Search

This thesis aims to investigate the process of consulting businesses on human rights through the concept of rationalisation. Corporations have struggled to act in accordance with what is considered responsible business conduct and this has put their legitimacy at risk. To align with the international standards on human rights, corporations have increasingly sought consulting on the topic. Previous research has criticised to what degree human rights can be reconciled with the corporate format and interests. Carrying out a qualitative case study on Human Rights Consulting, this thesis unpacks the process of introducing human rights in the corporation. We find that human rights become rationalised in corporations through referring to the UNGP, concretisation of human rights training and; management tools. At the same time, mapping the corporations serves as a precondition for rationalising human rights in the corporation. This thesis contributes to the theory of rationalisation by displaying how the social actions of consulting on human rights can be understood as expressions of rationalisation.

Operating through complex supply chains and multiple jurisdictions, today’s business enterprises can outsource manufacturing to different parts of the world where they can take advantage of low labour- and production costs. In the global quest for businesses to maximise their profits, deteriorating working conditions for offshore labour workers are increasing the risks of human rights abuses. Such abuses often take the form of ‘modern slavery’, which refers to situations of exploitation in which labour workers are trapped and unable to leave due to threats, violence, deception, abuse of power or other forms of coercion. In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) enacted the Modern Slavery Act (MSA), aimed at combatting modern slavery by requiring business enterprises to be transparent with the steps they have taken to ensure that modern slavery is not taking place within their supply chains. By putting pressure on business enterprises to display their actions taken to address adverse human rights impacts, the MSA has brought the responsibility of business enterprises to conduct ‘human rights due diligence’ (HRDD) – as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - into domestic law. While the MSA has been regarded as a ‘world-leading instrument’ and a ‘historic milestone’ by the UK government, its effectiveness in counteracting modern slavery has been questioned in various studies, pointing towards a risk that the MSA is allowing human rights abuses to prevail under a form of a legal veil. Bearing in mind the country’s long colonial history, the enactment of the MSA can be seen as carrying an important symbolic value for the UK when it comes to taking accountability for human rights abuses committed overseas. However, adopting weak or ineffective legislation could instead, paradoxically, reflect an interest by the UK government to maintain beneficial trade relationships based on exploitative working conditions in a manner that reflects a contin

Operating through complex supply chains and multiple jurisdictions, today’s business enterprises can outsource manufacturing to different parts of the world where they can take advantage of low labour- and production costs. In the global quest for businesses to maximise their profits, deteriorating working conditions for offshore labour workers are increasing the risks of human rights abuses. Such abuses often take the form of ‘modern slavery’, which refers to situations of exploitation in which labour workers are trapped and unable to leave due to threats, violence, deception, abuse of power or other forms of coercion. In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) enacted the Modern Slavery Act (MSA), aimed at combatting modern slavery by requiring business enterprises to be transparent with the steps they have taken to ensure that modern slavery is not taking place within their supply chains. By putting pressure on business enterprises to display their actions taken to address adverse human rights impacts, the MSA has brought the responsibility of business enterprises to conduct ‘human rights due diligence’ (HRDD) – as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - into domestic law. While the MSA has been regarded as a ‘world-leading instrument’ and a ‘historic milestone’ by the UK government, its effectiveness in counteracting modern slavery has been questioned in various studies, pointing towards a risk that the MSA is allowing human rights abuses to prevail under a form of a legal veil. Bearing in mind the country’s long colonial history, the enactment of the MSA can be seen as carrying an important symbolic value for the UK when it comes to taking accountability for human rights abuses committed overseas. However, adopting weak or ineffective legislation could instead, paradoxically, reflect an interest by the UK government to maintain beneficial trade relationships based on exploitative working conditions in a manner that reflects a contin

This thesis aims to investigate the process of consulting businesses on human rights through the concept of rationalisation. Corporations have struggled to act in accordance with what is considered responsible business conduct and this has put their legitimacy at risk. To align with the international standards on human rights, corporations have increasingly sought consulting on the topic. Previous research has criticised to what degree human rights can be reconciled with the corporate format and interests. Carrying out a qualitative case study on Human Rights Consulting, this thesis unpacks the process of introducing human rights in the corporation. We find that human rights become rationalised in corporations through referring to the UNGP, concretisation of human rights training and; management tools. At the same time, mapping the corporations serves as a precondition for rationalising human rights in the corporation. This thesis contributes to the theory of rationalisation by displaying how the social actions of consulting on human rights can be understood as expressions of rationalisation.

