Search Results

Blog | Monday September 14, 2020

Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change: A Call For Action to Build Resilience Post-COVID

Preview

From the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 to extreme weather events like the wildfires in Australia and the Amazon, 2020 severely tests the resilience of Indigenous Peoples across the globe. On the commemoration of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), we recognize that there is still much to be done to prevent, mitigate, and remedy the current and forthcoming adverse impacts of climate change to which Indigenous Peoples are particularly vulnerable.

Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement targets requires a just transition to a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy—with the involvement of all stakeholders. To align with those goals and the corporate responsibility to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples stated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, all companies have a role to play in achieving climate justice by embracing a human-centered approach and safeguarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples that are now particularly threatened. Resilience to future shocks can only be achieved by putting people, in particular Indigenous Peoples, at the core of long-term COVID recovery strategies.

Climate Impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Are Exacerbated by COVID-19

Climate change and Indigenous Peoples’ rights are inextricably linked. Depending on geography and location of living (i.e. small islands, high altitudes, coastal regions, deserts, polar areas etc.), they are vulnerable to climate change because they sit on the frontlines of the physical effects of the climate-driven extreme weather. Rising global temperatures create a series of impacts (i.e. wildfires, heatwaves, storms, flooding and drought and sea level rise) felt disproportionately by Indigenous Peoples, magnifying the systemic inequalities they already face.

Indigenous Peoples’ fundamental rights to life, health, water, food, adequate standard of living, land, cultures, and traditions are undermined both by the climate crisis and by the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Right to water and sanitation: In some regions of the world, climate impacts continue to drive water scarcity, preventing access to clean water and sanitation for Indigenous communities which is crucial for handwashing and containing the spread of the virus.
• Right to land, natural resources, and preservation of cultural heritage: Environmental destruction from climate impacts, soil degradation, biofuel plantations (soy, sugar cane, jatropha, palm oil, etc.), illegal land seizure during lockdowns, among others, has affected Indigenous Peoples’ right to land and natural resources resulting sometimes in their livelihoods, cultures, and traditions being destroyed, thus increasing their vulnerability during the pandemic.
• Right to food and adequate standard of living: Indigenous Peoples are heavily dependent on lands and natural resources for their basic needs and livelihoods, but due to a combination of loss of biodiversity caused by extreme weather and deforestation, their food security and traditional livelihoods are now highly threatened.  

To Build Resilient and Inclusive Business Strategies to Address the Climate Crisis in Post-COVID Planning, Put Indigenous Peoples at the Center

Business contribution to climate justice can only be achieved through the implementation of inclusive mitigation and resilience measures in post-COVID- planning. These measures should aim to reduce GHG emissions, while minimizing vulnerabilities of Indigenous Peoples to the adverse effects of climate change by building on their traditional knowledge and practices.

1. Ensure protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights in times of crises when building post-COVID recovery plans

Climate change and COVID-19 crises exacerbate the underlying systemic injustice faced by Indigenous Peoples. The vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to social, economic, and environmental shocks linked to climate change can be significantly reduced by recognizing and securing Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights to lands, natural resources, culture heritage, and free, prior, and informed consent to prevent land grabbing. Companies should consider conducting human rights due diligence to identify potential adverse impacts of climate change mitigation projects on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, in particular in the context of renewable energy expansion, biofuel production, large-scale agriculture, or construction of hydroelectric dams.

2. Support the active and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples

To ensure respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and protection of their already fragile livelihoods, business strategies and programs to mitigate climate change impacts across their value chains should be designed and implemented following a strong and inclusive consultation process with the affected Indigenous communities and need to consider including them in the decision-making of climate change solutions. Companies can play a key role in setting up permanent dialogue spaces and strengthening the access to mechanisms for participation that take into consideration Indigenous Peoples’ languages and traditions as well as equitable gender representation.  

3. Consider Indigenous Peoples as key partners and agents of change

Companies should consider Indigenous Peoples not simply as victims of climate change but also as active partners and agents of change who are able to offer effective solutions for the climate crisis thanks to their specific knowledge and techniques.  Their traditional lands guard over 80 percent of the planet's biodiversity and their capacity to adapt to environmental change is rooted in traditional knowledge and in-depth understanding of the land. Indigenous Peoples may therefore be uniquely positioned to help enhance the resilience of biodiversity and soil quality in some regions while at the same time contribute limiting material climate risks to businesses. This is particularly important for climate change mitigation and adaptation for which companies can build on Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and climate-smart agriculture techniques to increase the effectiveness of the corporate solutions to major environmental changes.

Looking Ahead

As the UNDRIP turns 13 and the virus continues to wreak havoc worldwide, it is clear that for companies, the pandemic can be a turning point to better prepare for crises—including climate change and future pandemics. Business can use this inflection point as an opportunity to build back better by securing Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights and strengthening indigenous traditional knowledge and ecosystems, further contributing to building inclusive business strategies that are more resilient in the face of an uncertain future.

Blog | Thursday September 10, 2020

A 21st-Century Social Contract Must Include a Just Transition to a Net-Zero Economy

Preview

Drawn front and center and exacerbated by the many crises the world faces today—the COVID-19 pandemic, climate impacts, economic inequality, and the racial justice movement—it is clear that the current social contract is not fit for purpose. The ways in which institutions and individuals interact, including the way we do business, do not reflect reality, and they do not take into account the fundamental systemic inequalities, inequities, and discrimination that many across the globe face today. As Sharan Burrow, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, wrote earlier this year: “The social contract is broken! Workers want a New Social Contract that delivers decent work for all.”

