safeguard the employee’s right toa family life in line with local good practice; thismay include the provision of extended periods ofleave between assignments to spend with family
members.
Specific actions:• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop asimilar standard of their own. Where the company
is not able to exert that level of control, make it
clear to business partners, including governments,
State-owned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees,
agents and other sub-contractors, the importancethe company places on respecting the right to a
family life, and encourage them to develop a similar standard and take responsible action.

• In contexts where work/life balance benefits are
rare, examine and attempt to exceed local goodpractice and encourage business partners to do
likewise.
• In contexts where home-working is commonplaceand child care facilities are rare or non-existent,
strive to accommodate home-working. Consult
with human rights experts and industry peers for
guidance on how to act appropriately.

Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies risks related to the right tofamily life. Act on the findings.
• Comply with national regulations concerning paid
parental leave. Where government social security
provision for expectant parents/recent parents islimited or non-existent, consider applying at least
minimum international standards.

112

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Sponsor or lend in-kind support to education
schemes to provide schooling for formerly
exploited children. Consult with human rights
experts and industry peers for guidance on how toachieve sustainable results.

ICESCR article 11
Right to an adequate standard of living

Article 11:
Right to an adequate
standard of living
The Right
Article 11 guarantees the right to an adequate standardof living including adequate food, clothing, housing andcontinuous improvement of living conditions. It has also
been interpreted as including access to sufficientwater and sanitation. These elements are discussed
below (and continued at page 118).
a) Right to adequate housing
The right to adequate housing encompasses more thanthe provision of basic shelter; it is the right to live somewhere in security, dignity and peace. This means that
housing or shelter must fulfil certain basic criteria, suchas security of tenure, availability of utilities and otherservices (e.g. sewage facilities and access to safe drinking water), affordability, habitability, accessibility, location and cultural adequacy of housing. Governments
should take progressive steps towards the achievementof all aspects of the right.
Companies that provide housing for their workforce or
the local community will find that they can impact

directly, positively or negatively, on the enjoyment of theright. Companies may find their activities impact on theright to adequate housing if they are involved in landtransactions that require population relocation or forced
evictions, be this as landlords or to accommodate
development projects or natural resource exploration.
Those companies that engage in relocation or forced
evictions will want to ensure that they act in accordancewith human rights standards, and that those affected
and their belongings are protected and secured during
the relocation process. Forced evictions should be alast resort and feasible alternatives should be exploredin consultation with the affected communities. Forced
evictions are not inconsistent with the right to adequate
housing if procedural safeguards – such as comprehensive impact assessments, prior consultation andnotification, provision of legal remedies, fair and justcompensation, and adequate relocation – are deployed
to minimise the adverse impacts, including on specificgroups such as women and indigenous peoples.

Related rights:
ICCPR Article 12 (Right to freedom of movement), page 31
ICCPR Article 27 (Rights of minorities), page 81

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

113

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 11Case studies
Toy sector, Housing issues
MexicoThis case raises questions as to how far company
responsibilities should extend in economicallydeprived areas.
Toy company Mattel operates a maquiladora factory,
Mabamex, within the export processing zone (EPZ)
around Tijuana, Mexico. Neighbouring the factory,
many of the workers’ homes are made of scrap metal
and lack running water. According to Alfredo Hualde,director of El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (a research
institute), although Mattel’s factory is one of the best
maquiladoras in Tijuana with respect to working conditions, the company would need to double the workers’
wages for them to be able to afford the basic amenities, including sanitary drinking water.
Audits of the Mabamex plant conducted in 2004 and2007, by the US-based not-for-profit International
Center for Corporate Accountability (ICCA), foundthat Mattel’s workers were paid well above the minimum wage and the prevailing area wages and that
this applied to both temporary and permanent

workers. The audits also found that employees
benefited from subsidised meals in the factory
cafeteria and enjoyed satisfactory access to drinking water and well-maintained on-site bathroom
facilities. In 2007, ICCA specifically noted that: “Theplant regularly tests and documents all sources ofdrinking water.” Whilst a variety of minor problems
were identified concerning consecutive days worked
and general housekeeping, ICCA concluded that,“overall, Mabamex is a well maintained facility andoperates in an efficient manner while ensuring thatthe plant provides a clean, safe and healthy work
environment for its employees”.
Although working conditions in the plant itself are
generally considered to be above average, comments by Mattel’s CEO, Robert Eckert, highlight thedilemma faced by employers in this area, “Do wewant to make people’s lives better? Absolutely! Do
we want to unilaterally do things that make us uncompetitive and therefore our products don’t sell andtherefore nobody gets employed. No.”

Web-based sources:
http://www.timesizing.com/gts0411e.htm
http://www.icca-corporateaccountability.org/04_reports.php?sp_rep=2
http://www.mattel.com/about_us/Corp_Responsibility/default.asp

114

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Guatemala Nickel Company (CGN), a majority
owned subsidiary of Canadian firm Skye Resources
Inc, holds an exploratory mining licence for 300
square kilometres of land in the municipality of El
Estor, Izabal, Guatemala. It acquired the rights fromanother Canadian mining company, INCO, in 2004.
CGN has faced allegations that it forcibly evicted
a group of Mayan Q’eqchi peoples who had been
occupying the land.
The mining concession for the land in El Estor was
originally purchased by INCO from the Guatemalan
military government in the 1960s. A number ofMayan Q’eqchi peasant farmers claim that the land
historically belonged to them, that their family members were evicted in the 1960s and that their viewson the use of the land have never been properly
taken into account.
In September 2006, 350 Mayan families moved
onto land at three separate sites prior to theplanned commencement of nickel mining by CGN.
The families claimed that they were reoccupying
ancestral lands and needed to do so in order tohave viable livelihoods. A community elder asserted at the time, “We are recuperating our lands,
not invading them. Some of us were born on theselands before any mining company arrived in thearea.” According to Father Dan Vogt, co-ordinatorof a community development group, Aepidi, manyof them had been campaigning for the company
to provide them with land to farm. The company

maintains that prior to September 2006 the land
had been unoccupied for decades.
NGOs such as the Centre on Housing Rights andEvictions (COHRE) claim that between 8 and 9
January 2007, over 475 indigenous Mayan families
were forcibly evicted from several sites in El Estor.
The evictions were reportedly carried out by 650
police and soldiers after CGN had obtained a court
order. Although some evictions were said to havebeen handled with sensitivity, with inhabitants given
time to vacate safely, COHRE alleges that the eviction was “accompanied by a private grey, white andblue helicopter, which flew low over the communities, intimidating the inhabitants”. It is also alleged
by COHRE that “the evicted families lost 18 homes
which were burned and destroyed” by company
contractors.

Right to an adequate standard of living

This case study highlights the long-term repercussions, including allegations of wrongful eviction, that
can arise when the legal title to land is disputed andtransferred for private commercial use contrary to thewishes of the land’s traditional owners, even if theoriginal transfer took place years ago and was sanctioned by local authorities. It also illustrates the longstanding suspicions that often need to be overcome
in contexts where mistrust has characterised relations
between community members and companies.

ICESCR article 11

Mining sector, Housing and community displacement issues
GuatemalaResponding to correspondence from critics, Ian
Austin, CEO of parent company Skye Resources,
said in a letter of 17 January 2007 that “CGN
management met with the squatters’ leaders in
December 2006” to reach a peaceful settlement
and that the evictions were a last resort. Austin
acknowledged the fires took place, but denied company involvement and did not condone them. Skye
Resources maintains that the eviction process was
carried out by “a special unit of the national policethat [was] specially trained to handle such situations”, that it gave advance warning of the evictions
to those affected, and compensated families forloss of personal property.
Ian Austin said, “We are thankful that the Guatemalan government has upheld the company’s rights tothe land and we remain committed to working with
community leaders to find solutions to this important issue.” Nonetheless, a number of local community leaders remain angry about how the evictions
were handled and continue to press their claim overthe disputed land.

Web-based sources:
Web-based
sources:
http://www.cohre.org/view_page.php?page_id=251
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/03/04/forced-evictions-in-guatemala-whose-land-is-it-anyway/
http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Guatemala/Evictions_in_El_Estor
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2007/08/c4106.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mayans-occupy-canadianowned-mine-in-campaign-for-farmingland-417045.html
http://www.skyeresources.com/community/in_the_news

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

115

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 11

Energy sector, Environmental disaster issues
Indonesia
On 28 May 2006, PT Lapindo Brantas, an Indonesianenergy company, commenced drilling a borehole in
East Java in search of gas. During the second stage ofdrilling, a mud volcano eruption began. The mudflows
have continued to the present day; experts see no end
in sight and predict that the area affected is likely to
grow. Tonnes of mud are reported to have inundated
nearby villages and sites of commercial activity, including rice paddies and shrimping grounds. Impacting on
enjoyment of the right to housing, thousands of people
have been forced from their homes as a result of theeruptions and flows. More resettlements are thought
to be inevitable. PT Lapindo Brantas faces allegations
that its activities triggered the eruption.
PT Lapindo Brantas argues that an earthquake incentral Java that occurred two days before theycommenced the drilling caused the eruption. However, an expert geologist team from the UK assigned
the blame to PT Lapindo Brantas’s drilling activities.135 No other mud eruptions are reported to havearisen as a result of the earthquake, the epicentre ofwhich was 300 km away.
A lawsuit was brought by an NGO, WALHI, the Indonesian branch of Friends of the Earth, against Lapindo
Brantas for allegedly causing the disaster. In December
2007 the District Court of South Jakarta dismissed thecase and found that the mudslide was a natural disaster. WALHI is reportedly appealing that decision.

