Search Results

People

Kate E. Brandt

Preview

Kate Brandt leads sustainability across Google’s worldwide operations, products, and supply chain. In this role, Kate coordinates with Google’s data centers, real estate, supply chain, and product teams to ensure the company is capitalizing on opportunities to strategically advance sustainability and circular economy.

Previously, Kate served as the United States' first Federal Chief Sustainability Officer. In this capacity, she was responsible for promoting sustainability across Federal Government operations, including 360,000 buildings, 650,000 vehicles, and US$445 billion annually in purchased goods and services.

Prior to the White House, Kate held several senior roles in U.S. Federal Government, including senior advisor at the Department of Energy, director for energy and environment in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, and energy advisor to the Secretary of the Navy.

Kate is the recipient of the Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest award the U.S. Navy can give to a civilian, for her work helping the Navy go green. Outside Magazine also named her, in honor of the magazine’s 40-year anniversary, as one of 40 women who have made the biggest impacts on our world.

Kate serves on the boards of BSR, the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, the Roosevelt Institute, Planet Forward, Stanford International Affairs Network, NSF Committee for Environmental Research and Education, and the Corporate Eco Forum.

Kate received a Master's degree in International Relations from the University of Cambridge, where she was a Gates Cambridge Scholar. She graduated with honors from Brown University.

Blog | Thursday April 15, 2021

Six Things Business Should Know About the EU Taxonomy

Preview

The EU Taxonomy is set to be a foundational tool of the European Green Deal and will affect companies well beyond European borders. It is essential for foreign companies and markets that conduct business in the European Union (EU) to be aware of the implications of the Taxonomy.

The Taxonomy is a list of economic activities with performance criteria to assess the activities’ contribution toward six environmental objectives.¹ In other words, it describes what can be considered “green” and what can’t.

The Taxonomy will support the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets as well as the objectives of the EU Green Deal, which offers a roadmap to guide the EU toward climate neutrality by 2050. The Taxonomy’s classification system is expected to shift investments toward a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy and avoid greenwashing.

The Taxonomy establishes a list of environmentally sustainable activities by defining screening criteria. It is neither a rating of “good” or “bad” companies nor a mandatory list of economic activities to invest in or to divest from. It does, however, aim to provide clear definitions of what is green to companies, investors, and policymakers.

Furthermore, the Taxonomy is likely to enable increased investment in activities deemed environmentally sustainable across a range of sectors, including but not limited to agriculture, buildings, ICT, manufacturing, transport, utilities, and finance. Activities in these sectors represent 93.5 percent of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Companies based in, doing business with, and with investors in the EU will need to pay attention to the Taxonomy and its impact on investments, particularly the following six points:

1. Investors will ask businesses how their activities align to the EU Taxonomy.

The EU Taxonomy is meant to be the bedrock of many financial mechanisms at the European level. European institutional investors and asset managers will have an obligation to disclose how their sustainable fund aligns to the EU Taxonomy. Thus, investors and financiers will be asking companies how aligned their business is to the Taxonomy, if they have not already done so.

Under the Non-financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), large public-interest companies with more than 500 employees are required to disclose non-financial information in annual reports, including sustainability-related policies such as environmental protection. The NFRD is being revised to include the EU Taxonomy.

It is likely that companies that fall under the NFRD will be required to disclose information on how and to what extent their activities are associated with environmental sustainability, aligning with the Taxonomy. Other uses will include the EU Green Bond Standard and Eco-Label for financial products.

2. Companies can get started by assessing whether their activities are Taxonomy-aligned.

To start, businesses can assess whether their activities are in alignment with the Taxonomy’s definitions and criteria. The Taxonomy proposes that economic activity should “substantially contribute” to at least one of the six environmental objectives as defined in the proposed regulation, “do no significant harm” to any of the other five environmental objectives as defined in the proposed regulation, and comply with “minimum safeguards.”² 

Using this Taxonomy, companies with European investors may assess which of their economic activities are considered environmentally sustainable, in accordance with the established criteria—for example, Acciona published an EU taxonomy report and leaflet.