Systemic racism is a prevalent and longstanding problem in society that gained widespread public interest through the Black Lives Matter movement. Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, the movement expanded to Austria and brought heightened attention to the racialized branding of an Austrian brewery. Here, this expansion contributed to an existing resistance of the NO MOHR campaign against the racialized branding. The company, having already been criticized for nearly ten years for using racial stereotyping in the brand logo and a derogatory brand name, eventually presented a slight change in the branding in 2022. This study examines the problem of racialized branding from a Business and Human Rights perspective, as the link between human rights and racialized branding is currently underrepresented in research. The ground for the analysis lays in the discourse on the racialized branding of the Austrian company. The discourse, consisting of statements by the protest campaign and the company, as well as newspaper articles published on the case, is the primary data within which this study is grounded. The data is analyzed through Critical Discourse Analysis and discussed in the broader context of Austria’s Business and Human Rights field and in consideration of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is argued that this international standard on Business and Human Rights is lacking implementation on a state and business level.

Company-administered grievance processes for handling complaints by external stakeholders (CGPs) have been endorsed by international standards as a means to provide remedy and to improve companies’ risk management. Despite their apparent proliferation in practice, and a growing body of academic literature which references them, they remain a nebulous and undertheorized phenomenon. A CGP can be anything from a suggestion box to a private court determining what awards a victim of human rights abuses will receive. Legal scholarship has often described CGPs as mechanisms to provide victims of human rights abuses with an effective remedy. However, in the academic literature more broadly, CGPs are often described as a tool to foster better company-community relations or as pursuing corporate objectives and countering community mobilization against company projects. These trends accompany unique narratives as to the role of governments, companies, and communities in relation to one another. This Article systematically reviews 117 academic publications on CGPs across various domains including law, human rights, environmental policy, development, natural resources, corporate social responsibility and business ethics. It creates an integrative framework to organize this literature against three broader trends: effective remedy, community relations, and private power. It highlights different research trends, explains underlying disagreements, identifies methodological shortcomings, and identifies opportunities for interdisciplinary engagement in developing theory on this relatively new phenomenon.

There has been a recent resurgence in scholarly work concerned with the economics of human rights. This article builds on this work to develop a conceptual framework of human rights and political economy. It provides a theoretical basis for the turn to human rights and economics, rooted in the increasing micro-management of the economy by liberal states that can constitute the state planning of material distribution within the state. It demonstrates that human rights principles do apply to economic questions and elaborates methods and practices to realize the potential of rights in this arena. The article applies these methods and conceptualizations to state obligations and business responsibilities to excavate current limits and potentials of rights and contextualizes the project within left critiques of rights and “claim right” perspectives.

Business-related human rights violations are a recurring problem in the world. Just over 10 years ago, Sweden adopted the UN's guiding principles for business and human rights, in 2015 Sweden presented an action plan for business and human rights, and in 2016 there was a law regarding sustainability reporting for companies. The Swedish government repeatedly states that business and human rights go hand in hand and expresses high expectations for Swedish companies to respect human rights. In order to carry out the study of both the Swedish state's and Swedish companies' compliance with the UN's guiding principles, the Uyghurs' exposure to forced labor in Xinjiang and three Swedish companies are used as study objects. The result of the study leaves much to be desired from the Swedish state's side, as it acted very passively in the matter.

