Search Results

Blog | Friday July 24, 2020

When It Comes to Racial Justice, the Business and Human Rights Community Can Do More

Preview

It has been almost two months since the tragic killing of George Floyd at the hands of four police officers in the United States. The public outcry has sparked an unprecedented wave of support for Black Lives Matter (BLM) from all facets of society, including business. A movement still touted as an organization of domestic terrorism by some voices from the political right in the United States is now gaining momentum globally as people coalesce around the call for an end to racial injustice.     

This is not just a domestic issue confined to the United States. This is a global human rights imperative.         

I am a Jamaican woman who is painfully aware of history and the connection between business and human rights. Businesses profited from the transatlantic slave trade and over 400 years of slavery that stole lives and decimated Black families and communities in the Americas. It is one of the sentinel business and human rights cases, and the enduring legacy of slavery sheds light on the racism and prejudice that existed then and now, albeit in more subtle forms.  

Representation in the Business and Human Rights (BHR) Movement 

As a Black professional in the business and human rights community who has worked in the US, UK, Kenya and now in Hong Kong, I take this moment to reflect on the role of the business and human rights community in tackling racism and discrimination. Why have we not engaged on these issues in a more robust and meaningful way? I ask this question particularly of BHR organizations based in countries in the Americas and Europe still dealing with the legacy of Atlantic slavery. 

Are we doing enough to break down barriers, raise voices of the most vulnerable and marginalized, and tackle diversity and inclusion issues, not just in our work with business but in our own organizations?

In a field that works very hard to hold businesses accountable for their most pressing human rights violations, I’ve noted some hesitation in addressing racial injustice as a BHR issue. The response has often been: "Race is a sensitive issue," "There are more important issues in the world to focus on," or "These issues are only confined to the United States." My colleagues have been predominantly white and middle class, and this becomes deeply personal for people of colour, who should be heard and have their experiences validated. This leads me to ask: Are we doing enough to break down barriers, raise voices of the most vulnerable and marginalized, and tackle diversity and inclusion issues, not just in our work with business but in our own organizations?

Are we doing enough as a field to be self-reflective and have those uncomfortable conversations about race and privilege that are often avoided? 

Tackling Racism Head-on in Our Work

Take the example of the progress that the BHR community has made over the past few years on taking action to highlight and address human rights issues in mega-sporting events. The plight of migrant workers in the Gulf who often risk their lives and live in deplorable conditions to construct stadiums has rightly brought many stakeholders to the table to tackle this and many other serious issues. But there is a noticeable absence within the BHR community when it comes to addressing the issue of racism in football and in sports writ large. Sport is after all a big business in which Black people are well represented but often lack any real power or influence. There are very few Black football managers, and the boardrooms of most national football leagues and even UEFA itself are almost exclusively white men. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, the NFL reversed its controversial ban on players “taking the knee” during the national anthem—a stance first popularized by Colin Kaepernick in protest to the conditions Black Americans experience across the US—issuing a public apology and offering public support. Yet it seems to be all too convenient as the world faces its reckoning with race relations. 

We rightly focus on the labor practices of people in the developing world who make the clothes for people in the developed markets, but there is limited focus on Black people working in essential services and on the frontline who also need advocates making strong calls to action. 

Another cogent example would be the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black people in the US and UK. The pandemic is exposing the systemic racial inequalities and disparities in health, education, and employment. Many Black people are dying in shockingly high numbers as they occupy a high proportion of frontline and essential worker positions increasing the risk of exposure to the disease and job losses. This is exacerbated by co-morbidity factors including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, further creating complications and leading to poorer health outcomes.  

Why is the BHR community largely silent on these issues? 

We rightly focus on the labor practices of people in the developing world who make the clothes for people in the developed markets, but there is limited focus on Black people working in essential services and on the frontline who also need advocates making strong calls to action. Acknowledging that these too are BHR issues while working with business to address the unique circumstances and needs of vulnerable communities disproportionally impacted by COVID-19 will help to address the ingrained disparities that prevent many from realizing their basic human rights. 

Tackling Racism Head-on in Our Organizations

While it is positive to see some organizations within this space issue public statements and show support for Black Lives Matter, this cannot be reduced to a hashtag or public relations opportunity. I know that there are no overnight solutions but not being racist is not enough. The real work starts with being anti-racist—a conscious lifelong dedication to fight and dismantle oppressive systems. 