Companies can then consider appropriate interventions to reduce potential regulatory and financial risk from activities that are not aligned with the Taxonomy as well as explore the opportunities associated with adjusting activities to gain Taxonomy alignment.

In Europe, businesses and investors are already engaged in conversations on Taxonomy-aligned activities. To prepare for and anticipate investor requests, European companies can seek to align their reporting with the soon-to-be-revised NFRD. Non-EU stakeholders that conduct business with European companies may wish to engage in conversation on potential expectations and implications of their own economic activities.

3. Other markets are starting to follow suit by establishing their own taxonomies.

While the EU Taxonomy might be considered the world’s first ever “green list certification system,” other markets, including Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, ASEAN at large, and the UK, among others, are in different stages of consultation and evaluation to establish their own taxonomies.³ 

Globally, there has been increasing demand for corporate ESG disclosure. Related to climate-specific disclosure, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has gained momentum in recent years, and investors are seeking data that is consistent and comparable. Definitions of “green” and the related screening criteria that taxonomies offer are considered useful tools to give financial institutions and investors clarity and certainty on the environmental sustainability of different types of investments. They can help to facilitate measurement and monitoring of sustainable financial flows.

The Central Banks and Supervisors’ Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) has also called on policymakers, relevant stakeholders, and experts to develop and adopt taxonomies that ensure ESG transparency on economic activities. Announced in October 2020, the International Platform on Sustainable Finance (IPSF) established a working group, co-led by the EU and China, to work toward a “common ground taxonomy” to identify the commonalities between different jurisdictional taxonomies and seek to support the scale up of cross-border green investments.

4. The EU Taxonomy will affect businesses beyond Europe.

As financial markets are global, the EU Taxonomy will have implications for businesses globally. If your business has European investors, they will likely be asking questions about your alignment with the EU Taxonomy. Furthermore, European companies operating globally will be likely to apply the EU Taxonomy lens to their global operations. While the Taxonomy is a European regulation, it will have implications for foreign markets that conduct business with Europe.

5. The EU Taxonomy is not only about environment.

To be aligned with the Taxonomy, businesses must also meet the minimum social safeguards of the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

6. Mandatory reporting is slated to begin January 1, 2022.

The adoption of the Taxonomy Regulation has been delayed until April 2021. The European Commission is creating an IT tool to facilitate the use of the Taxonomy. It is expected that the tool will be available in the first half of 2021. Investors will need to report on the alignment of their ESG funds for climate mitigation and climate adaptation by January 1, 2022, covering the reporting period of 2021.

While the taxonomies for climate mitigation and climate adaptation have been developed, four more taxonomies will be published by the end of the year: sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; transition to a circular economy, waste prevention and recycling; pollution prevention and control; and protection of biodiversity and ecosystems.

In sum, by establishing taxonomies, the public sector is striving to accelerate financing to support the transition to a low-carbon and resilient economy. BSR will continue to monitor the developments of national and international taxonomies and inform our members of the associated implications.  

¹ The six environmental objectives include climate change mitigation; climate change adaptation; sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; transition to a circular economy, water prevention and recycling; pollution prevention and control; and protection of healthy ecosystems.

² The Technical Expert Group (TEG) on sustainable finance published a report in March 2020 with implementation guidance on how companies and financial institutions can use and disclose against the Taxonomy.

³ Canada’s financial institutions and investors have been assessing a voluntary transition-focused taxonomy. The UK plans to establish an advisory group to determine whether the EU Taxonomy’s metrics are right for the UK market. Singapore recently concluded a consultation period to review its proposed green taxonomy that will largely align with the EU Taxonomy. Malaysian financial institutions will start to apply a climate risk taxonomy this year. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) seeks to establish a framework for green investments in the region to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.  

Blog | Monday April 20, 2020

Women in Supply Chains: On the Frontlines of COVID-19's Impact

Preview

The COVID-19 pandemic has quickly transformed from a global health crisis into a financial crisis, particularly for low-income female workers in global supply chains. However, companies can effectively deploy preventative measures to support workers and workplaces to protect their health and strengthen their financial resilience.  

