silk road report - justice4iran.org...silk road report: october 2016 9 corporations and other...
TRANSCRIPT
UnitedNationsandBusiness&HumanRightsOctober2016
SilkRoadReport
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
1
SilkRoadReport
UnitedNationsandBusiness&HumanRights
JusticeforIran
October2016
Email:[email protected]
Website:www.justiceforiran.org
Copyright©JusticeforIran2016
Reproductionofanyorallpartsofthisdocumentispermissibleonlywithpropercitation.
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
2
TableofContents
ABOUTTHESILKROADPROJECT........................................................................................3
ABOUTTHEREPORT...........................................................................................................4
PARTONE-INSTRUMENTSANDMECHANISMSOFTHEUN.................................................5
I. UNGUIDINGPRINCIPLES.............................................................................................5
A) RESPONSIBILITYOFBUSINESSENTERPRISES............................................................................6
B) RESPONDINGTOHUMANRIGHTSIMPACTS............................................................................8
II. UNWORKINGGROUPONBUSINESSANDHUMANRIGHTS.........................................8
PARTTWO-CONCEPTUALANALYSIS................................................................................10
I. COMPLICITY..............................................................................................................10
II. DUEDILIGENCE........................................................................................................15
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
3
AboutTheSilkRoadProjectTheSilkRoadwasanancientnetworkoftraderoutesthatforcenturieswerecentral
to cultural interaction through regions of the Asian continent connecting the East
andWest, fromChina to theMediterranean Sea. Tradeon the Silk Roadplayed a
significant role in the development of the civilizations of China, the Subcontinent,
Persia, Europe, the Horn of Africa and Arabia, opening long-distance political and
economicrelationsbetweenthedifferentcivilizations.
The Silk Roadproject aims to promote accountability andprotect human rights in
thecontextofIran’srapidreturntotheworldmarketsafterthe2015NuclearDeal.1
ThroughpublishingreportsonbusinessandhumanrightsinIran,thisprojectintends
to increase awareness among advocates of human rights, particularly lawyers and
civil societyactivists,andaccountability inbusinessandcorporaterelations. Italso
aimstoholdaccountablecorporateswhichareinvolvedorcomplicitinhumanright
violations,usinglegalandotheravailablemechanisms.
1TheJointComprehensivePlanofAction(JCPOA)knowncommonlyasthe Irandealor Irannucleardeal, isaninternationalagreementon thenuclearprogramof Iran reached inViennaon14 July2015between Iran, theP5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, UnitedKingdom,UnitedStates—plusGermany),andtheEuropeanUnion.Undertheagreement,IranwillreceiverelieffromU.S.,EuropeanUnion,andUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilnuclear-relatedeconomicsanctions.
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
4
AbouttheReportThisisourfirstreportfromtheSilkRoadReportserieswhichaimtoshedlightonthe
underlyingconceptsandinstrumentsaswellasmechanismsthatcanbeappliedto
specific cases of recent contracts and agreements between multinational
corporationsandIraniancompanies,someofwhicharecloselylinkedtoorpartially
owned by human rights violators. In this report, we will briefly explore the
instruments and mechanisms of the United Nations in the field of business and
humanrights. Inparticular,wewill focusontheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusiness
andHumanRightsandexplain theprinciples reflected therein suchas theduty to
protectandcorporateresponsibility,placinggreateremphasisoncomplicityanddue
diligence.
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
5
PARTONE-InstrumentsandMechanismsoftheUN
I. UNGuidingPrinciplesTheUNGuidingPrinciplesadoptedin2011setoutthegeneralregulatoryandpolicy
measures a state may take in order to fulfil their duty to protect against human
rights violations by third parties, including business enterprises. The Guiding
Principlescanbeconsideredalegalinstrumentofsoftlawthatprovideguidanceto
States on measures to be taken with respect to the three pillars of the United
NationsFramework“Protect,Respect,Remedy”:
1. Thedutyofthestatetoprotecthumanrights
2. Theresponsibilityofbusinessestorespecthumanrights
3. The need for rights and obligations to bematched to appropriate and
effectiveremedieswhenbreached.
The UNGPs, although not legally binding, are an authoritative global standard on
businessandhumanrights.Theydonotconstituteaninternationalinstrumentthat
can be ratified by States, nor do they create new legal obligations. Instead, they
clarify and elaborate on the implications of relevant provisions of existing
internationalhumanrightsstandardsandprovideguidanceonhowtoputtheminto
practice.TheGuidingPrinciplesrefertoandderivefromStates’existingobligations
under international law.National legislationwill oftenexistormaybe required to
ensurethattheseobligationsareeffectivelyimplementedandenforced.This,inturn,
means that elements of the Guiding Principles may be reflected in domestic law
regulatingbusinessactivities.
