This article explores the evolution of business and human rights (BHR) from a lawyer's perspective and examines how it is contextually and conceptually different from corporate social responsibility (CSR) in its aims and ambitions. While CSR emphasizes responsible behavior, BHR focuses on a more delineated commitment in the area of human rights. BHR is, in part, a response to CSR and its perceived failure. This has led to a gap with two disciplines or strands of discourse that are diverging rather than converging. This article explores how the quest for accountability shapes a very different narrative for BHR, which takes it more into the realm of binding law, State sponsored oversight, and the importance of access to remedy as a measure of corporate accountability. As a result, at the current juncture, the BHR movement is drifting further away from CSR and the role of companies as voluntary and affirmative contributors to human rights realization. The author argues that BHR can draw from CSR to allow states to create incentives for businesses to promote human rights in their operations.
When the Business and Human Rights Journal (BHRJ) was launched in 2016, we, the journal editors, embarked on a mission to make it 'an authoritative forum for scholars and practitioners to exchange cutting-edge ideas about the complex and evolving relationship of human rights with business'. 1 At the three-year mark, we are proud of the journal's role in helping to define the field and promoting dialogue on many topical business and human rights (BHR) issues. BHRJ reaches a wide audience of both legal and non-legal BHR scholars and professionals. In 2018, the journal achieved 58,006 abstract views (34,083 in 2017) and 24,182 full text views (20,250 in 2017) through the Cambridge University Press online platform. Looking at the ten most downloaded papers both for 2018 and overall, roughly two-thirds of those articles were written by legal scholars. This reflects almost exactly the ratio of legal to non-legal articles we have published so far. Thus, while legal scholars are still predominant in the discussion on the publication side, non-legal articles find a substantial audience as well, suggesting that BHRJ should be an equally attractive platform to publish BHR research both from legal and non-legal perspectives. This being said, many pieces authored by legal scholars take a broader approach to BHR, reaching beyond the bounds of law. Nonetheless, it is evident that there is still much to do in terms of fostering the BHR discourse beyond legal disciplines. BHRJ can and wants to play a key role in this endeavour. Fostering a conversation between academic and non-academic exponents of the field is another goal of BHRJ. In this vein, the top twenty downloads in 2018 and overall contain 25-30 per cent Developments in the Field (DiF) pieces. This may reflect the desire of our audience to keep abreast of key innovations and developments in the policy and practical spaces of this rapidly evolving field. Readership of our published papers is strong. All of the top ten papers received more than 1,000 downloads so far. Four of them received more than 1,000 downloads in 2018 alone (with a fifth one achieving 998 downloads). In addition, the journal has attracted robust social media impact and visibility, which is reflected in strong Altmetric scores of many of our articles. This indicates that the articles published in BHRJ are frequently shared and commented on in social media, suggesting that the journal is contributing to conversations outside of traditional scholarly platforms, e.g., through Twitter. Even as we celebrate and share these achievements with our readers, we also seek to examine the directions in which scholars need to push in order to more fully achieve our mission. To do so, we reached out to our exceptional Editorial Board and DiF Panel to inquire
After a decade, different businesses adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Some key commercial entities, however, remain largely outside of the UNGPs universe, including professional service providers (PSPs) who are retained by businesses to provide expert advice and services. These advisors include lawyers, management consultants, architects and others. Some may have specialized units that provide advice on the UNGPs when retained solely for that purpose. But when asked to provide general commercial legal advice, to design a building, or restructure a business, such advisors do not typically appear to apply the UNGPs, to identify negative human rights impacts and tailor their advice in a way that prevents or mitigates such impacts. This article explores the connection between the advice provided by PSPs and negative human rights impacts. It underscores the critical need for these advisors to align their business processes and advisory services with the UNGPs to avoid being enablers of human rights abuses.
In July 1997, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) issued a paper on ‘Guidance on Sound Risk Management Practices Governing Private Banking Activities’ (the ‘Guidelines’). The paper is the culmination of the work of FRBNY bank examiners who recently concluded a year long study of 40 financial institutions in New York City with private banking departments. Private banking refers to the provision of financial services to high net worth individuals. FRBNY examiners evaluated the private banking policies and procedures of commercial banks, Edge Act corporations, trust companies and the US branches of foreign banks in an attempt to gauge the level of risk management at these institutions. The examiners found ‘varying degrees of sophistication and depth in private banking activities’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.