In June 2020, BSR released its report, The Business Role in Creating a 21^st-Century Social Contract, which presents clear principles and actions business can take. One of the principles discussed in the report is: A Just Transition to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.

Put simply, we need to enact large-scale systemic changes to combat global climate change—and as the transition to a net-zero GHG emissions economy takes place, we need a social contract that addresses the impact on workers and their communities, especially those facing systemic inequities. Achieving the decarbonization targets must be done in a way that creates decent work and supports broad prosperity by maintaining strong economies and thriving communities.

We know that addressing the climate crisis will require a massive shift across systems in the ways we operate, physically, economically, and socially to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. The necessary change will simultaneously create new jobs and opportunities; it is estimated that up to 65 million jobs and US$26 trillion in economic opportunities could be created by the transition to a net-zero GHG emissions economy in the next ten years. At the same time, the transition will unfortunately also spur significant job displacement and new migration patterns. In the U.K. alone, more than 2.2 million workers may need retraining and/or reskilling in order to meet the Paris Agreement goals. While the greatest impacts of this transition will be felt widely, the localized impacts on people and communities, if not managed justly and fairly, will be great for those that already face systemic inequities.

What can business do?

Business action, supported by government action through regulation, investment, and incentives, is needed to create high-quality green jobs and to procure renewable energy in order to drive the transition to a low-carbon economy. Business will need to consider other factors in this process, including upholding human rights, achieving racial and gender equity, and adhering to global labor standards through appropriate due diligence.

In addition, partnerships will be key to successfully bringing those most affected along in a just transition—business and government should partner to ensure that the shift to a net-zero GHG emissions economy can be a powerful engine for job creation, business innovation, and strong and resilient economies.

As we build recovery plans to address the current COVID-19 crisis, business and governments alike must include elements that address the multiple crises we face today holistically. This includes tackling the many systemic inequities that specific populations face today, including access to green, healthy jobs, access to healthcare, and ending structural racial and gender discrimination.

Businesses can specifically do the following:

• Act: Generate inclusive low-carbon employment opportunities and manage the impacts on workers transitioning from high-carbon roles.
  • Commit to and implement science-based climate targets that align with a 1.5°C future with a just transition element. For example, companies can commit to the Business Pledge for Just Transition and Decent Green Jobs.
  • Complete the necessary due diligence to ensure workers and communities are not left behind and human rights are upheld within climate strategies and projects.
• Enable: Advocate for policies that enable the generation of high-quality low-carbon jobs and that enable for those displaced from high-carbon roles to shift to new livelihoods.
  • Participate in dialogues with governments to help set inclusive policies.
  • Advocate for laws that protect jobs and ensure social equity while advancing the Paris Agreement goals (e.g. strong social protection programs and financial support to help dismissed workers retrain and find new jobs, policies to protect vulnerable groups, support for skills development for green sectors, and opportunities for early retirement packages for older workers).
  • Advocate for COVID-19 economic recovery plans that prioritize the shift to a net-zero GHG emissions economy and that embrace a just transition.
• Influence: Work toward a just transition for people and communities through social dialogue and stakeholder engagement.
  • Assess, identify, and disclose the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)-aligned transition risks and opportunities affecting communities.
  • Engage in dialogue with workers, communities, and their representatives to enable transition and mitigation of economic and social impacts.
  • Work with government to ensure that the cost of the transition is not passed to low-income populations
  • Consider ways to focus specifically on Black, Indigenous, People of Color and other marginalized groups that are impacted by the energy transition

The 2020s are the decisive decade in which we can change the way we do business, fundamentally transforming it to address the embedded systemic and structural flaws, including how we have been and will address the climate crisis. The urgency we face is now. The essential role that business must play in shaping and implementing this new 21^st-century social contract starts now.

Now is the time to build a better, safer, and truly inclusive future that protects those most affected by crises, including through the tools of the necessary transition to a low-carbon economy.

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.

Blog | Friday September 4, 2020

How Healthcare Companies Can Meet the Moment and Respect Human Rights

Preview

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the lives of people across the world, disrupted business, and thrown the global economy into recession. The pandemic has also emphasized the need for a resilient healthcare sector—one where the entire value chain is strong, innovative, and able to absorb shocks as severe as the one we are currently experiencing.

In all sectors, we are seeing the value of a human rights approach. Companies that respect the rights of their employees, customers, end users, and community members are better positioned to restart business in a way that fosters resilience by ensuring that the people involved with and affected by the business can cope more effectively in future crises. Forward-looking businesses will play a crucial role in rebuilding a global economy where the rights of all people are respected: a society where people from all walks of life have access to healthcare, as well as to the education, employment, and healthy environments that underpin good health; and a society where the collection and use of sensitive personal data contributes to public health research and innovation without compromising privacy, political participation, and rule of law.

This is even more true of companies in healthcare.

To help leaders in the healthcare industry better identify how they can protect and promote human rights, today BSR is publishing a primer on the top human rights priorities for the healthcare sector. Gathered from BSR's direct engagement with biopharmaceutical companies, this brief summarizes the most relevant, urgent, and probable human rights impacts for the healthcare sector and opportunities for positive impact.