Itmustalsobenoted that theUNGPsareoften referred toas soft law.Thereare
however thosewhobelieve that theyare ‘hard’ soft laws.That is,despite the fact
thattheUNGPsarevoluntary,therearemechanismsavailableandmeasurestaken
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
6
thatgivethemaquasi-regulatorystatus.
Many also believe that it is desirable and even inevitable to move away from
voluntary initiatives and into the domain of regulation, including mandatory due
diligence, in order to better protect people on the ground and to ensure
enforceability.The international treaty process is part ofthe emerging regulatory
dynamic.However, thisprocess is yet tobecomemoreconcreteandnarrow in its
scopeifitistoeffectivelytakeshape.
a) ResponsibilityofBusinessEnterprises
AccordingtoPrinciple13oftheUNGPs,
‘Theresponsibilitytorespecthumanrightsrequiresthatbusinessenterprises:
(a)Avoidcausing orcontributing toadversehuman rights impacts through
theirownactivities,andaddresssuchimpactswhentheyoccur;
(b)Seektopreventormitigateadversehumanrightsimpactsthataredirectly
linked to their operations, products or services by their business
relationships,eveniftheyhavenotcontributedtothoseimpacts.’
Therefore,abusinessmaycause,contribute,orbedirectlylinkedtoahumanrights
impact:2
Causation Contribution Linkage
Businessactionsleaddirectlytoanimpact;e.g.,
• Afactoryexposes
Abusinessincentivises,facilitates,orenablesthirdpartyimpact;e.g.,
Abusiness’operations,productsorservicesaredirectlylinkedtoanimpact
2Foradetaileddiscussiononadverseimpactsofbusinessesonhumanrightssee:INEF,‘AssessingBusiness-RelatedImpactsonHumanRights.IndicatorsandBenchmarksinStandardsandPractice,INEF-Report110’,2016;availableat:http://inef.uni-due.de/cms/index.php?article_id=4&clang=1&pub=1735
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
7
workerstohazardouschemicalswithoutadequatepersonalprotectiveequipment
• Acompanymanufacturesandsellsinherentlydangerousproductsthatarelikelytocausedeathorseriouspersonalinjury,withoutprovidingadequatewarningtousersabouttherisksorappropriateinstructionsonhowtousethem
• Arestaurantpracticesroutinediscriminationinitstreatmentofcustomers
• Afactory’swastewaterdischargeisthesoleormainsourceofpollutionofacommunity’sdrinkingwater
• Aninternetcompanyprovidesdataaboutusersofitsservicestoarepressivegovernmentthatenablesthegovernmenttotrackandharasspoliticaldissidents,contrarytointernationalhumanrightsstandards
• Anelectronicsretailbrandchangesproductrequirementsforsuppliersrepeatedlyandatthelastminute,withoutadjustingproductiondeadlinesorprices,pushessupplierstobreachlabourstandardstoensurethattheorderisdelivered
• Afoodcompanydeliberatelytargetinghigh-sugarfoodanddrinkatchildren,withanimpactonlevelsofchildobesity
• Onefactory’swastewaterdischarges,incombinationwiththedischargesofothercompanies,cumulativelypollutethedrinkingwaterinacommunity
eventhoughthebusinessdidnotcauseorcontributetothatimpact;e.g.,
• Humanrightsimpactsoccurdeepinacompany’ssupplychain,notwithstandingthebusiness’robusteffortstopreventthem
• Theuseofportableultrasoundmachinesbydoctorstoscreenforfemalefoetuses,facilitatingtheirabortioninfavourofmalechildren,notwithstandingprohibitionsbythemanufactureronsuchuse
• Abankprovidingfinancialloanstoanenterpriseforbusinessactivitiesthat,inbreachofagreedstandards,resultintheevictionofcommunities
• Abusinessentersintoajointventurewithanothercompanythatuseslabourforthejointventurethatistaintedwithhumantrafficking,despiteitsagreementandcommitmentnottodoso
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
8
b) RespondingtoHumanRightsImpacts
Howshouldabusinessrespondtoanimpact?Theproperresponsedependsonthemodeofinvolvement;i.e.whetherthebusinesscaused,contributedto,orismerelylinkedtotheadversehumanrightsimpact,assetforthbelow:
Ifthebusiness... Thenthebusinessshould...
