DECLARATIONI, Mutale Mukuka, do hereby declare that this report is my own unaided work. All citations, references and borrowed ideas have been duly acknowledged. This report has not been presented for a degree at this or any other university.Signature of Student:..Date:.Supervisors Name:..Signature:.Date:. DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my entire family.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would, first and foremost, like to thank God the Almighty for seeing me through four years of university for it is my unwavering belief that this would not have been possible without Him. May His goodness and mercy continue to follow me all the days of my life.

My humble gratitude is also extended to my supervisor, Mr Simson Mwale, for his patience in reading through the paper, constructive criticism, and guidance throughout the whole process.

Also, I would like to thank all the lecturers who took me in a course at one point or another for their invaluable contribution to my intellectual growth and development for at the end of the day, I am the sum of their collective efforts. Thank you to all my classmates and friends as well for making my learning experience an interesting one and for their cooperation in various ways.

I thank my family for their love and support in every way, shape, and form. I thank my Mother, particularly, for her prayers, her encouragement, her guidance and for believing in me even when I was ready to write myself off.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Management at Chibuluma Mines for granting me permission to conduct research at the mine.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Due diligence - This concept describes the steps a company must take to identify, prevent, mitigate and address adverse human rights impacts. The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. The due diligence process should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships.Grievance mechanism - A grievance mechanism is non-judicial and addresses disputes or grievances that arise between individuals or groups and an enterprise about a human rights impact that the enterprise has on them. It can be used to seek remediation. According to the UN, a minimum grievance mechanism must be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, rights-compatible and transparent in order to be effective.

Human rights impact - An adverse human rights impact occurs when an action of an enterprise removes or reduces the ability of an individual to enjoy his or her human rights. An actual human rights impact is an adverse impact that has already occurred or is occurring, whereas a potential human rights impact is an adverse impact that may occur but has not yet done so.

Human rights policy commitment - A policy commitment is a high-level and public statement by an enterprise to set out its dedication to meet its responsibility to respect human rights. It translates this commitment into a clear, overarching policy that determines particular actions. Such a policy forms the first essential step towards embedding respect for human rights into the values of an enterprise.

Mitigation - Mitigation of human rights impacts refers to actions taken to prevent or reduce its extent, in which case remaining impact requires remediation.OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises - Principles and standards for responsible business conduct for multinational corporations on topics such as human rights, employment, environment and taxation set by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Remediation - Process or act of providing remedy to victims of an adverse human rights impact to counteract, or make good, a specific adverse impact. This remediation can consist of apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial and non-financial compensation and punitive sanctions (whether criminal or administrative, such as fines) as well as the prevention of harm through, for example, guarantees of non-repetition or injunctions.United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - The UNGPs are also referred to as Ruggie Principles, after Special Representative John Ruggie who designed the principles. The UNGPs are the first framework on corporate human rights responsibility endorsed by the UN after unanimous approval of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The framework contains three pillars: the state duty to protect, the corporate social responsibility to respect human rights, and access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses. TABLE OF CONTENTSContents

1DECLARATION

2DEDICATION

3ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4DEFINITION OF TERMS

5TABLE OF CONTENTS

8LIST OF TABLES

9ABBREVIATIONS

10ABSTRACT

11CHAPTER 1

11INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

111.0. Introduction

121.1. Historical Background on Business and Human Rights

191.2. Statement of the Problem

191.3. Research Objectives

201.4. Research Questions

201.5. Scope of the Study

201.6. Significance of the Study

211.7. Organization of the Paper

22CHAPTER TWO

22LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

222.0 Introduction

222.1 Contextualization of Human Rights

232.2 The Corporate Responsibility to Promote and Protect Human Rights

382.3 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Sub-Saharan Africa.

432.4 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Zambia

442.5 A Focus on some of the Rights Business Enterprises are expected to Respect

472.6 Theoretical Framework

482.7. Summary

49CHAPTER THREE

49RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

493.0 Introduction

493.1 Research Design

493.2. Target Population

503.3. Sample Selection

503.4 Sampling Design

513.5 Ethical Considerations

513.6 Data Collection Methods

523.7 Research Instruments

523.8 Data Analysis

533.9 Reliability and Validity of Data

533.10 Limitations of the study

533.11. Summary

54CHAPTER FOUR

54DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

544.0. Introduction

544.1. Presentation of Findings

604.2.Discussion of Findings

624.6. Summary

64CHAPTER FIVE

65CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

655.0. Introduction

655.1. The Research Problem

665.3. Main Findings

665.4. Conclusion

675.5. Recommendations

685.6. Areas For Future Research

685.7. Summary

69REFERENCES

72APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES Page Number

Table 1.0 Salary Scales of Junior Staff at Chibuluma Mines 59 ABBREVIATIONSCSR : Corporate Social Responsibility

HRIA : Human Rights Impact AssessmentsIFC : International Finance Corporation

ILO : International Labour Organization

NGOs : Non-governmental Organizations

UN : United Nations

OHCHR : Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNHRC : United Nations Human Rights CouncilUNGPs : United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

OECD : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

MCM : Mopani Copper Mines ABSTRACT

This paper is based on an assessment of the impact of the business activities of Chibuluma Mines Plc on the rights of its employees. The assessment was conducted in Chibuluma the town where the mine site is located. Contemporary society requires that business enterprises conduct their business activities with respect for the human rights of all stakeholders and most especially their employees. This assessment, in view of this, was preoccupied with establishing how the mining firm as a business enterprise impacts the rights of its employees either positively or negatively by establishing, first and foremost, if the mining firm espouses its corporate responsibility to promote and protect the rights of the employees, the nature of the human rights impacts (whether positive or negative, or both), and what processes exist to enable remediation when a human rights impact has occurred. The study further suggested ways through which potential and actual adverse human rights impacts can be identified, prevented, or mitigated.

The study employed a qualitative research design and was thus largely descriptive. Data was mainly collected through in-depth interviews with Management, permanent and contractual employees, and members of the Trade Union. Non-probability sampling techniques which included purposive, snowball and convenience sampling were used to determine the sample size of the respondents. Thematic analysis was utilized as a method for data analysis.

The study found that the mining firm has in place processes to enable remediation when an adverse human rights impact has occurred but found the question of whether the mining firm espouses its corporate responsibility to respect the rights of its employees to be inconclusive. This is because while there was no evidence of human rights violations on the rights of the permanent employees, the findings were indicative of a clear violation of the rights of the contractual employees. However, one would argue that these violations are not the responsibility of the mine itself but rather the responsibility of the contractors engaged by the mine as they are ideally responsible for the contractual employees. In a strict sense, the mining firm should be held responsible for these violations by virtue of its business relationships with the contractors.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.0. Introduction

This chapter introduces the study by briefly exploring the relationship that exists between business and human rights as well as gives a historical background on the topic of business and human rights. The chapter also highlights the problem statement, research questions and objectives, scope and significance of the study, and outlines the organization of the paper.