Developing countries—where many supply chain production sites are located—are not equipped with the economic resources and medical facilities and commodities required to mount an effective public health response. Compounding this issue, businesses faced with the mass cancellation of orders from global brands or government lockdowns are closing their business doors and laying off low-income workers.

In the context of a health emergency, the implications of gender inequality are stark. COVID-19 is no exception and will affect women and girls disproportionately. With approximately 190 million women working in global supply chains, the outbreak is especially concerning for low-income female workers, resulting in:

• Added economic hardship on a population whose financial status is already stretched too thin and put at risk of being unable to pay for bare survival necessities;
• Exacerbated risk of violence against women, increasing the level of stress and the disruption of social and protective networks and decreasing access to protective services;
• Being relegated to traditional gendered roles as primary caretakers by both solely looking after children during school closures as well as the sick and elders;
• Increased exposure to COVID-19 as those most in contact with sick family members and elders (who are most at risk of the virus) and also likely nexus of transmission by being primary caretakers.

Women already have limited financial means and struggle to meet expenses under normal circumstances. With many of them paid in cash wages, sudden workplace closures or layoffs can also mean pay delays or reductions or worse. In Cambodia, workers in garment factories suspended due to COVID-19 will only receive $70 a month (about 37 percent of their monthly minimum wage), a shock which could have a dramatic and long-lasting impact on their lives. In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Association has reported that over $2.4 billion of ready-made garment orders have been cancelled or suspended by global buyers, describing it as a "catastrophic" move which will directly affect almost 2 million workers, mostly women. This drastic slowdown in commerce, combined with the preexisting financial inclusion gender gap, makes female workers even more vulnerable and less likely to have access to remittances, savings, or insurance that could help them in emergencies.   

Not going back to work is not an option.  Workers are more concerned about getting paid—regardless of the health risks. "We have not been paid for two months. We are starving," a female garment worker, Brishti, recently told AFP during a protest in Dhaka. "If we don't have food in our stomach, what's the use of observing this lockdown?"

But how can workers reintegrate into factory work in a safe and sustainable way? Workplaces need to implement preventative measures, upholding social distancing and improving hygiene practices. Workplaces, which gather people from different and densely populated communities into a confined space and have them handling the same objects, are an obvious vector for communicable disease transmission. Garment factories, which are staffed by approximately 60-80 percent women workers globally, are exceptionally at risk because the production process requires workers to operate in close proximity while passing products from one to another. It’s been documented that the coronavirus can be transmitted through handling cardboard boxes passed between workers. As the material of choice for packhouses, this puts packhouse workers at higher risk of picking up traces from carton to hand.

So how should businesses consider the needs of female workers when reopening their doors?

Reproductive Health to Ensure the Sustainable Return of Women at Work

Health resources normally dedicated to reproductive health go towards emergency response in times of crisis. At the same time, past pandemics have showcased a rise in domestic violence which lead to additional unwanted pregnancies. Ensuring continued access to family planning resources and preferred contraceptive methods during COVID-19 will be key to ensure that low-income women who are already facing financial hardship from this pandemic are not faced with the added economic hardship of having a child. Furthermore, it ensures that they are able to return to work and not forced to drop out to care for a newborn. Access to contraceptives may be hampered, however, by potential supply shortages during lockdown which reduce the stockpile of available commodities. Furthermore, low-income women suddenly out of work may find it difficult to make out-of-pocket payments while navigating insurance practices that often limit reimbursement to just one month of prescription drugs at a time. COVID-19 is an exemplary reason why employers should ensure their workforce’s modern family planning needs are provided for at the workplace clinic or through referral mechanisms.

Physical Health and Safety in the Community and at Work

HERhealth baseline data in 2019 showcased that personal hygiene practices are weak and conducive to spreading germs like the coronavirus both at work and at home. For example, across eight factories in Bangladesh, 55 percent of 363 women workers could name only one benefit of hand washing. And yet, 13 years after we first launched a personal hygiene model, some donors ask us whether it is still relevant. Of course, the topic is now back on the map as a central public health concern, crossing both personal and professional spaces in order to survive the pandemic. Imparting a culture of handwashing, however, relies both on behavior and access to clean water and soap. HERhealth is reaching workers—both at work and in their communities—via digital means to improve hygiene best practices.