Business-related human rights violations are a recurring problem in the world. Just over 10 years ago, Sweden adopted the UN's guiding principles for business and human rights, in 2015 Sweden presented an action plan for business and human rights, and in 2016 there was a law regarding sustainability reporting for companies. The Swedish government repeatedly states that business and human rights go hand in hand and expresses high expectations for Swedish companies to respect human rights. In order to carry out the study of both the Swedish state's and Swedish companies' compliance with the UN's guiding principles, the Uyghurs' exposure to forced labor in Xinjiang and three Swedish companies are used as study objects. The result of the study leaves much to be desired from the Swedish state's side, as it acted very passively in the matter.

There is an increasing demand for responsible business conduct. Different mechanisms have been developed to promote and ensure such responsibility within corporate operations. Two of such mechanisms are the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These two UN mechanisms have been widely implemented into corporate operations with the objective to attain respect for human rights. However, adverse impacts on human rights continuously flourish in corporate value chains and different stakeholders are continuously affected by corporate operations. This thesis investigates three corporations that have implemented the UNGPs and the SDGs into their business operations. All three corporations are Danish supermarket chains that have experienced adverse impacts on human rights in their value chains. Though the two UN mechanisms have been implemented, the supermarket chains continuously experience human rights abuse in their operations. Therefore, Roscoe Pound’s (1910) concept of law in books and law in action elucidates the gap between the aims of the UNGPs and the SDGs and their actual impacts on the operations of the three supermarket chains. To comprehend how the three corporations generate meaning of the two UN mechanisms and thus, how these mechanisms have been implemented, Susan Silbey’s and Patricia Ewicks concept of legal consciousness is applied. The findings indicate that the supermarket chains find little purpose and understanding of these mechanisms and that the main objective to implement them has been to respond to external expectations. Therefore, there is a vital gap between the aims of the UNGPs and the SDGs and their actual influence on the operations of supermarket chains. This thesis concludes that the UNGPs and the SDGs have not contributed to respect for human rights in the corporate value chains of the supermarket chains, at least not to the aspired extent.

The article traces the adverse human rights impacts of business responses to COVID-19 in the garment sector to long-standing systemic problems in global supply chain management. It scrutinizes attempts by States and business enterprises in Europe to address these adverse impacts in the light of the ongoing implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The article discerns a shift in the European legal and policy framework from early attempts to promote corporate social responsibility to more recent modalities of home state regulation of corporations. In response to concerns that the EU’s regulatory turn in business and human rights may exhaust itself in perpetuating economic imperialism and market hegemony, the article highlights the importance of ensuring access to judicial remedies for foreign victims of business-related human rights violations; and of grounding unilateral home state regulation in a multilateral international legal framework.

Company-administered grievance processes for handling complaints by external stakeholders (CGPs) have been endorsed by international standards as a means to provide remedy and to improve companies’ risk management. Despite their apparent proliferation in practice, and a growing body of academic literature which references them, they remain a nebulous and undertheorized phenomenon. A CGP can be anything from a suggestion box to a private court determining what awards a victim of human rights abuses will receive. Legal scholarship has often described CGPs as mechanisms to provide victims of human rights abuses with an effective remedy. However, in the academic literature more broadly, CGPs are often described as a tool to foster better company-community relations or as pursuing corporate objectives and countering community mobilization against company projects. These trends accompany unique narratives as to the role of governments, companies, and communities in relation to one another. This Article systematically reviews 117 academic publications on CGPs across various domains including law, human rights, environmental policy, development, natural resources, corporate social responsibility and business ethics. It creates an integrative framework to organize this literature against three broader trends: effective remedy, community relations, and private power. It highlights different research trends, explains underlying disagreements, identifies methodological shortcomings, and identifies opportunities for interdisciplinary engagement in developing theory on this relatively new phenomenon.

