2019 UN Forum on Business and Human Rights

Snapshot presented by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and Quinn Emanuel

Webcast of the session:
Meeting link
Meeting number: 843 764 408
Password: 627pYcpd

Description:
In March 2017, the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights released a report on business and human rights in which it proposed the introduction of a ‘failure to prevent’ mechanism for corporate human rights abuses. The Committee on Human Rights suggested that such a mechanism could be modelled along the same lines as section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010. One of the most significant innovations of the Bribery Act lies in the introduction of a new offence of failure on the part of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery being committed in connection with its business, as set out in section 7 of the Act. BIICL and international law firm Quinn Emanuel have conducted a research into the feasibility and options of such a ‘failure to prevent’ mechanism. The study has explored what such a mechanism could look like, whether it would be criminal or similar, and how it could interact with the concept of human rights due diligence described in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The study has analysed the key legal elements of the mechanism such as the duty it would impose: a duty of prevention of human rights abuses, whether it would establish human rights due diligence as a defence and whether it would establish criminal or civil liability.

The project also consisted of a business survey to find out what business experience with the UK Bribery Act and with existing human rights regulation has been and whether or not business would support such a failure to prevent mechanism. The results show an overall support by business. For example, among other things, the survey found out that:

• 65% of surveyed businesses think that existing law doesn’t provide business with clarity about what are corporate human rights obligations;
• 69% think that existing law doesn’t provide business with sufficient legal certainty about which procedures are required to avoid legal risks for human rights abuses;
• 82% think that additional regulation on corporate human rights obligations may provide benefits for business through providing legal certainty;
• 75% think that additional regulation on corporate human rights obligations may provide benefits for business through facilitating leverage with third-party businesses (including the supply-chain); and
• 74% think that additional regulation on corporate human rights obligations may provide benefits for business through providing legal certainty through levelling the playing field by holding competitors and suppliers to the same standards.