Production Pressure and Stress

It is commonly reported that poverty-related stress and economic insecurity can lead to an increase in intimate partner violence. When unemployment rates skyrocket and economies slow to a halt, intimate partner violence is likely to increase at home as a result of related stress. Similarly, following the reopening of factories, orders that were on hold will lead to increased production pressures. We know from experience that in times of stress, managers sometimes resort to abusive behaviors, such as shouting, insulting, and cursing, in an effort to motivate increased production. Such practices are unacceptable, and they give rise to conflicts, confrontations, and grievances that require negotiation and mediation. Support for managers and workers, especially female workers, while navigating the pressure of making up for lost profit and time while the factory was closed and its implications on management stress repercussions on women workers will be key to reopening factory doors.

Building Financial Health and Resilience

Although the protocol for wage payments during factory closures is determined by government, brands, and factories, we know that wage digitization is a more convenient, efficient way for factories to pay workers remotely, which also supports social distancing. For example, the Government of Bangladesh's $590m bailout package stipulates that workers must have financial accounts to receive wages.  This enables workers to be paid, even if it’s through family members' financial accounts. More support will be required to ensure that workers, especially women, are able to control and benefit from their digital wages. Participants in the HERfinance Digital Wages program have been able to manage their finances better and increase their savings, helping to make them more resilient. The program found a 21-percent increase in both male and female workers reporting that they save regularly, and women were 17 percent likelier to report feeling confident that they can meet such unexpected costs as an emergency or family problem in the next two years.

Collaboration and good communications across brands and their suppliers, garment associations, governments, and development organizations will be key to helping garment workers recover from the COVID-19 shutdowns and build their resilience for future health and economic crises. Looking ahead, it will be crucial to consider how additional partnership efforts can support and prioritize workers’ health and financial resilience as businesses reopen. Early, bold, and effective action will reduce short-term risks to employees and long-term costs to businesses and the economy.

Case Studies | Wednesday March 30, 2016

Measuring the Net Positive Value of ICT in Online Education

Preview

This case study, published by BSR’s Center for Technology and Sustainability, examines the the net positive impact of ICT in online education, using as the case study Arizona State University’s current ASU Online education program for undergraduate degrees.

Summary

As online education has evolved in the American undergraduate education system, the use of information and communications technology (ICT) has skyrocketed. Online-class delivery systems are becoming the norm, even in face-to-face classes, as have online course-management and advising systems.

This report focuses on the net positive impact of ICT in online education, using as the case study Arizona State University’s current ASU Online education program for undergraduate degrees.

The ASU Online study indicates that there are both environmental and socioeconomic benefits to the use of ICT in online education.

Online education makes high-quality degrees accessible to a larger and more diverse group of people, many of whom would not otherwise earn a degree. Because these degrees are more accessible and affordable, they create positive socioeconomic impacts through increased incomes, greater productivity, and improved social conditions; we conservatively estimate the total socioeconomic impact to be US$545,000 per undergraduate degree. Positive environmental impacts result primarily from reduced student and faculty travel as well as avoided classroom construction, equaling an estimated carbon savings of 33.2 metric tons for that same undergraduate degree.

The ASU Online study suggests that ICT also enables innovation in education that can be scaled nationally and globally, satisfying the overwhelming need for access to education in developed, emerging, and developing countries.

Measuring the Environmental Benefits of ICT and Online Education

ASU Online was established to provide improved access to its educational offerings while also providing a new revenue stream for the university at a time when it faced reduced state and federal funding. However, the ASU Online campus has evolved to be a critical component of ASU’s sustainability plan: It plays a key role within ASU’s broader sustainability strategy, which includes climate neutrality, zero waste, zero wastewater, and low hazardous-material goals. The university continues to aggressively pursue these goals, including net zero energy by 2030, so ASU has made measuring environmental benefits a requirement across the university.