The Indonesian president has decreed that the company pay IDR 2.5 trillion (about USD 268 million) incompensation to local residents. By January 2008,
20% of this amount had been paid, though many
victims reportedly had not yet received compensation. The President has also asked the company tofund mitigation efforts worth IDR 1.3 trillion (about
USD 140 million). The Indonesian government has
agreed to provide IDR 700 billion (about USD 75 million) in compensation for the many affected persons
outside that immediate area.
In May 2008, Komnas HAM, the Indonesian
Human Rights Commission, labelled the government’s response to the mudflow a “gross rights
violation”. Komnas HAM found that the government
had failed to ensure protection for the human rights
of victims, and that efforts to stop the flow were
inadequate. It also found that the compensation
schemes were flawed, and had deprived victims of
their rights to proper compensation. In June 2008,
Komnas HAM suggested that the existing compensation schemes be revised, and that PT Lapindo
Brantas be required to fund all of the required compensation and mitigation efforts. As the mudflow
continues, adjustments and increases in available
compensation, from whatever source, may be necessary if more people are seriously affected.

135 See Richard Davies et al, “Birth of a mud volcano: East Java,
29 May 2006”, http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-d
ocument&doi=10.1130%2FGSAT01702A.1&ct=1

Web-based sources:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/LB_mud_volcano_Indonesia.pdf
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/exec_summ_banks_Indonesian_mud_flow.pdf
http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2007/1/8/all-efforts-to-overcome-lapindo-mud-flow-be-monitored-speaker/
http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/2/29/lapindo-mudflow-victims-still-complain-about-promised-compensation/
http://www.corfina.com/financial_news/2007/20070113.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hP707SR7ekOSCFmE8Tu3s8Mk6e8Q
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/nasional/2008/06/13/brk,20080613-125309,uk.html
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/29/mudflow-a-039gross-rights-violation039.html

116

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 11

Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to housing. Apply the policy
globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to the company
policy and urge them to develop a similar standardof their own. Where the company is not able to exertthat level of control, make it clear to business partners,
including governments, State-owned joint ventures,
suppliers, franchisees, agents and other sub-contractors, the importance the company places on respecting
the right to housing, and encourage them to develop asimilar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment,
ensuring that it identifies risks related to the right tohousing. Act on the findings.
• Where financed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), comply with the IFC PerformanceStandards on Indigenous Peoples, and IFC Performance Standards on Land Acquisition and Involuntary
Resettlement. Other companies may also wish toconsider these standards.
• Consult in good faith with the relevant communities
through their own representative institutions prior
to launching any activity that affects people’s rightto housing with a view to obtaining their agreement.
This means allowing time for the community to makea considered evaluation and providing full informationon the impact and benefits, and any compensation
on offer, including in the local language concerned.

• Population relocations should be guided by The
Basic Principles and Guidelines on Developmentbased Evictions and Displacement, developed by
the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate
Housing, which stress, for example, the importanceof comprehensive impact assessments, the rights ofevicted persons to return, resettlement, fair and justcompensation, and prior notification to all affected
persons, in writing and sufficiently in advance tominimise the adverse impacts of evictions.

Right to an adequate standard of living

Suggested practical actions• In contexts where the company, either independently
or as part of a wider group of businesses, provides
housing to employees, this should be both affordable, decent and culturally appropriate, conforming
to or exceeding local good practice. Companies may
be guided by provisions and standards including theILO Recommendation 115 on Workers’ Housing.
Specific actions:• In developing-country contexts where housing facilities for employees or other stakeholders are particularly poor, consider what role, if any, the company
can play in helping to raise standards, either throughfinancial support or by utilising the company’s corecompetencies. Explore collective action possibilities
with industry peers or other businesses operatingin the same area to encourage and support government intervention to increase community access toadequate standards of housing.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

117

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 11b) Right to food (continued from page 113)
Food is vital for human survival and also essential asa means to fully enjoy all other rights. The human rightto adequate food implies that food should be available
and accessible to people in a quantity and of a quality sufficient to satisfy their nutritional needs, free fromharmful substances, and acceptable to their culture. The
right to food includes the possibilities for individuals tofeed themselves and their family directly by productive
land and other natural resources (e.g. farming, animalhusbandry, fishing, hunting and food gathering), as wellas to purchase foods at markets and stores. Various
steps should be taken by States to improve methodsof production, conservation and distribution of food
through, for example, the development of better farming
systems, as well as ensuring an equitable distribution ofworld food supplies in relation to need.
Protective measures are required to prevent contamination of food and water supplies arising from, for example, poor environmental hygiene or inappropriate
handling at various stages of the food chain.
The right to food is particularly relevant to those companies that provide for the basic needs of their workforce
and the surrounding community, and those whose corebusiness is the supply of food. Respect for the right tofood requires that company activities do not pollute,
harm or otherwise interfere with local supplies of food,or people’s ability to access them.
c) Access to water and sanitation
Access to water is necessary for life and thus thefulfilment of all other rights. Although not explicitly
mentioned in the text of Article 11, it is considered afundamental aspect of the right to an adequate standard of living.136 Human rights entitles everyone to safe,
sufficient, acceptable, affordable and physically accessible water for personal and domestic uses. These uses
include water for drinking, personal sanitation, prepara136 See General Comment 15 on the Right to Water of the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2002/11, 20 January
2003. See also Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights
obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, A/HRC/6/3, and UN
Human Rights Council, “Human rights and access to safe drinking waterand sanitation”, Resolution 7/22, 28 March 2008.

118

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guidetion of food, washing of clothes, as well as for personaland household hygiene. The water provided has to be ofgood quality, free from elements that might harm a person’s health, and a minimum quantity of approximately
50–100 litres per person per day.
States are obliged to ensure that water services aredelivered in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner, prioritising the most vulnerable groups and those
who have traditionally faced difficulties in accessing
adequate quantities of water. Water does not have to beprovided for free, but water and water facilities must beaffordable for even the most disadvantaged membersof society. Individuals, communities and groups shouldbe able to participate in decision-making processes that
may affect their access to water and should be given fullaccess to information concerning water and sanitation
matters. In a context of privatisation of water services,States must effectively regulate and control water
services providers to maintain equal, affordable andphysical access to sufficient, safe and acceptable waterfor personal and domestic uses.
Company activities can impact on access to water
if pollution and over-use of local water supplies significantly interfere with people’s enjoyment of accessto water. This aspect of the right is also particularly
relevant to companies that provide water services andcompanies that provide for the basic needs of theirworkforce and the surrounding community. Companies
can have a positive impact on rights with respect towater through initiatives aimed at improving the accessibility and quality of water for local communities.
As the rights regarding food and water are closely related, the case studies and suggested practical actions
for these rights have been grouped together below.

ICESCR article 11Case studies
Lafayette Philippines Incorporated (LPI) (a subsidiary of Australian mining company Lafayette Mining),
majority owns and operates the Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project on the Philippine island of Rapu-Rapu
in Albay. The project was approved by the Philippine
government in 1998. LPI has faced allegations thatits activities negatively impacted upon the right tofood of the island’s inhabitants, for whom fishing has
traditionally been the primary means of livelihood.
In October 2005, an overflow after heavy rains resulted
in two mine tailing spills from the LPI mine. Lafayette
Mining says they resulted in “relatively minor volume
discharges of low level contaminated liquid”. However,others allege that the spills contained cyanide, polluted
the sea, and killed fish and other marine life in the area.
Catches and fish sales are said to have declined rapidly
following the spill, as local consumers, who feared contamination, stopped buying fish caught in the vicinity.
The Manila Times reported in 2007 that local fishermen
claimed that the incident made their catch dwindle from70 blue marlins a year in 2005 to 20 in 2006. According
to FIAN international, an NGO that campaigns on theright to food, the spill threatened both the community’s
livelihood and food supply. Lafayette refutes these allegations and maintains that the disruption to local fishing
did not stem from the October spills, but was the resultof “a mercury hoax that was falsely attributed to theoperation of the Project”.
In November 2005, the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) ordered the temporary suspension of LPI’s mining operation andimposed a PHP 10.7 million fine on the company.
DENR’s Mines and Geosciences Bureau said thepenalty was for violating the Clean Water Act andan Environmental Compliance Certificate. DENR believed the accident was preventable and set stringent
safety testing requirements for any resumption ofmining activities.

In 2006 FIAN organised a letter-writing campaign
calling on the Philippine government to close theproject, rehabilitate the fishing grounds, and ensure
affected communities were compensated. The letterstressed that:
The Philippines is a State party to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
and therefore is duty-bound under international
law to protect the right to food of all its population[including the fishing community on the island of
Rapu-Rapu].

Right to an adequate standard of living

Mining sector, Contamination and food rights issues
Philippines

During 2006, LPI is reported to have appointed
a new management team and complied with thestipulations set by DENR to conduct test-runs of the
facility and install monitoring and emergency control
mechanisms. As a result, in February 2007 DENR’s
Pollution Adjudication Board issued a Final Lifting
Order allowing resumption of production of concentrates from the plant. DENR stressed that its decision was based on sound science and transparency.
DENR Acting Secretary, Francisco Brava, noted thatthe test runs were open to the public and subjectedto third-party evaluation. DENR had previously goneon the record to acknowledge that the Rapu-Rapu
experience had provided a wake-up call for more
rigorous compliance by the entire mining industry to
standards of responsible and sustainable mining in
the Philippines.
In December 2007, several hundred environmentalists, Rapu-Rapu residents, NGOs, church andacademic representatives convened in Albay to urge
LPI’s bank funders and investors to withdraw theirsupport from the mining company, amidst allegationsof a third fish-kill as a result of contamination issuingfrom the mine.