In Zambia and indeed many other countries, businesses play a significant role in the national economy (Business and Human Rights Initiative, 2012). At the same time however, many stakeholders have expressed concern about the potential negative impacts from these business activities on local communities and particularly the rights of employees given the exploitative nature of the capitalist regime. In the last several years, there has been a growing global consensus around business responsibilities with respect to human rights impacts embodied by the global convergence around the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) also known as the Ruggie Framework. The UNGPs create a clear set of expectations on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States abilities or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations, and does not diminish those obligations (Business and Human Rights Initiative, 2012). Further, this responsibility exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights. Addressing adverse human rights impacts requires taking adequate measures for their prevention, mitigation, and where appropriate remediation. Business enterprises may undertake other commitments or activities to support and promote human rights, which may contribute to the enjoyment of rights. Suffice to say this does not automatically offset a failure to respect human rights throughout their operations (Business and Human Rights Initiative, 2012).

The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organizations Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work. More comprehensively and for the purpose of this study, these rights could be itemized as follows;

Everyone, without discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

Elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour.

Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

1.1. Historical Background on Business and Human Rights

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the Universal Declaration) was an aspirational document directed at Member States of the United Nations (Goldstone, 2013). The Universal Declaration was not binding on any state as a matter of international law. However, its prescient provisions were instrumental in forging later international conventions that provide the basis upon which governments have become obliged to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of their citizens (Goldstone, 2013). Together with international humanitarian law, international human rights law has become a permanent feature on the radar screens of governments and international organizations. Domestic and international non-governmental human rights organizations have played a major role in naming and shaming those regimes that unfortunately still fail to protect the fundamental rights of their own citizens (Goldstone, 2013). This role has now been appropriately extended to commercial enterprises. The activities of transnational corporations have grown exponentially in recent years. The budgets of some of them exceed those of some members of the United Nations. They employ millions of people in many countries. It is hardly surprising that the conditions of those employees, and the impact of corporate activities on local communities and other stakeholders, have attracted the attention of both governmental and non-governmental actors (Goldstone, 2013). The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Guiding Principles), adopted by consensus by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, acknowledges the growing significance of corporations on the global economy by encouraging businesses to respect human rights and provide access to remedies for human rights impacts (Goldstone, 2013).

The modern international human rights framework was created by governments, for governments. Its foundational document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was created in the wake of World War II to articulate a set of rights and freedoms that states would commit to protecting and fulfilling (Kiobel, 2013). But business has grown in scale and scope since the Universal Declaration was created in 1948. While companies have delivered innovations and efficiencies that have dramatically raised standards of living and lifted millions of people out of poverty, they have also caused and contributed to human rights abuses around the world. Consequently, there have been a number of initiatives to develop codes of conduct for business: by multilateral agencies like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which issued the first version of its Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in 1976; or for particular sectors: The Fair Labor Association to improve working conditions in factories was incorporated in 1999; the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights for extractive companies were announced in 2000 (Goldstone, 2013). But efforts to establish an authoritative and universal set of principles at the United Nations failed: The U.N. Commission on Transnational Corporations was established in 1973 to draft a corporate code of conduct, but after many drafts was dissolved in 1994 (Alito, 2011).1.1.0 From Norms to Guiding Principles

In 2003, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights received from one of its subsidiary bodies a proposed code of conduct for transnational corporations for its approval: Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (the Norms) (Akpan, 2013). The 2003 Norms asserted that business has the obligation to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of, and protect human rights recognized in international as well as national law. The Norms provoked a strong negative reaction from the International Organization of Employers and the International Chamber of Commerce, who asserted that the Norms were a counterproductive attempt to shift responsibilities to companies for what are and should remain government responsibilities and functions (Goldstone, 2013). In part because of that opposition, a number of States lined up to oppose the Norms. The fact that the Sub-Commission that drafted the Norms involved few states or companies in the process may have also contributed to the lack of support. Some NGOs such as Amnesty International supported the Norms (Goldstone, 2013). But such support was not enough for the Commission on Human Rights, which declined to consider the Norms, saying they had some helpful elements but no legal standing (Goldstone, 2013). In 2005, the Commission requested that the Secretary-General appoint a Special Representative to identify and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and accountability for transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights (Goldstone, 2013). Then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Harvard Kennedy School professor John Ruggie. In 2008, Ruggie presented to the Human Rights Council (which replaced the Commission in 2006) the Protect, Respect and Remedy framework, which he described as the conceptual and policy framework to anchor the business and human rights debate, and to help guide all relevant actors. The Council passed a resolution welcoming the framework and gave Ruggie a new three-year mandate to develop more practical guidance (Goldstone, 2013). Ruggie followed that instruction by developing a set of Guiding Principles. In presenting the Guiding Principles to the Council in June 2011, Ruggie stated that The Guiding Principles normative contribution lies not in the creation of new international law obligations but in elaborating the implications of existing standards and practices for States and businesses; integrating them within a single, logically coherent and comprehensive template; and identifying where the current regime falls short and how it should be improved (Akpan, 2013).Two weeks after Ruggies presentation, the Council passed without a vote a resolution endorsing the Guiding Principles. It is highly unusual for an intergovernmental body to endorse a text they did not themselves negotiate, a testament to the engagement of states by Ruggie throughout his mandate (Akpan, 2013). The Council also established a Working Group to promote the effective and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles (Goldstone, 2013). The Council gives limited support to Special Procedures, but throughout his mandate, Ruggie raised money from governments to hire staff, visit stakeholders and sites, and hold meetings around the world, many of which were organized in partnership with civil society organizations. He held large regional multi-stakeholder consultations in Bangkok, Bogota, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Moscow, and New Delhi; separate business and NGO consultations; small expert gatherings on subjects including corporate law and investment; numerous meetings with government representatives in Geneva and in their home capitals; and an online forum that attracted hundreds of comments and thousands of viewers (Goldstone, 2013).1.1.1. An Emerging Consensus

After years of lively and sometimes contentious debate, involving everyone from indigenous peoples representatives to Wall Street lawyers, uptake of Ruggies recommendations was widespread, as the many stakeholders who participated in the mandates consultations felt ownership over its outcomes. Ruggie also collaborated with other standard-setting bodies, such as the International Finance Corporation, the International Standards Organisation (ISO), and the OECD to embed his work into their own (Goldstone, 2013). To understand the success of the Special Representatives mandate, it is also worth considering the Guiding Principles in the context of the historical moment in which they were created: the financial crisis bringing scrutiny to corporate practices and state failures; growing economic power from non-Western countries, with companies serving as their de-facto ambassadors; heightened transparency through technology and social media; debates over global governance within institutions like the United Nations and the G20, and over transnational issues like climate change and financial regulation. Among those involved in the mandate over its six years, there was a palpable sense of relief at the Councils endorsement of the Guiding Principles, affirmation that consensus has been achieved from a truly global set of stakeholders representing all sectors of society. Yet there is acknowledgment that the Guiding Principles will not solve the worlds problems; that there is fragility around this newborn set of standards, whose formal custody was transferred shortly after its birth with the new guardian yet to begin its work; and that the Special Representatives mandate was one phase, albeit a significant one, in a much longer journey (Goldstone, 2013)..

