2018 United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights

Organized by the Working Group on business and human rights

Brief description of the session:
This session will feature a presentation by the Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Dante Pesce. The presentation will highlight key findings and recommendations from the Working Group's report to the UN General Assembly in October 2018.
The focus of the report is the concept of corporate human rights due diligence set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The presentation will highlight key features of human rights due diligence and why it matters; gaps and challenges in current business and Government practice; emerging good practices; and how key stakeholders — States and the investment community, in particular — can contribute to the scaling-up of effective human rights due diligence.

Key documents

• Working Group report on human rights due diligence to the 2018 General Assembly (available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian)
• Executive summary of the Working Group report on human rights due diligence
• Companion paper I – Corporate human rights due diligence: Background note and elaborating on key aspects
• Companion paper II – Corporate human rights due diligence – Getting started, emerging practices, tools and resources
• Overview of references to human rights due diligence in existing State national action plans on business and human rights
• UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
• The Corporate Responsibility to Respect: An Interpretive Guide (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)

Interpretation is provided in Korean

Organized by the B Team, Center for Economic and Social Rights, Christian Aid, Financial Transparency Coalition and Oxfam

Brief description of the session:
When working well, business tax contributions fund key programs crucial for gender equality and women’s rights, including education, health, and care services. In contrast, when businesses avoid tax, public services go under-funded and consumption taxes are often increased, both of which disproportionately burden women. This session will drill down on the connection between responsible corporate tax practice and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It will engage discussants from the audience in a multi-stakeholder dialogue on methods for driving responsible corporate tax practice that avoids adverse impacts on human rights.

Session objectives: 
This session will draw out practice-based recommendations on how the UN Guiding Principles’ three pillars of “Protect, Respect and Remedy” can be leveraged by governments, companies and communities to ensure responsible tax practice. In order to enable a concrete and solution-oriented discussion the session will have a special focus on connecting responsible tax practice and women’s rights, and in particular how to rectify the often-hidden women’s rights risks posed by certain corporate tax practices. It will also focus on how companies are beginning to understand how paying tax in a transparent and responsible way is an important way in which they can positively contribute to the communities in which they operate.
 
Key discussion questions:
 o What is the relationship between tax policy and human rights, in particular women’s rights?
o What are the duties and responsibilities of governments under the UN Guiding Principles’ Pillar I (State duty to protect) as related to business taxation? What are some examples of good state practice to enable corporate human rights due diligence on tax matters?
o How can Pillar II of the Guiding Principles (corporate responsibility to respect) be leveraged to restore more responsible business taxation in practice? What are examples of good corporate tax behavior in line with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights?
o What is the role of other stakeholders (e.g. investors, civil society organizations) in encouraging companies to view responsible tax practice as a way to meet their corporate responsibility to respect human rights – and that avoiding adverse impacts from irresponsible tax avoidance in fact would be a significant positive contribution to sustainable development in the societies in which they operate?
o What role does political influencing play, and to what degree does business’ tax lobbying affect both the state duty to protect and business’s responsibility to respect women’s rights?
o In light of Pillar III of the Guiding Principles (access to remedy for victims), what would effective remedy for corporate tax abuse look like, in practice?

Format of the session:
After an initial introduction by the moderator, this session will kick off with the presentation of a brief illustrative case of the risks irresponsible corporate tax practices pose to women’s rights. Practitioners from business, civil society, community, and government will then engage in a round-table discussion on how the UN Guiding Principles could be leveraged to address this type of situation.

Background to the discussion:
There is growing consensus amongst governments, the human rights protection system and civil society that taxation—in particular corporate tax policy—is a vital tool for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Ample evidence also suggests that women and girls are hurt the most when the ability of the ability of states to realize such rights is hampered by tax losses. Likewise, more and more companies are recognizing that paying their fair share of tax is a fundamental business responsibility.[1] Business groups are also recognising the importance of good governance in the area of tax incentives in the global South,[2] and some are adopting a set of Responsible Tax Principles.[3] When working well, business tax contributions fund key programs crucial for gender equality and women’s rights, including education, health, and care services. In contrast, when businesses avoid tax, public services go under-funded and consumption taxes are often increased, both of which disproportionately burden women.
In light of the significant human rights risks posed by irresponsible corporate tax practice, how can the UN business and human rights framework be leveraged to ensure responsible corporate tax policy and practice? “There is a need,” according to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, “to better delineate roles, responsibilities and appropriate accountability systems for both States and business enterprises with regard to specific issues, such as … tax avoidance.”[4] The State duty to protect human rights in its corporate tax policies, the business responsibility to respect human rights and carry out due diligence in their tax practices, and the need for effective remedy for tax abuse are all relevant, yet still emerging dimensions of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

