Business, CSR and Human Rights

Over the last few decades, the impact and duty of business on labour, the environment, and culture has become a hot topic of debate, with public and academic discourse like “corporate social responsibility” becoming commonplace. In the mid-1990s, discussions regarding corporations’ obligations to uphold human rights within their spheres of power grew in intensity. The increasing knowledge of corporations’ practices and calls on them to exercise social responsibility and uphold human rights have sparked these debates. Human rights violations and proclamations of their development are often heard in a variety of contexts: legal, political, social, and economic. There may be disagreement over the universality of human rights, arguing for cultural particular, yet these rights attempt to defend the lives and dignity of all human beings.

Without a doubt, the company has had and continues to have a positive effect on the security and promotion of fundamental human and labour rights. Many of these consequences have far-reaching implications for the exercise of human rights, which are described as the intrinsic dignity and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Nonetheless, detrimental consequences for workers, including violations of human rights, have been widely reported. Human rights and labour rights abuses are also exacerbated by a lack of socially responsible corporate conduct, accountability and responsibility.

After reviewing more than 300 studies on suspected corporate human rights violations, John Ruggie, the former UN Secretary-Special General Representative on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Companies and Other Business Enterprises (SGSR) concluded that “there are few, if any, globally recognized rights that business cannot impact–or be perceived to impact–in any way.”

The current abuse and infringement of workers’ rights in the garment industry, in particular, is well documented. The global supply chain has resulted in a corporation of anonymous regulators that can be held personally liable for human or labour rights violations. Sweatshops operated by contractors and subcontractors taking advantage of poor regulatory mechanisms in less developed countries (such as Bangladesh) have prompted brand-conscious companies to closely track their supply chains, which may include hundreds or thousands of suppliers in dozens of countries. Retailers and manufacturers are often averse to corporate social obligations and are often immune from legal responsibility because employees have no direct association with these businesses, despite the fact that the manufacturing businesses obviously benefit from their labour.

Human and labour rights violations or abuses in these companies may be caused by ignorance, negligence, mendacity, excessive profit-earning motivation, political influence or even design. Such infractions or abuses can occur in industrialized, developing, or underdeveloped countries, though their practice may differ in the degree of intensity. However, the likelihood of CSR and human rights violations has increased in developing and undeveloped countries as a result of the relocation of production plants from developed to these countries. Furthermore, weak governance and lack of accountability are significant setbacks to these countries in ensuring CSR and labour rights.

For example, Rana Plaza’s collapse in 2013 was one of the most horrific labour and human rights destruction examples. According to government sources, the structure collapsed, killing 1,132 people and injuring almost 2,500, though the civil assumption of these causalities was more. It was an eight-story commercial structure on the outskirts of Dhaka where five textile companies produced clothing for popular global brands such as Primark (UK), Joe Fresh (Canada), Cato Fashion (USA), Benetton (Italy), Mango (Spain), and Tex Mark (Denmark) to name a few. This tragedy became a symbol of the fashion industry’s widespread breaches of labour and human rights, especially in Third World countries.

Two platforms, e.g., Accord and Alliance, were formed by the profit beneficiaries of these global brands due to the rapid reactions from the worldwide communities against these labour and human rights violations to ensure their safety, security, and other rights, e.g., the right to unionize.

Following the collapse of Rana Plaza in 2013, Accord, a European RMG retailer initiative, began working in Bangladesh’s readymade garment sector to improve factory safety standards over a five-year period that ended in May 2019.

North American buyers and retailers developed the Alliance for a five-year plan that set timetables and responsibility for inspections, training, and worker empowerment programs in Bangladesh’s readymade garment sector for the same reason in the same year.

However, while the Accord was a multi-stakeholder project with a significant role for workers’ representation and a high level of openness, the Alliance was more akin to corporate responsibility and outlawed the engagement of its stakeholders. Furthermore, it was entirely controlled by owners with limited and selective reporting.

Despite the fact that they both sought to improve the building’s safety and health hazards, their roles were a little contentious in other ways. They failed to ensure that these RMG factories’ corporate social responsibilities were addressed. Furthermore, their contribution to the formation of trade unions in these industries and the establishment of a global minimum wage standard was insufficient.

While the global benchmark for the lowest monthly wage is $95, Bangladeshi RMG workers’ monthly income is roughly $70, the lowest in the world, according to a survey by the Japan External Trade Organization published in 2018.

In this vein, Nazma Akter, a garment worker leader and activist, claimed that the role of foreign buyers in defending labour rights is controversial. They apply a number of conditions to ensure that our local outsourcing companies will make their production supply timely and accurately. Nonetheless, they are disinclined to raise employee’s salaries, and their role in safeguarding the CSR of these supplying firms is up in the air.

However, it is necessary to consider how to ensure CSR and defend human and labour rights violations. Though there is an academic dilemma about whether CSR should be voluntary or mandatory, the political agreement is growing around the world in favor of implementing CSR. Furthermore, there is rising pressure from civil society and other stakeholders (e.g., consumers) worldwide to make CSR obligatory for businesses.

Many governments, realizing the importance of CSR, have already attempted to legislate it amid stiff opposition from corporate organizations. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain, China, France, South Africa and the U.S., to name a few, have already passed CSR legislation that encourages good corporate citizenship.

The writer is a PhD candidate at the University of Auckland and an Assistant Professor at United International University (on study leave).