Content area
Full Text
1. Introduction
Respect for human rights is the basis for all fair and civilized social interaction (Bayer, 2007a, b, p. 70).
Drawing on Fairclough (1989, 2005) this paper explores how respect for human rights is emerging and being operationalized in the discourse of 30 Fortune 500 companies in the mining, pharmaceutical and chemical industries at two key points in the recent evolution of the UN’s business and human rights discourse – specifically, the publication of The Protect Respect Remedy framework in 2005 and the endorsement of the Guiding Principles (GPs) on Business and Human Rights in 2011.
In 2005, the UN mandated Professor John Ruggie of Harvard University to address the impasse that had resulted from the publication of The United Nations Norms on Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights[1]. The Protect, Respect Remedy framework that Ruggie subsequently developed was based on three principles: first, nation states as primary duty bearers under international human rights law have a clear duty to protect against human rights violations by corporations; second, independent of the states’ obligations, corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights based on internationally agreed norms on human rights (Backer, 2011a, b); and finally, the requirement for access by victims of human rights violations to both judicial (through the state) and non-judicial (through, e.g. corporations and industry initiatives) remedies. Subsequently the UN directed Prof Ruggie to develop a series of guidelines for implementing the Respect, Protect, Remedy framework. The United Nations subsequently endorsed Ruggie’s, GPs on Business and Human Rights in July 2011. These guidelines are intended to promote new accounting and accountability practices within corporations, principally in relation to human rights due diligence practices and corporate-based non-judicial access to remedies for those whose rights have been violated.
The provisions the GP’s contain are “significant, if not revolutionary” (Muchlinski, 2012) and they have major implications both for the way we think about corporate accountability and the way corporate social responsibility is practised (see, e.g. Gallhofer et al., 2011; Cooper et al., 2011; Sikka, 2011; Islam and McPhail, 2011; Gray and Gray, 2011; Paisey and Paisey, 2012; Dillard, 2013). They represent a radical shift both in human rights doctrine and global governance (Backer, 2011a, b; Ratner, 2001; Muchlinski, 2001,...