In a world where both a return to normalcy and our ability to weather future crises depends in large part on innovation in the healthcare sector, healthcare companies, particularly those in the pharmaceutical industry, have a crucial role to play in ensuring respect for human rights throughout their own operations, supply chains, and business relationships. Core to this is the identification, prevention, and mitigation of actual and potential adverse human rights risks.

Our new primer discusses a range of risks which have become pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, including:

• Affordability and accessibility of medicines and vaccines: The high price of medicine can bar people from accessing healthcare even in high-income countries. Companies developing, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing pharmaceutical products face increasing scrutiny of their pricing policies and their role in making medicines more accessible and affordable for all patients.
• Privacy: The proliferation of digital health tools and systems have introduced risks associated with the sharing of patient information in the healthcare system. These risks have intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, as health and other personal data is collected in the workplace and in public, often via integration with facial recognition and other biometric technologies. This fuels concerns about security of data storage, future use and misuse of data, and the risks of empowering authoritarian government.
• Pharmaceutical supply chains: The high degree of complexity in pharmaceutical supply chains makes it difficult to monitor suppliers’ labor standards, particularly in emerging markets where the workforce is cheaper and where health and safety regulations are not properly enforced. The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified these risks as demand has spiked, while also raising the question of supply chain disruption and business continuity, as major drug manufacturers rely on a handful of countries for active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Despite these risks, healthcare companies are poised to strengthen the human rights – the physical, economic, political, and social well-being – of the people they touch in myriad ways. In addition to the development of therapies for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and many other diseases, healthcare companies can play a critical role in promoting patient-centered care, improving working conditions and environmental standards in their supply chains, and enabling wider access to healthcare. By directly improving the health of people across the globe, the healthcare sector can make all of us stronger, ready to face whatever tomorrow may bring.

The Healthcare primer is the latest in a series of primers on human rights priorities for different sectors, including Transport and Logistics, Extractives, and Information and Communications Technology.

Blog | Wednesday August 19, 2020

Respecting the Rights of Vulnerable Groups

Preview

In the almost six months since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, the most vulnerable and marginalized have been and will continue to be the hardest hit amid increasing infection rates and deepening economic recession. Indeed, the pandemic has exposed the ever-widening gap between rich and poor across the globe. In addition, recent events, such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests following the brutal killing of George Floyd by four police officers in the United States (U.S.), have shone a spotlight on the long-standing racial injustice and discrimination faced by people who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), not just in the United States but in many other parts of the world.

It is therefore no surprise that BIPOC communities, especially in the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Latin America, have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. This is further exacerbated by socioeconomic and health disparities which create barriers to the realization of their right to health. We have also seen a surge in anti-Asian rhetoric and abuse worldwide as well as social stigma against specific groups due to misinformation about COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa. The devastating impacts of the pandemic on the most vulnerable in society are inarguably linked to systemic racism, income inequality, and unequal healthcare systems—issues which cannot be tackled in isolation.

During this health crisis, the business community can play a leading role in protecting the most vulnerable in their operations and supply chains, including their employees and customers, by identifying ways in which they may be impacted and designing approaches to mitigate against potential negative harms. In order to meet the standards established by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies are expected to identify the most vulnerable stakeholders in the context of their operations, supply chains, and products and services to understand specific areas of vulnerability to effectively respond to the unique attributes of each vulnerable group.

To support businesses in upholding this responsibility, BSR has released a primer, featuring a three-step approach on how companies can identify vulnerable groups, including BIPOC, and respect their rights in the context of COVID-19.

1. Identify Potentially Affected Groups and Understand Their Areas of Vulnerability

As part of any stakeholder engagement process, companies should proactively identify the most vulnerable. Vulnerable groups are most exposed to harm or are at higher risk of experiencing harm, impacted directly and indirectly by company operations, supply chains, products, and services—and BIPOC fall into this category.

BSR has developed a framework, based on the UNGPs and international standards, to help companies to identify vulnerable groups based on four dimensions: practical discrimination, formal discrimination, societal discrimination, and hidden groups.

BIPOC in some countries are more vulnerable as a consequence of socioeconomic and health disparities linked to practical, formal, and societal discrimination. As an example, Indigenous peoples account for 15 percent of the poorest people on the planet, lack proper access to health resources and information, including lack of access to water, fall outside formal social protection systems, and face discrimination in accessing healthcare facilities and treatments, making their communities more vulnerable to COVID-19 impacts.

Given the intersectionality of discrimination, vulnerable groups may be further stigmatized by other factors, for example, sexual or gender orientation or even health status.

2. Understand How Each Vulnerable Group is Impacted Differently by the COVID-19 Pandemic  

While vulnerable groups are affected disproportionately by the pandemic, they are not impacted identically. The impacts on BIPOC, however, cannot be understated.

• In the U.K., the Office of National Statistics reported that in England and Wales, BIPOC are at greater risk of dying of COVID-19.
• In the U.S., CDC data show that Black Americans account for more than half of infections and around 60 percent of deaths, despite comprising only 14 percent of the population.  
• Brazil has recorded more than 100,000 deaths linked to the pandemic. Structural racism has been a contributing factor to the higher death rates among Black and Brown Brazilians, especially those living in poverty, more so than other populations. Additionally, at least 22,300 indigenous people have been infected, and 633 have died. Voluntary self-isolation in remote regions, such as the Amazon Basin where healthcare services are limited, is therefore critical for cultural survival of determined Indigenous groups who have weaker immune systems.
• In Native communities in the U.S., where health care systems are already underfunded, there are over 9,000 positive COVID-19 cases—a significant number for a community that is just less than 2 percent of the population. In fact, the Navajo Nation has surpassed New York and New Jersey for the most cases per capita.
• Alongside the very serious impacts that COVID-19 could have on their lives and health, some Indigenous peoples are also facing two additional threats: the targeting of Indigenous Human Rights Defenders and illegal land seizure of their traditional lands as consequences of lockdowns and increased military presence in rural areas.