[1] KPMG, 2017. ‘Responsible Tax and the Developing World: Is tax a fundamental human right?' at https://responsibletax.kpmg.com/page/responsible-tax-and-the-developing-world-is-tax-a-fundamental-human-right-
[2] ActionAid, CBI, Christian Aid and Oxfam, 2018. ‘Tax Incentives in the Global South: a business and civil society brief’ at https://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/about-us/tax-incentives-global-south-business-and-civil-society-brief
[3] The B-Team, “A New Bar for Responsible Tax: The B Team Responsible Tax Principles”
[4] A/HRC/29/28; See also John Ruggie, 2017: “Neither the income inequality nor the base erosion and profit shifting associated with the current structure of corporate globalization are socially sustainable” at https://www.ihrb.org/other/supply-chains/making-economic-globalisation-work-for-all-speech-by-prof.-john-ruggie

Interpretation is provided in English, French and Spanish
 
Brief description of the session and session objectives: 

The objectives of this session are to: (1) discuss good practices from the perspective of the indigenous rights holders, lessons-learned, gaps, and challenges to strengthen the implementation of FPIC, in particular the significance of community protocols in the context of business activities and (2) identify factors for an enabling environment for respecting indigenous peoples’ rights and effective implementation of FPIC process.

Background to the discussion:

Following the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a growing number of investors, financial institutions and businesses in a range of sectors have developed, or are in the process of developing, safeguard policies that require them to respect indigenous peoples’ rights, especially their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as part of the human rights due diligence expected of them and social license to operate. Furthermore, indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and to lands, territories and resources have been gaining support and attention at different levels. However, a growing body of decisions of UN human rights bodies, regional and national courts and complaint mechanisms such as the OECD National Contract Points demonstrate that indigenous peoples continue to be the victims of human rights abuses associated with business activities.
At the same time, indigenous peoples are increasingly developing their own protocols and policies, which provide guidance to States and corporations on how to consult with them and seek their FPIC in accordance with their right to self-determination and their customary decision-making practices. Communities from the Murut Tahol Community in Alutok, Ulu Tomani, Tenom, Malyasia as well as the Juruna People in the Brazilian Amazon and the Embera Chami in Colombia, are among those who have developed such protocols. These protocols reflect the community's identity, culture, ways of life and the interconnection of territories, peoples and nature. They highlight the central importance of respect for indigenous peoples’ rights, including their self-determination right to decide their own plans, priorities and visions for their futures and the related right of communities to make decisions on externally proposed projects in or near their territories.
The UN Forum on Business and Human Rights is unique in that it provides all parties involved in such projects, i.e. States, private sector actors and indigenous peoples, a space in which to dialogue and to ensure that the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are effective for indigenous peoples, particularly in relation to their collective rights to self-determination, FPIC and lands, territories and resources.

Key discussion questions:

• What were the different contexts that community protocols have played a role (or could play a role) in facilitating meaningful FPIC processes?
• To what extent do community protocols address the role of governments in human rights due diligence and FPIC and the corresponding responsibilities of corporations?
• What are the experiences of implementing FPIC processes in different regions and are there good practices that can be replicated by other indigenous communities or adopted by States or private sectors in their policies and guidelines?

 
Format of the session: 

The event will consist of a panel discussion with brief case study presentations followed by a 50-minute interactive discussion with session participants. The focus will be on how to ensure the effective implementation of consultation and FPIC in the context of business activities and the role which indigenous peoples’ consultation and FPIC protocols can play in this regard.
Indigenous community representatives from three regions (Asia, Latin America and Africa) will present their experience with consultation and FPIC processes and their views on the importance and benefits of consultation and free prior and informed consent (FPIC) protocols that are developed by indigenous peoples themselves.
The floor will be opened to participants to raise questions and present their perspectives on and experiences with consultation and FPIC processes and on related protocols developed by indigenous peoples. This part of the session will be “talk show format”, with the participants having the opportunity to raise questions amongst each other as in a public dialogue or engage with the panel.

