LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Harrison, James (2013)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: K1, HD
The United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, Professor John Ruggie, has constructed a new international framework, which is set to become the cornerstone for all action on human rights and business at the international level. The principle of human rights due diligence (HRDD) is the central component of the corporate duty to respect human rights within that framework. This article argues that Ruggie's HRDD principle contains the majority of the core procedural elements that a reasonable human rights impact assessment (HRIA) process should incorporate. It is likely that the majority of corporations will adopt HRIA as a mechanism for meeting their due diligence responsibilities. However, in the context of the contentious debate around corporate human rights performance, the current state of the art in HRIA gives rise to concerns about the credibility and robustness of likely practice. Additional requirements are therefore essential if HRDD is to have a significant impact on corporate human rights performance – requirements in relation to transparency; external participation and verification; and independent monitoring and review.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Aim for Human Rights. 2009. Guide to corporate human rights impact assessment tools [Internet]. Utrecht: Aim for Human Rights [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www. humanrightsimpact.org/fileadmin/hria_resources/Business_ centre/HRB_Booklet_2009.pdf
    • Aim for Human Rights. 2010. The health rights of women assessment instrument [Internet]. Utrecht: Aim for Human Rights, [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www. humanrightsimpact.org/fileadmin/hria_resources/HeRWAI_ Training/HeRWAI_engels_2010.pdf
    • Berne Declaration, Canadian Council for International Cooperation, and Misereor. 2010. Human rights impact assessments for trade and investment agreements [Internet]. Report of the Expert Seminar, 23 - 24 June 2010, Geneva [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.humanr ightsimpact.org/resource-database/publications/resources/ view/298/user_hria_publications/
    • Bond A, Pope J. 2012. The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(1):1 - 4.
    • Braithwaite J. 2008. Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    • De Beco G. 2009. Human rights impact assessments. Neth Q Hum Rights. 27:139 - 166.
    • De Schutter O. 2011. Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements (A/HRC/19/59/Add.5). 19 December 2011.
    • Deva S. 2012. Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implications for companies. Eur Company Law. 9(2):101 - 109.
    • Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). 2009. Equality impact assessment guidance: a step-by-step guide to integrating equality impact assessment into policymaking and review. London: EHRC.
    • European Inter-University Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (EIUC). 2006. Beyond activism: the impact of the resolutions and other activities of the European parliament in the field of human rights outside the European union [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http:// www.humanrightsimpact.org/fileadmin/hria_resources/ BEYONDACTIVISM_final.pdf
    • Harrison J. 2010. Human rights and trans-national corporations: establishing meaningful obligations. In: Faundez J, Tan C, editors. International law, economic globalisation and developing countries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 205 - 233.
    • Harrison J. 2010b. Measuring human rights: reflections on the practice of human rights impact assessment and lessons for the future Warwick school of law research paper no. 2010/26 [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼1706742
    • Harrison J. 2011. Human rights measurement: reflections on the current practice and future potential of human rights impact assessment. J Hum Rights Pract. 3(2):162 - 187.
    • Harrison J, Goller A. 2008. Trade and human rights: what does 'impact assessment' have to offer? Hum Rights Law Rev. 8(4):587 - 615.
    • Harrison J, Stephenson M-A. Human rights impact assessment: review of practice and guidance for future assessments. A Report for the Scottish Human Rights Commission [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www. scottishhumanrights.com/application/resources/documents/ NewHRIAFeb2011.doc
    • Harrison J, Stephenson M-A. 2013 (in press). Assessing the impact of the public spending cuts: taking human rights and equality seriously. In: Nolan A, O'Connell R, Harvey C, editors. Human rights and public Finance. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
    • Hepple B. 2011. Enforcing equality law: two steps forward and two steps backwards for reflexive regulation. Ind Law J. 40(4):315 - 335.
    • Human Rights Council. 2011a. Council holds dialogue with experts on summary executions, independence of judges and lawyers, transnational corporations [Internet]. (30 May 2011) [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/ en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID¼11082 &LangID¼E
    • Human Rights Council. 2011b. Resolution 17/4, human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. (A/HRC/17/L.17/Rev.1.)
    • Human Rights Council. 2011c. Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. (A/HRC/RES/ 17/4)
    • Human Rights Council. 2011d. Report of the special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, Addendum, Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements. (A/HRC/19/59/Add.5)
    • Hunt P, MacNaughton G. 2006. Impact assessments, poverty and human rights: a case study using the right to the highest attainable standard of health [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.who.int/hhr/Series_6_Impact% 20Assessments_Hunt_MacNaughton1.pdf
    • International Finance Corporation, Global Compact, International Business Leaders Forum. 2010. Guide to human rights impact assessment and management [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.ifc.org/hriam
    • International Council on Mining and Metals. 2012. Human rights in the mining and metals industry: integrating human rights due diligence into corporate risk management processes [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.b usiness-humanrights.org/media/documents/integrating-huma n-rights-due-diligence-1-mar-2012.pdf
    • IPIECA. 12 July 2012. Human rights impact assessments in due diligence [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.ipieca.org/news/20120705/human-rights-impactassessments-due-diligence
    • ISO. 2010. ISO 26000 guidance on social responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
    • Kemp D, Vanclay F. 2013. Human rights and impact assessment: clarifying the connections in practice. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 31(2):86 - 96. http//:dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517. 2013.782978
    • MacNaughton G, Hunt P. 2011. A human rights-based approach to social impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 355 - 368.
