9 THE ROLE FOR UK NATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS
276. In his latest Report, Professor Ruggie called
on National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) to consider how
they could play a role in promoting the 'protect, respect and
remedy' framework:
While the mandates of some NHRIs may currently
preclude them from work on business and human rights, for many
it has been a question of choice, tradition or capacity. The
Special Representative hopes that more NHRIs will reflect on ways
they can address alleged human rights abuses involving business.[357]
277. It appears from the evidence that the existing
NHRIs in the United Kingdom differ in their approach to the private
sector.[358] The Institute
for Business and Human Rights told us:
The UK Equalities and Human rights Commission
does not yet play the active role in the field of business and
human rights as National Human Rights Institutions in Denmark,
South Africa or Kenya. It remains less engaged in business and
human rights than many of the organisations accredited to the
Paris Principles. This is mystifying and does not reflect the
interests of either UK business or civil society. It is worth
noting that the newly-formed Scottish Human Rights Commission
intends to be active in the area of business and human rights.[359]
278. Neither the EHRC nor SHRC said that they needed
a broader mandate to deal with human rights issues in the private
sector. The EHRC was cautious about assuming any additional roles
and explained that the organisation was still finding its feet.[360]
The SHRC explained that although its mandate was focused on Scotland
and its powers particularly related to public authorities: "our
general duty…provides us with a basis to work with Scottish
companies operating at home and abroad in host states, as well
as with the Scottish Government, to support them to comply with
their duty to protect rights."[361]
279. The SHRC outlined a number of plans for work
in this area, including dissemination of good practice and work
to spread a human rights based approach through the public and
private sectors. The SHRC appears to be taking a positive
approach to business and human rights work and we particularly
welcome its involvement in the International Coordinating Committee
of National Human Rights Institutions Working Group on National
Human Rights Institutions, business and human rights.
280. The bulk of the evidence which we received from
the EHRC focused on equality. We had expected that the EHRC would
have skills from each of its legacy commissions' work with the
private sector which would be transferable to its broader work
on human rights issues. Unfortunately, this notion of building
on prior experience does not emerge from the evidence we took
from the EHRC. The private sector work of the EHRC has so
far been largely limited to the equality stream. We are concerned
that this is indicative of a broader failure of the EHRC effectively
to integrate its work on equality and its work on human rights.
We explored these concerns further in oral evidence with the
Chair of the EHRC, Trevor Philips, on 10 November 2009.[362]
We intend to report the broader findings of our inquiry on the
work of the EHRC shortly.
281. After the close of our inquiry, the EHRC published
its first human rights strategy. It included a generalised commitment
to "build business and public awareness of the key human
rights issues in the private sector". One of the ways it
intended to approach this commitment was by holding a "high-level"
summit on the implementation of the work of the UN Special Representative.[363]
We note the recent commitment in the EHRC Human Rights
Strategy and Programme of Action 2009-2012 to build business and
public awareness of the key human rights issues in the private
sector. We look forward to receiving further information on how
it intends to develop this strand of their work.
282. The Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR,
the Danish NHRI) is often held up as an exemplar for NHRI activity
on business and human rights issues. The DIHR has an education
and research mandate, which extends to cover education relating
to the private sector. It runs a wide ranging business and human
rights programme, producing tools and providing consultancy services
for businesses on human rights impact assessments and other strategic
advice. The DIHR wrote:
The Human Rights and Business Project…is
a non-profit entity dedicated to promoting business' compliance
with human rights. To this end, the Human Rights and Business
Project undertakes consultancy projects with corporate partners,
develops tools and methodologies to help companies implement human
rights, engages in capacity building partnership projects with
a wide range of public and civil society actors internationally,
and conducts strategic research on concepts of relevance to the
field.[364]
283. It provides consultancy for a fee to "over
a dozen of the Fortune 500" companies and including UK firms,
such as Shell.[365]
The DIHR works together with the SHRC on the ICC Working Group
on Business and Human Rights. We understand that they have recently
been in contact with the EHRC to share their experiences of their
work in this area. Both the EHRC and the SHRC admired the DHRI
approach, but neither considered that it would be appropriate
for their mandates.[366]
284. In the light of the enforcement elements
of its mandate, we consider that it would be inappropriate for
the EHRC to charge a fee for formal consultancy services like
the Danish Institute for Human Rights. We note that the SHRC
has a mandate to charge a fee for advice, guidance, research or
training. While it may have the power to take the same approach
as the Danish Institute for Human Rights, we accept its view,
that charging businesses for consultancy in the UK may not be
the right approach. However, we consider that there is far
greater scope in the mandate and powers of both of these institutions
(and the mandate of the NIHRC) to become involved in the debate
around human rights impacts in the private sector.
285. The education and promotion mandates of the
UK's NHRIs should be sufficiently broad to cover a joined-up approach
to the Government's relationship with the private sector on the
human rights obligations of the UK. In our view, the main priority
should be the promotion of guidance for the private sector on
what human rights means for their domestic activities. This should
include guidance on when and how the HRA 1998 will apply and how
human rights may affect their undertakings. Government should
produce such guidance for businesses without delay. We recommend
that this is a key area where the expertise of the NHRIs should
be used. The content and direction of this guidance should be
informed by the outcome of the Ministry of Justice's Private Sector
and Human Rights project currently underway and should only be
published after consultation with business, business groups, NGOs
and other interested parties.
286. We also recommend that the NHRIs play a role
in ensuring that the Government produces guidance on the wider
human rights issues facing UK businesses in their operations overseas.
In our view, the mandate of the EHRC is broad enough to engage
with the Government on these issues. We note, for example,
that the EHRC takes responsibility for contributions to the UN
international monitoring bodies on the work of the UK. This could
include monitoring Government responses to allegations that UK
companies have undermined the UN Conventions overseas.[367]
The EHRC should contribute to cross-Government work on
how guidance from Government should be made available. Through
its work on equality issues, the EHRC has - or should have - a
broad network of contacts in the private sector. It would be
ideally placed to distribute relevant guidance and to disseminate
best practice.
287. We recommend that the EHRC and the SHRC work
together with the NIHRC to assist the UK Government to adopt a
clear, positive and proactive strategy on business and human rights.
357 Ruggie Report 2009, para 103. Back
358
We had evidence from both the EHRC and the SHRC. The Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission was invited to submit evidence,
but did not do so. Back
359
Ev 270, para 5 Back
360
Q289 (Alan Christie) Back
361
Q289 (Kavita Chetty) Back
362
HC 1042-ii, Uncorrected transcript, oral evidence, Trevor Phillips
OBE, Ms Kay Carberry CBE, Ms Jeannie Drake CBE, Mr John Wadham,
10 November 2009. Back
363
EHRC, Our human rights strategy and programme of action, 2009-2012,
10 November 2009, page 23. Back
364
Ev 333 Back
365
Ibid Back
366
QQ 290 - 292 Back
367
Recommendations have been made by UN monitoring bodies against
other states.See for example, the concluding observations of the
UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Canada
(CERD/C/CAN/CO/18, para 17) and the United States (CERD/C/USA/CO/6,
para 30). Back
| 