The Assessment Process

This report was prepared by ASU sustainability scientists from the university-wide Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability, including the W.P. Carey School of Business, the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, and the Global Sustainability Solutions Services of the Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives, with both intellectual and financial support from Dell.

In order to assess the net positive impact of ICT at ASU Online, the research team developed high-level models of variables and populated them through structured interviews of key stakeholders and ICT platform experts across the education landscape, with a focus on Arizona State University and ASU Online. In addition, we conducted a literature review of published studies in areas relevant to net positive assessment of online education. We used delivery and completion of undergraduate degrees as the unit of analysis.

Because net positive is a relatively new concept, it was difficult to find any studies during our literature review that explicitly studied online education from this point of view. Instead, we focused our search terms on the various aspects of online education that create value or positive impacts to society.

The Net Benefits Model

Study Scope

For the purposes of this study, ASU means the entire ASU enterprise, consisting of 18 schools and colleges, five physical campuses, and the ASU Online virtual campus. ASU Immersive is used to describe the historic campus-based ASU, while ASU Online describes the unit that manages ASU degree programs through the ASU Online platform.

For the purposes of this case study, we view this greater ASU enterprise as a system that takes in enrollees, uses energy and other resources as inputs, and then produces outputs such as graduates and negative environmental impacts. Graduates, in turn, create positive socioeconomic impacts and outcomes. Increasing the number of graduates while reducing resource consumption enhances ASU’s overall net positive sustainability goal. ASU Online plays a critical role in achieving ASU’s overall sustainability goals.

Models and Metrics

Interviews and literature review provided the content for the development of two models and two key areas for output metrics: the holistic value proposition and the dynamic view of ASU Online through 2030.

Holistic Value Proposition

Any business model results in a specific set of benefits to stakeholders. This bundle of benefits—the value proposition—can be characterized for all stakeholders in the value network. This distribution of value capture is referred to as the Holistic Value Proposition (HVP) (O’Neill et al., 2006). The HVP for this study included 20 interviews of internal and external experts from the following stakeholder groups: broader society, online students, academic institutions offering online education, faculty, employers, and experts from the ICT industry.

A Dynamic View: ASU/ASU Online 2015-2025

Education innovation and its impact on the sustainability of higher education at ASU, which we measure in this section, is scalable both nationally and globally. In the ASU case, the net positive position of ICT in online education is primarily due to avoided carbon plus the positive socioeconomic impact of education access and affordability. Many more people will attain a degree through ASU than would have without online access.

Using a somewhat idealized best-case scenario of the ASU complex if it meets its growth and operational sustainability goals, the study determined that by 2025 ASU will be educating 100,000 students through immersive courses and 100,000 online, with nearly 75 percent of the total student body taking some portion of their classes online. This will have the net effect of producing more graduates for a much lower environmental footprint than today, and the use of ICT will be a key driver.

The big impacts at a national level are the economic and social returns of a degree, which we document in the next section of this report. The longer-term net positive story is one of innovation in a dynamic global market with its overwhelming need to educate students in developed, emerging, and developing countries. Online education may be the only hope for 9.5 billion people to get a high quality education in the coming decades. 

Socioeconomic System-Wide Effects

Access to and completion of an online undergraduate degree program offers a number of social and economic benefits.

A key finding of this study, supported by the interviews, is that many ASU Online students would not get a degree at all if an online degree were not available. Access to education is one of the biggest contributions of ASU Online. Hout (2012) argues that the societal gain increases when more people are educated. If education boosts collective as well as personal productivity, then increased educational attainment for a population might be a key causal factor in overall economic growth—in fact, estimated social returns due to education might exceed individual returns. Lange and Topel (2006) observed this trend in metropolitan cities.

Ellwood & Jencks (2004) found that college graduates are less likely to go through divorces than those who have no degree. A number of studies have suggested that college education improves a person’s general health (Mirowski & Ross, 2003). Although causality is difficult to prove, a general argument made by many studies is that formal education improves a person’s understanding of the qualities and habits that promote good health.

Although there have been no attempts to establish causal linkages between education and happiness, Yang (2008) showed that people with a college degree are happier than those without a college degree.