    • Melish T, Meidinger E. 2012. 'Protect, Respect, Remedy and Participate': new governance lessons for the Ruggie framework. In: Mares R, editor. The UN guiding principles on business and human rights: Foundations and implementation. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. p. 303 - 326.
    • Muchlinski PR, Weaver G. 2012. Human rights and business. Bus Ethics Q. 22(1):145 - 177.
    • Nomogaia. 2009a. Green resources human rights impact assessment [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.nomogaia.org/HRIA/Entries/2009/10/29_Gr een_Resources_-_HRIA_Sample_files/Green%20Resour ces%20HRIA%20and%20Monitoring.pdf
    • Nomogaia. 2009b. Human rights impact assessment on the proposed nuiguyo gold mine in Indonesia [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.nomogaia.org/ HRIA/Entries/2009/1/22_The_Nuiguyo_Project_-_HRIA_ Sample_files/Nuiguyo%20Gold%20Project%20HRIA.pdf
    • Nomogaia. 2010a. Human rights impact assessment - DRAFT for company consultation and comment, paladin energy - kayelekera project [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.nomogaia.org/HRIA/Entries/2010/3/ 23_Paladin_Energy_-_HRIA_Sample.html
    • Nomogaia. 2010b. Dole human rights impact assessment [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www. nomogaia.org/HRIA/Entries/2010/12/3_Dole_Fresh_Fruit_- _HRIA_Sample_files/Dole%20HRIA%20Draft.pdf
    • Nomogaia. 2012. Human rights impact assessment: A toolkit for practitioners conducting corporate HRIAs [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.nomogaia.org/ HRIA_Tools_files/HRIA%203.0%20Toolkit.pdf
    • OECD. 2011. OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. 2011 ed. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
    • On Common Ground Consultants Inc [Internet]. 2010. Human rights assessment of goldcorp's Marlin mine [Internet]. Vancouver, BC, Canada: On Common Ground Consultants Inc, [cited 2013 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.hria-gua temala.com/en/MarlinHumanRights.htm
    • Paasch A, Garbers F, Hirsch T. 2007. Trade policies and hunger: The impact of trade liberalisation on the right to food of rice farming communities in Ghana, honduras and Indonesia [Internet]. Geneva: Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance [cited 2013 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.e-alliance.ch/en/s/ food/rice/
    • Parker C, Howe J. 2012. Ruggie's diplomatic project and its missing regulatory infrastructure. In: Mares R, editor. The UN guiding principles on business and human rights: foundations and implementation. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. p. 273 - 302.
    • Redmond P. 2003. Transnational enterprises and human rights: Options for standard setting and compliance. Int Lawyer. 37:69 - 102.
    • Rights and Democracy. 2007. Human rights impact assessments for foreign investment projects: learning from community experiences in the Philippines, tibet, the democratic republic of Congo, Argentina, and Peru. Montreal: Rights and Democracy. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
    • Ruggie J. 2007a. Business and human rights: Mapping international standards of responsibility and accountability for corporate acts. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/035
    • Ruggie J. 2007b. Business and human rights: The evolving international agenda. Am J Int Law. 101(4):819 - 840.
    • Ruggie J. 2008a. Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5
    • Ruggie J. 2008b. A survey of the scope and pattern of alleged corporate-related human rights abuse. UN Doc. A/HRC/ 8/5/Add.2
    • Ruggie J. 2010. Business and human rights: further steps toward the operationalization of the 'protect, respect and remedy' framework. UN Doc A/HRC/14/27
    • Ruggie J. 2011. Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations 'protect, respect and remedy'. Framework Human Rights Council UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31
    • Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC). 2012. Annual report 2011/12 [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.scottishhumanrights.com/application/reso urces/documents/SHRCAnnualReport2011_12Final.pdf
    • Smith G, Freeman B. 2002. Human rights assessment of the proposed tangguh LNG project: Summary of recommendations and conclusions [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/indonesia/ STAGING/home_assets/downloads/h/Tangguh_HRIA.pdf
    • Thailand National Human Rights Commission. 2006. Report on results of Examination of human rights violations.
    • UK Government. 2011. Business and human rights toolkit: How UK overseas missions can promote good conduct by UK companies [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/35451/business-toolkit.pdf
    • United Nations News Centre. 2011. UN human rights council endorses principles to ensure businesses respect human rights [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www. un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID¼38742
    • Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21(1):5 - 12.
    • Vanclay F, Esteves AM. 2011. Current issues and trends in social impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 3 - 19.
    • Walker S. 2009. The future of human rights impact assessments of trade agreements. Brussels: Intersentia.
    • Zuckerman A. 1994. Public interest immunity - a matter of prime judicial responsibility. Mod Law Rev. 57(5):703 - 725.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article