Interpretation is provided into Spanish

Organized by UNICEF

Short description and session objectives:
This session will explore different methods of conducting human rights due diligence with consideration of children’s rights and voice, and the role of different stakeholders in making this happen including investors, governments, companies and UN agencies. The session will consider both challenges and solutions to the integration of child rights into business processes by engaging the audience in an interactive and participatory manner.  

Format:
Interactive discussion between main panel speakers and different interventions from the floor representing different perspectives and voices.


Background to the discussion:
The focus of the session is to emphasize the need for companies to take specific measures to understand and address their potential impacts on groups and communities that may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization. Children are often the most vulnerable population, requiring specific attention to guarantee respect for their human rights. It is possible that one business activity might not impact the rights of adults, but the same activity could adversely impact the rights of a child. Despite this, children have not been adequately considered by business. Companies’ consideration of their impact on child rights is often relegated to the issue of child labour or community investment, yet the impacts of business on children extend to such aspects as product design and advertising, the behaviour of staff towards children, and children’s rights in the supply chain, and the ways that companies operate in the wider community. Moreover, children are usually less well placed to advocate for their own interests and may be silenced within their households or communities. Unless companies make dedicated efforts to understand the risks they pose to child rights, and engage child rights advocates – children may be at risk of exclusion from companies’ human rights due diligence and stakeholder engagement processes.

Organized by Lambo Films, Storyhouse Films, Abeva and Doughty Street Chambers.

Short description of the session:
The session will be a showing of the film “Breathless” (75 mins), which is a film showing how the asbestos industry moved to take advantages of markets and laws in less developed countries and the struggle of people affected by the industry for redress. It centres on the struggle of victims in Belgium and India, where it takes the director to the largest asbestos waste dump in South Asia. The asbestos story is replicated in many other industries and reflects the difficulties in obtaining remedy in a globalised world.

Session objectives:
To illustrate through the issue of the export of asbestos how corporations have exported the most hazardous and exploitative industries to the less developed world, where people struggle to obtain a remedy, but how through such struggles change can come about. The film is linked to a crowdfunding campaign to fund litigation in India to clean up an asbestos waste dump in Central India (breathlessfund.org), which will hopefully have a wider impact in creating awareness of the hazards of asbestos in India.

Key discussion questions:

• What has been the reaction of Eternit to the film?
• What has been the reaction of the people in Kappelle to the film?
• What is the role of the UN is stopping such violations from happening, Rotterdam Convention and the report of hazardous substances in the workplace.
• What is the campaign in India to highlight the hazards of asbestos?

Format:
The film will be 75 mins followed by a discussion and a Q&A till 8pm

Session organized by the Global Network Initiative.

Brief description of the session:
Please join the Global Network Initiative (GNI) for a discussion on "Understanding and Addressing Human Rights Impacts in the Information & Communication Technology (ICT) sector." There has been relatively little public guidance developed that is specific to the ICT-sector. The GNI Principles and Implementation Guidelines provide some guidance, and other guidance has been provided by the Institute for Human Rights and Business, as well as Business for Social Responsibility.

Key discussion questions:

• What are the key elements of HRDD in the ICT sector?
• What are the key differences between HRDD in the ICT sector and in other sectors (factories, extractives, security services, etc.)?
• What practical considerations facilitate and/or raise challenges for conducting HRDD in the ICT sector (in other words, lessons learned)?
• What concerns do users/civil society have about how HRDD in the tech sector?

Format of the session:
This session will be an open "roundtable" with the audience, facilitated by GNI's Independent Board Chair, Mark Stephens.

Interpretation is provided in English and French.


Organized by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights

Brief description of the session: 

This Forum session is part of the Forum track on trends and challenges in promoting business respect for human rights in the context of each region of the world. Building on the sessions on government action on the Forum’s first day, the region focused discussions aim to take a closer look at how to overcome key business-related human rights challenges faced in African countries and lessons learned from emerging government, business and civil society action.

Objective of the session: 

Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue around lessons learned and the way forward, including on how to scale up emerging good practice and strengthen a race to the top among governments and business in the region.