Proof will be in the actions, so what should be done? 

Taking action can be reflected in not only embedding diversity and inclusion in our own organizations but also diversifying our own perspectives, research, and thought leadership. The BHR community should work harder to tackle the systems and structures that reinforce racism—which is as much an issue of governance as it is of ownership and power.

Here are a few ways in which we can help in our own work where possible: 

1. Look beyond the obvious to acknowledge "the unspoken," such as unconscious bias, implicit bias, and microaggressions in the workplace.
2. Call for more board and leadership diversity in our own organizations and within the business community.
3. Apply more scrutiny to lobbying efforts made in businesses that are antithetical to diversity. 
4. Call attention to products and services that reinforce racial stereotypes and bias, including the development and use of artificial intelligence.
5. Scrutinize investment decisions made by companies and shareholders in systems that disproportionately impact vulnerable groups such as investments in private prisons that contribute to the problem of the mass incarceration of Black people, for example. 
6. Work towards incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion in corporate benchmarks to assess and improve company performance on how they are tackling racial injustice by integrating the voices of rightsholders.

The BHR community should work harder to tackle the systems and structures that reinforce racism—which is as much an issue of governance as it is of ownership and power.

It is the responsibility of the business and human rights community to listen, learn, reflect, and act. As we begin to think of ways we can tackle racial injustice, spark dialogue, and ensure that we are not being complicit and part of the problem, I’d like to see a BHR field with less silence and apathy and more anti-racist action. Standing against racism starts with acknowledging the problem and working together to correct historical injustices as a first step. Stating unequivocally that Black Lives Matter while creating spaces for uncomfortable conversations and amplifying voices of the most vulnerable will be another critical step in the right direction.

We do not want more performance activism and tokenism—fostering authentic dialogue is the key to creating real change.

Originally appeared on IHRB. 

Blog | Tuesday July 21, 2020

Key Ways Business Can Still Support Women’s Reproductive Rights Following SCOTUS Decisions

Preview

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on two recent cases with potentially important long-term implications for employee access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare.  

In June Medical Services v. Russo, the Court struck down a Louisiana law that sought to severely restrict the ability of physicians to provide abortion services. In Trump v. Pennsylvania, the Court held that the Trump Administration had the authority to issue rules regarding the contraceptive insurance coverage guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. 

June Medical is a win for proponents of abortion access—but a narrow one, decided on the basis of precedent. Trump v. Pennsylvania, however, may open the door for virtually any employer to discontinue providing insurance coverage for contraception. It is clear from both decisions that we cannot rely on this Supreme Court to protect women’s access to reproductive healthcare.  

The decades-long erosion of access to reproductive healthcare, coupled with underinvestment in resources devoted to maternal health care, is a net loss for American businesses whose female workers, prior to the pandemic, comprised a slight majority of the workforce. But it is a reversible one. Corporate policies could provide a bulwark against this erosion, helping to protect and strengthen the new social contract between business and society that the 21st century demands. 

As explored in the Rhia Ventures report Hidden Value: The Business Case for Reproductive Health, at least five drivers should compel corporations to invest in their employees’ reproductive health care including, for example, maximizing the available talent pool as many women consider the policy environment in career decisions: a majority of college-educated women (56 percent) say they would not apply to a job in a state that has recently banned abortion. Other drivers include employee morale and retention as many women state that controlling if and when to have children has been important to their careers, meeting their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals by recognizing reproductive healthcare coverage as a critical component of an equitable workplace, realizing cost savings when employees can control when and if they become pregnant, and staying ahead of growing scrutiny and stakeholder interest in this area. 

Commenting on the report’s release in January, BSR President and CEO Aron Cramer said, “Business holds significant, untapped potential to contribute to women’s advancement and stands to benefit tremendously by ensuring women are empowered. Access to reproductive healthcare is fundamental to women having the agency they need to shape their future.”  

How Companies Can Take Action 

1. Companies can start by conducting an internal audit to ensure that their health insurance for contraception not only meets but exceeds the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, covers abortion without restriction, and guarantees that contracted healthcare providers can meet all of their employees’ reproductive healthcare needs. They can also cover travel costs for employees who need access to reproductive health care outside of their home states due to legislative restrictions on abortion care.  
   
   One company interviewed for the report told the authors: “We support employees in accessing centers of excellence for other medical issues, and we treat access to abortion the same way.”  
    