Causedtheharm• Ceasetheactioncausingharm
• Remediatetheharm
Contributedtotheharm
• Ceasetheactioncontributingtotheharm
• Useorbuildleveragetomitigatetheriskoffutureharm
• Contributetoremediationoftheharm
Is merely linked to theharm
• TheUNGPsdoNOTexpectbusinesses to contribute tothe remedywhen they aremerely linked to the harm(althoughtheymaydosoforotherreasons).
• Use or build leverage to seek to mitigate the risk offutureharm
II. UNWorkingGrouponbusinessandhumanrightsIn June 2011 (in resolution A/HRC/17/4), the Human Rights Council decided to
establish a Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
9
corporationsandotherbusinessenterprises,consistingoffiveindependentexperts
ofbalancedgeographicalrepresentation,foraperiodofthreeyears.3
Within the frameworkof itsmandate, theWorkingGroup receives informationon
alleged human rights abuses from all relevant sources and, where deemed
appropriate,intervenesdirectlywithStates,businessenterprisesandothersonsuch
allegations.
Suchinterventioncanrelatetoahumanrightsabusewhichhasalreadyoccurred,is
ongoing,orwhichhasahighriskofoccurring.Theprocessinvolvessendingaletter
totheconcernedStatesandbusinessenterprisestodrawtheirattentiontothefacts
of the allegationsmade and the applicable international human rights norms and
standards, in particular the core concepts, obligations, responsibilities and
expectationssetoutintheGuidingPrinciples.
Communications sent and replies received remain confidential until they are
published in joint communication reports submittedateach regular sessionof the
Human Rights Council (in March, June and September). In certain situations,
includingthoseofgraveconcern,theWorkingGroupmayissueapublicstatement
earlier.
In its mode of inquiry, the Working Group encourages States to request from
companies information on human rights due diligence and stresses the need to
ensureaccesstoeffectiveremedy.Dependingonthefactsoftheallegationsmade,
theWorkingGroupmayaddressitselfbothtohomeandhostStatesofthecompany
allegedlyinvolvedinahumanrightsabuse.Whererelevant,theWorkingGroupwill
carryoutsuchcommunicationsjointlyalongwithotherspecialproceduremandates
oftheHumanRightsCouncil.
3http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/WGHRandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness.aspx
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
10
The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 26/22, encouraged States and private
businesses to cooperate fully with the Working Group including responding to
communicationstransmitted.
PARTTWO-CONCEPTUALANALYSISTwo important concepts embedded in the UN instruments that are important to
examine separately here are ‘complicity’ and ‘due diligence’. These two concepts
mayarisewhenthebusiness’responsibilitytoavoidcausingharmandcontributing
toharmscausedbythirdpartiesareconsidered.
I. Complicity
Questionsof complicitymayarisewhenabusinessenterprise contributes to,or is
seen as contributing to, adverse human rights impacts caused by other parties. It
mustbenotedthatcomplicityhasbeenusedindifferentcontextswhichhasgivenit
differentmeanings. In itsbroadermeaning,businessenterprisesmaybeperceived
asbeing‘complicit’intheactsofanotherpartywhere,forexample,theyareseento
benefitfromanabusecommittedbythatparty.Inthenarrowermeaning,asusedin
criminal law,mostnational jurisdictionsprohibit complicity in thecommissionofa
crime,andanumberallowforcriminalliabilityofbusinessenterprisesinsuchcases.4
Infact,justastheconceptofimpunityinthesphereofhumanrightsisnotconfined
to the strict historical definition, in the context of business andhuman rights, the
concept of complicity is now used in amuchmore complex fashion. As such, the
4Somesources,therefore,referto‘involvement’inhumanrightsviolationsinordertoavoidconfusionwiththehighlyrestrictiveconceptof‘complicity’incriminallaw,i.e.‘aidingandabetting’.
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
11
phrase “business complicity in human rights abuses” is used to describe what is
viewedasundesirablebusinessinvolvementinsuchabuses.5
The2005ReportoftheUNHCHRstatesthatacompanyiscomplicitinhumanrights
abuses if “it authorizes, tolerates or knowingly ignores human rights abuses
committed by an entity associated with it, or if the company knowingly provides
practical assistance or encouragement that has a substantial effect on the
perpetrationofhumanrightsabuses.”6
Various NCP7decisions have confirmed that companies can, through their own
actions or omissions, be complicit in or profit from violations of human rights by
states and other actors in human rights abuses.8However, there continues to be
considerable theoretical confusion and uncertainty about the boundaries of this
concept. In particular, it is unclear when legal liability, both civil (domestic
jurisdictions) and criminal (both international and domestic), could arise for such
complicity.