3. Take Appropriate Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts on Vulnerable Groups

Companies should consider the following actions to prevent negative impacts on the rights of vulnerable groups:

• Take a human rights approach to guide internal decision-making: Since vulnerable groups, including BIPOC, are being hit the hardest, it is necessary to implement inclusive and accessible human rights-based responses to the pandemic while continuing company operations. This involves providing healthcare benefits, free access to testing, personal protective equipment in the workplace, hand sanitation areas, and paid time off if workers experience symptoms and allowing for remote working where appropriate. During this crisis, it may be necessary to make decisions quickly, which is why we released our Rapid Human Rights Due Diligence Tool, intended to guide companies in thinking through pressing challenges.
• Adapt corporate responses to meet the needs of vulnerable groups: Given that BIPOC are overly represented among frontline and essential workforce, companies should proactively and directly engage while it is safe to do so and without putting them at further risk. Engagement must be inclusive, culturally appropriate, transparent, and participatory. For example, many companies are reaching out to their most vulnerable stakeholders through Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). For businesses with operations in close proximity to BIPOC communities, particularly Indigenous communities, companies should prioritize health and safety as well as respect the voluntary self-isolation of high-risk groups. Companies should also ensure the opportunity for Indigenous peoples’ representatives to participate and be consulted on measures that may affect them directly. Companies should provide support to BIPOC workers and ensure that within the decision-making process, BIPOC circumstances and perspectives are considered. Since the trauma of COVID-19 further compounded by racial inequality, companies should also consider enabling access to mental health support and counselling.
• Work collaboratively to design responses to specific areas of impacts on human rights: At BSR, we recognize that these challenges cannot be tackled in isolation but will require multi-stakeholder collaboration. Companies should consider advocating for fairer systems and developing joint action plans with government, the business community, civil society, and affected stakeholders to  mobilize support for the most vulnerable. This could include supporting BIPOC-owned businesses and contributing to health and emergency response funds.

As COVID-19 continues to accelerate and the search for a vaccine continues, businesses have an opportunity to prioritize the most vulnerable and address some of the long-standing disparities and inequalities that have afflicted BIPOC communities for generations. Taking action not only means identifying and executing short-term plans and solutions—it also means working toward building a new social contract where no one, including the most vulnerable, will be left behind.

For more information on identifying and respecting the rights of vulnerable groups across your activities and supply chains, please download our primer and reach out.

Blog | Thursday August 13, 2020

Building Strategic Resilience Using BSR’s COVID-19 Scenarios

Preview

The COVID-19 pandemic—and resulting economic, political, and social crisis—is the most profound global disruption in decades. And how we respond to it will remake the world. Already many are calling for a “great reset.”

While it is impossible to predict what this will look like over the coming years, to help our members, partners, and community navigate this uncertain time, BSR is publishing a set of three scenarios, each depicting a different possible future in 2025.

These are not predictions for what the future will hold; rather, they are hypothetical constructs that describe what the future could look like as shaped by the current global pandemic. None of these scenarios will transpire exactly as written. However, taken together as a set, they provide an important tool to challenge our assumptions about the future, stress test our strategies and plans, and identify opportunities to future-proof our organizations. Above all, they should inspire thinking about how, within the constraints of the possible, we can create a more just and sustainable future.

​BSR’s COVID-19 scenarios describe three possible versions of what the next five years might plausibly hold and what this would mean for sustainable business. They are structured around two overarching critical uncertainties: the success of efforts to contain the virus and what the socioeconomic policy response will look like.

The Success of Containment Efforts

Our success in containing the virus will not only determine the toll of the pandemic on human life and health, but it will also reshape social and economic life. Efforts to contain the virus will depend on multiple factors, including characteristics of the virus, epidemiological interventions, and the development of drug therapies and vaccines.

The Nature of the Socioeconomic Policy Response

The policy response to the COVID-19 crisis is unleashing trillions of dollars in spending and causing governments and other stakeholders to rethink existing priorities. The movement for racial justice in the U.S. and elsewhere has amplified the urgency and scope of these considerations. How governments respond to this moment has the potential to rewrite the social contract and reorder economic priorities. Alternatively, it could further entrench inequality and exacerbate polarization.

BSR’s COVID-19 Scenarios

Below are summaries of the three COVID-19 scenarios our Sustainable Futures Lab has developed. The complete scenario descriptions are available to download.

Scenario 1

Winners and Losers

The ongoing crisis has intensified polarization and inequality. Although vaccines have been developed, they confer only limited immunity, and a well-coordinated public health effort is still required to achieve containment. While Asia has largely recovered, ongoing COVID-19 restrictions continue to hinder business, travel, and trade in other parts of the world. Businesses are consolidated and highly automated. The wealthy have insulated themselves from risk, while “essential workers,” largely in Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities, are hit hard. Intergenerational tensions are running high. Capitalism and democracy have lost their sheen, while China proffers a vision of health, stability, and prosperity.