Format of the session:

The proposed session will be done in a talk show format with the participants having the opportunity to raise questions amongst each other as in a public dialogue. The session is chaired by the Member of the UN Working Group, Githu Muigai

Preliminary agenda: 

• Introduction by The UN Working Group member, Githu Muigai
• Kickoff remarks:
  • Civil society coalition reflections on how to overcome key business-related human rights challenges in the region and what emerging practices to build on
  • Business perspectives on how to drive a race to the top in the region
  • Government statements on lessons learned and commitments for going forward
• Roundtable discussion

Organized by Amnesty International, SOMO, Clean Clothes Campaign, Sherpa, OECD Watch, PODER, Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID), Global Witness

In this panel, community members from Tanzania and Mexico and workers from Pakistan impacted by corporate human rights abuses join human rights experts to explore the relationship between due diligence and remedy. Is facilitating remedy a part of a company’s due diligence responsibility? Should remedy be left to companies? What is the role of the state? Is a company’s failure to ensure remedy a failure of due diligence? Why is a guarantee of effective remedy essential to assure meaningful due diligence? How must remedy outcomes feedback to improve due diligence practices? What responsibility do investors have to undertake due diligence and ensure remedy, and what should their due diligence be?
Panellists analyse the problems arising from failures of due diligence and remedy through exploration of three case studies on corporate impacts: 

• Gold mining in Tanzania,
• Garment production in Pakistan, and
• Copper mining in Mexico.

Next, panellists propose policy solutions to strengthen the effectiveness of due diligence and remedy through the use of hard and soft law tools and improved investor due diligence.

Interpretation is provided in English and Russian.

Organized by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights

Brief description of the session: 

This Forum session is part of the Forum track on trends and challenges in promoting business respect for human rights in the context of each region of the world. Building on the sessions on government action on the Forum’s first day, the region focused discussions aim to take a closer look at how to overcome key business-related human rights challenges faced in Eastern European countries and lessons learned from emerging government, business and civil society action.

Objectives of the session: 

- Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue around lessons learned and the way forward, including on how to scale up emerging good practice
- Strengthen a race to the top among governments and business in the region

Format of the session:

The proposed session will be done in a talk show format with the participants having the opportunity to raise questions amongst each other as in a public dialogue. The session is chaired by the Member of the UN Working Group, Elzbieta Karksa

Preliminary agenda: 

• Introduction by Elzbieta Karska
• Kickoff remarks:
  • Civil society coalition reflections on how to overcome key business-related human rights challenges in the region and what emerging practices to build on
  • Business perspectives on how to drive a race to the top in the region
  • Government statements on lessons learned and commitments for going forward
• Roundtable discussion

Interpretation is provided into Spanish.


Organized by OHCHR

Brief description of the session:
The goals of improved accountability and access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses are often best served by providing affected individuals and communities with a range of options for seeking redress. These options could involve judicial or non-judicial mechanisms, or, in some cases, a combination of them. In 2014, OHCHR launched the Accountability and Remedy Project (ARP), a multiyear initiative of three phases focusing on enhancing the effectiveness of, respectively, judicial mechanisms, State-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms, and non-State-based grievance mechanisms. The overall aim of this project is to identify practical measures that can be taken to improve corporate accountability and access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses. In its 2017 report to the General Assembly,  the Working Group on Business and Human Rights has also stressed the importance of an ‘all roads to remedy’ approach to realizing effective remedy for rights-holders.

This session will explore the interconnectedness of different types of grievance mechanisms, drawing from the three phases of ARP and the Working Group’s 2017 report. It will discuss how States can develop a legal and regulatory environment that enables the various types of grievance mechanisms to make a positive collective contribution to accountability and remedy, with a particular focus on the interfaces between non-State-based grievance mechanisms (such as operational-level grievance mechanisms) and State-based mechanisms.

Session objectives:

• Explore the interconnectedness between the different types of grievance mechanisms: i.e. State-based judicial mechanisms, State-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms, and non-State-based grievance mechanisms.