Web-based sources:
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/june/24/yehey/top_stories/20070624top6.html
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/oct/22/yehey/prov/20071022pro1.html
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/nov/04/yehey/prov/20071104pro1.html
http://www.fian.org/cases/letter-campaigns/mining-operations-are-threatening-the-right-to-food-of-thousands-ofpersons-philippines/?print_page=1
http://www.lafayettemining.com/about/default.asp?id=17
http://www.kalikasan.org/kalikasan-cms/?q=node/157
http://www.mgb.gov.ph/news/2007-0213rapu.htm

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

119

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 11

Water utilities, Access to water and pricing issues
BoliviaThis case illustrates the tensions that can arise when
private companies take on essential public service
functions. In 1999, the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia,
awarded a newly privatised water service concession to Aguas del Tunari (a consortium of International Water,137 Abengoa and five Bolivian firms). The
consortium faced allegations that it limited the local
community’s access to water through overpricing.
Bechtel Enterprises (which had a 27.5% stake in Aguasdel Tunari) notes that the consortium began operating thecity’s water and wastewater system in 1999, taking overfrom the municipal water company SEMAPA, under which“low-volume, poorer users paid more per unit than highvolume, wealthier users”.138 According to Bechtel, theconsortium succeeded in improving quality and increasing
the availability of water by 30%, while instituting a new
rate structure by which most price increases would fall tolarger, wealthier users.139 To secure the concession, Aguasdel Tunari agreed to repay SEMAPA’s accumulated debts
and finance maintenance and expansion of the water system in exchange for income generated from governmentapproved tariffs.
Bechtel holds that much of the perceived increases incosts to end users were the result of poorly managed
consumption – residents unaccustomed to ready access to water were ill prepared for the consequences ofover-consumption. Bechtel notes that the municipality
failed properly to communicate the cost implicationsof increased water consumption that often accompany
improvements to the availability of water.140
The Democracy Center, an NGO, has a different versionof events in Cochabamba. It alleges that within weeks oftaking control of the city’s water system, Aguas del Tunari raised water rates by an average of over 50%. The
NGO claims that by February 2000 the price of water
had increased so significantly that many poorer families
were priced out of the market and that this sparked civil
unrest. Bechtel points out that rates were soon rolledback to pre-concession levels and argues that the civil
unrest was not caused exclusively by the effects of the
137 In November 1999, Bechtel Enterprises Holdings, Inc. and
Edison S.P.A. finalised an agreement for Edison to acquire a 50% interest in International Water Limited (IWL), a major international water
development services company owned by Bechtel Enterprises.
138 This was reported on Bechtel’s website under the heading,“Bechtel perspective on the Aguas del Tunari water concession in
Cochabamba, Bolivia” on 16 March 2005.
139 Bechtel says that the agreed tariff structure involved an average unit
increase of 35%, “low-income residents were to pay 10% more, and thelargest hikes (106%) were reserved for the highest-volume users”. 	
140 Bechtel states that, “The higher rates didn’t last long. Responding to public criticism, the government rolled back rates in February [2000, and that] customers who had paid the higher rates wererefunded the difference.”120

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

price increases, but was precipitated by multiple factors,“including unrelated national groundwater legislation”.
The Democracy Center has disputed Bechtel’s statements. In particular it has placed electronic copies ofcustomers’ water bills and SEMAPA computer records
on its website, records which it claims demonstratethat the price increases were far higher and moredamaging than was claimed by Bechtel.141
In April 2001, the violence in Cochabamba and otherparts of the country escalated, which led to the government dispatching the military and culminated inseveral deaths. Amidst the deteriorating security situation Aguas del Tunari personnel vacated their officeand the government cancelled the water contract.
In November 2001, Aguas del Tunari filed a request forarbitration with the International Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID) (under the terms of a
Netherlands–Bolivia bilateral investment treaty) for therecovery of lost assets, investments and future profits.
In 2002, an international petition was filed by activists
with the World Bank demanding that the ICSID casebe open to public scrutiny and participation.
In 2006 the ICSID case was settled. A statement from
Bechtel read:
The Government of Bolivia and the international shareholders of Aguas del Tunari declare that the concession
was terminated only because of the civil unrest and thestate of emergency and not because of any act done or
not done by the international shareholders of Aguas delTunari (Bechtel, Befesa, Abengoa and Edison)” and that
there would be “no compensation paid by the Government of Bolivia or Aguas del Tunari for the termination of
the concession and the withdrawal of the claim [before
the ICSID].
Jim Schultz, director of the Democracy Center, conversely described the settlement as “a huge victory for
activists worldwide”.
141 For details, see http://democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/water/waterbills_index.htm.

The Bhopal gas plant disaster occurred in Madhya
Pradesh, India in 1984.142 Legal claims relating to theactual disaster were settled in 1989;143 however, inNovember 1999 several residents of Bhopal and nongovernmental organisations filed a new lawsuit against
Union Carbide in New York’s Federal Court. In Bano v
Union Carbide, the plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged ongoing pollution and contamination at the derelict
Bhopal plant. Among other things, this case highlights
competing interpretations of corporate liability.
In 1999 a Greenpeace study reported:“massive environmental contamination, including
contamination of the drinking water of residents in the
nearby communities, entirely unrelated to the Bhopal
disaster had taken place” and that “large amounts of
toxic chemicals and by-products from the factory’s
original manufacturing processes continue to pollute
the land and water.”
In 2002 Greenpeace additionally alleged the presence of significant chemical stockpiles, which could
affect residents via “contaminated soil or inhalation ofcontaminated dust”.
The Bhopal Information Center (BIC), a dedicatedUnion Carbide-run website, acknowledges that in1997 India’s National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (NEERI) found soil contamination
within the factory premises, but also noted that NEERI
142 According to the Madhya Pradesh state government, the “tragedy took an immediate toll of about 3000 lives” and thousands wereleft “physically impaired or affected in various degrees”. Amnesty
International and Greenpeace place the immediate death-toll substantially higher.
143 The settlement by Union Carbide India Limited and Union
Carbide Corporation with the government of India for USD 470 million
was upheld by India’s Supreme Court in 1991. Under its terms thegovernment of India agreed to provide for the welfare and ongoingneeds of those affected by the tragedy, and in 1998 the state government of Madhya Pradesh took over the running of the site. A number
of affected residents and campaigners have questioned the adequacyof the settlement.

found no evidence of groundwater contamination
outside the plant and concluded that local waterwells were unaffected. The BIC website states thatthe company no longer has any first-hand knowledgeof conditions at the site, but notes that the “Hindustan Times reported in April 2006, that ‘A study by
the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH),
Ahmedabad, has virtually debunked voluntaryorganisations’ fear about contamination of water inand around Union Carbide plant…’”. It also notedthat “the state government has filed the NIOH reportin the [Madhya Pradesh] High Court in support of its
contention that hazardous wastes lying in the Union
Carbide [site] were not contaminating the water”.

Right to an adequate standard of living

Chemicals sector, Long-term contamination and standard of living issues
India

ICESCR article 11

Web-based sources:
http://www.democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/water/bechtel-vs-bolivia.htm
http://www.bechtel.com/pdf/cochabambafacts.pdf
http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/Cochabambafacts0305.pdf
http://www.bechtel.com/2005-03-16_38.html
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/itn_jan20_2006.pdf
http://www.befesa.es
http://www.edison.it/edison/site/en/csr/
http://www.abengoa.com/sites/abengoa/en/index.html

Differing interpretations exist over liability and who
is responsible for cleaning up the site. BIC says that
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) sold Union Carbide India Limited (the 1984 plant owner-operator) to
MacLeod Russell in 1994, which renamed it EvereadyIndustries India, and in 1998 “the state governmentof Madhya Pradesh revoked Eveready Industries’
lease and took possession of the facility and publicly
assumed all accountability for the site, including thecompletion of any further remediation”. In 2001, UCC
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemicals. Dow has since stated that it “never owned or
operated the plant site involved with the Bhopal
tragedy and, as such, has no responsibility or liability
for the plant site”. Amnesty International has disputed
this interpretation, among other things noting that: “Asenior US-based attorney representing the victims ofthe gas disaster suggests that in terms of US law, allof UCC’s civil and criminal liabilities were acquired by
Dow with its purchase of the former.” In 2007 Amnesty
International USA and fellow backers of a shareholder
resolution144 also observed that, whatever the precise
144 The April 2007 shareholder resolution called on Dow to reportto shareholders “descriptions of any new initiatives instituted bymanagement to address specific health, environmental, and social
concerns of Bhopal, India survivors”.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

121

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 11

legal merits, “Bhopal presents a ‘moral’ liability for
Dow that may continue to damage Dow’s reputationand may reasonably be expected to affect growthprospects in Asia and beyond.”
In 2003, presiding United States District Judge John
Keenan dismissed the Bano case, ruling that:“the claims are untimely and directed at improperparties. Union Carbide has met its obligations toclean up the contamination in and near the Bhopal
plant. Having sold their shares long ago and having
no connection to or authority over the plant, theycannot be held responsible at this time.”

Upon review, in August 2006, the New York Federal
Appeals Court dismissed the Bano case, noting thatany order to direct Union Carbide to clean up the land
would run into technical difficulties “because of theimpracticality of a court-supervised clean up on land
owned by a foreign sovereign”. The court did not ruleon whether the company ought to remediate the siteand made no decision over whether it had improperly
contaminated the area. Two cases making similar
contamination-related claims remain pending in the US.

Web-based sources:
http://www.mp.gov.in/bgtrrdmp/profile.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4064527.stm
http://www.earthrights.org/site_blurbs/bano_v._union_carbide_case_history.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/toxic-hotspots
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34547
http://www.unioncarbide.com/bhopal
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Search/SearchResults?SearchableText=dow+bhopal&x=0&y=0&batch_start=11
http://www.elaw.org/node/2560
http://www.dow.com/commitments/goals/index.htm
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_responsiblecare/sec.asp?CID=1298&DID=4841

122

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR Article 1: Right to life

Oil and gas sector, Water issues
Colombia
This case illustrates the challenges that companies
can encounter when operations have the potential
to affect the neighbouring water table and impact oncommunities that live on, and make their living off,
adjacent land.