1.1.2. The Guiding Principles

The Guiding Principles are organized by the three pillars of the Protect, Respect and Remedy framework that preceded them: (Goldstone, 2013). The State Duty to Protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication;

The Corporate Responsibility to Respect human rights, which means that business enterprises should act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts with which they are involved; The need for greater Access to Remedy by victims of corporate-related abuse, both judicial and non-judicial. The three-pillar framework emphasizes the multi-stakeholder nature of the issue and avoids the failed attempt of the Norms to impose an expansive array of state responsibilities onto business (Goldstone, 2013). This approach was welcomed by business, which felt that the Norms and the corporate social responsibility field more generally absolved governments of their responsibilities; by human rights advocates, who saw both governments and companies as equally important players; and by states, some of whom had questioned the implied suggestion of the Norms that companies assume some of their responsibilities.1.1.3. The State Duty to Protect

The State Duty to Protect section of the Guiding Principles affirms states existing obligations under international human rights law to protect people within their territory and/or jurisdiction from human rights abuses, including by non-state actors; recommends that states enforce relevant laws, provide guidance to companies, and address the common lack of policy coherence across government agencies; and emphasizes the necessity of proactive measures by states where a business receives some form of government support, and in conflict-affected areas. Extraterritorial jurisdiction, what powers and duties governments have when companies domiciled in their countries commit or contribute to human rights abuses abroad, was the most complex and controversial issue within the State Duty to Protect pillar, as it cuts to the heart of issues of national sovereignty and the very nature of multinational business. After much engagement with governments, legal experts, and other stakeholders, Ruggie chose to focus on the fact that states can take a number of steps with extraterritorial effect that clearly fall within the current permissible scope of their jurisdiction. In taking such an approach of clarification, Ruggie managed to avoid controversy that could have threatened overall support of his mandate, while helpfully dispelling misperceptions about the concept that had come from many corners (Goldstone, 2013).1.1.4. The Corporate Responsibility to Respect

Ruggie defined the Corporate Responsibility to Respect as the responsibility for business not to infringe on the rights of others and address negative impacts with which they are involved. This second pillar of the Guiding Principles outlines a process for companies to know and show that they are meeting their responsibility to respect human rights: Companies should have a human rights policy; conduct human rights due diligence, which includes assessing actual and potential impacts, integrating human rights throughout their operations, and tracking and reporting outcomes; and remediate any adverse impacts that they have caused or contributed to.

According to the Guiding Principles, the human rights that companies must respect at a minimum are those outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights and ILO core conventions

(as opposed to the limited subset of rights that the Norms named). Ruggie was careful to point out that international human rights law generally does not currently impose direct legal obligations on business enterprises (which some stakeholders disputed), although it is enshrined in domestic jurisdictions in numerous ways, such as legislation on labour standards, privacy, or land use (Goldstone, 2013). Rather, the responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate, (Ruggie, 2011. Pg. 33). While grounding a foundational principle in social norms might seem unstable, it was as clever as it was irrefutable: What company would stand up and say it does not have a responsibility not to hurt people? On the other hand, some argued that respect is too low a bar, that companies should have so-called positive obligations as well including to fulfill or realize rights. Ruggie responded that the responsibility to respect is indeed not merely a passive responsibility for firms; and that There may be situations in which companies have additional responsibilities. But the responsibility to respect is the baseline norm for all companies in all situations (Goldstone, 2013. Pg. 67). The commentary for the first Guiding Principle under this pillar states, Addressing adverse human rights impacts requires taking adequate measures for their prevention, mitigation and, where appropriate, remediation. Other issues debated during the development of the Corporate Responsibility to Respect principles and addressed to varying extents in the final product included the applicability of the Guiding Principles to small- and medium-sized enterprises and the extent of a companys responsibility for impacts occurring in its value chain. 1.1.5. Access to Remedy

The Access to Remedy pillar of the framework addressed both state responsibilities to provide access to effective judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, and the corporate responsibility to prevent and remediate any negative impacts that they cause or contribute to. One subtopic within this pillar that captured broad attention for breaking new ground was the criteria for effective company-based grievance mechanisms. Such criteria were piloted by companies in different sectors and regions, and made the subject of a separate online resource (Goldstone, 2013). One of the most debated topics was the status and enforcement of the principles themselves. Business and NGO concerns alike wondered whether the Guiding Principles would be yet another voluntary code of conduct, or whether they would be enforced. Ruggie tried to move the debate beyond this voluntary-versus-mandatory dichotomy: Saying that no single silver bullet can resolve the business and human rights challenge became a common refrain, as he tried to avoid the ill-fated Norms debate that focused on one international instrument (Goldstone, 2013. Pg. 71). In his 2007 report that mapped the spectrum of ways in which corporations are held accountable for human rights abuses, he emphasized that many voluntary initiatives have accountability mechanisms. He worked to embed the Guiding Principles into other standards that have their own enforcement mechanisms, like the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. And he emphasized that his role was not to create international law, but to provide policy recommendations to the Council, whose member states would then be responsible for implementing his recommendations should they be adopted. But some NGOs continued to lament the lack of an overarching accountability mechanism in the Guiding Principles themselves. At the same time, some business concerns fretted that nonbinding U.N. guidelines could inform binding common law. Or a non-binding U.N. report could inspire binding statutory law, which is after all one of the reports goals (Goldstone, 2013). The Guiding Principles had to be general enough to apply to all kinds of companies in all industrial sectors and win the support of a broad range of Human Rights Council member states. As such, they are hardly an operational manual to be downloaded and implemented (Goldstone, 2013). As Ruggie said in his final presentation to the Human Rights Council in June 2011, invoking Winston Churchill, I am under no illusion that the conclusion of my mandate will bring all business and human rights challenges to an end. But Council endorsement of the Guiding Principles will mark the end of the beginning. (Akpan, 2013. Pg. 17)1.2. Statement of the Problem

The worldwide expansion of the private sector during the last three decades has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the societal impacts of this sector, both in positive and negative terms. Multinational enterprises may contribute to economic welfare and employment and thereby contribute to the enjoyment of human rights. At the same time, however, enterprises can also have a negative impact on human rights worldwide, for instance when they displace indigenous peoples from their lands, when they pollute the environment on which communities are dependent, when they breach labour rights, or when they are closely tied to a regime that violates the rights of its citizens. Such adverse human rights impacts are abundant in the present globalised economy, as profound power imbalances often allow the rights of the most weak and vulnerable (such as employees) to be sacrificed for the interests of powerful enterprises and their shareholders and herein lies the problem.

1.3. Research Objectives

1.3.0. Overall Objective

The core objective of this research is to assess the impact, whether positive or negative, that business enterprises have on the rights of employees.

1.3.1. Specific Objectives

1. To establish if business enterprises espouse their corporate responsibility to respect the rights of employees.

2. To establish how business enterprises impact on the rights of employees.

3. To establish if business enterprises have in place processes to enable remediation when an adverse human right impact has occurred.

4. To suggest ways through which potential and actual adverse human rights impacts can be identified, prevented, and mitigated.1.4. Research Questions

1. Do business enterprises espouse their corporate responsibility to respect the rights of employees?

2. How do business enterprises impact on the rights of employees?

3. Do business enterprises have in place processes to enable remediation when an adverse human right impact has occurred?