The ASU Online Handprint and Footprint Model

In developing this report, the research team used the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) methodological framework as a guide to develop the carbon-focused environmental aspects, or footprint, of the net positive statement. We also considered using the framework to express the socioeconomic benefits, or its handprint. The research team will provide the report data in GeSI, along with observations on its applicability to this type of net positive analysis, in the near future.

When it comes to assessing the net positive impact of ASU Online, key factors included in the scope of the model are the net ICT footprint of ASU Online and the potential social and economic handprint of students that online access enables to complete a degree.

The model quantifies handprint by including the expected additional average lifetime economic earnings after attaining a bachelor’s degree, adjusted for a shorter remaining career span, and potential higher net worth at retirement. Potential benefits are based on reported research findings regarding the lifetime value of completing an undergraduate degree compared to not completing the degree. We consider broader social returns largely in terms of avoiding and/or contributing social services. We conservatively estimate the net positive socioeconomic impact per degree to be US$545,000. The model also identifies the overall system-wide social impacts of attaining a college degree.

For the footprint, the model focuses on quantifying carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. Other environmental impact categories such as paper reduction, water use, and building construction were only briefly considered during this study and we made no attempt to formally quantify them. The factors we used to calculate the footprint in this study include increases in direct ICT emissions, net new data center construction and ICT equipment, telecommuting savings, and reduced construction and use of campus facilities. The net positive impact on emissions is conservatively calculated to be 28.3 metric tons of CO2e per degree produced.

The ratio of the positive benefits of producing a college graduate to the resources required to do so, including emissions, is growing larger quickly due to the maturation of online education and the dedication of higher-education institutions to making it so. ICT plays a central and critical role.

Limitations and Gaps, Future Research

During this research, we identified six significant limitations of the ASU Online study, and suggest next steps for future research.

The increased investment in ICT systems to accommodate online study and the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) production from added ICT systems for online study are not thoroughly identified in this study. Next steps in a follow-up research project would include gathering and analyzing appropriate samples of use data.

The quantification of GHG savings from reduced campus infrastructure needs makes an assumption about the annual operating savings as a percentage of the reported GHG impact of the campus and a very high-level estimate of the net benefits from classroom construction avoidance. Steps in a follow-up research project would include validating the assumptions stated above for both operational and construction scenarios.

Initial findings on enabling the completion of a degree are based on a limited sample of cohorts that started the ASU Online undergraduate degree and interview information gleaned from ASU experts. A follow-up study might use a survey or structured interviews to gather more complete information about the demographics and perceptions of the student base in the ASU Online degree programs. Additional and larger cohorts could also be added.

Initial suggestions about lifetime income and lifetime social impacts are based solely on the many continuing studies of the impact of completing a college degree compared to only having some college courses completed. Although existing sources of data for these handprint economic and social factors may prove to be adequate, a follow-up study would explore these sources in greater depth.

This is a single case study. It will be hard to generalize to a broader base at a national level without conducting some additional case studies and/or gathering a limited set of data for a larger sample of universities. This should be done in a follow-up study.

Other environmental factors briefly discussed during this study and then excluded from it include water use on campus, solid waste disposal from campus to landfill, water runoff and sewage waste from campus, and food supply chain issues.

Conclusion

The contribution of ICT and ASU Online to the net positive position of the ASU complex is substantial and based almost entirely on increased access to and affordability of undergraduate degrees. At the same time, it is lowering the environmental footprint required to produce those degrees.

The important point is that ICT is enabling innovation in education in general and in online education specifically. The ratio of the positive benefits of producing a college graduate to the resources required to do so, including emissions, is growing larger quickly due to the maturation of online education and the dedication of higher-education institutions to making it so. ICT plays a central and critical role.

For complete data analysis and access to report appendices, download the report or view the ASU Online "how it works" page. 