Scenario 2

Community Safety Nets

Although some countries made progress on containing the pandemic in 2020, this proved difficult to sustain over time. Communities, businesses, and individuals have had to adapt to heightened risk in creative ways. Cities have made major changes to the built environment to allow more of life to be lived outdoors. Working hours and locations are more flexible, and businesses and governments invest in childcare to enable working parents to work from home. There is a stronger sense of place and community solidarity, and a bevy of visionary young political leaders have entered local government. Although most people face economic challenges and elevated health risks, communities have come together to provide support and well-being.

Scenario 3

Building Back Better

After a catastrophic 2020, the world started to get back on its feet thanks to international collaboration on vaccine development and distribution. The nationalist leaders who presided over the worst responses were ushered from office. The movement for racial justice catalyzed action on systemic inequality while a large portion of public stimulus spending aimed for a green recovery. Governments are increasingly focused on income equality and well-being, and social safety nets have been strengthened. Businesses are investing in supply chain resilience by diversifying their supply chains, mandating labor protections for workers, deepening partnerships with strategic suppliers, and building more circular economic models. Many challenges remain, but the new spirit of global solidarity that has emerged has created hope for a better future.

Using the Scenarios to Build Strategic Resilience

Scenarios are a flexible tool that can be used to stress test and future-proof nearly any sort of strategy or plan. They are best deployed in a workshop setting with a diverse set of internal stakeholders. No individual or function has a comprehensive view of the future, and the more diversity in the room the more robust will be the insights generated. Once you have your scenarios team assembled, follow these steps:

• Consider each of the three scenarios in turn. Which scenario most closely describes the world you are preparing for? Do any of these scenarios describe futures you are ignoring but shouldn’t be?
• For each scenario, what risks and opportunities would be presented for your company as it currently operates?
• What actions might you take to mitigate the risks and seize the opportunities that would work across most or all of the scenarios? Are any of the risks or opportunities so significant that even if they only occur in one scenario, you should develop a contingency plan for them?

Finally, remember that the future is not predetermined. While these scenarios describe plausible future possibilities that organizations should prepare for, it is up to each of us to shape what actually happens. Taking these scenarios as a starting point, then, the scenario team should imagine what a better—a more just and sustainable—future might look like, and what the organization can do to bring that world into being.

BSR looks forward to connecting with our members and partners on leveraging these COVID-19 scenarios to develop resilient business strategies. To learn more about these scenarios, please join our webinar on September 9, 2020. To explore ways we can work together or learn more about our work, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Blog | Thursday July 30, 2020

A New Social Contract That Enables Social Justice

Preview

For too long, structural inequities and short-term thinking have threatened our vision of a just and sustainable world. As we face the urgent challenges of COVID-19 and calls for increased accountability for racial injustice, now is the time to radically reimagine how business can contribute towards removing obstacles which are impeding social justice.

Our recent publication, The Business Role in Creating a 21st-Century Social Contract, details how the private sector can support economic prosperity and social mobility, and recent political, social and economic upheavals reinforce the urgency of creating a new social contract based on more inclusive models and practices.

To address deep disparities and systemic challenges, BSR believes companies need to examine failures of whole systems, identify tangible opportunities to improve their own diversity efforts, and rebuild equitable structures at both the individual and system level. This will take new approaches that move beyond diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as primarily compliance-driven efforts and transform these tools into strategic drivers to achieve social justice.

A new social contract carries much potential to reform many of the social structures and policies which compound systemic inequities; business has a critical role to play in supporting new policies which advance economic prosperity and social mobility for all.

Our paper identifies five principles to guide business action to shape a new role for business in society, and each requires a deliberate and ambitious focus on DEI to succeed:

The first principle is stakeholder capitalism and the reorientation of business strategies to focus on long-term value creation for all stakeholders. To achieve this, companies need to diversify the board of directors and executive leadership team to address long-standing insufficient participation by women and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and report publicly on their efforts to do so. This will also require implementing a comprehensive DEI strategy that values differences and is embedded across all aspects of business operations. For example, eliminating gender and racial pay gaps, sourcing from women-owned, BIPOC-owned businesses, and aligning policy advocacy and participation in industry associations with a company’s DEI commitments.

The second principle is skill development and career pathways and in particular enabling all workers to achieve sustainable livelihoods. Here, it is essential that companies focus on DEI in hiring, training, and advancement. Companies can advance these efforts by eliminating bias in hiring, including those introduced by hiring algorithms, applying a diversity lens to employment decisions, including layoffs and furloughs, and creating career progression programs that build pathways to leadership for women, BIPOC, and LGBTI people.

The third principle is economic security and mobility, especially by strengthening and modernizing the social safety net. Here, companies can support public policies that provide meaningful benefits, including unemployment insurance, paid family and medical leave, and health care coverage for all. Companies also can advocate for minimum wage levels that support the ability of BIPOC, who are often in more vulnerable forms of unemployment, to achieve an adequate standard of living, and expanded access to education and communications technologies for underserved communities. In addition, companies can advocate for COVID-19 relief efforts and economic recovery plans that prioritize racial justice and women’s empowerment.

The fourth principle is a just transition to net-zero GHG emissions, creating high-quality green jobs and supporting workers and communities that are displaced in the transition to a net-zero economy. To realize this principle, companies are encouraged to create a transition plan to seize the employment-generating opportunities of the low-carbon economy and to consider how these opportunities can address structural inequalities and impacts on vulnerable communities. In addition, companies can ensure that their just transition plans support communities of color through social dialogue and stakeholder engagement.

