The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights is an important and welcome addition to handling supply chain labour relations. Governments and buyers are reminded of their human rights responsibilities.
Not so good are the attempts to market it as the new main reference for supply chain social responsibility. This role will stay with the tripartite International Labour Organisation ILO and its International Labour Conventions.
Professor John Ruggie and his Harvard University based team did a big service for universal human rights when they produced a new social responsibility building block that adds to the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies, the ILO Multinationals Guidelines, and other international agreements and recommendations.
The UN Guidelines both support and encourage the business driven and multistakeholder voluntary schemes and initiatives which work for social responsibility in the global supply chains. They call on buyer brands and retailers to take responsibility also for their suppliers’ human rights related action. This can add to the coverage, relevance and credibility of the voluntary initiatives.
The guidelines should encourage also those businesses who are still passive to join one of the many schemes or to launch their own initiatives.
The UN principles have been picked up by the OECD in a recent revision of their guidelines, and will surely find their way also to the ISO 26000 Standard once it will be reviewed.
On the business driven or multi-stakeholder CSR arena at least the Global Social Compliance Programme ( GSCP ) Reference Code and the Social Accountability International ( SAI ) SA8000 Social Standard will soon be up for scheduled updating, and can be expected to pick up some principles and approaches from the UN Guidelines.
These Guidelines that have been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 do not cover all the issues that are important for supply chain workers. The protect, respect, remedy approach focuses on human rights while many essential labour conditions fall outside.
The document recognises freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, and the other Core Labour Conventions, but does not really address worker empowerment and involvement. Here, the core ILO Conventions and Recommendations give more concrete guidance – and rules.
In no way does this lower the value of the UN Guidelines. They are an important tool for promoting human rights, both at work and in other areas where businesses have an impact on peoples’ lives. Demanding due diligence from brands and retailers in their global supply chains brings a new dimension to what has been driven by activist pressure and consumer opinion.
Also the ISO 26000 Standard can contribute to corporate social responsibility, as a useful tool particularly for larger companies. It could bring CSR values higher up on corporate agendas and encourage to the due diligence expected by the UN Guidelines.
The Standard is pretty complicated and not available for free. This is a treshold for many and create a lack of transparency, and thus credibility. It is somewhat hard to see how useful the ISO 26000 can really be when dealing with global supply chains.
Let us also remember that this standard does not set working life norms, this was agreed at an early stage between ISO and ILO. A company cannot be certified for compliance with the Standard. This has been made clear by the ISO itself and any certification approaches are business activities of commercial auditors and consultants.
Politicians have been fast to respond to all these CSR developments, which of course is good. Regrettably, the recent European Parliament resolution bore the fingerprint of activists who wanted to promote their own project work. This was not the right context for that, whatever one thinks about the suggested project itself. We will surely see some changes in it when it moves further through the EU machinery.
Also in the United States, the government is on the move. Bangladesh has been warned that unless they get their house in order when it comes to work safety in the garment factories, they may lose their trade privileges.
Still, something has not changed and should not change. That is the agreed and established principle that international labour norms are set by the International Labour Organisation ILO, and by ILO only.
The ILO is the only United Nations organisation where employers and trade unions work alongside governments, for the common aim to ensure decent working conditions around the globe. International Labour Conventions remain the global constitution for working life. This is correctly acknowledged in all the other guidelines as well as by the voluntary CSR schemes and initiatives.
Only ILO Conventions are enforceable in the way that governments have a formal responsibility to see that they are implemented in full in their countries. The core conventions that address human rights issues do not even have to be ratified, they bind all member countries. Governments that do not take their responsibility for this can be sanctioned, although that would be extremely rare.
Even more important is that the mainstream labour relations system builds on social dialogue and collective agreements between workers and their trade unions, and the employers. Already the ILO process itself reflects this principle which should be carefully defended.
The new kids on the block can bring much added value, but their work can also be used to support paternalist approaches, which should not be supported.