Key discussion questions:

• What measures can States take to improve policy coherence in relation to their different grievance mechanisms to ensure that victims have realistic and identifiable pathways to effective remedy?
• What bearing does improved interconnectedness and policy coherence have on the prevention of harm through human rights due diligence by companies and “continuous learning?”
• How should non-State-based grievance mechanisms (including operational-level grievance mechanisms) be situated within the overall “family” of grievance mechanisms?
• In what circumstances is State regulatory oversight of the establishment, design and/or performance of non-State-based grievance mechanisms desirable and/or justified?
• What kinds of communication and liaison between different types of remedial systems are needed for a well-functioning “regulatory ecosystem"?

Background to the discussion:
The right to an effective remedy is a core tenet of the international human rights system, and the need for victims to have access to an effective remedy is also recognized in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

However, extensive research has shown that in cases where business enterprises are involved in human rights abuses, victims often struggle to access remedy. The challenges that victims face are both practical and legal in nature. To begin to address these challenges, OHCHR launched the Accountability and Remedy Project in 2014 with a view to contributing to a fairer and more effective system of remedies in cases of business involvement in human rights abuses.

There are currently three phases of the Project:

• ARP I: Enhancing effectiveness of judicial mechanisms in cases of business-related human rights abuse
• ARP II: Enhancing effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms in cases of business-related human rights abuse
• ARP III: Enhancing effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms in cases of business-related human rights abuse

The third and current phase of ARP is focused on enhancing the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms. Findings from ARP I and II have highlighted the interlinkages between the different institutions and initiatives that make up the “family” of grievance mechanisms. For instance, judicial mechanisms may be available to enforce contracts entered into following a private mediation process. In the fields of labour and consumer protection regulation, prior reference to a company-based grievance mechanism may be a condition of access to a State-based non-judicial mechanism. Additionally, State-based bodies may, and in many cases do, provide advice and support to companies in the establishment of company-based grievance mechanisms.

The “regulatory ecosystem” in which non-State-based grievance mechanisms are situated may profoundly impact their effectiveness. However, this issue has so far been little discussed. As part of its programme of work, ARP III will aim to uncover the key components of well-functioning “regulatory ecosystems” for non-State-based grievance mechanisms with a view to identifying good practices and lessons that may be replicated in multiple contexts.

Organized by BSR and The B Team

Session objectives:
The discussion will consider a number of key questions on the minds of business executives, policymakers and civil society. Key objectives include:

• Identifying risks and opportunities for business and investors to improve overall protection for human rights while also improving the business environment
• Sharing examples of business or investor engagement in policy that support human rights, and identifying pressure points from stakeholders
• Acknowledging the critique of undue corporate influence in public spheres, which may undermine rights or deepen inequality, explore and discuss holistic corporate advocacy approaches that respect and support human rights

Background to the discussion:
Around the world, we have seen instances of policy reversals on human rights protections and programs, which were critical to creating the enabling environment for business to respect human rights.  In addition to these policy reversals, many governments continue to have restrictive or discriminatory laws in place towards particular groups, such as women or migrants.
As part of the “protect, respect and remedy” framework, the UN Guiding Principles created a global baseline expectation on companies to respect human rights, while also guiding business to use its ‘leverage’ in business relationships to help governments protect these rights. Exercising business leverage is more complex when human rights impacts are not caused by a company or ‘directly linked’ to its operations, products, and services. 
When states are not fulfilling their duty to protect human rights, how can or should business use its leverage to support human rights in policy engagement?
This interactive session will give participants an opportunity to engage in important questions on businesses’ role in public policy engagement to support human rights, deepening social exclusion and rampant inequality.
 
Session Design Principles:
Informative discussion inviting a diversity of perspectives

1. Participatory and engaging
2. Provides valuable ideas for potential areas of future collaboration
3. Provides valuable ideas for potential areas of future collaboration

 
Brief description of the session:
This session will explore how companies, governments, international NGOs, and local NGOs are working together to translate standards such as the UN Guiding Principles and Sustainable Development Goals into actual practices as they source food and beverage ingredients in complex and difficult contexts. Despite the flood of policies and initiatives that have launched, practices and procedures used to grow and fish many ingredients remain difficult to assess, and some initiative are clearly not going to meet their stated goals. The persistence of human rights violations pose distinct risks to corporations and governments and impacts on rights holders.
A variety of innovative tools and strategies are being developed to help stakeholders implement policies and commitments to the fields and oceans where the ingredients for global food and beverages are harvested and caught. This session will explore the complexities of conducting due diligence on complex and diverse supply chains in a variety of difficult contexts, investigate solutions that have worked, and review new tools that have been created.