Following a mediation process that took place in
Bogotá in June 2006, a settlement was reached withno admission of liability.148 A joint statement issued
on behalf of both BP and the farmers’ legal representatives said that:In 2005, a group of Colombian farmers instigated aclaim for GBP 15 million in the London High Court
against BP as a member of the consortium responsible for the OCENSA oil pipeline in Colombia.145 Thecase concerned a number of human rights-related
issues, alleging impacts on the farmers’ food andwater supply.

“the precise terms of the amicable settlement are
based on the establishment of an environmental andsocial improvement trust by BP Colombia for the benefit of the farmers, in conjunction with a programmeof workshops for the farmers dealing with issues suchas environmental management, business development and other topics requested by the farmers.”

According to media reports, the farmers allegedthat as soon as construction began on the pipeline in the mid-1990s the local water table wasaffected.146 It was claimed that natural springs
upon which farmers had relied for decades began
to dry up, while other areas were flooded, resulting in crop failure, unsustainable fishponds, andlivestock deaths. Lawyers representing the farmers
acknowledged that BP had compensated some
farmers in the area for any potential negative impacts on their livelihoods arising from the pipeline,
but maintained that the sums were insufficient andtoo few farmers had benefited.147

The statement added, “Colombian farmers arepleased with the outcome of the mediation and are of
the view that BP Colombia has acted in a fair, committed and sympathetic manner.”149
148 See reports on the mediation and settlement made in a jointstatement that was reported on BP’s website under the heading:“Examples of community engagement”, and on Leigh Day & Co’s
website on 24 July 2006 under the heading: “Successful mediation
result for Colombian farmers”.
149 For details of the settlement, see “BP reaches agreement with
Colombian farmers”, Reuters News Service, 17 July 2006.

145 The claim and figures were reported in Robert Verkaik, “BP pays
out millions to Colombian farmers”, The Independent, 22 July 2006.
146 See Verkaik, above.
147 See Leigh Day & Co (lawyers for the farmers), “Colombian farmers start claim against BP for pipeline that has ruined lives”, whichappeared at http://www.leighday.co.uk, 18 June 2005.

Web-based sources:
http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1190528.ece
http://www.leighday.co.uk/doc.asp?doc=890&cat=850
http://www.leighday.co.uk/doc.asp?doc=639&cat=850
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37295/newsDate/17-Jul-2006/story.htm

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

123

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to an adequate standard ofliving, including the right to food and water. Apply
the policy globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop asimilar standard of their own. Where the company
is not able to exert that level of control, make it
clear to business partners, including governments,
State-owned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees,
agents and other sub-contractors, the importancethe company places on respecting the right tofood and water, and encourage them to develop asimilar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies any impacts on the right tofood or water. Act on the findings.
• Ensure there are adequate sanitation facilities in
the workplace, including separate sanitation facilities for men and women.
• Take steps to establish systems to monitor the
impact of company activities on the water table
and avoid over-use.
• Ensure the company does not restrict employees’
or community stakeholders’ access to potablewater needed for personal and domestic uses, orwater required for individual livelihoods, such as
the irrigation needs of farmers. Similarly, ensurecompany activities do not restrict employees’ orcommunity stakeholders’ access to adequate food.

124

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Establish systems to ensure that company activities do not pollute or otherwise damage local
water supplies or sources. Consider any eventual
closure of company facilities and the need to planfor the safe removal of equipment, particularly
toxic chemicals that could prove environmentally
damaging if not disposed of safely. Establish
processes to prevent long-term environmental
contamination in the event of unexpected facility
closure or evacuation, such as in the case of apolitical, natural or other emergency. Consider also
the need for remediation programmes should an
accident occur.
• For utility companies, take steps to ensure thatwater services reach outlying areas and vulnerable
groups. Steps should also be taken to ensure thelowest possible charge for services to low-income
areas and households.
• For utility companies, consult with and encourage
the participation of local individuals, groups andcommunities in decision-making related to waterand sanitation issues. Consultation with local communities should take place in the local language.
Specific actions:• In circumstances where the company and/or subcontractors routinely provide for the basic needsof the workforce, including housing provision,
provide food and safe drinking water at sufficientlevels to avoid any physical hardship, and ensure
access to sanitation facilities.

ICESCR article 12 Right to health

Article 12:
Right to health

The Right
This Article recognises the right to the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health. States musttake measures to prevent, treat and control diseases,
reduce infant mortality and provide for the healthy development of children, improve all aspects of industrial
and environmental hygiene, and to create conditions
that will ensure universal access to appropriate medical
services and medical attention in the event of sickness.
The right includes the right to control over one’s healthand body, including reproductive and sexual rights,
and freedom from interference, such as freedom from
non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation. People must have access to the underlying building blocks of good health, such as adequate nutrition,
housing, safe and potable water, adequate sanitation,
medical supplies, healthy working conditions and ahealthy environment.
Company activities and products can impact on theright to health of employees, and are expected to ensure that their operations and products do not impact
on the right to health of people, such as workers, consumers and local communities. Special consideration
should be made in relation to vulnerable sectors of society, such as children and adolescents, women, disabled
people and indigenous communities. Companies are
expected to ensure compliance with national legislation(including occupational health and safety regulations,and consumer and environmental legislation) and international standards where domestic laws are weak or
poorly enforced. Even though informal workers are often
not covered by domestic legislation, companies shouldtake steps to ensure that any persons within their

supply chains are not exposed to occupational healthand safety dangers. In countries where communicablediseases, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, are prevalent,many companies now seek to assist local health careby offering treatment to employees and by bolstering
the health infrastructure and delivery networks. Prior
informed consent and the participation of workers in thedefinition of such programmes are essential aspects of
the right to health. HIV testing should be confidential
and no discrimination should follow from the results.
Pharmaceutical companies in particular have a responsibility to respect the right to health that goes beyond
the right to health of their own workers. NGOs andothers increasingly look to pharmaceutical firms to help
provide access to high-quality, essential medicines forpoorer communities, for example through tiered pricing
or via flexible approaches to intellectual property protection. Pharmaceutical companies also face demands
to increase their investment in the research and development of medicines and treatments for otherwise
neglected diseases (such as river blindness, leprosy
and sleeping sickness) that have typically ceased to beprevalent in developed countries, but are still common
in developing countries.
Companies from sectors where the risk of pollution fromtheir activities is particularly great, such as extractive
firms and chemical companies, may face close scrutiny
over the policies and systems they have in place toensure that pollution does not negatively impact on theright to health of workers and members of surrounding
communities.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

125

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 12Case studies
Pharmaceutical sector, Drug development issues for neglected diseases
Singapore
As part of Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis’s
efforts to improve access to medicines in the developing world, the company established a public/
private partnership in 2002 with the Singapore
Economic Development Board Biomedical Sciences
Group to set up the Novartis Institute for Tropical
Diseases (NITD).
The World Health Organization (WHO) has shown thatthe incidence of dengue fever, tuberculosis (TB) andmalaria is accelerating, especially in developing countries, and that there is an urgent need for new medicines
to help combat these diseases. There were more than
48,000 new reported cases of dengue fever in Indonesia
alone during 2005, resulting in 650 deaths, while some
2.5 billion people worldwide were estimated to be atrisk from the disease. About 2 million people die every
year from TB. Due in part to a lack of research into newtreatments over many years, some estimates suggestthat close to 80% of TB cases now involve antibioticresistant strains that medical science is struggling totackle. Malaria meanwhile infects about 300 to 650
million people each year, and kills 1 to 3 million people ayear worldwide.

The NITD is an institute dedicated to the research anddevelopment of drugs to combat neglected diseases,
such as dengue fever, malaria and TB. Chair of theBoard of the NITD, Paul Herrling, believes that thecompany’s investment in the field of tropical diseases
is “an exception in an industry that has traditionallyneglected illnesses seen as endemic in the developing world”. NITD actively works on vaccines for
dengue fever and new small-molecule drugs for TB to
replace treatments that are often over 30 years old. In
2006 NITD also began to focus on new treatments formalaria.
In January 2007 NITD announced the opening of a
new clinical research initiative in Indonesia to further
expand the capabilities of the Singapore-based institute to conduct translational research for TB, dengue
fever and malaria. The new collaboration involves
the NITD, the Eijkman Institute in Jakarta, and theHasanuddin University Clinical Research Institute in
Makassar and is officially titled: NEHCRI (the NITD
– Eijkman Institute – Hasanuddin University ClinicalResearch Initiative).

Web-based sources:
http://www.nitd.novartis.com
http://www.corporatecitizenship.novartis.com/news/2007-01-25_nitd.shtml
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10314.php

Beverage sector, HIV/AIDS education and treatment issues
AfricaThe Coca-Cola Company in Africa provides comprehensive medical coverage to its employees andtheir dependants, and has developed a workplace
programme focused on prevention of HIV/AIDS. It
provides information and education, training for managers, employee support, voluntary testing, counselling and care. Since 2002, the company has beenworking with its African bottling partners to provide
a comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment
programme for the estimated 60,000 employees andtheir dependants that work for the firm’s 40 independent African bottlers.

The Coca-Cola Africa Foundation (TCCAF) enteredinto a partnership in 2001 with UNAIDS. This partnership was specifically designed to leverage The
Coca-Cola Company’s business systems, including
local resources and marketing expertise. In particular, TCCAF has used the firm’s extensive distribution
network to help educate people about HIV/AIDS anddistribute information to raise awareness across thecontinent.

