B.B.A. L.L.B (Hons.

Final Draft

Human Rights Law

Research Project Topic: Human Rights Violation in Corporate Businesses

Submitted by:

Vanshika Gupta

4th BBA LLB (Hons)

Roll no. : A052

vdoshar@[Link]

Submitted to:

Prof. Afrin Khan

School of Law,

NMIMS (Deemed to be University)

This paper basically focuses on human rights violation in corporate businesses. The paper tries to
focus on the root cause of human rights violation and says that the actual perpetrators should be
held responsible for the same. Through the empirical research the author also tries to find out the
current status quo of human rights violation in corporate businesses and whether there are
remedies available for the same. There should not be gender based discrimination. There should
be fair working environment and the employees should not be exploited and they should have
freedom of speech and expression.

Introduction

Human rights are basic rights given to human beings. Human rights are rights inherent to all
human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other
status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture,
freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone
is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. In corporate businesses these human rights are
violated by the decision makers to benefit the owners. Companies with an online presence need
to make sure that they respect people’s right to privacy and uphold data protection laws, care
home providers need to treat the people they look after with dignity and respect and all
businesses have an obligation to ensure safe working conditions for their staff. Aside from it
being the right thing to, it also makes good business sense to respect human rights. Businesses
can find themselves involved in lawsuits, suffering reputational harm and missing out on
business opportunities and investments as well as the chance of recruiting the best new
employees because of the work environment.1

1
Human rights and business
[Link]
Research Methodology

The method employed for research for this project is empirical in nature which has been done via
online survey and other online material. The researcher went through both primary and
secondary research and has relied upon the survey conducted, the books and articles present in
the library or on the internet which have been mentioned as footnotes in order to ensure
credibility of sources.

The present project is based on both primary and secondary sources. The project is not only
limited to provisions and judgments but also contains primary data as well.
Literature Review

 “With the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011
(‘UNGPs’), which highlight a ‘responsibility to respect’ human rights on businesses,
those human rights included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’),
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’) and Core Labour Standards
(‘CLS’), became universally applicable standards for supply chain governance. What is
interesting to note is the widespread endorsement of the UNGPs by corporations and
international economic institutions the world over, making it the gold standard of human
rights obligations on businesses.”2 The author has tried to lay emphasis on the importance
of human rights and has said that the human rights should be respected.
 “Corporations have infringed human dignity through direct corporate activities, or
through cooperation with state actors. Infringement of human rights by non-state actors
has created a view that attempts to establish a legal process to impose human rights
obligations directly on corporations to propose that corporations be held responsible for
human rights abuses that take place in their sphere of operations.” 3 The author through
his article has said that there is human rights violation both by the state actors and non-
state actors both should be held responsible and not only the state actors.
 “Expanding the array of actors understood to have a responsibility to respect human
rights could serve to aid an under-resourced and overburdened human rights system to
advance the rights protections that it was created to promote. While human rights
activists have traditionally turned to intergovernmental institutions and state governments
to protect rights and to remedy violations, the recent trend is to expand our understanding
of the range of actors responsible for impacting the enjoyment of human rights” 4 The

2
Rashmi Venkatesan, GENDER, ALTERITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS: FREEDOM IN A FISHBOWL (BOOK REVIEW),

3
Changrok Soh, Extending Corporate Liability to Human Rights Violations in Asia, JOURNAL OF
INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES, Volume 20, Number 1.
[Link]
4
Expanding the Array of Accountable Actors: Human Rights and Corporate Social Responsibility, Erika George
[Link]
author has emphasized that we need to find out the actual perpetrators or actors who are
responsible for the human rights violation.
Discrimination at workplace (Status quo in India)

I interviewed 20 people who are a part of corporate business to know whether they have faced
any sort of discrimination at workplace or their human rights were violated to which 11 people
said no and 6 people said yes through which we can get an idea that discrimination is still
prevalent in corporate businesses but not to extremity.

Then, I asked them whether they knew how to bring a legal claim against a business if their legal
rights are violated to which 10 people said no and 8 said yes, through this we can realize that
there a need for awareness amongst people pertaining to the remedies available for them if their
legal rights are violated.

Later, I asked them about the options available for them to enforce their rights in their respective
offices to which 9 people chose to go to the court, 8 people chose alternate dispute resolution and
2 people said that they had a committee in their respective offices which dealt with matters
related to human rights violation. In my opinion, corporate businesses should focus more on in-
house structural redressal system.

I also asked them in the end that do they have any corporate grievance mechanism or regulatory
body to hear their grievances in the office to which 15 people gave a positive response through
which we can assume that corporate business do take care of the human rights of their employees
but not 100% as everyone did not reply affirmly.

A long line of cases has followed since the first victory of the kind in Doe v. Unocal.5 Standing
by the courageous clients and have since taken on corporations like Shell, Chevron,
and Caterpillar for gross human rights violations committed outside the United States, and have
supported efforts to ensure corporate accountability by filing amicus briefs in U.S. courts and
contributing to corporate accountability efforts at the international level.6 Emphasis should be
laid on corporate accountability in order to reduce human rights violation in corporate
businesses.

5
Doe v. Unocal , 395 F.3d 978.
6
Centre for Constitutional Rights
[Link]
Exploitative supply chains for all businesses in the production hierarchy. Fixing human rights
responsibilities on big corporations may improve certain corporate practices. It has also made
global capital as the custodian of human rights of third world workers.