Primers | Friday September 4, 2020

10 Human Rights Priorities for the Healthcare Sector

Preview

Human rights are inherent to all human beings. They are defined and established in more than 80 international legal instruments and include fundamental protections of human dignity, needs, and freedoms, such as food, housing, privacy, personal security, and democratic participation. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, the responsibility to protect human rights has primarily fallen on governments. Beginning in the early 2000s, however, it became increasingly clear that the freedoms enshrined in the human rights framework could also be violated—and promoted—by the private sector.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles), the first international instrument to assign companies the responsibility to respect human rights. The Guiding Principles state that governments must put in place good policies, laws, and enforcement measures to prevent companies from violating rights; that companies must refrain from negatively impacting rights even when governments are failing to create or enforce necessary laws; and that victims of corporate abuses must have access to effective remedy. As part of this responsibility, the Guiding Principles require companies to undertake due diligence to identify and manage their negative human rights impacts.

This brief identifies the 10 most relevant human rights impacts for businesses operating in the biopharmaceutical industry (“pharma companies”). This information is gathered from BSR’s direct engagement with pharma companies, as well as our 25 years of experience helping companies in all sectors manage their human rights risks. This primer was drafted before the onset of the COVID-19 crisis and has been enhanced with insights collected as the crisis unfolds.

In addition to the range of human rights relevant in general business operations (e.g., workplace rights, community safety), the right to health is particularly relevant to pharma companies. In recent years, society’s expectations for pharma companies to advance this right has broadened. Launched in 2008, the Access to Medicine Index ranks pharma companies’ efforts to expand access to medicine in low- and middle-income countries and has gained the support of investors as a key indicator of such efforts. The right to health also underpins a number of other rights. For example, the right to health sets the stage for the right to an adequate standard of living, because good health is key to securing and maintaining a job. In contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the protection of public health risks infringing on the right to privacy, as personal data is collected in an effort to identify and track people who are sick. These interconnections raise additional human rights risks and opportunities for the pharma industry, with some of the most salient covered below.

Primers | Wednesday August 28, 2024

Top 10 Human Rights Priorities for the Automotive Sector

Preview

Human rights are inherent to all people, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They are globally agreed upon standards of achievement for all people, covering a wide range of independent yet interconnected civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights that serve as a “code of conduct” for all human beings.

All companies can impact human rights either positively or negatively through their action or inactions. The key document speaking to these impacts is the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the authoritative global standard on business and human rights. Though technically “soft law,” the UNGPs have been incorporated into the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ISO 26000, IFC Performance Standards, GRI, UN Sustainable Development Goals, and many other frameworks. They have also been endorsed by business and industry organizations representing thousands of companies, civil society organizations, NGOs, and member states of the United Nations. 

As part of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, the UNGPs require companies to actively identify and manage the negative human rights impacts they may cause or contribute to, or to which they are linked through their business relationships.

This primer identifies the 10 most relevant, urgent, and probable human rights impacts for businesses operating in the automotive sector. It is intended as a starting point and should be supplemented by robust internal human rights due diligence processes. The information here is gathered from BSR’s direct engagement with industrials sector companies, as well as our 30 years of experience helping companies in all sectors manage their human rights risks. 

The automotive sector comprises a wide range of businesses and activities across its value chain, from sourcing raw materials and parts to manufacturing auto parts, such as tires, step bumpers, and chasses, to assembling a fully functioning vehicle and transporting finished vehicles to distributors, dealers, and, eventually, into the hands of end-users such as transport companies, truck drivers, or individual commercial and household drivers.

As the automotive industry embraces the green transition, incorporating electric vehicles (EVs) and sustainable materials and other green solutions, new human rights risks will emerge and evolve. These include, for example, sourcing new types of raw materials for EV batteries, shifting skill requirements for technicians in production sites and repair workshops, and increased occupational health and safety risks associated with EV battery handling. It's crucial for automotive companies to proactively address these risks together with their suppliers and business partners throughout the green and digital transformation, as this evolution reshapes the ecosystem, the industry’s human rights risk profile, and the future of automotives. 

While each company has distinctive human rights risks based on their different value chain footprints and business models, this primer highlights common risks across the automotive sector to help companies in the automotive value chain identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse impacts on people in the course of doing business. As a sector that is both global and local and employs tens of millions of workers around the world, it also offers opportunities to advance the realization of human rights.