Introduction
Today’s world is highly globalized, meaning the actions of states and corporations have significant impacts that transcend national borders. Therefore, compliance with international law and corporate responsibility has attracted substantial attention from a range of stakeholders. Economic interests drive corporate actions, suggesting they may occasionally engage in practices that undermine international law and human rights.
Likewise, states are motivated by power dynamics, economic pressures, and political agendas, leading to selective adherence and disregard for international laws. The research discusses the relationship between international law, human rights, and corporate practices. It addresses two essential areas: the circumstances that compel states and corporations to break or abide by international law, and accountability for human rights. Although international legal mechanisms exist, nations and corporations experience complex problems in promoting human rights and adhering to established guidelines.
Accountability for Corporate Responsibility Concerning Human Rights
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Intersection with Human Rights
The CSR concept has continued to evolve since its origins in the early 20th century. Originally, corporate CSR primarily emphasized charitable giving and philanthropy to address societal needs. In the late 20th century, the understanding of CSR expanded to encompass a broad duty to stakeholders, including the environment, communities, and employees (Schrempf‐Stirling, Van Buren & Wettstein, 2022). Essential milestones in CSR evolution include the emergence of the CSR pyramid by Archie Caroll and the triple bottom line.
The CSR pyramid argues that socially responsible businesses must satisfy philanthropic, legal, ethical, and economic expectations that society demands at specific times. The triple bottom line (TBL) concept accounts for three primary areas, including the planet, people, and profit. It indicates that firms should be equally dedicated to environmental and social concerns as well as profits. Recognizing human rights as a critical aspect of CSR gained traction in the early 21st century (Amodu, 2021; Deva & Birchall, 2020). Thus, globally accepted human rights guidelines became the foundation of CSR.
International Legal Guidelines and Frameworks
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
The global community has acknowledged the need to create legal frameworks that promote accountability and corporate responsibility regarding human rights. An applicable instrument is the UDHR, a soft law that plays a foundational role in setting standards for human rights that firms are required to respect and uphold. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the UDHR in 1948 as a milestone document enshrining fundamental principles of human rights.
As a result, the instrument has become a popular ethical and moral framework. Although the UDHR is not legally binding, it has influenced the drafting of international human rights treaties (Bhushan, 2022). The UDHR has provisions on various rights, including freedom from slavery, non-discrimination, and torture, which are essential elements of customary international law.
In a corporate responsibility context, the UDHR is a critical reference for firms to ensure their practices and policies align with globally recognized human rights standards. UDHR principles that relate to the business environment include the rights to personal security, liberty, and life; to favorable working conditions and employment; and to a sufficient standard of living. Such attributes are relevant to various aspects of business operations, including community engagement, supply chain management, and labor practices (Bhushan, 2022). The discussion on the UDHR underscores the significance of soft law in shaping corporate norms on human rights.
United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights
Another crucial instrument is the UNGPs on Business and Human Rights, which provide a detailed framework for addressing the negative effects of business on human rights. The principles are based on three concepts: the duty of the state to safeguard human rights, the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights, and access to remedies for victims of human rights abuse.
The UNGPs stipulate that states should ensure all societal actors, including firms, do not abuse human rights. Thus, states must investigate, punish, redress, and prevent human rights abuses that occur in local business activities (Deva & Birchall, 2020). In addition, UNGPs require all states to establish clear expectations for companies regarding how they safeguard human rights and the context in which they operate.
The UNGPs may include operational provisions recommending concrete actions for nations to fulfill their responsibility to safeguard human rights in business operations. Such provisions include enforcing and enacting laws requiring firms to safeguard human rights. Such environments create regulatory spaces that enable businesses to respect human rights and provide guidance on how they should carry out their responsibilities. The UNGPs also require states to ensure policies are consistent across different functions and departments.
In addition, states are required to ensure that their interactions with multilateral organizations comply with their human rights obligations. It is critical to understand that states’ obligations regarding human rights, such as utility delivery and security provisions, are not nullified when these duties are performed by private or state-owned enterprises (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Since conflict-affected regions heighten the risk of human rights abuses, the UNGPs require countries to provide guidance, enforcement mechanisms, and assistance to ensure firms do not engage in human rights violations.
The UNGPs clarify the expectations required of business enterprises regarding human rights. They outline a method that enables companies to pinpoint adverse human rights impacts and demonstrate the adequacy of the procedures and policies in place to address them. The UNGPs stipulate that firms must mitigate and remedy the human rights abuses they cause. Thus, businesses are required to prevent negative effects related to their operations, including those originating from their business partners.
