In recent decades, issues of corporate accountability and social responsibility have rise to the ... more In recent decades, issues of corporate accountability and social responsibility have rise to the forefront in international debates. The U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs), unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Human Rights Council in June 2011, authoritatively lay out the State duty to protect and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. In an effort to operationalize the GPs, the U.N. Human Rights Council called on all States to develop National Action Plans (NAPs) for domestic implementation of the GPs. A key first step in the creation of a NAP is the completion of a national baseline assessment of the current frameworks and conditions affecting the protection and promotion of human rights by the State and business alike. With over 35 countries now committed to the creation of a NAP, it is increasingly important to evaluate existing corporate structures that claim to be socially and ethically motivated. The "B Corp" movement began in earnest in 2006, through the work of U.S.-based non-profit B Lab. A B Corp is a business certified by B Lab as a corporation committed to creating and supporting social and environmental rights. The B Corp movement has grown in size and statute, spreading to over thirty countries and garnering a reputations for excellence. Boosts to the movement have recently come from the certification of large multinational companies and an interest of businesses that followed. As the B Corp movement continues to proliferate, its technical and normative value within the business and human rights field merits close consideration. Through a comparative analysis between the B Corp certification requirements and the GPs, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: Do B Corps fulfill the GPs' corporate responsibility standards to respect human rights? Are they a desirable normative shift in the business and human rights context?
The Keystone XL Pipeline has been shrouded in controversy almost since its conception. As a struc... more The Keystone XL Pipeline has been shrouded in controversy almost since its conception. As a structure intending to cross the Canadian border into the United States, the pipeline must receive presidential approval before construction can commence. Since 2008, TransCanada has attempted to obtain this approval unsuccessfully. Criticism against the pipeline has focused largely on the negative environmental impacts that will likely accompany its construction and utilization, and it is precisely these environmental concerns that have ultimately stymied presidential approval and made international headlines. In November 2015, the U.S. government denied TransCanada's application, effectively killing the Keystone XL project. While the Keystone XL project no longer poses a physical threat to the environment, an overview of the U.S. government's consideration of the project reveals drastic flaws in process, specifically in regards to the human rights of a substantial portion of individuals who would be negatively affected by the Keystone XL Pipeline—the Sioux Nation. The pipeline is set to run through a substantial portion of the Black Hills of South Dakota—the sovereign and treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. This " black snake " threatens not only the environment of the Sioux lands, but also sites sacred to the tribes. The Sioux Nation has risen up in defense of their lands, and their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) before the state can undertake projects on their indigenous lands. While the U.S. government maintains it has complied with domestic standards regarding Indian consultation and with its perverse interpretation of the right to FPIC protected under the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, its actions have fallen drastically short of those expected by the United Nations and required by the inter-American system.
Following the adoption of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Princ... more Following the adoption of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles) in 2011, states have increasingly engaged with the need to protect against and remedy corporate human rights abuses. This can be seen in the proliferation of National Action Plans (NAPs) on business and human rights (BHR). Many countries through the Americas have begun drafting BHR NAPs, and engaging in other activities to promote corporate accountability and social responsibility. As the normalization of BHR standards continues in the region, it is important for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to take a lead role in setting regional standards for the state responsibility to protect against and remedy corporate human rights abuse. This paper illustrates, through a discussion of the IACHR’s mandate and functions, along with an analysis of the Commission’s work in the extractive sector that the IACHR is both capable of and obliged to engage with the Guiding Principles.
After years of implacable neoliberal globalization, multinational corporations have moved from th... more After years of implacable neoliberal globalization, multinational corporations have moved from the periphery to the center of the international legal agenda. Human rights advocates have long called for greater corporate accountability in the international arena. The creation of the Global Compact in 2000, while aimed at fostering greater corporate respect for human rights, did not silence these calls. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to adopt a set of norms relating to the human rights responsibilities of transnational corporations, the United Nations succeeded in 2008 with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles). The Guiding Principles, praised by some within the international human rights community for their recognition of an individual corporate responsibility to respect human rights, have not escaped their share of criticism. Many view the Guiding Principles to be toothless, failing to directly impose obligations upon corporations, and call for binding international obligations on corporate entities. After decades of attempting to promulgate human rights obligations for multinational corporations, the existing legal frameworks in place fall short of protecting individuals from the human rights abuses of multinational corporations. The Global Compact and Guiding Principles are proof of the United Nations’ unwillingness to impose interna- tional legal obligations on corporate actors. In June 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution to draft international legally binding human rights norms for business entities; however, key players in the international arena have already announced they will not cooperate with such efforts. This Note, through an overview of the existing corporate accountability frameworks and a study of Newmont Mining’s Minas Conga project in Peru, argues that binding international human rights obligations on corporations are necessary to fully protect human rights. Where states refuse to or simply cannot uphold their duty to protect individuals from transnational businesses’ human rights transgressions, there must exist mechanisms to pursue justice directly against the multinational corporation.