Whiletheexactrequiredlinkbetweeneffectivebusinessactorsanddirectactorsof
humanrights infringements ismainlysubjecttotheapplicable legalscheme,anICJ
ExpertLegalPanelhasadoptedathree-prongapproachtoidentifythe“zoneoflegal
risk”:
1. Causation/Contribution: Did the company’s conduct enable, exacerbate or
facilitatethegrosshumanrightsabuses?
5InternationalCommissionofJuristsExpertLegalPanel,“CorporateComplicityandLegalAccountability”(September2008),vol.1,p.3:http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/200/07/Corporate-complicity-legal-accountability-vol1-publication-2009-eng.pdf6ReportoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissioneronHumanRightsontheResponsibilitiesofTransnationalCorporationsandRelatedBusinessEnterpriseswithRegardtoHumanRights,UNDocE/CN.4/2005/91(2005),para.33.7NationalContactPoints.8http://www.oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_81;StatementbytheNorwegianNationalContactPoint(29November2005):http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/37439881.pdf,pp.68-69.
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
12
Enabling entails that without the company’s conduct the abuses would have not
taken place (ex: providing security services to state or private security personnel
used to identify and arrest community protestors). Exacerbating means that the
company’sconductmakestheabusesandharm-causingexacerbatedoraggravated
(ex: by providing earth moving equipment used to demolish houses). Facilitating
occurswhenthecompany’sconductchangedthewayinwhichabuseswerecarried
outand/orthenatureandextentoftheharmsufferedbythevictims,dependingon
the jurisdiction (ex: selling sophisticated surveillance software to government
authorities used to target dissidents or minority groups). In either of these cases
there isasufficientlyclose link in lawbetweenthecompany’sconductandhuman
rightsabuses.
Examples:providingadviceorsupportthatencouragestheprincipalperpetratorto
committheact;purchasing,hiringorprovidinggoodsorservicessuchasweapons,
tools, financing, fuel, computer systems, vehicles or transportation, security or
infrastructure; entering into any form of business agreement through which the
company makes a deal in which it is foreseen that in fulfilling its side of the
agreement,thebusinesspartnerwillcommitactsthatamounttogrosshumanrights
abuses; or yet an omission – failure to act – such as deciding not to refuse
governmentimposedforcedlabour.
Morecomplexsituationsarisewherethecontributionmadebythecompanyisnot
necessarilyuseddirectlybytheperpetrator,butneverthelessitbuildsupthegeneral
capacityoftheperpetrator–intheformofmuch-neededrevenue(paymentoftaxes
orotherdues),products,andinfrastructuresuchasroads,railways,communication
systemsorpowerstations.
Underexistingcriminalorcivillegalprinciples,meresilentpresenceinthecountryor
areas where gross human rights abuses are being committed, would usually not
amount to involvement in the human rights abuses committed in the country or
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
13
region. However, in some situations, presence and silence are not neutral in law.
Although as yet untested in court, an argument could bemade that under some
special circumstances, a companyor its individualofficials exercise such influence,
weightandauthorityovertheprincipalperpetratorsthattheirsilentpresencewould
be taken by the principal to communicate approval andmoral encouragement to
commit the gross human rights abuses. This should be considered in light of the
commonfactthatthecompanybenefitscommerciallyfromabusinessrelationship
withthosewhocommitgrosshumanrightsabuses. Insuchasituation,thegreater
the political and economic influence wielded by the company, the more likely
complicitycouldbeestablished.
2. Knowledge&Foreseeability:Didthecompanyhavethenecessary“stateof
mind”? Did the company know, or should it have known, that its conduct
would be likely to contribute to the gross human rights abuses, or was it
wilfullyblindtothatrisk?
The fact thata companyneitherwishednordesired to contribute togrosshuman
rightsabusesisirrelevanttothequestionofwhether,inadoptingaparticularcourse
ofconduct,itbecamecomplicitinthoseabusesandsubsequentlyenteredazoneof
legal risk. In both criminal and civil law, legal responsibility can arise where a
company actively sought to contribute to gross human rights abuses, or simply
whereitknewthatitscourseofconductwaslikelytocontributetosuchabusesand,
eventhoughitmaynothavewantedtheabusestooccur,undertookthecourseof
conduct anyway. Under the law of civil remedies, liability can arise evenwhere a
companyhasnoknowledgeastotheriskofharm,becausethelawmayholdthatit
shouldhaveknownastheriskwasreasonablyforeseeable.