4. In what ways can potential and actual adverse human rights impacts be identified, prevented and mitigated?

1.5. Scope of the Study

The data to be collected will be gathered from Chibuluma Mines Plc. Having purposively sampled Chibuluma Mines Plc as a case study for this research, the research will specifically focus on this mine. The study will look at the conditions of service of the employees at the mining firm, the nature of the relationship that exists between management and employees as well as the kind of structures and processes that exist at the mining firm to deal with allegations of human rights violations.

1.6. Significance of the Study

While the contribution of business enterprises to national economies is indispensable and must be appreciated, the idea that some of these enterprises have adverse impacts on human rights cannot be overlooked. Conceding that these impacts are wide ranging, this study focuses on the impacts these enterprises have on the rights of employees in light of the fact that there has generally not been much research conducted with a particular focus on this group of stakeholders. Employees are the backbone of any organization or indeed business entity and must thus be treated with utmost reverence, by among other things, respecting and protecting their rights. This study, therefore, seeks to establish the nature of the human rights impacts on employees as well as how those impacts can be identified, prevented, mitigated or indeed remediated and hence its significance. These findings will help fill up the gaps in human rights research with regard to business enterprises and their personnel as well as bring to light the ever so important corporate responsibility that business enterprises have to respect and indeed protect internationally recognized human rights. The study will also provide a starting point for civil society organizations and government agencies involved in human rights advocacy to engage businesses and other relevant stakeholders in the debate about the pressing need to harmonize business and human rights.

1.7. Hypotheses

Null hypothesis (Ho)- Chibuluma Mines as a business enterprise negatively impacts the rights of employees.Alternative hypothesis (H1)- Chibuluma Mines as a business enterprise positively impacts the rights of employees.1.8. Organization of the Paper

This paper is organized in the following manner:

Chapter One- provides an introduction to the area of study and highlights the background on business and human rights. The chapter further illuminates the problem statement, research objectives, research questions, as well as the scope and significance of the study.

Chapter Two- provides a review of relevant literature on the business and human rights nexus and also provides an outline of the theoretical framework adopted for this study.

Chapter Three- outlines the research design and methodology, discussing methods of data collection and analysis as well as the limitations experienced in carrying out the study.

Chapter Four- essentially highlights the findings of the research and the ensuing analysis.

Chapter Five- presents the conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews both theoretical and empirical literature on business activities in relation to the human rights of employees as well as explains the theories employed in this study in order to address the research problem. While there is an abundance of theoretical literature on the topic, few studies have been conducted to establish the extent to which business enterprises uphold their corporate responsibility to promote and protect human rights and thus assess the impact of business activities on the rights of employees. This chapter, therefore, takes an investigative study of literature relevant to the topic in an attempt to draw valuable lessons upon which this study can then be developed.

2.1 Contextualization of Human Rights

The term human rights describes the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone is entitled to (UN, 2009). They provide the basis for individuals to lead a dignified life, to freely express independent beliefs and to live free from abuse. They are inherent to all individuals, regardless of nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. Everyone is equally entitled to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by international law in the form of treaties, customary international law and general principles (UN, 2009). At the domestic level, human rights are often enshrined in national constitutions or other domestic laws. International human rights law prescribes the obligations of governments to act (and refrain from acting) in certain ways in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals and groups. The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OHCHR, 2012). These, together with the core labour standards of the International Labour Organization form the most widely accepted codification of human rights standards as enshrined in international law. All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights (for example; the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression), economic, social and cultural rights (for example; the rights to work, social security and education), or collective rights (for example; the rights to development and self-determination). Human rights are also interdependent, the improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others (OHCHR, 2012).

2.2 The Corporate Responsibility to Promote and Protect Human Rights

Privatization and economic globalization have given companies unprecedented access to new territories, and expanded their reach across national borders (Amnesty International, 2011). But all companies, no matter where they are, have a direct responsibility to respect human rights in their own operations. Amnesty International believes that the business community also has a wider responsibility, moral and legal, to use its influence to promote respect for human rights. Governments bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that companies respect human rights. But companies must also uphold human rights in their operations (Amnesty International, 2011). Amnesty International has made calls for more effective regulation of business to prevent human rights violations, better practices by companies and accountability and access to justice.

Globalization has significantly changed the world we live in, presenting new and complex challenges for the protection of human rights. Economic players, especially companies that operate across national boundaries (trans-national companies) have gained unparalleled power and influenceacross the world economy. This has not always benefited the societies in which they operate (Amnesty International, 2011). Amnesty International's research has highlighted the negative impact companies can have on the human rights of the individuals and communities affected by their operations. Companies cause harm by directly abusing human rights, or by colluding with others who violate human rights. Despite this potential to cause significant harm, there are few effective mechanisms at national or international level to prevent corporate human rights abuses or to hold companies to account. Thismeans those affected by their operations, often already marginalized and vulnerable, are left powerless, without the protection to which they are entitled, or meaningful access to justice (Amnesty International, 2011).

In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) unanimously endorsed Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. These principles were developed in collaboration with the private sector, the non-profit sector and governments (UN, 2013). The Guiding Principles set forth a system for delegating human rights duties between companies and governments. As with traditional discussions of human rights, a differentiation between rights holders and duty-bearers is made. This move established the Guiding Principles as the global standard of practice that is now expected of all States and businesses with regard to business and human rights. While they do not by themselves constitute a legally binding document, the Guiding Principles elaborate on the implications of existing standards and practices for States and businesses, and include points covered variously in international and domestic law (Ruggie, 2011). Unlike existing agreements, businesses are included as duty-bearers, taking on the duty to respect the human rights that governments are duty-bound to protect and promote as signatories to treaties and purveyors of justice. The corporate duty to respect human rights is an active duty requiring verification processes to demonstrate that operations do not negatively impact human rights (Ruggie, 2011). The Guiding Principles are based on six years of work by the former Special Representative, including in-depth research; extensive consultations with businesses, Governments, civil society, affected individuals and communities, lawyers, investors and other stakeholders; and the practical road-testing of proposals. They were developed to put into operation the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework presented by the Special Representative to the United Nations in 2008. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, which set: both a new and clear benchmark and represents an important milestone in the evolving understanding of human rights in our societies... Clarity about the baseline expectations of business with regard to human rights is a first important step towards developing appropriate and effective responses to such problems (Pillay, 2009, pg. 27).

The Guiding Principles reflect and build on the three-pillar structure of the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework. Together, the Guiding Principles outline steps for States to foster business respect for human rights; provide a blueprint for companies to manage the risk of having an adverse impact on human rights; and offer a set of benchmarks for stakeholders to assess business respect for human rights (Ruggie, 2011). The Guiding Principles have gained extensive support from businesses and civil society as well as States. A number of other international and regional organizations have reflected them in their own standards, and more are expected to do so in the months and years to come. Many businesses around the world are already looking at how they can implement the Guiding Principles in their operations (OHCHR, 2012).

