The United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) marked their 10 years in March 2021, the starting year of a decade that will presumably focus and redefine human rights in businesses. To ensure these very human
rights in businesses, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) across the globe need to engage in transnational cooperation, Mr R. K. Khandelwal, National Human Rights Commission said. The Additional Secretary was speaking at an event organized by the GANHRI Working Group on BHR to scale up the implementation of UNGPs on Business and Human Rights over the next 10 years. Along with several representatives from Asian and European Countries, and that of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Mr Khandelwal opined that for an issue that expands borders, transnational cooperation among nations is essential.
“In a conference on legal accountability on BHR impacts in Switzerland in 2015, participants discussed the roles of NHRIs, their unique mandate, and experience in enabling the use of existing human rights mechanisms at the national, regional, and international levels to more effectively prevent and remedy business-related human rights,” he said. He also stressed that NHRIs can helpfully share national experiences and challenges, which would help bridge the gap between national and international levels.
The UNGP–BHR are grounded in recognition of states’ existing obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. They emphasize the role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and respect human rights.
Also Read : Businesses Should be Made Accountable: Parliamentarians on NAP-BHR
While carving a role for NHRIs in developing transnational cooperation, Mr Khandelwal said that transnational companies’ role has to be kept in mind. “These corporations generally have their headquarters in developed countries, while their supply chain is largely located in underdeveloped or developing countries. Often, in the fear of losing FDIs, country governments with supply chains do not enforce strict regulations. The countries having headquarters, on the other hand, also do not engage strictly due to a fear of relocation,” he said.
He further added that the entire debate around TNCs and their role in developing supply chains are located within the overall negotiations that happen on trade and investments between countries.
Seeing that the quantum of all investments in developing countries, in the current globalized situation, is not merely a statistic but a determinant of its economic stability, any swing or threats of economic instability can lead to impoverishment, that would further lead to other inequalities and increased violation of human rights.
“Therefore, it is imperative that rather than delinking the role of TNC and talks on trade and investment, a discussion on human rights violations should be done with companies to negotiate better in favor of human rights of workers in the supply chain,” he opined.
Mr Khandelwal also said that human rights violations from a business case perspective may not necessarily act as disincentives but rather offer businesses the incentive to carry out operations due to a low level of compliance. “Despite a number of businesses speaking softly about their human rights compliance, they do not take much time to blame the local governments or local cultures or local practices for the presence of human rights violations in their supply chains,” he said.
While discussing the role of NHRIs in addressing human rights violations by TNCs along supply chains, he said that the national government needs to be encouraged for transnational cooperation. He also suggested using preexisting platforms like NAM, SAARC, and BRICS for the same.
Also Read : How the Tamil Nadu garment industry is cracking under unethical BHR policies
Mr Khandelwal also spoke of the NHRC document on BHR released during the pandemic last year. “We highlighted the issue of disruption in global supply chains in its advisory on BHR released amid the pandemic, which advocated for adapting and promoting responsible business practices for informal workers largely affected due to disruption across supply chains,” he added.
The document also raised issues of layoffs, the absence of proper social protection mechanism, and the absence of safety provisions at workplaces. It advocated for special attention to migrant workers across supply chains. It also suggested that businesses should closely examine their supply chain to determine issues of labor trafficking, including child labor, bonded labor, and women labor exploitations in the production and distribution of products.
Mr Khandelwal further recommended, “The role of NHRIs should be explored to facilitate guidelines for the governments to become accountable toward human rights violations in the purchases that they make. The GoI has recently created sufficient e-mechanism to ensure curbing of corruption which can be extended to have human rights violations in the supply chain as well.”
Ending with a “warning,” he said, “In the BHR paradigm, there is a need to recognize that human rights violation anywhere is human rights violations everywhere,” and suggested the need for collective responsibility.