The fifth principle is worker data protection, which aims to ensure that the implementation of new technologies is aligned with international human rights standards and protects the privacy and nondiscrimination rights of workers. To act on this principle, businesses can undertake forward-looking assessments that identify the DEI and human rights impacts of disruptive technologies. In addition, companies can use digital tools and data analytics in ways that support, rather than undermine, nondiscrimination and DEI objectives in hiring, performance reviews, and promotions.

For DEI efforts to be successful and sustainable, companies and institutions can and must take individual and collective action.

Each of these principles embeds DEI efforts as crucial tools in ensuring that a new social contract enables everyone to participate in and benefit from economic activity. For many companies, this represents an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate bold leadership and bring novel approaches and innovative thinking to their DEI efforts, and their employees, stakeholders, and shareholders are paying close attention.

A new social contract carries much potential to reform many of the social structures and policies which compound systemic inequities; business has a critical role to play in supporting new policies which advance economic prosperity and social mobility for all. For DEI efforts to be successful and sustainable, companies and institutions can and must take individual and collective action.

BSR looks forward to working with our members, donors, and partners to create actions and opportunities that meet the urgency of this critical moment and work towards a new social contract that reaches its full potential of supporting social justice.

Blog | Friday July 24, 2020

When It Comes to Racial Justice, the Business and Human Rights Community Can Do More

Preview

It has been almost two months since the tragic killing of George Floyd at the hands of four police officers in the United States. The public outcry has sparked an unprecedented wave of support for Black Lives Matter (BLM) from all facets of society, including business. A movement still touted as an organization of domestic terrorism by some voices from the political right in the United States is now gaining momentum globally as people coalesce around the call for an end to racial injustice.     

This is not just a domestic issue confined to the United States. This is a global human rights imperative.         

I am a Jamaican woman who is painfully aware of history and the connection between business and human rights. Businesses profited from the transatlantic slave trade and over 400 years of slavery that stole lives and decimated Black families and communities in the Americas. It is one of the sentinel business and human rights cases, and the enduring legacy of slavery sheds light on the racism and prejudice that existed then and now, albeit in more subtle forms.  

Representation in the Business and Human Rights (BHR) Movement 

As a Black professional in the business and human rights community who has worked in the US, UK, Kenya and now in Hong Kong, I take this moment to reflect on the role of the business and human rights community in tackling racism and discrimination. Why have we not engaged on these issues in a more robust and meaningful way? I ask this question particularly of BHR organizations based in countries in the Americas and Europe still dealing with the legacy of Atlantic slavery. 

Are we doing enough to break down barriers, raise voices of the most vulnerable and marginalized, and tackle diversity and inclusion issues, not just in our work with business but in our own organizations?

In a field that works very hard to hold businesses accountable for their most pressing human rights violations, I’ve noted some hesitation in addressing racial injustice as a BHR issue. The response has often been: "Race is a sensitive issue," "There are more important issues in the world to focus on," or "These issues are only confined to the United States." My colleagues have been predominantly white and middle class, and this becomes deeply personal for people of colour, who should be heard and have their experiences validated. This leads me to ask: Are we doing enough to break down barriers, raise voices of the most vulnerable and marginalized, and tackle diversity and inclusion issues, not just in our work with business but in our own organizations?

Are we doing enough as a field to be self-reflective and have those uncomfortable conversations about race and privilege that are often avoided? 

Tackling Racism Head-on in Our Work

Take the example of the progress that the BHR community has made over the past few years on taking action to highlight and address human rights issues in mega-sporting events. The plight of migrant workers in the Gulf who often risk their lives and live in deplorable conditions to construct stadiums has rightly brought many stakeholders to the table to tackle this and many other serious issues. But there is a noticeable absence within the BHR community when it comes to addressing the issue of racism in football and in sports writ large. Sport is after all a big business in which Black people are well represented but often lack any real power or influence. There are very few Black football managers, and the boardrooms of most national football leagues and even UEFA itself are almost exclusively white men. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, the NFL reversed its controversial ban on players “taking the knee” during the national anthem—a stance first popularized by Colin Kaepernick in protest to the conditions Black Americans experience across the US—issuing a public apology and offering public support. Yet it seems to be all too convenient as the world faces its reckoning with race relations. 

We rightly focus on the labor practices of people in the developing world who make the clothes for people in the developed markets, but there is limited focus on Black people working in essential services and on the frontline who also need advocates making strong calls to action. 

Another cogent example would be the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black people in the US and UK. The pandemic is exposing the systemic racial inequalities and disparities in health, education, and employment. Many Black people are dying in shockingly high numbers as they occupy a high proportion of frontline and essential worker positions increasing the risk of exposure to the disease and job losses. This is exacerbated by co-morbidity factors including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, further creating complications and leading to poorer health outcomes.  

Why is the BHR community largely silent on these issues? 

We rightly focus on the labor practices of people in the developing world who make the clothes for people in the developed markets, but there is limited focus on Black people working in essential services and on the frontline who also need advocates making strong calls to action. Acknowledging that these too are BHR issues while working with business to address the unique circumstances and needs of vulnerable communities disproportionally impacted by COVID-19 will help to address the ingrained disparities that prevent many from realizing their basic human rights. 