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has supported the six-year long process that led to the Principles under the stewardship of the Special Representative. Before their endorsement by the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner stated that:

These Guiding Principles clarify the human rights responsibilities of business. They seek to provide the first global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse human rights impact linked to business activities. If endorsed, the Guiding Principles will constitute an authoritative normative platform which will also provide guidance regarding legal and policy measures that, in compliance with their existing human rights obligations, States can put in place to ensure corporate respect for human rights. (OHCHR, 2012)As Ruggie (2011) asserts, the Guiding Principles will not bring all human rights challenges to an end, but their endorsement marks the end of the beginning. They provide a solid and practical foundation on which more learning and good practice can be built.

Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organizations Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. International human rights treaties generally do not impose direct legal obligations on business enterprises. Legal liability and enforcement for the infringement by businesses of international human rights standards are therefore defined largely by national law. However, the actions of business enterprises, just like the actions of other non-State actors, can affect the enjoyment of human rights by others, either positively or negatively. Enterprises can affect the human rights of their employees, their customers, workers in their supply chains or communities around their operations. Indeed, experience shows that enterprises can and do infringe human rights where they are not paying sufficient attention to this risk and how to reduce it (UNGC/OHCHR, 2011). The International Bill of Human Rights and the core ILO conventions provide basic reference points for businesses in starting to understand what human rights are; how their own activities may affect them; and how to ensure that they prevent or mitigate the risk of adverse impact (UN, 2012). Depending on the circumstances of their operations, enterprises may need to consider additional standards beyond the International Bill of Human Rights and core ILO conventions, in order to ensure that they act with respect for human rights: for instance, if their activities could pose a risk to the human rights of individuals belonging to specific groups or populations that require special attention. Certain United Nations human rights instruments have elaborated the human rights of persons belonging to such groups or populations, recognizing that they may need particular accommodation or protection in order to fully enjoy human rights without discrimination. Ruggie (2011) argues that, in fact, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights applies to all internationally recognized human rights, because business enterprises can have an impact, directly or indirectly, on virtually the entire spectrum of these rights.The idea that businesses should avoid infringing on human rights basically means that enterprises can go about their activities, within the law, so long as they do not cause harm to individuals human rights in the process. The responsibility to respect human rights is not optional for business enterprises. In many cases, the responsibility of enterprises to respect human rights is reflected at least in part in domestic law or regulations corresponding to international human rights standards (UNGC/OHCHR, 2011). For instance, laws that mandate workplace standards in line with the ILO conventions and safeguards against discrimination, or that require individuals informed consent before they take part in drug trials, are all different ways in which domestic laws can regulate the behavior of enterprises to help ensure that they respect human rights. The responsibility to respect human rights is not, however, limited to compliance with such domestic law provisions. It exists over and above legal compliance, constituting a global standard of expected conduct applicable to all businesses in all situations. It therefore also exists independently of an enterprises own commitment to human rights. It is reflected in soft law instruments such as the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). There can be legal, financial and reputational consequences if enterprises fail to meet the responsibility to respect human rights. Such failure may also hamper an enterprises ability to recruit and retain staff, to gain permits, investment, new project opportunities or similar benefits essential to a successful, sustainable business. As a result, where business poses a risk to human rights, it increasingly also poses a risk to its own long-term interests (Ruggie, 2011).

The responsibility to respect human rights further requires that business enterprises avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to all enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure. Nevertheless, the scale and complexity of the means through which enterprises meet that responsibility may vary according to these factors and with the severity of the enterprises adverse human rights impacts. The severity of a potential adverse human rights impact is the most important factor in determining the scale and complexity of the processes the enterprise needs to have in place in order to know and show that it is respecting human rights. The processes must therefore first and foremost be proportionate to the human rights risks of its operations (UN, 2012). All enterprises have the same responsibility to respect human rights as they go about their business. However, size will often influence the kinds of approaches they take to meet that responsibility. A large enterprise will have more employees, typically undertake more activities and be engaged in more relationships than a small one. This may increase its human rights risks. Large enterprises are also likely to have more complex systems and procedures in place for decision-making, communications, control and oversight. They are more likely than small enterprises to have operations, value chain relationships, clients or customers that span multiple countries, making the implementation and monitoring of standards more challenging. They may have longer and more complex value chains with multiple forms of relationships, some of them entailing more human rights risks than others (UN, 2012).

The policies and processes that a large enterprise needs to ensure respect for human rights by the enterprise as a whole will need to reflect all these factors. They will need to extend to all those in the enterprise who deal with the activities and relationships with which its human rights risks are associated. Small and medium-sized enterprises may have less capacity and more informal processes and management structures than larger companies, so their respective policies and processes will take on different forms. With fewer employees, communications across functions may be easier and less formal. Internal systems and oversight functions will typically be less complex (UN, 2012).

In many instances, the approaches needed to embed respect for human rights in a smaller enterprises operations can mirror the lesser complexity of its operations. However, size is never the only factor in determining the nature and scale of the processes necessary for an enterprise to manage its human rights risks. The severity of its actual and potential human rights impact will be the more significant factor. For instance, a small company of fewer than 10 staff that trades minerals or metals from an area characterized by conflict and human rights abuses linked to mining has a very high human rights risk profile. Its policies and processes for ensuring that it is not involved in such abuses will need to be proportionate to that risk (OHCHR, 2012).

In addition, all enterprises have the same responsibility to respect human rights regardless of ownership. It applies whether they are publicly listed, privately owned, State-owned, joint ventures or have some other, or hybrid, form of ownership.

Abuse by State-owned enterprises, that is to say, where the State controls the enterprise or where the enterprises acts can otherwise be attributed to the State, may constitute a violation of the States own international law obligations. If States own or control business enterprises, they have the greatest means within their powers to ensure that relevant policies, legislation and regulations regarding respect for human rights are implemented (UN, 2012). Senior management typically reports to State agencies, and associated government departments have greater scope for scrutiny and oversight, including ensuring that effective human rights due diligence is implemented. The legal obligations of the State to respect and protect human rights are additional to the enterprises own responsibility to respect human rights and do not diminish it in any regard.

For joint ventures with significant human rights risks, it is particularly important to ensure that the legal and other agreements underpinning the ventures provide the necessary basis to ensure that human rights are respected in their operations (UN, 2012).

In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including:

(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights;

(b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights;

(c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.

Respecting human rights is not a passive responsibility: it requires action on the part of businesses. It is relatively easy for an enterprise to say that it respects human rights and it may genuinely believe that this is the case. But to make that claim with legitimacy, an enterprise needs to know and be able to show that it is indeed respecting human rights in practice. That, in turn, requires it to have certain policies and processes in place. The Guiding Principles define these as: a statement of policy commitment, a human rights due diligence process and processes to enable remediation (UN, 2012). As the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility through a statement of policy that:

(a) Is approved at the most senior level of the business enterprise;

(b) Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise;

(c) Stipulates the enterprises human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and other parties directly linked to its operations, products or services;

(d) Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners and other relevant parties;

(e) Is reflected in operational policies and procedures necessary to embed it throughout the business enterprise.