The responsibility to respect applies to every globally accepted human right set out in the International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the International Bill of Human Rights. To adhere to the responsibility of respect, businesses are required to employ several components. First, firms should establish a policy that commits to safeguarding human rights. Second, corporations must perform due diligence on their current impacts on human rights. Such a process ensures they can pinpoint, account for, and mitigate the effects of their operations on human rights (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Third, companies should establish effective processes to remediate all negative human rights impacts they contribute to.
The UNGPs require states to have robust systems for remedying human rights violations in their jurisdiction. The duty of countries to provide access to effective remedies entails taking appropriate steps to ensure that local judicial mechanisms can adequately address human rights violations arising from business activities. In addition, states are required to ensure that barriers, such as insufficient language interpretation and administrative fees, do not discourage victims from airing their grievances. Thus, states must offer practical judicial and non-judicial mechanisms for airing complaints and effectively adjudicating challenges related to businesses’ human rights violations (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Similarly, the UNGPs require businesses to provide methods for addressing human rights-related damages arising from a firm’s operations.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises offer recommendations on Responsible Business Conduct (RBC). Governments require enterprises operating globally to adhere to the OECD Guidelines. They aim to stimulate corporations’ positive contributions to social, environmental, and economic progress. In essence, the OECD Guidelines provide firms with guidance on reducing the negative impacts of their operations (Ewing, 2023). They were initiated in 1976 and amended several times from 1979 to 2011.
The OECD Guidelines offer direction on various areas, including the environment, combating corruption and bribery, taxation, competition, technology and science, consumer interests, industrial and employment relations, and human rights. Concerning human rights, the OECD Guidelines emphasize the importance of enterprises respecting globally accepted human rights and avoiding adverse human rights impacts. In addition, they emphasize the significance of addressing human rights violations if they occur. Furthermore, the OECD Guidelines encourage companies to conduct human rights due diligence to identify and mitigate potential and actual negative impacts of human rights violations (Ewing, 2023). They stimulate firms to enhance employee engagement on human rights issues and to implement effective management mechanisms that promote human rights principles.
Case Studies
Legal Precedent: Doe v. Unocal
The landmark Doe v. Unocal case concerned allegations that the American oil and gas corporation Unocal engaged in human rights violations. Such abuses were executed during the gas pipeline construction by the Myanmar military. Burmese villagers were the plaintiffs in the case, and they argued that Unocal willingly ignored the use of torture, rape, murder, and forced labor by the Myanmar military. The company was aware of such atrocities but did not attempt to stop the crimes. The case laid the foundation for holding firms accountable for human rights abuses by third parties or foreign governments in the companies’ operations (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Thus, the case underscored the importance of organizations in exercising due diligence and implementing various mechanisms to prevent human rights violations related to their operations.
Legal Precedent: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
The case involved Nigerian plaintiffs accusing the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. of human rights abuses committed by the Nigerian government. The government committed atrocities against the Ogoni people who protested the oil exploration by Shell within the Niger Delta area. The plaintiffs argued that Shell offered compensation, food, and transportation to the Nigerian army that committed extrajudicial killings and torture against the Ogoni community. Although the case was dismissed on extraterritoriality grounds, discussions of corporate liability and human rights violations emerged (Ochei, Ezeani & Anderson, 2023). In addition, the case highlighted the difficulties that global judicial systems face in holding multinational firms liable for their business operations.
Challenges
The enforcement of corporate accountability for human rights abuses is a substantial problem stemming from several factors. First, a highly fragmented legal landscape without detailed international mechanisms to hold holding companies accountable for human rights violations presents a significant problem. The challenge arises because global instruments, such as the OECD Guidelines and the UNGPs, offer frameworks and guidance but lack legal binding force, indicating they depend on voluntary corporate compliance.
Second, jurisdictional challenges hinder enforcement, since multinational companies operate in many nations, making it almost impossible to determine which legal system has jurisdiction over human rights violations. The concept of separate corporate personality further exacerbates the challenge. The doctrine considers a parent company as a distinct entity separate from its subsidiaries, although parent firms often control their affiliates (Ewing, 2023). As a result, holding such firms responsible for violating human rights becomes extremely difficult.
Other enforcement challenges include evidentiary burdens and a power imbalance between affected parties and firms. Power imbalance occurs when victims of corporations’ abuse of human rights face hurdles to finding justice, including ineffective legal representation, intimidation, and reprisals. In contrast, companies often have significant legal expertise and resources, highlighting the substantial power disparity that prevents victims from navigating existing legal systems and holding firms accountable.
In addition, proving a corporation’s complicity in human rights violations is difficult due to complex factors, such as joint ventures and supply chains. Furthermore, corporations may withhold information, making it difficult for affected parties to obtain the evidence required to corroborate their allegations (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Overcoming the identified enforcement problems necessitates collaborative efforts from multiple stakeholders, including corporations, civil society, global organizations, and governments.