Tackling Racism Head-on in Our Organizations

While it is positive to see some organizations within this space issue public statements and show support for Black Lives Matter, this cannot be reduced to a hashtag or public relations opportunity. I know that there are no overnight solutions but not being racist is not enough. The real work starts with being anti-racist—a conscious lifelong dedication to fight and dismantle oppressive systems. 

Proof will be in the actions, so what should be done? 

Taking action can be reflected in not only embedding diversity and inclusion in our own organizations but also diversifying our own perspectives, research, and thought leadership. The BHR community should work harder to tackle the systems and structures that reinforce racism—which is as much an issue of governance as it is of ownership and power.

Here are a few ways in which we can help in our own work where possible: 

1. Look beyond the obvious to acknowledge "the unspoken," such as unconscious bias, implicit bias, and microaggressions in the workplace.
2. Call for more board and leadership diversity in our own organizations and within the business community.
3. Apply more scrutiny to lobbying efforts made in businesses that are antithetical to diversity. 
4. Call attention to products and services that reinforce racial stereotypes and bias, including the development and use of artificial intelligence.
5. Scrutinize investment decisions made by companies and shareholders in systems that disproportionately impact vulnerable groups such as investments in private prisons that contribute to the problem of the mass incarceration of Black people, for example. 
6. Work towards incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion in corporate benchmarks to assess and improve company performance on how they are tackling racial injustice by integrating the voices of rightsholders.

The BHR community should work harder to tackle the systems and structures that reinforce racism—which is as much an issue of governance as it is of ownership and power.

It is the responsibility of the business and human rights community to listen, learn, reflect, and act. As we begin to think of ways we can tackle racial injustice, spark dialogue, and ensure that we are not being complicit and part of the problem, I’d like to see a BHR field with less silence and apathy and more anti-racist action. Standing against racism starts with acknowledging the problem and working together to correct historical injustices as a first step. Stating unequivocally that Black Lives Matter while creating spaces for uncomfortable conversations and amplifying voices of the most vulnerable will be another critical step in the right direction.

We do not want more performance activism and tokenism—fostering authentic dialogue is the key to creating real change.

Originally appeared on IHRB. 

Blog | Tuesday July 21, 2020

Key Ways Business Can Still Support Women’s Reproductive Rights Following SCOTUS Decisions

Preview

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on two recent cases with potentially important long-term implications for employee access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare.  

In June Medical Services v. Russo, the Court struck down a Louisiana law that sought to severely restrict the ability of physicians to provide abortion services. In Trump v. Pennsylvania, the Court held that the Trump Administration had the authority to issue rules regarding the contraceptive insurance coverage guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. 

June Medical is a win for proponents of abortion access—but a narrow one, decided on the basis of precedent. Trump v. Pennsylvania, however, may open the door for virtually any employer to discontinue providing insurance coverage for contraception. It is clear from both decisions that we cannot rely on this Supreme Court to protect women’s access to reproductive healthcare.  

The decades-long erosion of access to reproductive healthcare, coupled with underinvestment in resources devoted to maternal health care, is a net loss for American businesses whose female workers, prior to the pandemic, comprised a slight majority of the workforce. But it is a reversible one. Corporate policies could provide a bulwark against this erosion, helping to protect and strengthen the new social contract between business and society that the 21st century demands. 

As explored in the Rhia Ventures report Hidden Value: The Business Case for Reproductive Health, at least five drivers should compel corporations to invest in their employees’ reproductive health care including, for example, maximizing the available talent pool as many women consider the policy environment in career decisions: a majority of college-educated women (56 percent) say they would not apply to a job in a state that has recently banned abortion. Other drivers include employee morale and retention as many women state that controlling if and when to have children has been important to their careers, meeting their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals by recognizing reproductive healthcare coverage as a critical component of an equitable workplace, realizing cost savings when employees can control when and if they become pregnant, and staying ahead of growing scrutiny and stakeholder interest in this area. 

Commenting on the report’s release in January, BSR President and CEO Aron Cramer said, “Business holds significant, untapped potential to contribute to women’s advancement and stands to benefit tremendously by ensuring women are empowered. Access to reproductive healthcare is fundamental to women having the agency they need to shape their future.”  

How Companies Can Take Action 

1. Companies can start by conducting an internal audit to ensure that their health insurance for contraception not only meets but exceeds the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, covers abortion without restriction, and guarantees that contracted healthcare providers can meet all of their employees’ reproductive healthcare needs. They can also cover travel costs for employees who need access to reproductive health care outside of their home states due to legislative restrictions on abortion care.  
   
   One company interviewed for the report told the authors: “We support employees in accessing centers of excellence for other medical issues, and we treat access to abortion the same way.”  
    
2. When assessing their business footprints, including sites and conferences, companies may also wish to assess state laws pertaining to access to reproductive healthcare and identify opportunities to inform or influence such policies. Companies should also examine their political contributions to determine if they are inadvertently supporting those who are undermining women’s healthcare. 
    