The term policy commitment is used here to mean a high-level and public statement by an enterprise to set out its commitment to meet its responsibility to respect human rights. It makes this commitment a clear, overarching policy that will determine its actions. The policy commitment is distinct from the operational policies and procedures referred to in the Guiding Principles, which are typically not public, are more detailed in nature and help translate the high-level commitment into operational terms. A policy commitment to meet the enterprises responsibility to respect human rights demonstrates both inside and outside the enterprise that management understands this is a minimum standard for conducting business with legitimacy. In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence (UNGC/OHCHR, 2011). The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. Human rights due diligence:

(a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships;

(b) Will vary in complexity with the size of the business enterprise, the risk of severe human rights impacts, and the nature and context of its operations;

(c) Should be ongoing, recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the business enterprises operations and operating context evolve.

It is through human rights due diligence that an enterprise identifies the information it needs in order to understand its specific human rights risks at any specific point in time and in any specific operating context, as well as the actions it needs to take to prevent and mitigate them. Human rights risks refers to the risks of having an adverse impact on human rights, as against risks to the enterprise itself, although the former increasingly leads to the latter.

Human rights due diligence is not a single prescriptive formula. Enterprises of different sizes, in different industries, with different corporate structures and in different operating circumstances will need to tailor their processes to meet those needs. However, the key elements of human rights due diligence; assessing, integrating and acting, tracking, and communicating, when taken together with remediation processes, provide the management of any enterprise with the framework it needs in order to know and show that it is respecting human rights in practice. As the Guiding Principles state, human rights due diligence should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships (Ruggie, 2011).

The focus of due diligence is on identifying and addressing the relevant impact on human rights, that is, that which is connected to the enterprises own activities and to its business relationships. Consequently, these activities and business relationships set the scope of human rights due diligence. Human rights due diligence aims to prevent and mitigate potential human rights impacts in which an enterprise might be involved. Remediation aims to put right any actual human rights impact that an enterprise causes or contributes to (Global Compact Network, 2010). The two processes are separate but interrelated. For example, an effective grievance mechanism through which those directly affected can raise concerns about how they are or may be harmed can be a good indicator of potential and recurring human rights impact. Tracking the effectiveness of the enterprises responses to human rights impact will similarly benefit from feedback via an effective grievance mechanism, as well as from wider stakeholder engagement. And enterprises should be in a position to communicate, as appropriate, both on how they address human rights risks in general and how they have remedied significant human rights impacts (Global Compact Network, 2010).

In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should:

(a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise;

(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation. For any enterprise, gauging its human rights risks is the starting point for understanding how to translate its human rights policy statement, and therefore its responsibility to respect human rights into practice (OHCHR, 2012). It is the prerequisite for knowing how to prevent or mitigate potential adverse impact and remedy any actual impact that it causes or contributes to. It is therefore the essential first step in human rights risk management. An enterprises operations may pose risks to the human rights of various groups. Direct employees are always a relevant group in this regard. In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should:

(a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;

(b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders. It is generally recognized that what gets measured gets managed.

Tracking how an enterprise has responded to both potential and actual adverse human rights impact is essential if its personnel are to be able to account for its success in respecting human rights, whether internally to management or externally to shareholders and wider stakeholders (Ruggie, 2011).

In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should:

(a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;

(b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders.

Tracking human rights issues and responses will also help it to identify trends and patterns. This provides senior management and others with the big picture: it highlights repeated problems that may require more systemic changes to policies or processes, and it brings out best practices that can be disseminated across the enterprise to further reduce risk and improve performance (Ruggie, 2011).

In order to account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises should be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders. Business enterprises whose operations or operating contexts pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them. In all instances, communications should:

(a) Be of a form and frequency that reflect an enterprises human rights impacts and that are accessible to its intended audiences;

(b) Provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of an enterprises response to the particular human rights impact involved;

(c) In turn not pose risks to affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality.

The concept of accountability is familiar to enterprises. They typically recognize the importance of internal accountability for achieving business objectives and, in the case of publicly traded companies, of accounting for their performance to shareholders. When it comes to how enterprises address their actual and potential impact on human rights, wider issues of public interest have additional implications for accountability.

Businesses therefore need to be able to show that they are meeting their responsibility to respect human rights in practice. That means, at a minimum, having internal information-gathering and accountability systems and being able to account externally for their actions if faced with allegations of human rights abuse. Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes. An enterprise cannot, by definition, meet its responsibility to respect human rights if it causes or contributes to an adverse human rights impact and then fails to enable its remediation (UN, 2012).

Having systems in place to enable the remediation of such impact in no way implies that the enterprise does not intend to respect human rights. On the contrary, it demonstrates a recognition that impact may occur despite its best efforts, and intent to ensure that respect for human rights is restored as swiftly and effectively as possible should this happen. If an enterprise recognizes it has caused or contributed to adverse human rights impact, it will in many cases be well positioned to play a direct role in providing timely and effective remedy. Remedies can take a variety of forms and it is important to understand what those affected would view as effective remedy, in addition to the enterprises own view (Ruggie, 2011). This may be an apology, provisions to ensure the harm cannot recur, compensation (financial or other) for the harm, cessation of a particular activity or relationship, or some other form of remedy agreed by the parties. The focus of Guiding Principle 22 is on achieving remediation. That said, the means of providing for remediation can influence the effectiveness of that outcome. For instance, if an enterprise relies entirely on ad hoc processes to remedy any impact it has caused or contributed to, there is unlikely to be a shared understanding within the enterprise as to what kind of response is appropriate. This creates a risk of internal dispute over how to proceed and of delays in remediation (Ruggie, 2011).

Some enterprises may have formalized processes for specific adverse impact that is a particular risk for their operations, for instance, if a pollutant escapes into a waterway or if an employee is injured. The risk of such an issue-specific approach is that there is no clear process available when a less foreseeable impact occurs (UN, 2009).

It is therefore generally preferable to have in place agreed processes for the remediation of adverse human rights impact arising in any area of operations, even if this requires more than one type of process (for instance, for direct employees and for external stakeholders).

In many instances, the most effective and efficient way to provide for remediation processes is through an operational-level grievance mechanism (Ruggie, 2011). A grievance mechanism is not just an internal administrative procedure for handling impact or grievances. Whereas an internal procedure is typically passive, i.e., waiting for problems to arise and then responding, a grievance mechanism is active: it aims to facilitate the identification of grievances and address them as early as possible. It does so by ensuring it is known to, and trusted by, those stakeholders for whom it is intended. The key processes provided by the mechanism are public, as are the general timelines it provides for handling grievances and the ways in which individuals can register their concerns. There is transparency of communication with complainants and accountability to them for the provision of a fair process. A grievance mechanism of course also requires some internal procedures, but these are just part of the larger process it provides.

To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted (UNGC/IFC/IBLF, 2010).

Unlike many State-based mechanisms (courts, ombudsmans offices and so forth), an operational-level grievance mechanism does not have to wait until an issue amounts to an alleged human rights abuse or a breach of other standards before it can address it. It can receive and address concerns well before they reach that level and before an individuals or a communitys sense of grievance has escalated.

Pallay (2009) argues that effective grievance mechanisms also help reinforce aspects of the human rights due diligence process. They can help in identifying adverse human rights impact in a timely manner and in tracking the effectiveness of responses to impact raised through the mechanism. They can also help build positive relationships with stakeholders by demonstrating that the enterprise takes their concerns and the impact on their human rights seriously.