Making a mention of violations can lead to a loss of goodwill for a company before its
shareholders but the said move could serve as a positive deterrence in the long run. There should
be mutual trust and dignity. Affecting the quality of public and private services, particularly
women from accessing and remaining and advancing in the labour market.

The major kind of discrimination faced at work place are gender discrimination, including:
sexual harassment, equal pay issues, stalled promotion or career development based on gender,
pregnancy discrimination, marital status discrimination or parental status discrimination, gender
identity issues.
Remedies for Human rights violation

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is set to introduce norms that will require corporate businesses
to make human rights violation a part of their annual report. The companies will be required to
put in writing to the government their respect for human rights and also put forth the measures
for the cause.

The new guidelines are an improvement on CSR issued in 2009. The norms have been kept
voluntary but the company will have to provide a reason if they are not putting in the procedure
that will guard against violation of human rights. It was said that the companies will have to
create structures for redressal of grievances. The government has adopted the strategy of “apply
or explain”, which effectively means any nonconformity with the norms will have to be reported
with reasons.7
In early 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.8 to address
the issue. This case determined whether victims of human rights abuses anywhere in the world
can continue to sue their alleged perpetrators, including businesses, in U.S. civil court. The
decision had an important impact on whether the provisions of ATCA allow victims to seek
justice against alleged corporate abuses. It was held that alien torts does not confer jurisdiction.

It also had repercussions for the future of human rights litigation. Victims might lose a unique
avenue for redress if the Supreme Court denies jurisdiction to hear the cases, sending a
discordant signal about corporate accountability on business and human rights.

The UN Framework and Guiding Principles affirm that access to remedies for alleged human
rights abuses by corporations is a key dimension in effectively discharging both states’ duty to
protect, as well as corporations’ responsibility to respect human rights.

7
Souvik Sanyal, Human rights violations may appear in companies’ annual reports, The Economic Times

[Link]
companies-annual-reports/articleshow/[Link]?
utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

8
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,569 U.S. 108 (2013).
The Supreme Court’s review of ATCA highlights the current lack of available alternatives to
seek redress for transnational human rights claims elsewhere, revealing the clear need worldwide
for more accessible, responsive and less costly grievance mechanisms. 9 In the past human rights
were never given importance and that is the reason why people are still facing problems.

Also, human rights should be respected in cyber spaces. But some companies have colluded with
security forces by providing governments with surveillance technology to track down dissidents.
Others have unquestioningly accepted government orders to restrict communication, or in the
past, divulged the identity of users, leading to their arrest.

Technology companies will have to understand the consequences of their relationships with

These excellent initiatives and enlightened actions of companies to protect rights are necessary,
but governments will be expected to do more to ensure that the right of freedom of expression is
not undermined in the virtual world.

The UN Guiding Principles and Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework did much to clarify the
duties and responsibilities of States and business, but perhaps their most tangible contribution to
improving human rights performances of business lies in the Framework’s emphasis on
community consultation within human rights due diligence and remedies.

9
Institute of Human Rights and Businesses
[Link]
Conclusion/ Suggestions

A reference to the preamble of the International Labour Organization which clearly shows the
intention of recognizing the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and
harassment, including gender based violence and harassment. It also recognizes that
violence and harassment in the world of work can constitute a human rights violation or abuse,
and that violence and harassment is a threat to equal opportunities, is unacceptable and
incompatible with decent work.10

 More encouragement should be given to negotiating binding treaties and pushing for
transparent supply chains.
 Violence and harassment is incompatible with the promotion of sustainable enterprises
and impacts negatively on the organization of work, workplace relations, worker
engagement, enterprise reputation and productivity.
 Gender based violence and harassment disproportionately affects women and girls, and
recognizing that an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach, which tackles
underlying causes and risk factors, including gender stereotypes, multiple and
intersecting forms of discrimination, and unequal gender-based power relations is
essential to ending violence and harassment in the world of work.
 Until we recognize that corporate governance and ownership are critical human rights
issues, I fear we will remain in an exhausting ‘whack-a-mole’ situation: endlessly
responding to abuses, but never addressing the incentives and decision-making structures
that cause them. If we really want businesses to operate equitably, then they need to be
governed and owned equitably.11

10
C190 - Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190)
International Labour Organization
[Link]

11
How to eradicate human rights abuses? Change the corporate model, Business and Human Rights Resource
Centre

[Link]
 The Board is generally legally prohibited from placing societal or community interest
above shareholders. This means that the decision makers are not placed in a position to
make decisions which would consider the impact on human rights due to their decisions.
 Companies are incentivized and obligated to make decisions that will maximize the
shareholders profit keeping aside the human rights of the employees. This creates
economic inequality. But if the company is made accountable to the people who actually
help them in making profits rather than being accountable to the shareholders, this issue
can be resolved.
 The legality and operational accountability of the company towards its workers and other
stakeholders should be taken into consideration. If there is a legislative reform on this
model then it’ll incentivize or mandate it.

 There are deep hurdles: legislative barriers, access to capital, lack of awareness or
education around alternative models, the need for more research and innovation, and for
us to listen to communities and those with lived experience about how to make these
changes work. But if we do not soon join these movements in promoting alternative
economic governance and ownership models, we may find ourselves complicit in
perpetuating the root cause of corporate abuse.
 Equal opportunities should be given to women there should not be any gender
discrimination.