Circumstances Affecting Non-Compliance and Compliance with International Law
Factors Affecting Corporate Compliance
For corporations, violating and complying with international law are driven by several complex factors. Profitability and economic incentives influence corporate decisions that affect whether a firm disregards or adheres to human rights ethics. Companies tend to follow the required rules when complying with global law, which provides financial benefits for firms. In contrast, organizations may fail to adhere to international guidelines when doing so would hinder profitability or increase operational costs.
The effectiveness and strength of regulatory and enforcement frameworks determine compliance behavior. Corporations operating in areas with strong legal systems, severe consequences, and stringent regulations are compelled to comply with global human rights laws to avoid legal repercussions and penalties (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Conversely, firms doing business in environments with lax enforcement and weak governance are emboldened to ignore international norms.
In addition, consumer pressure and reputational concerns create conditions that affect compliance with international guidelines. Corporations have become sensitive to consumer behavior and public perceptions in today’s globalized world. Situations where adhering to global law improves consumer trust, ethical standing, and reputation motivate companies to comply. In contrast, companies may engage in non-compliance if the business practices under review lead to boycotts, public outcry, and damage to brand image (Deva & Birchall, 2020). Such actions are spurred by corporations’ desire to realign practices with required international guidelines to safeguard stakeholder relationships and market position.
Factors Affecting State Compliance
States’ decisions to violate or comply with globally accepted human rights laws are influenced by multiple factors. Political considerations and national interests drive compliance with international human rights laws. In situations where compliance advances security, political, and strategic agendas, countries often adhere to established rules. Conversely, when international human rights rules are perceived as a hindrance to political objectives and national interests, such circumstances may compel nations to interpret global law (Smith, 2022) selectively.
Furthermore, perceived trade and economic consequences influence how states approach compliance with international law. States may follow globally recognized human rights laws to access global markets, attract overseas investment, and evade economic sanctions. In contrast, states are motivated to violate internationally recognized human rights laws when the anticipated economic benefits outweigh the potential costs (Donnelly & Whelan, 2020). Such advantages gained by states may include competitive edges in key technologies or natural resource exploitation.
Additionally, the strength of enforcement and global legal frameworks shape state compliance. For example, when global human rights laws are widely ratified, firmly established, and complemented by effective enforcement mechanisms, nations tend to adhere to established guidelines. Such actions are feasible because they help countries avoid international pressure, legal ramifications, and reputational damage.
However, governments may disregard international guidance on human rights violations when international law is not widely accepted, lacks strong enforcement mechanisms, and is ambiguous (Moeckli, Sivakumaran, Shah & Harris, 2022). Understanding how firms and states navigate the complex landscape of international law compliance is critical to developing strategies to promote RBC and strengthen global legal systems.
Conclusion
The availability of international human rights law does not effectively eliminate the challenges that states and firms face in enforcing and complying with such rules. Instrumental frameworks that guide human rights in the context of business operations include the OECD Guidelines, the UNGPs, and the UDHR. They aim to increase RBC and due diligence of human rights by companies and nations. However, several enforcement problems emerge, including jurisdictional hurdles, power imbalance, and legal ambiguities.
In terms of motivations for complying with or ignoring international human rights laws, states are influenced by political agendas, the robustness of legal systems, and national interests. Conversely, reputational concerns, regulatory pressures, and economic interests impact corporate compliance with globally accepted human rights standards. Although progress has been made in raising awareness and developing guidelines, gaps remain in ensuring RBC; concerted effort is required to foster environments where companies and states can safeguard human rights.
References
Amodu, N. (2021). Business and human rights versus corporate social responsibility: Integration for victim remedies. African Human Rights Law Journal, 21(2), 1–24.
Bhushan, S. (2022). International human rights and UDHR. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 4(4), 1.
Deva, S., & Birchall, D. (Eds.). (2020). Research handbook on human rights and business. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Donnelly, J., & Whelan, D. J. (2020). International human rights (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ewing, A. P. (2023). Teaching business and human rights. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Moeckli, D., Sivakumaran, S., Shah, S., & Harris, D. (2022). International Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press.
Ochei, N. V., Ezeani, E. C., & Anderson, C. (2023). Mechanisms used by multinational oil companies to derail human rights and environmental litigations arising from the Niger Delta. African Journal of Legal Studies, 15(2), 185-214.
Schrempf‐Stirling, J., Van Buren, H. J., & Wettstein, F. (2022). Human rights: A promising perspective for Business & Society. Business & Society, 61(5), 1282–1321.
Smith, R. K. M. (2022). International human rights law (10th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.