An operational-level grievance mechanism, in essence, is a formalized means through which individuals or groups can raise concerns about the impact an enterprise has on them including, but not exclusively, on their human rights and can seek remedy. These mechanisms are distinct from whistle-blower systems, which enable employees to raise concerns about breaches of company codes and ethics, which may or may not harm those individuals, but are of concern to the enterprise as a whole. Operational-level grievance mechanisms are specifically a channel for individuals, inside or outside the enterprise to raise concern about impact on themselves and they do not require the individual to show a breach of a company code.

In all contexts, business enterprises should:

(a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights, wherever they operate;

(b) Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognized human rights when faced with conflicting requirements;

(c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue wherever they operate.

The responsibility to respect human rights applies in all contexts. It is a uniform standard, reflecting its roots in the universal expectation that enterprises should not harm the dignity of people as they go about their business. The responsibility to respect human rights, as a global standard expected of all enterprises in all situations, provides clarity and predictability for enterprises facing differing expectations and demands. It also means that enterprises should not take advantage of operating environments that provide insufficient protection for human rights to lower their own standard of conduct (UN, 2012).Corporations began incorporating this duty into policy statements and the discourse of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Harrison, 2011). Multinational corporations in extractive and industrial sectors began announcing intentions to conduct human rights impact assessments (HRIA) but faced an immediate setback, as CSR personnel do not include HRIA practitioners (Wettstein, 2012). An important underlying reason for the lack of HRIA expertise is that no HRIA discipline exists to train assessors. Indeed, as of the end of 2012, there was awareness of only two corporate-commissioned HRIAs in the public domain, one in summary form only. These assessments, produced for BP's Tangguh project in Papua New Guinea and GoldCorp's Marlin mine in Guatemala, were prefaced with observations that, lacking an established methodology for HRIA, assessors had to pursue assessment using a patchwork of tools (On Common Ground, 2010). Thus far, corporate calls for guidance on HRIA have been discussed in webinars and conferences, but still without establishing, field testing and validating needed tools. The need for corporate HRIA tools has been clearly demonstrated.

Not only are major institutions calling for corporations to conduct human rights due diligence (FAO, 2012; IFC, 2008; OECD, 2011), business enterprises themselves have human rights concerns. For example, in August of 2012, human rights-based protests indefinitely halted the development of a US$ 5 billion gold mining project in Peru although all permits were in place and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) had conformed to best practices (Jamasmie, 2012; Newmont, 2012; Rubio et al., 2012). A new round of opposition to GoldCorp's Marlin Mine in Guatemala, initiated in March of 2012, is based on human rights listed in international conventions (FIAN, 2012). As these cases illustrate, corporations need a mechanism to predict and mitigate adverse human rights impacts.

HRIA is designed to prospectively and retrospectively identify positive and negative effects on human rights. As such, it is important to clarify what these rights are. The most widely embraced list of human rights is presented in the International Bill of Rights, a compendium of three instruments ratified by 159 countries, incorporating political, civil, cultural, social and economic rights (United Nations, 1948, 1966a, 1966b). These instruments comprise the basis for assessment, and their contents provide the benchmarks of adequacy against which a company's performance is measured (Walker, 2009). Although companies are not signatories to these instruments, they have adopted the duty to respect the human rights enumerated therein by accepting the Business and Human Rights framework.

It is important to note that human rights have historically inhabited the quasi-legal sphere of international agreements among governments. From a corporate standpoint, human rights are not a legal matter but rather a perspective. This difference is not semantic, but is fundamental to how governments and corporations are held accountable to international human rights instruments (Harrison, 2011). Whereas governments can be judged for their compliance with human rights law, corporations can only be benchmarked by their operations' interactions with the components of each right as laid out in human rights documents. This has two implications for the usefulness of the human rights framework for corporate assessment. First, it provides benchmarking standards absent in other currently available assessment tools. While the impacts that corporations have on people can be qualified as social, environmental, political, among others, they can only be qualified as human rights-related if a human rights lens is employed (Harrison, 2011). For example, a company cannot be held liable for violating the right to the highest attainable standard of health; instead the thresholds of affordable, accessible, adequate and culturally appropriate care can be examined contextually and then analyzed for how a corporate project would influence the affordability, accessibility, adequacy and appropriateness of care. Second, the human rights perspective elucidates corporate duties beyond legal compliance. While governments can only be held accountable to the treaties they sign and the laws through which they codify international duties, companies accept the duty to respect all the human rights in the International Bill of Rights and the ILO Core Conventions, regardless of whether national law requires it. This is because companies risk allegations of complicity when their actions contribute to rights violations (Harrison, 2011). 2.3 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Sub-Saharan Africa.

2.3.1. Ghana

One study conducted at a Chinese construction company, Shanghai Construction Group, in Ghana revealed that all the workers were employed as casual workers. None of the local workers signed an employment contract with the company. Even those workers that were employed between six months and one year remained casual workers which was a violation of Ghanas labour laws which requires that a temporary worker who is employed by the same employer for a continuous period of six months and more shall be treated as a permanent worker (Article 75 of the Labour Act (Act 651, 2003). Working hours varied among the workers. Out of 26 workers talked to, 19 said they worked for eight hours a day seven days a week. This translates into an average of 56 hours a week instead of the normal 40 hours a week (Baah, 2009). Seven other workers said they worked for nine hours a day everyday or 63 hours per week. According to the Labour Act, working an extra hour daily or working full-time during the weekend is considered to be overtime work. But all the 26 workers who participated in the discussion said they did not do overtime (Baah, 2009). This means the workers were not aware that the extra hours of work constituted overtime work, which had to be paid for. Some workers said they were compelled to work all week without rest (Fokouh, 2009).

According to the workers, the daily wage for workers ranged from GH3.04 to GH 3.93. Nineteen of those interviewed said they earned a gross of GH106 cedis and a net of GH 96 per month. The remaining 7 said they earned a gross of GH 100 and a net of GH 75 cedis per month (Fokouh, 2009). The official national daily minimum wage in 2007 was GH 1.9 or a monthly minimum wage of GH 51.30. That means no worker was paid below the national minimum wage. Some of the workers said they were given helmets and gloves as protective gears others said they did not have such protective equipment. The workers complained further that it was not uncommon for workers to complain of eye troubles because of particles in their eyes (Fokouh, 2009). All health and safety issues were dealt with by Management without any involvement of the workers. According to the workers that were interviewed there was no trade union at the construction site. Ten of the respondents indicated that they were ignorant of what unions stood for. Those who knew of trade unions and their importance said they could not have thought of joining or forming one because of fear of victimization and possible dismissal (Baah, 2009).

