Human rights benchmark a catalyst

Respecting human rights is still not business as usual, but there are indicators of movement in the right direction. A report released in April shows that more companies than ever are committing to taking steps to address gaps in their human rights management, and the role of public benchmarking as a catalyst for this change should not be underestimated.

In 2017, backed by three large investors and civil society organisations, the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB)produced the first publicly available assessment and ranking of the human rights performance of 100 of the largest extractives, apparel and agricultural companies.One aim of the benchmark is to create competition among companies to take action on human rights management and create a race to the top.

April’s Progress Reporton the benchmark shows the race has started.

Law firms, specialist consultancies and advisers such as Norton Rose Fulbright, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and ERM are witnessing increased demand for human rights support. Companies are aiming to improve their absolute human rights performance and their ranking in relation to their peers.

CHRB is one of many initiatives trying to improve the human rights performance of companies and we are seeing a ripple effect. The rise in companies submitting human rights reports has increased four-fold, from 13 in 2015 to 52 in 2017, the non-profit Shift Project states. Meanwhile, the number of corporations now reporting on their public commitments to avoid modern slavery in their supply chain has ballooned to more than 5000. The cherry on top came last October, when Coca-Cola released its first stand-alone human rights report, aligned with the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework (UNGP) and partly driven by its position in the first benchmark. Thisincreased disclosure is crucial for accountability and for understanding corporate performance on human rights.

Dangers of inaction

Sponsored Content

Investors would be wise to note the perils of investing in companies that are nottaking steps forward to address gaps in human rights management or that refuse to make adequate disclosures. These companies could risk a reduced share price and restricted access to capital due to reputational damage and regulatory backlash.For corporations that neglect to tackle human rights,the threat of exclusion from specific funds looms.Issues such as modern-day slavery, worker safety and freedom of association not only have huge impacts on the rights of affected people, but can be material to financial performance.

Despite the obvious risks of not disclosing human rights information, 28 corporations were cited in the CHRB report for not meaningfully engaging, failing to respond to both a $5 trillion investor coalition and CHRB, and not yet participating in the 2018 benchmark engagements. Kraft Heinz, Macy’s, Under Armour and Hermes were among these companies, which also recorded some of the lowest scores in the 2017 benchmark, demonstrating a lack of transparency and no public commitment to managing human rights risks and impacts.

Still a distance to travel

Human rights are not new, the UN “protect, respect, remedy” framework is not new, and the UNGPs are not new. But the tragedy of Rana Plaza five years ago, and a litany of subsequent human rights abuses linked to businesses, demonstrate just how far there is to travel before respecting human rights is business as usual. While there are some ad hoc legislative approaches, such as the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, respect for human rights is largely not a mandatory requirement for businesses. Benchmarks can create positive competition, allow investors and consumers to make informed choices about how to allocate capital and spending power, and provide government with an understanding of the need for further and more powerful legislation.

The 2018 benchmark will launch in November and will bring international scrutiny onto those companies that have failed to respond to societal expectations by not improving their human rights performance. We encourage companies not yet engaging on human rights to pick up the pace, improve disclosure and start moving in the right direction, as the voices demanding change will only get louder the longer they are ignored.

Dan Neale is the program director at the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark. Click here to download the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark: Progress Report.   

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

What a brief encounter with Elon Musk taught me about the limits of capitalism

What a brief encounter with Elon Musk taught me about the limits of capitalism

In 2013, on the sidelines of the Milken Conference at the Beverly Hilton, my friend and then-colleague Sean Scallan and I found ourselves in a seven-minute private conversation with Elon Musk.   He was not yet the figure he is today. Tesla was struggling. SpaceX had launched but not yet proven itself. The idea of humans

Sort content by

Evolution in risk reporting for sophisticated institutional investors

Risk reporting is increasingly regarded by sophisticated investors as an important ingredient in their decision-making process, authors from EDHEC argue that  the effective number of (uncorrelated) bets could be a useful risk indicator to be added to risk reports for equity and policy portfolios. Risk reporting is increasingly regarded by sophisticated investors as an important

Challenges facing the world’s biggest funds

In the coming weeks, Towers Watson will be writing a series of articles, exclusive to conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com, that look at key challenges facing large asset owners. These will focus on specific practicalities that many global funds are encountering such as the role of internal teams. To put these challenges in context, this first article by global

How trustees can tackle climate investment risks

Trustees need practical guidance on how to implement a comprehensive investment approach to climate change. Helga Birgden, head of responsible investment for Asia Pacific at Mercer and Nathan Fabian chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change Australia/New Zealand,  show them how. In the 2013 Global Investor Survey on Climate Change, more than 80

Regaining control: why investors must stand up to banks

As the chief executive of a financial services media and events business, Colin Tate* benefits from the growth in the banking sector. But at the same time he is perplexed by their bad corporate behaviour, large pay packets, and secret negotiations. It’s time, he says, for institutional investors to demand change.   I’m not a

The business benefits of active ownership

Celebrating active ownership day, Simon Howard the chief executive of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, describes the business benefits of active ownership.   Active ownership by investors is becoming increasingly recognised for delivering a range of business benefits from helping to protect corporate reputations, to increasing share prices. Active ownership funds, i.e. those

Union take on Walmart divestment

The following article is a letter from United Food and Commercial Workers’ John Marshall in response to our recent article, Walmart takes divestment blows to the body.   I read with interest the excellent article on the Swedish AP funds’ recent divestment from Walmart based on concerns about the company’s systematic abuses of workers’ rights in the

Previous