Web-based sources:
http://www.un.org/unfip/YCompendiaGoal6.htm
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/hiv_aids.html
http://businessfightsaids.org/documents/media/publications/Coke%20HIV%20Report%202006.pdf

126

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 12

According to 2005 World Health Organization statistics, 1.6 billion people worldwide are now classified
as overweight, of which 400 million are said to beobese. The problem of obesity is now so severe thatsome argue it is one of the biggest health problems
in the world, which increasingly affects both developed and developing countries. While consumer andparental responsibility play a part in the epidemic, thefast-food sector has come under scrutiny in the context of this ‘right to health’ challenge for its perceived
role in contributing to obesity.
The International Association for the Study of Obesity(IASO) has argued that changes to diet and exercise
are not enough to combat the obesity epidemic.
IASO President Professor Claude Bouchard believes
that junk food is at the core of the problem, and has
said, “We should ban advertising of junk foods andnon-nutritious foods aimed at children.”Concerns have also been raised about the use oftrans-fat to enhance flavour in fast (and other) foods,
which, it is argued, pose more severe health risks
than ordinary saturated fat. For example, in 2003
McDonald’s faced a legal challenge in San Francisco
by NGO BanTransFat.org over the company’s alleged
failure to alert customers about operational challenges that had prevented it from implementing an earlier
voluntary commitment to change its cooking oil to

one containing less trans-fat. McDonald’s did not
admit liability, but settled the suit in 2005, agreeing
to pay USD 7 million to the American Heart Foundation for educational projects on trans-fat, and to pay
USD 1.5 million to notify the public of “the status ofits trans-fat initiative”.150 According to BanTransFat.
org, “the settlement should focus media attention on
the issue of partially hydrogenated cooking oils usedin many restaurants, not just McDonald’s”.

Right to healthFast-food sector, Health and obesity issues
Worldwide

A number of fast-food restaurants have responded
to growing public interest in health, diet and obesity
issues by establishing lines of healthy foods, including salads, fruit and fruit-based products andpublishing nutritional information. McDonald’s hastaken steps to ensure that nutritional labelling is on allits foods and has changed the nutritional content ofmany longstanding recipes. For example, the sugar
content of McDonald’s hamburger buns has been
halved. In early 2007, McDonald’s Australia had ninemeals approved by the Heart Foundation, which only
‘ticks’ meals if they satisfy strict criteria regarding
fat content, salt and, where appropriate, fibre andkilojoules. In April 2007, Kentucky Fried Chicken also
introduced a new chicken recipe free of trans-fat.

150 A further USD 7,500 was reportedly paid both to BanTransFat.
org and to the plaintiff, Kathrine Fettke.

Web-based sources:
http://abc.net.au/news/items/200609/1731948.htm?sydney
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html
http://www.iaso.org
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=265&sectionId=34
http://www.bantransfat.org
http://virtualcancercentre.com/news.asp?artid=5665
http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/default.asp
http://www.burgerking.co.uk/nutrition/updating.aspx
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info.html
http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/balance.html
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/document/NHF/Tick_MediaRelease_Foodservice_2007-02-05b.pdf

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

127

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 12

Pharmaceutical sector, Access to medicines and health care
Worldwide
Pharmaceutical companies typically patent new
medicines to recoup their research and development
investments. New medicines are, however, often
expensive for patients, particularly in circumstanceswhere public pharmaceutical benefit schemes do notexist or where private health insurance is unavailable.
This poses challenges in relation to people’s accessto medicines and raises questions over the appropriate allocation of responsibility for the health care ofpoor people in developed and developing countries.
At the start of the millennium, campaigns by NGOs,
such as Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF),
put pressure on pharmaceutical companies holding patents for antiretroviral drugs that combat HIV/
AIDS. It was alleged that strict enforcement of patentlaws led to pricing levels that limited the access toessential drugs for millions of people living with HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The underlying premise
has since been disputed by some experts, who argue
that only 1.4% of the WHO’s essential-drug list ispatented in the world’s poorest 65 countries. Even so,in April 2001, a number of pharmaceutical companies
dropped a high-profile constitutional case in South
Africa that challenged legislation that was likely toconstrain patent rights. These events highlight several
unresolved questions, including whether the greater
good would be served by eroding the present
patent system (which could potentially adversely affect incentives to discover and develop new drugs in
the medium to long term), in exchange for alleviationof people’s suffering in the short term through lower
prices for medicines currently available.
Several major pharmaceutical companies have
responded to the access to medicines challenge by,among other things, easing access to drugs that help

fight HIV/AIDS and related infections. Pfizer, for example, launched the Diflucan Partnership Programme(2000) initially in South Africa and later in a further 59
countries. Under the partnership with governments
and NGOs, Pfizer has donated Diflucan (which treats
certain opportunistic infections associated with HIV/
AIDS) and trained more than 20,000 health professionals in the diagnosis and treatment of fungal opportunistic infections.
Amidst ongoing debate over the effects of patents,
research priorities, tiered pricing models and the extent
to which lower prices would ensure health care forpeople living in the world’s poorest or remotest regions,research-based pharmaceutical companies continue
to face criticism over alleged efforts to stave off genericcompetition to their patented medicines. Some NGOsargue that generic competition helps to ensure longterm lower prices for essential medicines and is amore sustainable solution to drug availability than drug
donations. In 2007, Novartis came under pressure from
MSF and Oxfam to drop a case against India following
the Indian government’s decision to reject a patent on
Novartis’s cancer drug, Gleevec/Glivec.151 The campaign arose even though, according to Novartis, 99%
of Indian patients can receive Gleevec at no cost due toNovartis’s donations of the drug.152
151 The patent application was rejected after the Indian authorities
determined that the drug was not sufficiently novel to warrant a patent under Indian law.
152 In the case, Novartis challenged the legality of parts of India’s
patent law. Ultimately, Novartis’s challenge was rejected by the High
Court in Chennai on 6 August 2007, see Amelia Gentleman, “Setback
for Novartis in India over drug patent”, The New York Times, 7August 2007. An appeal against the actual rejection of the patent to
the Intellectual Property Appeal Board in Delhi remains pending.

Web-based sources:
http://www.accessmed-msf.org/main/access-patents/
http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=a2m_main.html&cat=2&subcat=4&select=1
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/bate200405171342.asp
http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/global_health/diflucan_partnership_program.jsp
http://www.novartis.com/newsroom/india-glivec-patent-case/faq.shtml#6
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Oxfamresponses

128

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR article 12
Right to health

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes into
account the right to health. Apply the policy globally.
• Ensure that the company’s policy complies withnational and international health and safety regulation(whichever provides the highest level of protection) toprevent accidents and exposure to toxins, communicable diseases and other health hazards. Be guided
by the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards on Community Health, Safety andSecurity.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agents,
security providers and other sub-contractors, the importance the company places on respecting the rightto health and encourage them to develop a similar
standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring it identifies risks related to the right to health. Act
on the findings.
• For products that pose a risk to human health,comply with national regulation or international bestpractice to provide them with appropriate healthwarnings. Ensure that such information is available inan appropriate language.
• Establish mechanisms to ensure the responsible advertising of products that have the potential to harm
human health, paying particular attention to potential
adverse impacts on minors and other vulnerable
members of society.

• For pharmaceutical companies, invest in and support research and development in diseases that areprevalent in developing countries.
• For pharmaceutical companies, explore sustainable
ways, including partnerships with other stakeholders and other mechanisms, for supplying medicines
at affordable rates in contexts of extreme poverty.
Do not challenge or attempt to thwart the introduction of generic competition after the expiry of a patent,
or challenge compulsory licences for essential
medicines issued by States in accordance with therelevant international rules in cases of public healthemergencies.
Specific actions:• Partner with government and civil-society organisations to help combat the spread of disease. In somecontexts companies can make their distribution andcommunication networks available to further community education and aid the distribution of medicines
to remote areas.
• In contexts where there is no or little public healthprovision, consider working to build the capacity of
local government, and include local government inefforts to provide access to HIV testing and medical
treatment for employees and their dependants, suchas vaccines, anti-malarials or anti-retroviral medicines. HIV testing should be confidential, conductedwith the consent of participants and with no discrimination ensuing from the results.
• Provide or support health education programmes in
the workplace or local communities for awarenessraising and disease prevention. Consider contributing vital but inexpensive items such as condoms andmosquito nets.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

129

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

130

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

ICESCR articles 13 AND 14

Articles 13 and 14:
Right to education

Right to education

The Right
The aim of the right to education is “the full development of the human personality and sense of dignity”.
Articles 13 and 14 guarantee all children the right tofree and compulsory primary education. The right also
requires progressive steps from governments aimed at
the provision of secondary and higher education, including the provision of ‘fundamental’ education for those
who could not complete primary education. The rightto education also includes the right of equal access to
education and equal enjoyment of education facilities,
the freedom of parents and children to choose the typeof education the children receive, and the freedom toestablish educational institutions (subject to minimum
educational standards). Educational facilities should beavailable, accessible, culturally and ethically acceptable, and flexible so as to be able to adapt to society’schanging needs. For example, education should where
possible adapt or at least acknowledge changing technologies, such as the modern importance of information
technologies.

Companies have a vested interest in promoting the rightto education for the development of skilled workforces.
Companies may impact on the right to education wherechild labourers are directly employed or operate in their
supply chains in a way that prevents those children
from attending school. This right is also relevant in thecontext of any commitments made by a company toprovide education to the children of workers or othersin the local community. Companies that organise orprovide such education should respect equality of access to education. Companies may also impact on theenjoyment of the right if, for example, their involvementwith heavy construction or infrastructure projects limits
access to nearby schools or results in damage to, or thedestruction of, educational facilities.