2.3.2. Botswana

Advance Construction is a private Chinese company operating in Botswana and was working on several sites at the time of the study including one in Francistown, a town 435 km from the capital, Gaborone and near the border with Zimbabwe (Kalusopa, 2009). The company was constructing an ultra modern school whose project would take 10 months. The company had 53 employees, 48 nationals comprising 42 male and six female with five expatriates (four Chinese and one Zimbabwean) at management level (Kalusopa, 2009). Among the nationals were 15 skilled and 33 unskilled workers. The company did not belong to any Employers Association. The relation between management and the workers had been strained for a long time, prompting workers to file complaints with the local Member of Parliament (MP) several times (Kalusopa, 2009). Opinions drawn from the reports of the meeting convened by the MPs office, labour officials, management and selected workers representatives indicated gross breach of employment legislation especially with regard to occupational health and safety and just blatant victimatisation. The workers called for protection since there was no trade union or workers committee allowed to operate in the company (Kalusopa, 2009). The report also indicated that workers felt insecure to take their grievances to management. The occupational health and safety standards at the company left much to be desired. The employees were made to pay for safety clothing such as boots and overalls. This disregard of OHS standards is rampant in many construction companies in Botswana. An earlier study by Kalusopa and Solo (2006) also showed that although most workers are covered under the legal framework and compensation mechanisms in most formal organizations in Botswana, these have not been extended to the informal economy or those in casual employment with the construction sector indicating a high poor record in operational health and safety standards. The study recommended the need for trade unions to campaign for legislation to address the prevention, monitoring and management of occupational risks and injury in the informal economy and to develop comprehensive systems for incorporating these into national programmes. In terms of wages, the unskilled workers in the company were paid the statutory minimum wage while the skilled ones negotiated their own rates. These negotiated rates were dependant on employees reference to the last pay rate when they were employed. There had been cases when unskilled workers were paid less than the statutory minimum wage and the labour department had to intervene to protect the workers (Kalusopa, 2009). The minimum wage is reviewed every year by government but does not actually constitute an economic wage commensurate to the high cost of living in Botswana. The company does not also have a pay structure. This is a choice of Management at corporate level and is on a take or leave it basis. With the high rate of unemployment, workers are always in a no-win situation. Compared with employees doing construction work in the mining industry, the wages in this company are poorer (Kalusopa, 2009). For example, an Assistant in construction in the mining industry is paid P6.00/hr (approximately US$ 1) while in this company they are paid half that amount (P3.85 or appropriately US$ 0.50). There are no benefits such as social security, medical aid, free/subsidized transport, paid vacation/holiday, housing allowance, child care services, incentive bonus, severance pay, interest-free loans, employee share ownership plan and provident fund among the local workers (Kalusopa, 2009).

Landmark Projects is also another construction company with several projects around the country. Some of employee rights violations include;

The workers were asked to work on Saturdays on a voluntary basis and not remunerated over time;

There were no employment cards which made it possible for the company to hire and fire as they wished since the unskilled workers did not know how long they had worked at the company;

They were not provided with protective clothing;

Workers were threatened with dismissal if they reported any abuse to the labour office;

Workers were not allowed tea break and were fed on bread and coke;

There were no toilets for junior staff at the site and

There were no contracts of employment (Kalusopa, 2009).2.3.3. South Africa

In South Africa, a study was carried out at Formosa Chemical Company, a privately-owned company located in Newcastle and operating in the chemical sector. According to the workers, this company was established in 1986 at Madadeni and then it moved in 2001 to Newcastle (Nkosi, 2009). During the time of conducting this study, Formosa employed one thousand workers in total in the factory (Simunye, 2009). At the time when this information was gathered, the workers at Formosa were not unionized and there were no processes in place which showed that they were about to be organized. When the workers started working on one year contracts their union was rendered irrelevant because it was now difficult for the union to collect its subscriptions and management did not recognize the union (Guliwe, 2008). Furthermore, a major challenge for unionization was that the workers who were organizing at the factory were all expelled (that is, the organizers were not re-hired). This change started in 2006, to be exact. According to the workers, there is no form of bargaining that takes place at the factory; the wages and any increases thereof are unilaterally decided by management (Mkhonta, 2008). Yet according to Article 1 of Convention 98 on the right to organize and for collective bargaining: Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment and further measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers organizations and workers organizations, with the view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements (ILO, 2007). There are no unions within Formosa and there is no bargaining forum and/or structure within the company, yet South Africa is a signatory to the ILO (Mkhonta, 2008). This raises the question whether there is proper monitoring and follow-up by the Department of Labour regarding compliance with ILO standards and the Labour Relations Act. If there are monitoring mechanisms in place, how are the employers escaping? It would also be critical to check whether the unions organizing in the chemical sector have compiled an appropriate database that includes these most vulnerable workplaces (Mkhonta, 2008). From the interviews that were conducted, the researchers made the following observations regarding Formosa:

(i) Analysis of wages: The minimum wages at Formosa range from R5.50-to-R7.90. In other words, workers are earning between R308-to-R442 per week and this totals to minimum wages of between R1232-to-R1769 per month. Thus on average the minimum wage at Formosa is R1200 per month (Mkhonta, 2008). Although there is no legally mandated minimum wage in South Africa, the law gives the Minister of Labour the authority to set wages by sector, but if this minimum wages are compared with an agreement which was signed between Bosoga Stationery and the Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union (CEPPWAWU) as at 31st July the company Bosoga agreed to give the workers a minimum wage of R2200.00 per month and a 9.5% increase across the board (Guliwe, 2008. Pg. 62). The agreement between New African Packaging (PTY) LTD t/a GENPAK and CEPPWAWU stipulated the minimum wage at R2700.00 and this agreement is binding as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009. Although no specific amount has been stipulated in the chemicals sector with regards to a minimum wage, the wage at Formosa needs to be looked at.. (Guliwe. 2008. pg. 71).

(ii) Working conditions in the factory: The employees at Formosa work an 8 hour shift: the night-shift starts from 23h00 to 07h00; the morning shift starts from 07h00 to 15h00; and the afternoon shift starts from 15h00 to 23h00. According to the workers, a very unfavorable aspect of the workplace is that there is no structured relationship between management and the workers. An instance that can be quoted on the bad relations between the workers and the management was when a lady kicked one of the employees, but this case was simply disregarded. Overall the workers reported that they are always threatened with being dismissed on a daily basis if they are found relaxing or talking to a friend whilst working on the lines (Mkhonta, 2008).

(v) Work environment and Health and Safety: The working environment at Formosa appears to be the worst among the factories investigated by this study. The waste material is recycled within the factory building. Since the workers find it hard to work outside, especially during the winter season, they burn and recycle whatever waste material exists within the factory. This leads to the problem of pollution (Mkhonta, 2008, pg. 72). According to the workers, there are ailments and/or diseases that have occurred because of this recycling. There is no safety ware and protection like helmets, masks or even gloves. Basic medication like a panado cannot be provided within the factory. The toilets in the company are in a very bad state; furthermore, they are being used as eating and changing rooms. The workers use the toilets as eating rooms because they are not allowed to eat during work, thus they pretend to be going to the toilet (Guliwe, 2008).

Similar studies carried out in Angola, Malawi, Namibia, and Zimbabwe revealed similar trends.2.4 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Zambia

In reviewing relevant literature, the researcher found that there has been little to no research conducted on the topic of business and human rights or that perhaps the problem has been with documentation of any such research. However, there is one study that was conducted at Mopani Copper Mines (MCM) that briefly highlighted the natu