abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Эта страница недоступна на Русский и отображается на English

Статья

15 Фев 2023

Автор:
Lise Smit,
Автор:
Claire Bright,
Автор:
Stuart Neely,
Автор:
Business and Human Rights Journal

Scholarly article cautions 'safe harbour' in mHREDD could result in tick-box approach & remove access even to existing civil remedies

'Muddying the Waters: The Concept of a ‘Safe Harbour’ in Understanding Human Rights Due Diligence', 9 February 2023

...It was reported that during the negotiations between EU Member States regarding the EC Draft Directive, a German proposal for a ‘a get out of jail free card’, described as ‘an amendment that would allow companies to be largely exempt from liability if they were part of an industry initiative to address issues along the value chain’ did not ‘get much traction and is unlikely to be included in a new compromise text’...

This article considers what is meant by a ‘safe harbour’ in this context, and how this concept differs from the concept of mHREDD as a legal standard of care which forms the basis of a legal defence to liability...

An approach which automatically exempts companies which undertake ‘tick-box’ approaches were expressly rejected by stakeholders during the EC study. It was pointed out that this approach detracts resources away from those issues which are really at risk in the circumstances, towards those which are listed in the standard or instrument. Rather, stakeholders preferred a general duty which references a standard of care that would take into account the specific circumstances applicable to each company’s operating context.

A ‘tick-box’ approach is understood to refer to a list of criteria that applies across the board to companies and is unrelated to their real human rights risks or the quality of their due diligence processes. This approach allows a company to meet the legal requirement by simply ‘ticking off’ these criteria superficially, without consideration of the company’s real adverse human rights impacts and whether they are being addressed. If the relevant evaluating body does not evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts, then the company can avoid liability by simply having them in place, regardless of their adequacy, how well they are implemented in practice or their actual impacts on the lives of rights-holders...

Accordingly, these external measures are not capable of being used as ‘safe harbour’ type substitutes for the individual, ongoing HRDD that is required of each company in terms of the UNGPs. Rather, in assessing the sufficiency of a company’s actions (and its potential legal liability) reference to a company’s adherence to an MSI standard, a third-party verification, its public statement or contractual clauses, would need to comprise important parts of a context-specific review of the particular circumstances....

Again noting the dangers of the ‘tick-box’ approach, the OHCHR Report on the relevance of HRDD to determinations of corporate liability notes that whilst a due diligence defence could ‘incentivize companies to meaningfully engage’ in human rights due diligence and ‘have important preventative effects’, it raises some serious concerns in ‘cases where superficial “check box” approaches to human rights due diligence might be used as a reference point instead of genuine attempts to identify, mitigate, and address human rights risks as contemplated in the UNGPs’...

As mentioned above, ‘safe harbour’ exemptions can operate in a way that excludes a right to action where the statutory criteria have been met. (This is contrasted with the legal standard of care where the appropriateness and sufficiency of the company’s due diligence process is evaluated as part of the court enquiry.) For example, the kind of ‘safe harbour’ provisions like the one which was envisaged in the above-mentioned German Draft Key Points would actually remove access to existing civil remedies. Rights-holders wishing to access remedy would have been in a worse position than they would have been, had they still been able to rely on the existing tort law framework...

[access restricted]


See here for an earlier version of the paper.

Информация о конфиденциальности

Этот сайт использует cookie и другие технологии веб-хранения. Вы можете указать свои параметры конфиденциальности ниже. Изменения вступят в силу немедленно.

Для получения дополнительной информации о нашем использовании веб-хранилища, пожалуйста, обратитесь к нашему Политика использования данных и файлов cookie

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Аналитические файлы cookie

ON
OFF

Когда вы заходите на наш веб-сайт, мы используем Google Analytics для сбора информации о вашем посещении. Принятие этого файла cookie позволит нам получить более подробную информацию о вашей навигации на сайте и улучшить то, как мы отображаем информацию. Вся аналитическая информация является анонимной, и мы не используем ее для вашей идентификации. Google предоставляет opt-out Google Analytics для всех популярных браузеров.

Рекламные файлы cookies

ON
OFF

Мы делимся новостями о бизнесе и правах человека через платформы третьих сторон, включая социальные сети и поисковые системы. Эти файлы cookie помогают нам понять эффективность этих реклам.

Ваши настройки конфиденциальности для этого сайта

Этот сайт использует файлы cookie и другие технологии веб-хранения, чтобы улучшить ваш опыт, помимо работы необходимых основных функций.