Session Objectives:
This session will elicit a variety of strategies for governments, multinational corporations, civil society organizations, and local communities to fulfill their roles and responsibilities to “protect, respect and provide remedy” to affected populations (including migrant workers and women); to identify where current efforts are falling short; and how best to fill the remaining gaps. Special attention will be paid to the roles of human slavery, gender impacts and land rights in the global food and beverage supply chains and new tools that can be used to detect and remedy these abuses.

Key Discussion Questions

• Which corporate compliance systems and government practices have been successful and what additional mechanisms are needed to improve businesses’ obligations and countries’ enforcement with respect human rights in this sector?
• What are the relative roles of companies, governments, and civil society in meeting best standards?
• What are the emerging best practices to provide impacted communities and victims access to judicial and non-judicial remedy, including examples of meaningful, direct participation of workers and communities?
• What tools are available to help stakeholders assess human rights risks in their supply chains?
• What are the existing gaps in policy, enforcement, and services provided related to the responsible sourcing of food and beverage ingredients?

Format of the Session:
Roundtable discussion led by two moderators. Selected speakers will serve as pop-up commenters to offer their insights and guidance for no more than five minutes. Audience participation will figure prominently in the session.

Background to the Discussion:
How do you get from international standards and best practices on paper to measurable results and operable safeguards in the field? This has become the most critical question for practitioners as stakeholders try to move from the “why” of prioritizing human rights in corporate supply chains to the “how” to conduct meaningful due diligence in corporate value chains.
Many companies have launched corporate commitments and supply chain policies regarding human rights. But many are struggling to understand how to implement these policies in very diverse contexts around the globe where corporate best practices may come up against resource constraints, weak governance structures, adverse local customs, internal corporate resistance, and a variety of other potential hurdles.
This panel tackles how companies, international NGOs, and local NGOs are working together to translate standards such as the UN Guiding Principles and Sustainable Development goals into actual practices in the face of these challenges. While there are no silver bullets to circumvent the hard work of implementation in situ, companies and NGOs are learning important lessons about what it takes to turn good intentions in to concrete actions.
This roundtable discussion will focus on the food and beverage industry, where the need for corporate action has never been more acute. Global Witness’s review of 2017 killings of land and environment defenders found that the agri-business sector is now the leading sector in which killings occur, surpassing extractives. Conflicts over land and practices that bond fisherfolk and agricultural laborers to their boat captains or landholders are still prevalent in many countries despite corporate vows to end these practices.  Women often experience unique labor and land violations.
The discussion will focus on tangible practices and tools now available to help companies and stakeholders implement meaningful due diligence to detect and end such practices.

Interpretation is provided in English, French, Spanish and Korean.


Organized by Ethical Trading Initiative

Brief description
This session would facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue and lesson-sharing on how to engage with vulnerable workers engaging in precarious work in international supply chains, and how to integrate them into corporate human rights due diligence approaches.
Insights will be provided by:

• a leading international trade union representative working to support exploited workers and victims of trafficking;
• a leading multinational company representative who will speak about engaging with migrant workers in the Italian tomato sector;
• a leading researcher and lawyer specialising in business and human rights; and
• a multi-stakeholder initiative representative working with companies, trade unions and civil society organisations on mitigating risks in complex international supply chains.

Session objectives

• Insights into specific approaches to engaging vulnerable workers, adopted by companies, unions, CSOs and researchers.
• A focus on engaging with vulnerable workers who face specific types of challenges such as payment of recruitment fees and lack of representation.
• An improved understanding of different techniques of safeguarding; working to ensure that people seeking to enforce their rights (and also their representatives and whistleblowers) are protected from threats of intimidation, harassment and reprisals.

Key discussion questions

• How should companies work to integrate the rights and needs of vulnerable workers through direct engagment whilst ensuring safeguarding?
• How can businesses mitigate the rise of vulnerable employment in international supply chains through Human rights due diligence?

Format of the session

• Audience participants to pose brief questions to speakers at the outset to frame later discussion.
• Reflections from speakers on their approaches to engagement and safeguarding.
• Interactive engagement with audience on recommended approaches and identfying blockages to effective HRDD with workers in global value chains.

