Advanced

Securing human rights through risk-management methods : Breakthrough or misalignment?

Mares, Radu LU (2019) In Leiden Journal of International Law
Abstract

This is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank Framework, the International Financial Corporation Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention, one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights... (More)

This is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank Framework, the International Financial Corporation Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention, one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights transnationally. The analysis identifies four 'offsets' through which economic decision-makers can distort their human rights performance and place causal observers at a disadvantage. Prevention becomes an issue of how to relate to 'residual impacts' on human rights. This article finds that the 'hierarchy or mitigation' and even 'human rights due diligence' under illuminate the challenge. The proposal here is to add 'reduction at source' as a parameter of human rights risk management. The sources for this analysis are the three instruments, and the practice of implementing organizations, particularly IFC projects, CAO cases, impact assessments, and CSR reports. In conclusion, the potential for cross-fertilization among instruments is genuine. Increased clarity on prevention of human rights impacts should assist economic decision-makers in their risk management task and casual observers in assessing their performance.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
keywords
corporate accountability, impact assessment, multinational enterprises, prevention, UN Guiding Principles
in
Leiden Journal of International Law
publisher
CUP
external identifiers
  • scopus:85067569656
ISSN
0922-1565
DOI
10.1017/S0922156519000244
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
26535553-7cd7-42fa-ae61-c1db1c6be145
date added to LUP
2019-07-08 11:21:05
date last changed
2019-12-03 02:16:10
@article{26535553-7cd7-42fa-ae61-c1db1c6be145,
  abstract     = {<p>This is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank Framework, the International Financial Corporation Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention, one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights transnationally. The analysis identifies four 'offsets' through which economic decision-makers can distort their human rights performance and place causal observers at a disadvantage. Prevention becomes an issue of how to relate to 'residual impacts' on human rights. This article finds that the 'hierarchy or mitigation' and even 'human rights due diligence' under illuminate the challenge. The proposal here is to add 'reduction at source' as a parameter of human rights risk management. The sources for this analysis are the three instruments, and the practice of implementing organizations, particularly IFC projects, CAO cases, impact assessments, and CSR reports. In conclusion, the potential for cross-fertilization among instruments is genuine. Increased clarity on prevention of human rights impacts should assist economic decision-makers in their risk management task and casual observers in assessing their performance.</p>},
  author       = {Mares, Radu},
  issn         = {0922-1565},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {CUP},
  series       = {Leiden Journal of International Law},
  title        = {Securing human rights through risk-management methods : Breakthrough or misalignment?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000244},
  doi          = {10.1017/S0922156519000244},
  year         = {2019},
}