Transnational corporations are today in general not considered to be obligated under international law to respect human rights. In states where the protection of human rights through national law is weak corporations thus may violate human rights without risking becoming subjects to legal santioncs. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether or not the conclusion of a treaty that obligates transnational corporations directly under international law to respect human rights would be, on one hand, desirable and, on the other hand, legally and practically possible. For this purpose, the study investigates the content, purpose and effect of and criticism against the UNGPs – the only instrument adopted by the UN that regulates business and human rights. For the same purpose the study furtheron examines a number of issues discussed within the legal doctrine regarding the idea of obligating transnational corporations under international law to respect human rights. In the study it is established that the UNGPs have gained support among states and corporations but that the adoption of the instrument have not resulted in any major change in corporate behaviour. Moreover, the UNGPs have among many things been criticized for being too vaguely formulated and for claiming too little from corporations. Whether a treaty binding corporations to respect human rights is desireable or not is a subjective question. The answer according to the author of the study is, however, yes. The issues addressed within the essay concerning the idea of a corporate-binding treaty are the corporate influence on states’ legal and political decision-making; the difficulties in creating corporate compliance; the risk of impeding national progress in strengthening the protection of human rights; the question of where to draw the line between corporate and state obligations regarding human rights and the question of whether enough international consensus for a treaty to be concluded is ever to be, Transnationella företag anses idag generellt sett inte vara folkrättsligt skyldiga att respektera mänskliga rättigheter. I stater där det nationella skyddet av mänskliga rättigheter brister tillåts således företag begå kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter utan att träffas av juridiska sanktioner. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om en traktat som direkt gör transnationella företag folkrättsligt skyldiga att respektera mänskliga rättigheter vore dels önskvärd, dels rättsligt och praktiskt möjlig. I detta syfte undersöks innehållet och syftet hos, verkan av samt kritiken gentemot UNGP – det enda instrument antaget av FN som reglerar företag och mänskliga rättigheter. I samma syfte undersöks ett antal problem som diskuterats angående idén att göra transnationella företag folkrättsligt skyldiga att respektera mänskliga rättigheter. I uppsatsen konstateras att UNGP har vunnit stöd hos stater och företag men att antagandet av instrumentet i praktiken inte har inneburit några större förändringar vad avser företags faktiska beteenden. Vidare har UNGP bland annat kritiserats för att vara för vagt formulerat och för att ställa för låga krav på företag. Huruvida en traktat som binder företag att respektera mänskliga rättigheter vore önskvärd är en subjektiv fråga. Svaret enligt uppsatsförfattaren är dock ja. De problem som behandlas avseende en företagsbindande traktat är företags inflytande på staters juridiska och politiska beslutsfattande, svårigheterna kring att få företag att respektera ett internationellt regelverk, risken för att nationell utveckling avseende stärkande av skyddet för mänskliga rättigheter bromsas, var gränsen mellan företags och staters ansvar avseende mänskliga rättigheter ska dras, samt frågan om tillräckligt mycket internationell konsensus någonsin kan uppnås för att en traktat ska kunna komma till. Författaren konstaterar att en traktat vore rättsligt möjlig, men att det på grund av ovan nämnda svårigheter och staters bristande tro på och v