3. A supportive culture around reproductive health benefits can be created by sharing clear information about coverage and finding ways to reduce stigma around comprehensive reproductive health in conversations about benefits. Research conducted for the report found that companies are often unaware of the benefits they provide for reproductive health and often may unintentionally limit contraceptive options and restrict coverage for abortion. The report’s authors also found that 69 percent of women with health insurance currently do not know whether their coverage includes abortion. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the urgency for corporate awareness and action. A recent survey of 2,000 women of reproductive age by the Guttmacher Institute found that 34 percent want to delay pregnancy or have fewer children because of the pandemic. The same proportion reported having to delay or cancel visiting a provider for sexual or reproductive healthcare or having had trouble obtaining contraception. Barriers to care are more pronounced for Black, Latinx, low-income and LGBTI women. These findings are supported by another concurrent survey of 2,200 adults undertaken by the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which found that 65 percent of adults think that it is a bad time to get pregnant and that 57 percent of women think that it is “more essential” for individuals to have access to birth control measures.  

Just as the coronavirus pandemic has shined a harsh light on myriad weaknesses and vulnerabilities in our healthcare system, the recent SCOTUS rulings reflect on the precariousness of reproductive autonomy in the United States. While the door has been opened for companies to opt out of insuring contraception, some doors are better left untraversed. With consistent majorities of Americans supporting access to abortion and contraception, the business community is best served by standing firm by women and their families. 

Blog | Thursday July 9, 2020

Why Worker Data Protection Should Be Central to a 21st-Century Social Contract

Preview

Last month, we published a proposal to overhaul the relationship between government, business, employees, and people with a new social contract fit for the 21st century. Our proposal is based upon five principles, with the fifth principle being centered on worker data protection—specifically, that the use of new technologies in the workplace should be aligned with international human rights standards and protect the privacy and nondiscrimination rights of workers.

Data protection is rarely discussed during dialogue about the need for a new social contract, but we included it for two simple reasons: firstly, the existing social contract was developed in the pre-digital world, not today’s data-rich environment; secondly, a modern social contract must address a whole host of new risks and opportunities arising from how employee data are collected, shared, and used. The COVID-19 pandemic is shining an even brighter light on this challenge by both increasing the significance of worker health data and obscuring the distinction between the home and the workplace.

We believe that a 21st-century social contract needs to address three main concerns:

• Privacy: Monitoring and surveillance may be considered acceptable to protect worker and customer health, safety, and security, but the use of digital tools to track the productivity, wellness, or emotional state of an employee raises important questions about reasonable expectations of privacy in the workplace—and at home for those working remotely.
• Non-discrimination: New digital tools could accentuate existing workplace discrimination and increase risks for workers from vulnerable groups. For example, monitoring how many times employees leave their workstation during a workday could discriminate on the basis of religion, disability, or pregnancy status, while the use of sentiment analysis to provide insights into an individual’s facial expressions or body language during hiring risks discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, or other physical characteristics.
• Human dignity: The use of digital tools to collect data, analyze signals, and inform decisions raises novel issues around human dignity, autonomy, control, self-worth, and well-being—for example, whether employees should reasonably expect to have their movements tracked as a metric to gauge productivity or whether insights into employee motivation and workplace satisfaction derived from psychological or sentiment analysis are a reasonable expectation of employment.

Furthermore, we note that violation of rights to privacy and non-discrimination impacts other rights too, such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to favorable conditions of work.

A diverse range of workplaces—warehouses, factories, offices, call centers, mines, entertainment venues, restaurants, transit centers, and homes—will increasingly deploy digital tools, and this both increases the significance of worker data protection and makes it more challenging to realize in practice. We need to consider three key concepts as we endeavor to strengthen 21st-century social contracts in relation to worker data protection.

• Informed consent. Informed consent is defined by both participation (i.e. the ability to participate in decisions) and empowerment (i.e. the ability to understand both risks and rights when consenting). It will be essential that workers are able to provide informed consent for how their data are collected, processed, and used by employers. The formal contracting process that underpins the employer/worker relationship provides a well-defined pathway for providing informed consent, but this may not exist for informal workers.
• Power and vulnerability. There are power dynamics in all employer/worker relationships, and the data-driven digital economy alters this dynamic in significant ways. While the employer has access to an increasing array of data, the most vulnerable workers—those without real options to “walk away”—have the fewest choices open to them and are less able to understand their rights and risks when consenting. Beyond informed consent, this disparity needs to be addressed with clear rules governing what employers are simply not allowed to do.
• Addressing different worksites. The data protection risk-and-opportunities profile will vary significantly across different industries, job types, and workplace environments, including workplaces in the context of new business models, such as gig workers, online sellers, and other novel forms of income generation. These need to be understood individually, for example via assessments into the social, economic inclusion, and the potential human rights impacts of disruptive technologies.

One of the most revealing elements of our research to inform the 21st-century social contract was the lack of international norms for workplace data protection in the context of a data-rich world.  For example, while the International Labour Organization (ILO) published a code of practice providing guidance on the protection of workers’ personal data in 1997, there is no ILO convention or recommendation covering workplace data protection, privacy, and non-discrimination issues in a modern setting.

As the use of workplace technologies evolves, new norms, laws, and regulations will be needed to manage the way disruptive technologies are deployed in the workplace. Technology providers, employers, labor organizations, governments, and civil society organizations all have an important role to play in the dialogue around what these new norms can and should be. As workplace monitoring and surveillance become increasingly commonplace, it will be important for employers to collaborate with labor organizations to define clear boundaries and a social consensus for data protection in the modern workplace.

This piece is the first in a series of blogs exploring The Business Role in Creating a 21st Century Social Contract. Click here to read the full report, to explore the other four principles, and to learn more about how your company can act, enable, and influence to create a social contract fit for purpose.