Related right:
ICCPR Article 24 (Rights of protection for the child), page 69

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

131

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Articles 13 and 14

Case studies
Home-furnishing sector, Child education issues and UN partnership
India
Swedish home furnishing company IKEA sources traditional carpets from India. In 1996, the International
Labour Organization (ILO) reported that extensive
numbers of children were involved as child labourers
in the Indian carpet industry and were thus being denied their right to education. IKEA has been working
with UNICEF to address this problem.
According to UNICEF, over 20% of India’s working
children are from the region of Uttar Pradesh, many ofwhom work within the carpet industry. Child labourers,
who often support parents by helping to hand-knot
carpets in the home, suffer educational setbacks when
they work at times that they should be in school.
Since 2000, in partnership with UNICEF, IKEA has been
helping to address the problem through funding education programmes to tackle the root causes of childlabour. The joint initiative covers around 650 villages
in Uttar Pradesh and has involved setting up over 200
Alternative Learning Centres. The centres are located inareas that do not have a nearby school and aim to help
children complete primary education at an accelerated
rate and prepare them for re-entry into the mainstream

education system. The project also works to address
the high dropout rates at formal schools.
Though not an alternative to eradicating the risk of childlabour in IKEA’s supply chain, this project attempts to address some of the root causes of child labour, as well as
the associated loss of educational opportunities. In setting up 429 thrift-credit self-help groups, the scheme has
enabled nearly 6,000 women and their families to breakout of a vicious circle of debt. This both liberates families
from the exploitative interest rates of local money-lenders
and reduces their dependence on child incomes and thus
the need for children to be put to work.
In its 2007 publication Corporate Social Responsibility and Child Rights in South Asia, NGO Save theChildren noted of IKEA that in addition to the UNICEF
programme outlined above:“IKEA has a very well developed Code of Conduct on childlabour and … it not only subscribes to the UN Convention[on the Rights of the Child], but also ensures that its suppliers too subscribe to the same. It also very prominently mentions that all actions to avoid child labour shall be implemented taking into account the best interest of the child.”

Web-based sources:
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/comp/child/papers/carpet/
http://www.unicef.org/india/child_protection_274.htm
http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/clrg/pdf/execsummary_c.pdf
http://sca.savethechildren.se/en/sca/Publications/Childrens-rights/
http://www.ikea-group.ikea.com/?ID=708

132

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideIn 2005, Starbucks entered into a partnership with theNGO, Save the Children. Starbucks has pledged USD
1.5 million over four years to a programme designed toprovide bilingual and bicultural education to children incoffee-growing communities in three Guatemalan
highland provinces. The sites were chosen in
co-ordination with the Guatemalan Ministry of

Education and were chosen according to criteria
based on high levels of need (as defined by the World
Bank); community commitment and interest in the
programme; low pre-school, primary and secondary
enrolment/attendance. The programmes are targetedat children whose family livelihoods depend primarilyon coffee production.
The scheme extends to 20 pre-primary centres, 20
primary schools and over 3,000 secondary school
students through a rural distance-learning programme.
Particular emphasis is placed upon girls’ educationand on bilingual intercultural instruction. It is hoped thatthousands of Mayan children will benefit from curricula that are culturally appropriate.

Right to education

US-based coffee retailer Starbucks sources coffee
from areas in Guatemala where 90% of the population in the surrounding area is indigenous Maya. The
Maya have long experienced high rates of poverty
and low levels of educational attainment, with many
children dropping out of schooling early due to theunfamiliar education environment and language. Thiscase highlights efforts by a company to promote theright to education of underprivileged Mayan children.

ICESCR articles 13 AND 14

Coffee retail sector, Child education issues
GuatemalaWeb-based sources:
http://www.savethechildren.org/corporate/partners/starbucks.html
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/csr.asp

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

133

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Articles 13 and 14

Suggested practical actions
Policy:Specific actions:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the right to education, as well as provisions against the use of child labour (see also Article
10 ICESCR and Article 24 ICCPR). Apply the policy
globally.

• If any children are found to work for the company orwithin its supply chain, play a role in facilitating theireducation while phasing out the child labour in a
responsible manner.

• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agentsand other sub-contractors, the importance the company places on respecting the right to education andencourage them to develop a similar standard andtake responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring that it identifies any potential impacts on the rightto education. Act on the findings.
• Ensure that working hours comply with national orinternational laws and that the hours worked byparents do not interfere with their children’s education, for example, by preventing the children getting
to and from school, or by creating situations where
older children have to stay at home to care foryounger siblings.

134

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide• Ensure that company activities do not limit access to
educational facilities. For example, heavy construction, infrastructure or other projects that cause significant physical disruption have the potential to limit
community access to education facilities. In suchcases, take steps to guarantee alternative means ofaccessing schools and education facilities.
• Where public education provision is limited, collaborate with the relevant authorities to explore ways inwhich the company may be able to support sustainable educational projects.

ICESCR article 15
Rights to take part in cultural life, to benefit from scientific progress, and of the material and moral rights of authors and inventors

Article 15:
Rights to take part in cultural life,
to benefit from scientific progress,
and of the material and moral
rights of authors and inventors
The Right
Article 15 guarantees the right to take part in the cultural life of society. It also guarantees the rights of all toenjoy the benefits of scientific progress; its application
is designed to ensure that everyone in society can enjoy
technological advances, in particular disadvantaged
groups. That right includes the right of everyone to seek
and receive information about new scientific advancements and to have access to any developments that could
enhance their quality of life. Finally, Article 15 guarantees
a person protection of the moral153 and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic productionof which he or she is the author. These rights belong tohuman authors and inventors, rather than corporations,and are not the same as “intellectual property rights” asembodied in international trade agreements.154 The rightcan be fulfilled in a variety of ways, such as the conferral ofa monopoly right of exploitation of the relevant product fora limited period of time, or the grant of a one-off payment.
These rights must be balanced against legitimate public
interests, and other human rights.
This right is of relevance to indigenous peoples as it
extends to their rights to preserve, protect and develop
indigenous and traditional knowledge systems and culturalexpressions. Governments should take steps to secure thefulfilment of the right, including actions necessary for theconservation, development and dissemination of science
153 Moral rights are infringed by the unauthorized distortion or destruction of relevant products in such a way as to harm the honour andreputation of the author or inventor.
154 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment 17 on Article 15(1)(c), “The right of everyone to benefit fromthe protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author”,
E/C.12/GC/17, 12 January 2006, paras 2–3.

and culture. Governments should also ensure respect
for the right to conduct scientific research and engage increative activity. The benefits of international contacts andco-operation in the scientific and cultural fields should berecognised and encouraged.
Company activities may influence this right, positively
or negatively, through all fields of scientific researchand development. It is argued that respect for intellectual property rights is needed to create the incentive
for corporations to conduct research and development,
which itself generates innovations and inventions that
benefit society. However, some argue that the acquisition and exercise of strong intellectual property rights
restricts the enjoyment of some Article 15 rights, notably
the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress.
Companies can positively impact this right by sharing
the benefits of scientific advances, including in the areaof information technology and medicine.
‘Biopiracy’ describes a phenomenon whereby traditional indigenous knowledge concerning the nutritionalor medicinal use of crops and plants, or natural genetic
resources, is appropriated and commercialised by another party without acknowledgement or compensation.
Where such knowledge or material is patented, there isa risk that the original ‘discoverers’ may not only have to
pay for the product, but may also be denied profits fromits sale or export, thereby affecting their right to cultural
life and to benefit from scientific discovery. Companies
can impact detrimentally on these rights if they are
involved in biopiracy.

Related right:
ICCPR Article 27 (Rights of minorities), page 81

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

135

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 15Case studies
Food industry, Patent issues and the rights to benefit from scientific discovery
India and Pakistan
In 1997, Texas-based company RiceTec faced allegations of ‘biopiracy’ when the US Patent Office granted
the company a patent for ‘Basmati Rice Lines andGrains’. The patent decision led to protests in South
Asia and a campaign orchestrated by India’s Research
Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology thatwas supported by a coalition of 90 civil-society organisations, including ActionAid and the Berne Declaration.
Basmati rice has been in the public domain for many generations and is a source of food and income for farmers inIndia and Pakistan, including through export as a regional
speciality product. According to Dr Vandana Shiva, “Yearsof research and development by Indian and Pakistani
farmers have resulted in a diverse range of Basmati withsuperior qualities that are the direct result of the farmers’
innovation.” Dr Shiva has also noted that Basmati rice isreferred to in ancient texts, poetry and folklore. In 2000, theIndian government protested the issue at the World Trade
Organisation. Indian export authorities also challenged the
US Patent Office’s 1997 RiceTec patent, fearing the impact
on its specialty, climate-specific export.

RiceTec strongly denied all allegations that its patent
threatened the Indian rice industry or its exports,
stating that its product is “comparable to basmati but
different”. RiceTec nevertheless voluntarily withdrew
most of its patent claims, and in 2001, the US Patent
Office changed the title of the patent on the remaining patent claims to Rice Lines Bas867, RT 1117 and
RT1121, strains of rice that do not impinge on India’s
exports. RiceTec has since re-branded its rice as‘Texmati’, ‘Jasmati’, and ‘Kasmati’.
In 2006, the governments of India and Pakistan, withthe backing of both countries’ exporter associations,formed a joint study group to explore a joint registration of Basmati rice as a geographical indication.
Geographical indication identifies a good whose quality, reputation and other characteristics are attributable to its geographic origin and is used, for example,
to protect the heritage of scotch whisky (Scotland)and champagne (France).

Web-based sources:
http://www.hindu.com/biz/2006/06/19/stories/2006061900601800.htm
http://bulletin.sciencebusiness.net/ebulletins/showissue.php3?page=/548/art/7926/
http://www.bernedeclaration.ch/en/p25000429.html
http://www.patagonia.com/web/eu/patagonia.go?assetid=9108
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/2001/08/22/stories/142220s7.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1033723.stm
http://www.ricetec.com

Retail sector, Construction and protection of cultural rights issues
MexicoThis case study demonstrates the conflicting pressurescompanies may face between development objectives
and respect for cultural rights.
A decision by Wal-Mart to locate a new store in San
Juan Teotihuacán, Mexico, prompted local protests,
due to the store’s proximity to the culturally significant
Teotihuacán pyramids and fears that it would erode
the local way of life. The pyramids are a sacred site, as
well as a national tourist attraction. Protesters argued
that the store’s presence would destroy the spiritualityof the place, thereby, some would say, infringing local
people’s cultural rights.