Transnational corporations are today in general not considered to be obligated under international law to respect human rights. In states where the protection of human rights through national law is weak corporations thus may violate human rights without risking becoming subjects to legal santioncs. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether or not the conclusion of a treaty that obligates transnational corporations directly under international law to respect human rights would be, on one hand, desirable and, on the other hand, legally and practically possible. For this purpose, the study investigates the content, purpose and effect of and criticism against the UNGPs – the only instrument adopted by the UN that regulates business and human rights. For the same purpose the study furtheron examines a number of issues discussed within the legal doctrine regarding the idea of obligating transnational corporations under international law to respect human rights. In the study it is established that the UNGPs have gained support among states and corporations but that the adoption of the instrument have not resulted in any major change in corporate behaviour. Moreover, the UNGPs have among many things been criticized for being too vaguely formulated and for claiming too little from corporations. Whether a treaty binding corporations to respect human rights is desireable or not is a subjective question. The answer according to the author of the study is, however, yes. The issues addressed within the essay concerning the idea of a corporate-binding treaty are the corporate influence on states’ legal and political decision-making; the difficulties in creating corporate compliance; the risk of impeding national progress in strengthening the protection of human rights; the question of where to draw the line between corporate and state obligations regarding human rights and the question of whether enough international consensus for a treaty to be concluded is ever to be, Transnationella företag anses idag generellt sett inte vara folkrättsligt skyldiga att respektera mänskliga rättigheter. I stater där det nationella skyddet av mänskliga rättigheter brister tillåts således företag begå kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter utan att träffas av juridiska sanktioner. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om en traktat som direkt gör transnationella företag folkrättsligt skyldiga att respektera mänskliga rättigheter vore dels önskvärd, dels rättsligt och praktiskt möjlig. I detta syfte undersöks innehållet och syftet hos, verkan av samt kritiken gentemot UNGP – det enda instrument antaget av FN som reglerar företag och mänskliga rättigheter. I samma syfte undersöks ett antal problem som diskuterats angående idén att göra transnationella företag folkrättsligt skyldiga att respektera mänskliga rättigheter. I uppsatsen konstateras att UNGP har vunnit stöd hos stater och företag men att antagandet av instrumentet i praktiken inte har inneburit några större förändringar vad avser företags faktiska beteenden. Vidare har UNGP bland annat kritiserats för att vara för vagt formulerat och för att ställa för låga krav på företag. Huruvida en traktat som binder företag att respektera mänskliga rättigheter vore önskvärd är en subjektiv fråga. Svaret enligt uppsatsförfattaren är dock ja. De problem som behandlas avseende en företagsbindande traktat är företags inflytande på staters juridiska och politiska beslutsfattande, svårigheterna kring att få företag att respektera ett internationellt regelverk, risken för att nationell utveckling avseende stärkande av skyddet för mänskliga rättigheter bromsas, var gränsen mellan företags och staters ansvar avseende mänskliga rättigheter ska dras, samt frågan om tillräckligt mycket internationell konsensus någonsin kan uppnås för att en traktat ska kunna komma till. Författaren konstaterar att en traktat vore rättsligt möjlig, men att det på grund av ovan nämnda svårigheter och staters bristande tro på och v

Under the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), banks, like all businesses, have a responsibility to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence. Although climate due diligence is not explicitly included in the UNGPs, tackling an enterprise’s direct and indirect climate change impacts is arguably a dimension of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and should form part of the human rights due diligence process. At present, it is unclear how such responsibility applies to banks, whose contribution to climate change is mostly indirect. This article addresses the research question: how should the law be interpreted to form a coherent climate due diligence standard for banks? To address it, the article first maps out the climate responsibility of banks under international soft law standards and assesses privately developed guidance. It then elucidates the emerging concept of climate due diligence, reading climate change responsibilities into the now well-established corporate responsibility to respect human rights as authoritatively elaborated in the UNGPs. Finally, it explains how such normative standard applies to banks and unpacks the key elements that a bank’s climate due diligence process should include.

This article conceptualizes corporate accountability under international law and introduces an analytical framework translating corporate accountability into seven core elements. Using this analytical framework, it then systematically assesses four models that could be used in a future business and human rights (BHR) treaty: the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights model, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights model, the progressive model, and the transformative model. It aims to contribute to the BHR treaty negotiation process by clarifying different options and possible trade-offs between them, while taking into account political realities. Ultimately, the article argues in favour of the BHR treaty embracing a progressive model of corporate accountability, which combines ambitious development of international law with realistic prospects of state support.

In recent years, the field of business and human rights has witnessed a shift from soft law to hard law, which has been taking place as a number of states have been intensifying their efforts to comply with their duty to protect human rights. Some states have adopted legislation on human rights reporting such as the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, whilst other states have favoured the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation to govern corporate behaviour both within their territories and abroad. This is the case of the French Duty of Vigilance Law, which also provides for an associated civil liability regime in case of harm. This paper explores the limitations of these fragmented domestic approaches and argues that there is a pressing need to create a legislative level playing field at the European level. It investigates the strenghts and weaknesses of the French of Vigilance Law in order to determine whether it could serve as a model.

