Industry and atrocity: the business and human rights context

There is a problem with the global economy. Transnational corporations can impact negatively, and in substantial ways, upon human rights and the environment in the conduct of their global business. Too often when they do, they do so with impunity. This much is, at least, now beyond dispute. Whether it is worker deaths in unsafe textile factories, violence against local communities committed by mining security or damage to health, environments and livelihoods due to oil flaring and oil spills, allegations of corporate-related human rights abuses and environmental damage become news on an almost daily basis.1 Less evident are the mechanisms for accountability for such harms. The United Nations (UN) Special Representative of the Secretary General on Business and Human Rights, John Ruggie (the SRSG), described the problem as a function of globalisation. Governance gaps have become apparent where prevailing national and international regulatory frameworks have failed to manage forces of economic globalisation whose push can drive adverse consequences. The result is a “permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds without adequate sanctioning or reparation”.2 The governance gap described by the SRSG raises a number of questions, not least of which is the accountability of companies when harms do occur related to their global business. Accountability is a concept that implies at least two things. The first is answering for one’s conduct. The second is facing adverse consequences for one’s part in a wrong.3 A number of initiatives and standards on business and human rights have proliferated to address either or both of these accountability goals where corporations operate in environments