Where evidence of knowledge and foreseeability is concerned, the internal
deliberations and knowledge of company officials (inquiries undertaken by the
company or required, or information brought to its attention), as well as the
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
14
surrounding objective circumstances (publicly available information, unusual or
suspiciouscircumstances,durationofthecompany’spresenceintheregion,etc.)are
bothrelevant indeterminingwhetheracompanykneworshouldhaveknownthat
grosshumanrightsabuseswouldresultfromitsactions.
Obligations of due diligence fact-finding and assessments are of particular
importanceinthissense.Underthelawofcivilremedies,areasonableandprudent
company’s level of knowledge would be based on due diligence, including risk
assessment,andwillincludetheinformationsuchstepswouldhavebroughttolight
initsassessmentofwhatacompanyshouldhaveknown.
3. Proximity:Wasthecompanycloseorproximate(geographically,orinterms
of the duration, frequency and/or intensity of interactions or business
transactions)totheprincipalperpetratorofthehumanrightsabusesorthe
victims?9
Thecloser–ormoreproximate–acompanyis,intimeandspaceandrelationship,
tothosewhocarryoutthehumanrightsabusesorthosewhosuffertheabuses,the
more likely it is that the company could be held legally responsible when it is
complicit.
Evidenceofproximityofacompanytotheprincipalperpetratorsand/orvictimsof
the harm caused is established based on various factors including geographical
proximity; economic dominance in the marketplace and political/business
relationships;the legalnatureofthebusinessrelationshipswiththirdparties(joint
venture, long-term strategic partnership, partner-subsidiary, in so far as the
relationshipentails“shareddecision-makingandclosecoordination”);andintensity,
9InternationalCommissionofJuristsExpertLegalPanel,“CorporateComplicityandLegalAccountability”(September2008),vol.1,pp.8-26
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
15
durationandtextureoftherelationshipbetweenthecompanyandperpetratorsor
victimsofhumanrightsabuses.
Aprudentcompanyshouldbeawarethatthecloseritistotheprincipalperpetrator
ofgrosshumanrightsabusesor thevictimsofabuses, themore likely it is to face
allegationsofcomplicity,andthecloseritwillbetoazoneof legalriskwhereinits
conductmay have enabled, exacerbated or facilitated the abuses. Furthermore, it
willbemorelikelythatthelawwillconsiderthatthecompanyknewoftheabuses,
orthatitshouldhaveknown.
Prof. John Ruggie has summarized these principles in the following terms: “What
constitutescomplicityinbothlegalandnon-legaltermsisnotuniform,norisitstatic.
Despite thismessy reality, theevidence todate lends itself to several conclusions.
Firstly,knowinglyprovidingasubstantialcontributiontohumanrightsabusescould
result in a company being held accountable in both legal and non-legal settings.
Secondly,beingseentobenefitfromabusemayattracttheattentionofsocialactors
even if it does not lead to legal liability. Thirdly, and similarly, mere presence in
contexts where abuses are taking place may attract attention from other social
actorsbut isunlikely,by itself, to lead to legal liability. In short,bothoperating in
contexts where abuses occur and the appearance of benefiting from such abuses
shouldserveasredflagsforcompaniestoensurethattheyexerciseduediligence,
adaptedforthespecificcontextoftheiroperations.”10
II. DueDiligenceDue diligence is a process through which enterprises actively identify, prevent,
10UNHumanRightsCouncil,Clarifyingtheconceptsof"sphereofinfluence"and"complicity":reportoftheSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary-GeneralontheIssueofHumanRightsandTransnationalCorporationsandOtherBusinessEnterprises,JohnRuggie,15May2008,A/HRC/8/16,availableat:http://www.refworld.org/docid/484d1fe12.html.
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
16
mitigate(diminish)andaccountforhowtheyaddressandmanagetheiractualand
potentialharmandadverse impacts.Companies shouldhaveongoingprocesses in
placethatwillbringexistingorpotentialcorporatemisconducttolight,addressand
changeirresponsiblebehaviourandremedythesituationwhenthingsgowrong.