136

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Wal-Mart is Mexico’s largest retailer, as well as the country’s largest private sector employer, with over 100,000
people on its payroll. In this context many local people
welcomed the arrival of a Wal-Mart superstore in San
Juan Teotihuacán for the jobs and the convenient shopping it would bring. Wal-Mart is reported to have solicited
Mexico’s National Institute for Anthropology and History(INAH) for permission to begin construction of the store
2.5 kilometres from the Pyramid of the Sun itself, but
within a so-called buffer or ceremonial zone. In May 2004,
the INAH granted permission for the construction, solong as the project complied with the federal law coveringmonuments and historic, artistic and archaeological zones.
It was also reported that the United Nations and the Paris-

Web-based sources:
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/teotihuacan/retailer.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/pyramic082605.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3986729.stm
http://humanitieslab.stanford.edu/teotihuacan/1362?view=print
http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/

Information technology sector, Scientific advancement benefit issues
Worldwide
In 2005 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Nicholas Negroponte, the founder and director of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media
Laboratory, launched the ‘$100 laptop’ initiative. The initiative aims to develop and market a low-cost, educationfocused laptop and make new information technology
advances available to the poorest children of the world

and also has a sunlight-readable display enabling it to
be used outside. In particular the XO can be powered bysolar power, mechanically via a foot-pump, or charged
by using special ‘gangs of chargers’ making it usable inremote areas and places where the electricity infrastructure
is limited. The XO uses open-source Linux software and alow-power chip.

The so-called ‘$100 laptop’ is being developed by One
Laptop per Child (OLPC), a US non-profit organisation
created by Negroponte and faculty members from the
MIT Media Lab. The project’s corporate sponsors include
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Brightstar (a distributor),
Google, News Corporation, and the Taiwanese company
Quanta Computer Inc., which builds the laptop. OLPC
works according to five core principles: child ownership,
low ages (it is geared primarily at children between 6 and12 years), saturation, connection (via wireless networks),
and free and open source.

According to Nicholas Negroponte, in January 2008
162,000 XOs were sold in the US in the preceding twomonths under an initiative called ‘Give One Get One,’
whereby US residents were able to buy two of thelaptops, with one being donated to children in developing countries. The scheme is said to have raised USD
35 million, to be used to speed the deployment of themachines to developing countries. Demand is reported
to be highest in Latin America, but the BBC reports thatthe first countries to receive donated laptops will be
Cambodia, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Haiti. Negropontesays that OLPC hopes to manufacture 2–3 million units
in 2008, currently available at USD 188 each (although
USD 100 remains the target unit price).

The XO laptop, as it is now officially called, has been
designed to be durable and simple to use. It is waterproof

Web-based sources:
http://laptop.org
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/faq.html
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Core_principles/lang-en
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6994957.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/04/technology/kirkpatrick_negroponte.fortune/?postversion=2008010416

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

Rights to take part in cultural life, to benefit from scientific progress, and of the material and moral rights of authors and inventors

In constructing the store, Wal-Mart is said to have responded to local sensitivities by using subdued colours
and culturally sensitive designs for the store’s façade
and reducing the height of its signage. The store, which
opened in 2004, is located at the edge of the town in acommercial district, among many other businesses, andis not directly visible from the pyramids.

Nevertheless, it was reported in 2005 that Mexico’s
Human Rights Commission found that the local government’s decision to allow construction of the store
had violated various cultural protections in Mexico’s
constitution. Opponents, including a coalition of local
residents and small shopkeepers, have also extended
their protest to other indigenous sites in which Wal-Mart
is said to be interested.

ICESCR article 15

based International Council on Monuments and Sites had
accepted the project.

137International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 15

Suggested practical actions
Policy:• Adopt a human rights policy, ensuring that it takes
account of the rights to culture, to benefit fromscientific progress, and of authors and inventors to
respect for their moral rights and material interests.
Apply the policy globally.
• Require all business partners to adhere to thecompany policy and urge them to develop a similar
standard of their own. Where the company is notable to exert that level of control, make it clear tobusiness partners, including governments, Stateowned joint ventures, suppliers, franchisees, agentsand other sub-contractors, the importance the company places on respecting cultural rights, the rightto benefit from scientific progress, and the rights ofauthors and inventors to respect for their moral rights
and material interests; encourage them to develop asimilar standard and take responsible action.
Policy implementation processes / Compliance:• Conduct a human rights impact assessment, ensuring it identifies areas of particular cultural or scientificsignificance that might be enhanced or put at risk by
the company’s operations. Act on the findings.
• Where a company is financed by the International
Finance Corporation (IFC), comply with the IFC Performance Standards on Cultural Heritage and othernational and international requirements with respect
to construction on culturally or historically significant
sites (other companies may also wish to consider thesestandards). Be responsive to cultural sensitivities whensituating company installations, resource extraction
activities, routing pipelines or infrastructure networks.

• Become familiar with the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and be guided by its
provisions in interactions with indigenous peoples.155• Consult in good faith with the relevant communities
through their own representative institutions prior tolaunching any activity that affects people’s culturalrights or the right to benefit from scientific progress,
with a view to obtaining their agreement. This means
allowing time for the community to make a considered evaluation and providing full information on theimpact and benefits, and any compensation on offer,including in the local language concerned.
• Ensure that proceeds from any scientific discovery
derived from the knowledge or property of indigenous peoples or distinct groups are fairly distributed
and that any compensation/royalties that may be due
are equitably divided and paid.
• Engage with local stakeholders to determine any
cultural sensitivities in the ways the company does
business, and attempt to adapt accordingly.
Specific actions:• Consider ways of making the fruits of technology,
scientific endeavour and discovery available to as
wide a market as possible, including inventive waysof allowing potential consumers and stakeholders
in developing countries to share in the benefits, forexample of the IT revolution and recent advances inmedicines.
• Explore ways of promoting cultural and artistic expression, particularly in contexts where government
support for the arts is not a priority.
155 Mining companies may also wish to consult Mining and Indigenous
Peoples Issues Review, published by the International Council on Mining
and Metals, see Further Resources, page 142.

138

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideFURTHER RESOURCES

Further resources

Further resources

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

139

Further resources

140

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideFURTHER RESOURCES

General reading – business and human rights
Amnesty International UK and International Business Leaders Forum, Human Rights – Is It Any of Your Business?, 2000.
http://shop.iblf.org/DisplayDetail.aspx?which=18
British Petroleum (BP), Human Rights: A Guidance Note, 2006.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/H/Human_rights_guidance.pdf
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, UN Global Compact and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, A Guide for Integrating Human Rights into Business Management, 2005. http://www.blihr.org/Reports/GIHRBM.pdf
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, International Business Leaders Forum, UN Global Compact and the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, A Human Rights Management Framework, 2007.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/Resources/A307HRF-E-PosterA2-130607.pdf
Clapham, Andrew, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press), 2006
Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO), Human Rights from the Perspective of Business and Industry – A Checklist, 2001.
http://www.nho.no/files/5095checklist_human_rights.pdf
Danish Institute for Human Rights, Defining the Scope of Business Responsibility for Human Rights Abroad, 2001.
http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/pdf_files/Defining%20the%20Scope%20of%20Business%20Responsibiliy%20.pdf
De Schutter, Olivier (ed), Transnational Corporations and Human Rights (Hart), 2006
Dine, Janet, Companies, International Trade and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press), 2005
Frynas, Jedrzej George and Scott Pegg (eds), Transnational Corporations and Human Rights (Palgrave Macmillan), 2004
International Business Leaders Forum, Human Rights: It is Your Business – A Case for Corporate Engagement, 2005.
http://www.iblf.org/docs/ItIsYrBusiness.pdf
International Council on Human Rights Policy, Beyond Voluntarism: Human Rights and the Developing International Obligations of Legal Companies,
2002. http://www.ichrp.org/en/projects/107?theme=10
Joseph, Sarah, Corporations and Transnational Human Rights Litigation (Hart), 2004
Likosky, Michael, Law, Infrastructure, and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press), 2006
Muchlinski, Peter, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (Oxford University Press), 2007
Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development and International Business Leaders Forum, Human Rights and the Private Sector:
International Symposium Report (2003), 2004.
http://www.iblf.org/docs/HumanrightsNovartis.pdf or http://www.novartisfoundation.org/platform/apps/Publication/getfmfile.asp?id=615&el=1432&se=311924963&doc=127&dse=2
Ruggie, John G., Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business & Human Rights – reports and other documents (2005–present).
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Gettingstarted/UNSpecialRepresentative
Royal Dutch Shell, Business and Human Rights. A Management Primer, 1998.
http://www-static.shell.com/static/responsible_energy/downloads/management_primers/business_and_human_rights_primer.pdf
UN Global Compact and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Embedding Human Rights in Business Practice,2004. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/opencms/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/embedding.pdf
UN Global Compact and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Embedding Human Rights in Business Practice II,
2008. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/EHRBPII_Final.pdf
Zerk, Jennifer A., Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law (Cambridge University Press),
2006

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

141

Further resources

Thematic reading
Conflict contexts and security arrangements
International Alert, Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries, 2005.
http://www.international-alert.org/publications/234.php
International Business Leaders Forum, International Alert & Council on Economic Priorities, The Business of Peace. The Private Sector as aPartner in Conflict Prevention and Resolution, 2000. http://www.iblf.org/docs/BusinessofPeace.pdf
International Organisation of Employers, the International Chamber of Commerce, and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee
to the OECD, The Role of Business in Weak Governance Zones, December 2006.
http://www.ioe-emp.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents_pdf/policy_area/csr/csr_eng_governancezones.pdf
UN Global Compact, Global Compact Business Guide for Conflict Impact Assessment and Resource Management, 2002.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/7.2.3/BusinessGuide.pdf

