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

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

故事

2021年10月21日

QC says Boohoo could have been liable for human rights breaches under a new UK law

QC says Boohoo could have been liable for human rights breaches under a new UK law

A new legal review into Boohoo’s Leicester supply chain finds the fast fashion brand could have been held liable under a UK mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence law called for by rights groups.

The publication of the review comes at the same time as more than 30 leading UK businesses and investors such as ASOS, Primark, John Lewis and Tesco call on the Government to introduce a new mHRDD law.

The review, by Tim Otty QC and Naina Patel of Blackstone Chambers - commissioned by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and Corporate Justice Coalition - builds on the finding in Boohoo’s own review into its supply chain that: “There may be evidence of breaches of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”

In the review, Otty and Patel say: “Boohoo could have been found liable for breaches of the Guiding Principles under mandatory human rights due diligence/UK ‘failure to prevent’ legislation in the form of the BIICL Model Legal Provision, had such legislation been in place during the relevant period of time.”

“Of course, it is difficult to speculate as to whether Boohoo might have behaved differently had such legislation been in place.”

They add: “However, Boohoo’s story is a compelling example of a situation in which such legislation might have made a difference, either by encouraging appropriate action to be taken earlier or by providing a means of redress for those affected by the allegations found to be substantially true.”

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) have no force of law in the UK, and as Boohoo’s review notes: “...thus a breach could not by and of itself amount to the commission of a criminal offence”.

The review from Blackstone Chambers notes that various organisations and institutions have called for or analysed the potential of the UNGPs being incorporated into a new UK law, including the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. It also notes the development of such laws in other jurisdictions including France, Finland, Germany, Norway and Switzerland.

時間線

隱私資訊

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡存儲技術。您可以在下方設置您的隱私選項。您所作的更改將立即生效。

有關我們使用網絡儲存技術的更多資訊,請參閱我們的 數據使用和 Cookie 政策

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.

分析cookie

ON
OFF

您瀏覽本網頁時我們將以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie將有助我們理解您的瀏覽資訊,並協助我們改善呈現資訊的方法。所有分析資訊都以匿名方式收集,我們並不能用相關資訊得到您的個人信息。谷歌在所有主要瀏覽器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加應用程式。

市場營銷cookies

ON
OFF

我們從第三方網站獲得企業責任資訊,當中包括社交媒體和搜尋引擎。這些cookie協助我們理解相關瀏覽數據。

您在此網站上的隱私選項

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡儲存技術來增強您在必要核心功能之外的體驗。