PRINCIPLE TWO

Businesses should make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Complicity

Many agree that "complicity" is a difficult concept to appreciate and categorise, and understanding complicity in order to avoid complicity in human rights violations, represents an important challenge for business. As the dynamics between governments, companies, and civil society organisations is changing, so too does our understanding of when and how different organisations should take on responsibilities for human rights issues. Whilst recognising that the role of governments in ensuring respect for human rights continues to be extremely important, the changing operating context for business has prompted the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to lead efforts to define what constitutes corporate complicity in human rights abuses.

It is important to understand that in a business context the notion of complicity can occur in a number of forms -

Direct Complicity

Occurs when a company knowingly assists a state in violating human rights. An example of this is in the case where a company assists in the forced relocation of peoples in circumstances related to business activity.

Beneficial Complicity

Suggests that a company benefits directly from human rights abuses committed by someone else. For example, violations committed by security forces, such as the suppression of a peaceful protest against business activities or the use of repressive measures while guarding company facilities, are often cited in this context.

Silent complicity

Describes the way human rights advocates see the failure by a company to raise the question of systematic or continuous human rights violations in its interactions with the appropriate authorities. For example, inaction or acceptance by companies of systematic discrimination in employment law against particular groups on the grounds of ethnicity or gender could bring accusations of silent complicity.

Contemporary Issues

Human rights issues have become increasingly important as the nature and scope of business has changed. Different actors have different roles to play and it is important for business to be aware of the contemporary factors that have made human rights an organisational issue.

Globalisation - the growth in private investment has witnessed companies expanding operations to countries previously untouched by global markets. In some instances these countries have poor human rights records and/or the capacity of the state to address these issues is limited. In these cases the role of business in promoting and respecting human rights is particularly important.

Growth of civil society - in some instances the capacity of the state to address human rights issues has diminished. As a result, a steady alienation of people has occurred towards just those public institutions that were established to serve them. Non-governmental organisations of all types and sizes have grown to fill the void - progressively influencing both public policy and the market agenda. They include new human rights, labour and corporate accountability organisations.

Transparency and Accountability - the need for transparency in business practice has been highlighted both by globalisation, the growth of civil society interests and some recent problems in the corporate sector. Advances in information technologies and global communications mean that companies can ill afford to conceal poor or questionable practices.

Possible Actions by Business

An effective human rights policy will help companies avoid being implicated in human rights violations. In order to avoid such situations, companies may wish to consider the following:

• Has the company made a human rights assessment of the situation in countries where it does, or intends to do, business so as to identify the risk of involvement in human rights abuses and the company's potential impact on the situation?
• Does the company have explicit policies that protect the human rights of workers in its direct employment and throughout its supply chain?
• Has the company established a monitoring system to ensure that its human rights policies are being implemented?
• Does the company have an explicit policy to ensure that its security arrangements do not contribute to human rights violations? This applies whether it provides its own security, contracts it to others or in the case where security is supplied by the State.
• Does the company actively engage in open dialogue with human-rights organizations?

With respect to this last issue it is suggested that businesses:

• respect international guidelines and standards for the use of force (e.g. the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials);
• if financial or material support is provided to security forces, establish clear safeguards to ensure that these are not then used to violate human rights; and make clear in any agreements with security forces that the business will not condone any violation of international human rights laws; and
• privately and publicly condemn systematic and continuous human rights abuses.

Principle Three