Corruption
Business Anti-corruption Portal, http://www.business-anti-corruption.com
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Source Book, 2005. http://eitransparency.org/document/sourcebook
International Business Leaders Forum, Transparency International and the UN Global Compact, Business against Corruption, A Framework
for Action – Implementation of the 10th Principle, 2005. http://www.iblf.org/resources/general.jsp?id=123703
International Chamber of Commerce, Fighting Corruption – A Corporate Practice Manual, 2003.
http://www.iccbooks.com/Product/ProductInfo.aspx?id=235&cid=82
UN Global Compact recommended tools
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/transparency_anticorruption/recommended_tools.html including:•Transparency International, Business Principles for Countering Bribery – SME Edition, 2008.
http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/private_sector/business_principles•

UN Global Compact, Business against Corruption – Case Stories and Examples, 2006.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/7.7/BACbookFINAL.pdf

Health, medicines
Hunt, Paul (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health), Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in Relation to Access to Medicines: Draft for Consultation, 2007.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/health/right/docs/draftguid150508.doc
Leisinger, Klaus M., Corporate Responsibilities for Access to Medicines, 2008.
http://www.corporatecitizenship.novartis.com/downloads/patients/access-medicines/klaus_access.pdf
Save the Children, VSO and Oxfam, Beyond Philanthropy: The Pharmaceutical Industry, Corporate Responsibility and the Developing World, 2002.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/health/downloads/beyondphilanthropy.pdf
World Health Organization, 25 Questions and Answers on Health and Human Rights (Health and Human Rights Publication Series, Issue No. 1),
2002. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/questions_20020701/25_questions.pdf

Indigenous people, land rights and resettlement
International Council on Mining and Metals, Render, Jo, Mining and Indigenous Peoples Issues Review, 2005.
http://www.icmm.com/page/1161/mining-and-indigenous-peoples-issues-review
International Finance Corporation, Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, 2002.
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_resettle/$FILE/ResettlementHandbook.PDF

142

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideFURTHER RESOURCES

Internet freedom and privacy
Amnesty International UK, Undermining Freedom of Expression in China: The Role of Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google. 2006.
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Amnesty-UK-report-Internet-cos-China-Jul-2006.pdf
Human Rights Watch, Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, 2006.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/

Tools for managing human rights issues
Country information
Listings of the States that have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/4.htm, andhttp:///www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/3.htm
Amnesty International UK and International Business Leaders Forum, Business & Human Rights: A Geography of Corporate Risk, 2002.
http://www.iblf.org/resources/general.jsp?id=69
Danish Institute for Human Rights, Country Risk Assessment Reports. http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/070_country_risk.htm
Jungk, Margaret, Deciding whether to do Business in States with Bad Governments, 2001.
http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/pdf_files/decidingwhether.pdf
Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM). An ILO database providing country data on 20 key indicators of the labour market.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/kilm/
Maplecroft. Maplecroft Human Rights Risk Indices 2008. http://www.maplecroft.net
Natlex. An ILO database featuring national laws on labour, social security, and related human rights legislation.
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex_browse.home?p_lang=en

See also annual country human rights analysis:
Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2008. http:///thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Homepage
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2008. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15
Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 2008. http://www.hrw.org/wr2k8/
US State Department, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2007. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/

Impact assessment guides
Danish Institute for Human Rights, Human Rights Compliance Assessment. http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/040_hrca.htm
International Business Leaders Forum, International Finance Corporation and UN Global Compact, Guide to Human Rights Impact
Assessment and Management, 2007. http://www.iblf.org/resources/general.jsp?id=123946
IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association), A Guide to Social Impact Assessment in the Oil and Gas
Industry, 2004. http://www.ipieca.org/activities/social/downloads/publications/sia_guide.pdf
Rights & Democracy, Human Rights Impact Assessments for Foreign Investment Projects: Learning from Community Experiences in thePhilippines, Tibet, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, and Peru, 2007.
http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/_PDF/publications/globalization/hria/full%20report_may_2007.pdf
Ruggie, John R., Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and otherbusiness enterprises, Human Rights Impact Assessments – Resolving Key Methodological Questions, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/74, 2007.
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Ruggie-report-human-rts-impact-assessment-5-Feb-2007.doc

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

143

Further resources

Industry sector-specific initiatives
Electronic Industry Code of Conduct [electronics industry], http://www.eicc.info/
Equator Principles [financial services], http://www.equator-principles.com/
Ethical Trading Initiative [retail and apparel], http://www.ethicaltrade.org/
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative [extractives], http://www.eitransparency.org/
Fair Labor Association [retail and apparel], http://www.fairlabor.org/
Forest Stewardship Council [forestry], http://www.fsc.org
Global e-Sustainability Initiative [ICT], http://www.gesi.org/
International Cocoa Initiative [cocoa/food & beverage], http://www.cocoainitiative.org/
Kimberley Process [diamond industry], http://www.kimberleyprocess.com/
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights [extractives and energy], http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org
UNEP Finance Initiative [financial services], http://www.unepfi.org/
World Economic Forum Partnering Against Corruption Initiative [engineering & construction, energy and metals & mining],
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/paci/index.htm

Socially responsible investment
Calvert Socially Responsible Mutual Funds, http://www.calvert.com/sri.html
Dow Jones Sustainability Index, http://www.sustainability-index.com/
F&C Asset Management, http://www.fandc.com/
FTSE4Good Index Series, http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp
Insight Investment, http://www.insightinvestment.com/
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, http://www.iccr.org
Principles for Responsible Investment, http://www.unpri.org/
Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), http://www.sam-group.com

144

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideFURTHER RESOURCES

Key organisations
Academic institutions, business associations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and trade unions
Action Aid, http://www.actionaid.org
Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org and http://www.amnesty.org.uk/businessBusiness and Human Rights Resource Centre, http://www.business-humanrights.org
Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, http://www.blihr.org
Business for Social Responsibility, http://www.bsr.org
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University, http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre
Centre for Human Rights and Environment, http://www.cedha.org.ar/en/
Christian Aid, http://www.christian-aid.org.uk
Clean Clothes Campaign, http://www.cleanclothes.org
Danish Institute for Human Rights, http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org
Ethical Corporation, http://www.ethicalcorporation.com
Fund for Peace, http://www.fundforpeace.org
Futureye, http://www.futureye.com
Global Witness, http://www.globalwitness.org
Human Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org
Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org
International Alert, http:// www.international-alert.org
International Business Leaders Forum, http://www.iblf.org
International Commission of Jurists, http://www.icj.org
International Committee of the Red Cross, http://www.icrc.org
International Council on Mining and Minerals, http://www.icmm.com
International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation, http://www.itglwf.org
Oxfam, http://www.oxfam.org
Pax Christi, http://www.paxchristi.net
Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, http://www.realizingrights.org
Respect Europe, http://www.respecteurope.com
Rugmark Foundation, http://www.rugmark.org
Save the Children, http://www.savethechildren.org
SustainAbility, http://www.sustainability.com
Transparency International, http://www.transparency.org

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

145

Further resources

Intergovernmental bodies
International Finance Corporation, http://www.ifc.org
International Labour Organization, http://www.ilo.org
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, http://www.oecd.org
UNAIDS, http://www.unaids.org/en/
United Nations Development Programme, http://www.undp.org/
UN Global Compact Office, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
UN Millennium Development Goals, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
UN Treaty Body database, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf (also see www.bayefsky.com)

Standards, codes, principles and reporting guidelines
AccountAbility AA1000 Assurance Standard and Framework, http://www.accountability21.net
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, http://www.globalreporting.org
Global Sullivan Principles, http://www.thesullivanfoundation.org/gsp/default.asp
ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use) Harmonised Tripartite Guideline For Good Clinical Practice, http://www.ich.org.
International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, 2006,
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles & Rights at Work, 1998, http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGEILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, 1977 (revised 2000),
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/hrdr/instr/tri_dec.htm
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, 1999,
http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3343,en_2649_201185_2017813_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 1976 (revised 2000),
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones, 2006,
http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,3343,en_2649_34889_36899994_1_1_1_1,00.html
Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) Standard, http://www.sa-intl.org
UNEP Finance Initiative and UN Global Compact, Principles for Responsible Investment, 2006,
http://www.unpri.org/files/pri.pdf
UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Working Group on the Working Methods and Activities ofTransnational Corporations, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with
Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2, 2003.
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2003.12.Rev.2.En
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 1964 (revised2000), http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm

146

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference GuideAPPENDIX: UN Global Compact Ten Principles

Appendix:
UN Global Compact Ten Principles

The UN Global Compact’s ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy
universal consensus and are derived from:• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights• The International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work• The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development• The United Nations Convention Against Corruption
The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of corevalues in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:

Human rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; andPrinciple 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour standards
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; andPrinciple 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; andPrinciple 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.

Anti-corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide

147

HUMAN RIGHTS TRANSLATEDA Business Reference Guide
The purpose of this publication is to explain universally recognised
human rights in a way that makes sense to business. The publication
also aims to illustrate, through the use of case studies and suggested
practical actions, how human rights are relevant in a corporate
context and how human rights issues can be managed.

Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Faculty of Law, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800 Melbourne, Australia
http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre

International Business Leaders Forum
15-16 Cornwall Terrace, London NW1 4QP, UK
http://www.iblf.org

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
OHCHR-UNOG, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
http://www.ohchr.org

United Nations Global Compact Office
2 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA
http://www.unglobalcompact.org