In recent years, the field of business and human rights has witnessed a shift from soft law to hard law, which has been taking place as a number of states have been intensifying their efforts to comply with their duty to protect human rights. Some states have adopted legislation on human rights reporting such as the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, whilst other states have favoured the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation to govern corporate behaviour both within their territories and abroad. This is the case of the French Duty of Vigilance Law, which also provides for an associated civil liability regime in case of harm. This paper explores the limitations of these fragmented domestic approaches and argues that there is a pressing need to create a legislative level playing field at the European level. It investigates the strenghts and weaknesses of the French of Vigilance Law in order to determine whether it could serve as a model.

In recent years, the field of business and human rights has witnessed a shift from soft law to hard law, which has been taking place as a number of states have been intensifying their efforts to comply with their duty to protect human rights. Some states have adopted legislation on human rights reporting such as the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, whilst other states have favoured the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation to govern corporate behaviour both within their territories and abroad. This is the case of the French Duty of Vigilance Law, which also provides for an associated civil liability regime in case of harm. This paper explores the limitations of these fragmented domestic approaches and argues that there is a pressing need to create a legislative level playing field at the European level. It investigates the strenghts and weaknesses of the French of Vigilance Law in order to determine whether it could serve as a model.

The meaning of work for individuals and society is evolving and is increasingly linked to sustainability challenges on a global level. For paid work to be meaningful, it has to be ‘decent work’, which has become a central principle in international labor and human rights law. This concept of decent work is an important component of high-profile international initiatives that chart the pathways towards a sustainable future. This Article analyzes and clarifies the evolving meaning of decent work as one of the main objectives of the international labor and human rights discourses and illustrates the increasingly closer connection between decent work and global sustainability instruments and challenges. The United Nations (“UN”) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development incorporates decent work as a central theme of its social pillar. The recently adopted International Labour Organization (“ILO”) Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work further emphasizes the close relation between decent work and sustainability requirements. To get to a more comprehensive understanding of the evolving meaning of ‘decent and sustainable work’, this concept is examined from both a labor law perspective and a human rights law viewpoint. These overlapping but not identical vantage points show that both societal and environmental elements supplement traditional individualized values of work as personal remuneration and fair working conditions. This way, decent work is re-conceptualized to assist in addressing the challenges of creating a socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable future. By tracing the development of decent work and related fundamental labor standards in international human rights law and by inquiring into the core values attached to work from a labor law perspective, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the deep transition the meaning of work is undergoing, in particular concerning its increasingly closer relation to sustainability cha

This paper explores how UK-based companies deal with their responsibility to respect the human rights of Assam (India) tea plantation workers. Through qualitative content analysis of publicly available corporate reports and other documents, it investigates how companies approach and communicate their potential human rights impacts. It highlights the gap between well-documented human rights issues on the ground and corporate reports on these issues. It aims to answer the following research question: in a context where the existence of human rights violations at the end of the supply chain is well-documented, how do companies reconcile their possible connection with those violations and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights? This paper reveals the weakness of the current corporate social responsibility (CSR) approach from the perspective of rights-holders. It supports a business and human rights approach, one that places the protection of human rights at its core.Keywords: tea plantations; Assam; business and human rights; corporate social responsibility; UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; UK Modern Slavery Act

El land grabbing, también conocido como «acaparamiento de tierras», se ha convertido en un área de creciente preocupación debido a su impacto en una serie de derechos humanos fundamentales, razón por la cual en la actualidad se ha vuelto a prestar atención a la forma en la que se distribuye, utiliza, controla y gestiona la tierra. En este contexto, cada vez se otorga mayor atención a las responsabilidades en materia de derechos humanos de las empresas comerciales, actores influyentes en la gobernanza de la tierra y de otros recursos naturales de manera conjunta con los Estados. En efecto, cuando las empresas expresan su interés en adquirir derechos de uso o propiedad a largo plazo sobre tierras y bosques (o cuando un gobierno solicita inversiones de empresas en su país), con frecuencia se negocian y celebran acuerdos que pasan por alto los derechos de los usuarios y propietarios locales de la tierra. Las minorías, pueblos indígenas y comunidades que utilizan la tierra y los bosques, a menudo quedan fuera de las negociaciones entre las empresas y los gobiernos, sentando así las bases para nuevos conflictos o para la reavivación de los ya existentes.