In recent decades, issues of corporate accountability and social responsibility have rise to the ... more In recent decades, issues of corporate accountability and social responsibility have rise to the forefront in international debates. The U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs), unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Human Rights Council in June 2011, authoritatively lay out the State duty to protect and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. In an effort to operationalize the GPs, the U.N. Human Rights Council called on all States to develop National Action Plans (NAPs) for domestic implementation of the GPs. A key first step in the creation of a NAP is the completion of a national baseline assessment of the current frameworks and conditions affecting the protection and promotion of human rights by the State and business alike. With over 35 countries now committed to the creation of a NAP, it is increasingly important to evaluate existing corporate structures that claim to be socially and ethically motivated. The "B Corp" movement began in earnest in 2006, through the work of U.S.-based non-profit B Lab. A B Corp is a business certified by B Lab as a corporation committed to creating and supporting social and environmental rights. The B Corp movement has grown in size and statute, spreading to over thirty countries and garnering a reputations for excellence. Boosts to the movement have recently come from the certification of large multinational companies and an interest of businesses that followed. As the B Corp movement continues to proliferate, its technical and normative value within the business and human rights field merits close consideration. Through a comparative analysis between the B Corp certification requirements and the GPs, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: Do B Corps fulfill the GPs' corporate responsibility standards to respect human rights? Are they a desirable normative shift in the business and human rights context?
The Keystone XL Pipeline has been shrouded in controversy almost since its conception. As a struc... more The Keystone XL Pipeline has been shrouded in controversy almost since its conception. As a structure intending to cross the Canadian border into the United States, the pipeline must receive presidential approval before construction can commence. Since 2008, TransCanada has attempted to obtain this approval unsuccessfully. Criticism against the pipeline has focused largely on the negative environmental impacts that will likely accompany its construction and utilization, and it is precisely these environmental concerns that have ultimately stymied presidential approval and made international headlines. In November 2015, the U.S. government denied TransCanada's application, effectively killing the Keystone XL project. While the Keystone XL project no longer poses a physical threat to the environment, an overview of the U.S. government's consideration of the project reveals drastic flaws in process, specifically in regards to the human rights of a substantial portion of individuals who would be negatively affected by the Keystone XL Pipeline—the Sioux Nation. The pipeline is set to run through a substantial portion of the Black Hills of South Dakota—the sovereign and treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. This " black snake " threatens not only the environment of the Sioux lands, but also sites sacred to the tribes. The Sioux Nation has risen up in defense of their lands, and their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) before the state can undertake projects on their indigenous lands. While the U.S. government maintains it has complied with domestic standards regarding Indian consultation and with its perverse interpretation of the right to FPIC protected under the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, its actions have fallen drastically short of those expected by the United Nations and required by the inter-American system.
Following the adoption of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Princ... more Following the adoption of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles) in 2011, states have increasingly engaged with the need to protect against and remedy corporate human rights abuses. This can be seen in the proliferation of National Action Plans (NAPs) on business and human rights (BHR). Many countries through the Americas have begun drafting BHR NAPs, and engaging in other activities to promote corporate accountability and social responsibility. As the normalization of BHR standards continues in the region, it is important for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to take a lead role in setting regional standards for the state responsibility to protect against and remedy corporate human rights abuse. This paper illustrates, through a discussion of the IACHR’s mandate and functions, along with an analysis of the Commission’s work in the extractive sector that the IACHR is both capable of and obliged to engage with the Guiding Principles.
After years of implacable neoliberal globalization, multinational corporations have moved from th... more After years of implacable neoliberal globalization, multinational corporations have moved from the periphery to the center of the international legal agenda. Human rights advocates have long called for greater corporate accountability in the international arena. The creation of the Global Compact in 2000, while aimed at fostering greater corporate respect for human rights, did not silence these calls. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to adopt a set of norms relating to the human rights responsibilities of transnational corporations, the United Nations succeeded in 2008 with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles). The Guiding Principles, praised by some within the international human rights community for their recognition of an individual corporate responsibility to respect human rights, have not escaped their share of criticism. Many view the Guiding Principles to be toothless, failing to directly impose obligations upon corporations, and call for binding international obligations on corporate entities. After decades of attempting to promulgate human rights obligations for multinational corporations, the existing legal frameworks in place fall short of protecting individuals from the human rights abuses of multinational corporations. The Global Compact and Guiding Principles are proof of the United Nations’ unwillingness to impose interna- tional legal obligations on corporate actors. In June 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution to draft international legally binding human rights norms for business entities; however, key players in the international arena have already announced they will not cooperate with such efforts. This Note, through an overview of the existing corporate accountability frameworks and a study of Newmont Mining’s Minas Conga project in Peru, argues that binding international human rights obligations on corporations are necessary to fully protect human rights. Where states refuse to or simply cannot uphold their duty to protect individuals from transnational businesses’ human rights transgressions, there must exist mechanisms to pursue justice directly against the multinational corporation.
Uploads
Papers by Cindy Woods