Background to the discussion
Worldwide, around 1.4 billion workers, most of them women, are in insecure jobs or in the informal sector. Supply chains continue to be one of the most important levers for business to create positive impact in the world, with an estimated 80% of global trade passing through them annually. However, in too many places, workers are denied basic human rights, and migrant workers continue to be exploited.

In the drive to bring ever more products to market, people are often seen merely as a commodity, with wages pushed down to cut costs. A lack of formal, independent worker representation fuels and exacerbates the problem. If workers do not have access to workplace rights and protections within supplier companies, nothing changes.

Companies that commit to genuine and effective human rights due diligence processes can both mitigate risks to worker’s rights, but also significantly improve the lives of workers by providing decent work.

Engagement with workers is an essential part of corporate human rights due diligence. Social dialogue is about establishing formal or informal processes that enable workers and employers to negotiate or consult collectively on issues concerning their rights and responsibilities and to resolve conflicts peacefully and effectively.

A growing number of examples show that effective social dialogue between workers on the ‘shop floor’ and managers can contribute to decent work, quality jobs, greater equality and inclusive growth – all of which benefit workers and companies alike.

This session will explore how businesses, trade unions and other organisations are engaging with vulnerable workers in Italy, Spain, Southern Africa and elsewhere, and how they go about attempting to ensure that people seeking to enforce their rights are protected from threats of intimidation or reprisals.

Interpretation is provided in English, French and Spanish.

Organized by NomoGaia, BSR and the Danish Institute for Human Rights

Brief description of the session:
Community engagement in HRIA focuses on 'rightsholders' - the individuals whose human rights are likely to be affected by an operation. Identifying and engaging with rightsholders requires trust building in all contexts. However, trust is harder to obtain and the costs of failure are steeper with particularly vulnerable populations.
 
This session considers good practice in rightsholder engagement in sensitive contexts, building on the experiences of affected rightsholders to both validate and challenge the practices of even leading companies. A rightsholder, scholar, practitioner and company viewpoint will be probed during the round-table session.

Session objectives:

• Draw out consensus on what constitutes good practice in rightsholder engagement
• Delve into the barriers for best practice resulting from community distrust, ongoing state repression, lack of corporate expertise/leverage, social marginalization, etc

Key discussion questions:
What should corporate actors to do differently to ensure their community engagement is meaningful with vulnerable rightsholder groups in challenging contexts?
What can they do if the initial approach is not successful?

Format of the session:
This roundtable discussion will start with brief descriptions of rightsholder engagement processes at HRIAs for companies ENI and Diageo. Then the practitioners supporting those HRIAs will describe challenges and successes in rightsholder engagement, followed by analytical questioning from the researcher/scholar perspective. A roundtable discussion session will follow, before an audience-driven Q&A is integrated.

Background to the discussion
This discussion draws on the unique experiences of  rightholders as well as speakers who have either engaged directly with affected rightsholders in fragile contexts or who have conducted thorough scholarship on meaningful HRDD. It aims to tackle complex questions of how to connect with rightsholders who are reluctant to be critical or express personal opinions, fearing state (or other) retribution. It challenges the assumption that rightsholders are eager to engage with companies or are prepared to discuss the effects of corporate activities on their lives, and it examines ways to overcome such barriers. It considers the possibility that companies might initially struggle to meaningfully engage rightsholders but can create long-term approaches to build trust.

Watch live: https://unog.webex.com/unog/j.php?MTID=mf6b05920d7c070651dac2f7c78e53b64 


Brief description the session:
The session will bring together different stakeholders, including representatives from regional organizations, civil society, business sector and governments, to discuss the challenges of implementing effective human rights due diligence in the commodity trading sector. This discussion will also serve to identify good practice to put respect for human rights into practice and brainstorm on potential solutions for its scale-up in the commodity trading sector.
The session will also briefly discuss the process of elaborating a guidance on implementing the UNGPs in the commodity trading sector, developed by the Swiss Government.

Session objectives:

• Highlight challenges when implementing corporate human rights due diligence in commodity trading sector.
• Unpack the different parameters of the concept of human rights due diligence for the commodity trading sector.
• Identify good practices in this sector and potential solutions to address gaps.
• Present the guidance document elaborated by the concerned stakeholder group in Switzerland.