The area of Business and Human Rights, applies to all enterprises, including corporate law firms, which have not been examined yet, as thoroughly as others. On the other hand, the profession of law is regulated by codes of conduct that limit the actions of lawyers when they are preforming their mandate. Through a comparative legal methodology this research seeks to find out if the human rights responsibilities of corporate lawyers in their role as advisors are compatible with their professional obligations.

The area of Business and Human Rights, applies to all enterprises, including corporate law firms, which have not been examined yet, as thoroughly as others. On the other hand, the profession of law is regulated by codes of conduct that limit the actions of lawyers when they are preforming their mandate. Through a comparative legal methodology this research seeks to find out if the human rights responsibilities of corporate lawyers in their role as advisors are compatible with their professional obligations.

All businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, including women’s rights. Whilst the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights acknowledge the vulnerabilities of women in the global value chains, there is limited guidance on what measures corporations should take in order to avoid and address women specific harms. Taking a rights-based approach to gender equality, this study seeks to explore how the current framework is dealing with existing gender inequalities and what steps needs to be taken, by the international community, to embed a gender perspective in the business and human rights agenda.

All businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, including women’s rights. Whilst the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights acknowledge the vulnerabilities of women in the global value chains, there is limited guidance on what measures corporations should take in order to avoid and address women specific harms. Taking a rights-based approach to gender equality, this study seeks to explore how the current framework is dealing with existing gender inequalities and what steps needs to be taken, by the international community, to embed a gender perspective in the business and human rights agenda.

The article argues that the facticity of the human rights impacts of economic globalisation increasingly undermines the normativity of the state-centred conception of international human rights law. The exposure of the international legal order of states to the operations of global business entities leads to a collusion of sovereign state interest and globalised corporate power at the expense of protecting the rights of victims of human rights violations. The article scrutinises two prominent attempts to address this lacuna of protection: transnational tort litigation and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are not only an expression of the present crisis of international human rights law but also risk contributing to its perpetuation. While the ‘escape into tort’ results in the privatisation of public human rights in the global market economy, the UN Guiding Principles entrench their territorialisation in the state legal order in the face of global economic challenges. The concluding section reflects on the future pathways of international human rights law by positing a choice between, on the one hand, a more radical departure from human rights’ state-centred heritage and, on the other hand, a transformation of the international legal order of states by virtue of human rights. It highlights the importance of extraterritorial human rights obligations in recovering the state’s legal accountability for human rights violations committed in the course of global business operations.

The article argues that the facticity of the human rights impacts of economic globalisation increasingly undermines the normativity of the state-centred conception of international human rights law. The exposure of the international legal order of states to the operations of global business entities leads to a collusion of sovereign state interest and globalised corporate power at the expense of protecting the rights of victims of human rights violations. The article scrutinises two prominent attempts to address this lacuna of protection: transnational tort litigation and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are not only an expression of the present crisis of international human rights law but also risk contributing to its perpetuation. While the ‘escape into tort’ results in the privatisation of public human rights in the global market economy, the UN Guiding Principles entrench their territorialisation in the state legal order in the face of global economic challenges. The concluding section reflects on the future pathways of international human rights law by positing a choice between, on the one hand, a more radical departure from human rights’ state-centred heritage and, on the other hand, a transformation of the international legal order of states by virtue of human rights. It highlights the importance of extraterritorial human rights obligations in recovering the state’s legal accountability for human rights violations committed in the course of global business operations.