Blog
To Regulate or Not to Regulate: The Human Rights Debate
Are voluntary principles and enforceable mechanisms on corporate accountability for human rights contradictory or complementary? I spoke on a panel last week on this very question as part of the two day semi-annual meeting of the International Human Rights Funders Groups.
The debate burns. On one end, activists demand new laws and regulations that punish corporate human rights abuses committed abroad. On the other end, companies prefer voluntary initiatives to more regulation.
So who is right?
My perspective is that both sides are right because corporate responsibility is by definition going beyond legal compliance. It's never ok to break the law, and corporate responsibility picks up where the law stops.
Thus, it's the government's duty to protect citizens from human rights abuses, including those committed by companies. Effective laws are the only way for governments to fulfill this duty. However, companies also have a responsibility to actively ensure that they do not violate any human rights—even if local laws are weak or poorly enforced. Corporate responsibility could be defined as activities seeking to fill in the ensuing gap between what is legally required and what is socially mandated of companies.
One key tool in this gap-filling work is the development of voluntary standards, which are co-created in multi-stakeholder processes, such as Beyond Monitoring and <a href="http://voluntaryprinciples.org">Voluntary Principles</a> If these processes are transparent and have effective accountability mechanisms, they can start to become the standard bearers, and may over time, help strengthen the rule of law. Thus they are complementary, not contradictory for advancing human rights. A good thing? I think so.
About the Author(s)
Diane Osgood, Ph.D.
Share Your Thoughts
Please note, all comments are subject to moderation.