Key discussion questions:

• What are the peculiarities of commodity trading that make a specific approach necessary for undertaking human rights due diligence processes that are consistent with the UNGPs?
• In which ways does the diversity of the commodity trading sector create challenges in implementing the UNGPs?
• How should the Swiss government and other stakeholders support and ensure companies when implementing the guidance, given its legally non-binding nature?

Format of the session:
The opening presentation will offer a brief overview of the main goals, format and content of the sector guidance for commodity trading. This will be followed by a moderated conversation among industry and civil society stakeholders which have participated in drafting the guidance document. A representative from the OECD will also give his view on the guidance and its implementation. A representative of the Swiss government will underline expectations about the implementation of the UNGPs by the commodity trading sector. The moderator will then facilitate questions from participants.

Background to the discussion:
Determining the human rights impacts associated with the commodity trading sector is challenging, given for example the diversity of the sector, the complex and varied supply chains associated with specific commodities. Switzerland is one of the world’s most important commodity trading hubs. The commodity trading sector is characterized by a diverse mix of companies in terms of size, ownership, turnover and commodities traded. Questions are increasingly being raised relating to the responsibilities of trading companies on human rights, and related issues, such as corruption and environmental degradation. The Swiss Government has facilitated the creation of a multistakeholder group composed of representatives of the commodity trading sector, civil society and government. This group has supported the elaboration of the sector guidance for the commodity trading sector on implementation of the UNGPs. The guidance document is aligned with the Due Diligence Guidance elaborated by the OECD. It has been drafted by the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB).

Interpretation is provided into Spanish

Session led by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights 

Brief description
In many cases of business-related human rights abuses, it becomes necessary for affected individuals and communities to seek remedies against a parent company for abuses by its subsidiaries. However, the current legal principles governing the allocation of responsibility among companies of a corporate group do not generally allow victims to hold a parent company accountable even in legitimate cases. This is one of the well-documented barriers faced by victims in seeking access to effective remedies. The Commentary to Principle 26 also acknowledges that the “way in which legal responsibility is attributed among members of a corporate group under domestic criminal and civil laws facilitates the avoidance of appropriate accountability”.
In recent years, courts in certain jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Canada have ruled that in certain circumstances a parent company may owe a direct duty of care towards employees of its subsidiaries or communities affected by its subsidiaries. How useful could this tortious principle be in making parent companies accountable in the full range of business-related human rights abuses cases? Or are other reforms – including of corporate laws – needed to ensure a fair allocation of responsibility among companies of a corporate group? Principle 3(b) of the UNGPs, for example, provides that states should ensure that “laws and policies governing the creation and ongoing operation of business enterprises, such as corporate law, do not constrain but enable business respect for human rights”.

Session objectives
This session aims to: (i) inquire rationales behind the divide between the “legal separation” among companies of a group and the “economic unity”; (ii) assess the potential and limits of the direct duty of care principle in holding parent companies accountable for human rights related to their subsidiaries; and (iii) explore other law-cum-policy reform options that could assist victims in seeking effective remedies against parent companies in appropriate cases.

Discussion questions
To achieve the above objectives, the following illustrative questions will guide the discussion:

1. Should companies of a group be allowed to operate as “one” and “separate” at the same time?
2. What lessons can businesses and affected communities learn from cases concerning the direct duty of care decided so far in the UK and Canada? Are there similar precedents in other jurisdictions?
3. What are the limitations of the current direct duty of care test developed by courts? What challenges lawyers face in establishing such a duty of care on the part of parent companies?
4. Apart from tort law, could we learn any lessons from rules concerning attribution of liability within corporate groups under other laws such as tax law, competition law, terrorism law and cyber law?
5. Would mandatory human rights due diligence help in establishing the direct duty of care and in turn holding a parent company accountable for human rights abuses related to its subsidiaries?
6. What legal or policy reforms could encourage parent companies to identify, prevent and mitigate human rights risks associated with the operations of their subsidiaries?

Format of the session
This session will be organised as an interview-style discussion with panellists. After an initial round of questions posed to the panellists by the moderator, participants will be invited to ask questions or make general comments about the session theme.