Companiesmustnotonlyrespondtoongoingharmfulpractices,buttheymustalso
take preventative steps to avoid potential future adverse impacts. Additionally,
enterprisesshouldalsoavoidcontributingtonegativeimpactsandaddressrealand
potentialviolationsofinternationallyrecognisedstandardsintheirsupplychainand
throughouttheirbusinessrelationships.Duediligenceshouldbeanintegralpartof
thedecision-makingandriskmanagementsystemsoftheenterprise.Inotherwords,
it should go beyond simplymanaging risks to the enterprise itself to identify and
addressimpactsonindividuals,workers,communitiesandtheenvironment.
AccordingtoPrinciple17oftheUNGPs:
‘Inordertoidentify,prevent,mitigateandaccountforhowtheyaddresstheir
adversehumanrights impacts,businessenterprisesshouldcarryouthuman
rightsduediligence.Theprocessshouldincludeassessingactualandpotential
human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking
responses,andcommunicatinghowimpactsareaddressed.Humanrightsdue
diligence:
(a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business
enterprise may cause or contribute tothrough its own activities,or
whichmaybedirectlylinkedtoitsoperations,productsorservicesby
itsbusinessrelationships;
(b)Willvaryincomplexitywiththesizeofthebusinessenterprise,the
riskofseverehumanrightsimpacts,andthenatureandcontextofits
operations;
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
17
(c) Shouldbeongoing, recognizing that thehuman rights risksmay
change over time as the business enterprise’s operations and
operatingcontextevolve.
TheUNGPsaimtoestablishtheresponsibilityofallbusinessestoundertakehuman
rights due diligence in their entire supply chain, including subsidiaries, sub-
contractorsandsuppliers.UndertheUNGPs,itisnotsufficientforabusinesssimply
todeclarethatitrespectshumanrights,eitherbypromulgatingacommitmenttodo
so or agreeing to do so in a contractual undertaking. The business is instead
expectedtotakeactivestepstofollowthroughonthiscommitment.Humanrights
due diligence is therefore an ongoing process to enable businesses to ‘know and
show’thattheyareaddressingtheirhumanrightsimpactsthroughassessingimpacts,
taking integratedactioninresponseto identifiedimpacts,trackingandmonitoring,
andcommunicatingthecompany’seffortstoaddressitshumanrightsimpacts.Asa
result, theprocessenablesbusinesses toavoidbeing ‘namedandshamed’ fornot
knowingtheirhumanrightsimpactsandnottakingstepstoavoidormitigatethem.
Conductingappropriatehumanrightsduediligenceshouldhelpbusinessenterprises
address the risk of legal claims against them by showing that they took every
reasonablesteptoavoidinvolvementinanallegedhumanrightsabuse.Itis,infact,
commonpracticeinnationalandinternationalinstrumentstoincludeduediligence
asadefence(forexample,theECFoodLawRegulationandtheUKBriberyAct).Thus,
ifabusinessenterpriseprovesthattheyhadcarriedoutproperduediligence,then
they have a defence and may be exempt from legal sanctions. Such laws and
regulations may also make it mandatory for corporations to report on their due
diligence policies and practices along supply chains (for example, the EU Non-
Financial Reporting Directive and the UKModern Slavery Act). However, business
enterprisesconductingsuchduediligenceshouldnotassumethat,thisbyitself,will
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
18
automatically and fully absolve them from liability for causing or contributing to
humanrightsabuses.11
11UNHCR,"GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights:ImplementingtheUnitedNations‘Protect,RespectandRemedy’Framework",2011;availableat:www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf
JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016
19
AboutTheSilkRoadProject
The Silk Roadwas an ancient network of trade routes thatwere for centuries
centraltoculturalinteractionthroughregionsoftheAsiancontinentconnecting
theEastandWest,fromChinatotheMediterraneanSea.TradeontheSilkRoad
played a significant role in the development of the civilizations of China, the
Subcontinent, Persia, Europe, the Horn of Africa and Arabia, opening long-
distancepoliticalandeconomicrelationsbetweenthecivilizations.
TheSilkRoadprojectaimstopromoteaccountabilityandprotecthuman
rights in thecontextof Iran’s rapid return to theworldmarketsafter the2015
NuclearDeal.1ThroughpublishingreportsonbusinessandhumanrightsinIran,
this project intends to increase awareness among advocates of human rights,
particularlylawyersandcivilsocietyactivists,andaccountabilityinbusinessand
corporate relations. It also aims to hold accountable corporates which are
involvedor complicit in human right violations, using legal andother available
mechanisms.
JusticeforIran
April2017
Email:[email protected]
Website:www.justiceforiran.org
Copyright©JusticeforIran2017