2. When assessing their business footprints, including sites and conferences, companies may also wish to assess state laws pertaining to access to reproductive healthcare and identify opportunities to inform or influence such policies. Companies should also examine their political contributions to determine if they are inadvertently supporting those who are undermining women’s healthcare. 
    
3. A supportive culture around reproductive health benefits can be created by sharing clear information about coverage and finding ways to reduce stigma around comprehensive reproductive health in conversations about benefits. Research conducted for the report found that companies are often unaware of the benefits they provide for reproductive health and often may unintentionally limit contraceptive options and restrict coverage for abortion. The report’s authors also found that 69 percent of women with health insurance currently do not know whether their coverage includes abortion. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the urgency for corporate awareness and action. A recent survey of 2,000 women of reproductive age by the Guttmacher Institute found that 34 percent want to delay pregnancy or have fewer children because of the pandemic. The same proportion reported having to delay or cancel visiting a provider for sexual or reproductive healthcare or having had trouble obtaining contraception. Barriers to care are more pronounced for Black, Latinx, low-income and LGBTI women. These findings are supported by another concurrent survey of 2,200 adults undertaken by the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which found that 65 percent of adults think that it is a bad time to get pregnant and that 57 percent of women think that it is “more essential” for individuals to have access to birth control measures.  

Just as the coronavirus pandemic has shined a harsh light on myriad weaknesses and vulnerabilities in our healthcare system, the recent SCOTUS rulings reflect on the precariousness of reproductive autonomy in the United States. While the door has been opened for companies to opt out of insuring contraception, some doors are better left untraversed. With consistent majorities of Americans supporting access to abortion and contraception, the business community is best served by standing firm by women and their families. 

Blog | Thursday July 9, 2020

Why Worker Data Protection Should Be Central to a 21st-Century Social Contract

Preview

Last month, we published a proposal to overhaul the relationship between government, business, employees, and people with a new social contract fit for the 21st century. Our proposal is based upon five principles, with the fifth principle being centered on worker data protection—specifically, that the use of new technologies in the workplace should be aligned with international human rights standards and protect the privacy and nondiscrimination rights of workers.

Data protection is rarely discussed during dialogue about the need for a new social contract, but we included it for two simple reasons: firstly, the existing social contract was developed in the pre-digital world, not today’s data-rich environment; secondly, a modern social contract must address a whole host of new risks and opportunities arising from how employee data are collected, shared, and used. The COVID-19 pandemic is shining an even brighter light on this challenge by both increasing the significance of worker health data and obscuring the distinction between the home and the workplace.

We believe that a 21st-century social contract needs to address three main concerns:

• Privacy: Monitoring and surveillance may be considered acceptable to protect worker and customer health, safety, and security, but the use of digital tools to track the productivity, wellness, or emotional state of an employee raises important questions about reasonable expectations of privacy in the workplace—and at home for those working remotely.
• Non-discrimination: New digital tools could accentuate existing workplace discrimination and increase risks for workers from vulnerable groups. For example, monitoring how many times employees leave their workstation during a workday could discriminate on the basis of religion, disability, or pregnancy status, while the use of sentiment analysis to provide insights into an individual’s facial expressions or body language during hiring risks discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, or other physical characteristics.
• Human dignity: The use of digital tools to collect data, analyze signals, and inform decisions raises novel issues around human dignity, autonomy, control, self-worth, and well-being—for example, whether employees should reasonably expect to have their movements tracked as a metric to gauge productivity or whether insights into employee motivation and workplace satisfaction derived from psychological or sentiment analysis are a reasonable expectation of employment.

Furthermore, we note that violation of rights to privacy and non-discrimination impacts other rights too, such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to favorable conditions of work.

A diverse range of workplaces—warehouses, factories, offices, call centers, mines, entertainment venues, restaurants, transit centers, and homes—will increasingly deploy digital tools, and this both increases the significance of worker data protection and makes it more challenging to realize in practice. We need to consider three key concepts as we endeavor to strengthen 21st-century social contracts in relation to worker data protection.

• Informed consent. Informed consent is defined by both participation (i.e. the ability to participate in decisions) and empowerment (i.e. the ability to understand both risks and rights when consenting). It will be essential that workers are able to provide informed consent for how their data are collected, processed, and used by employers. The formal contracting process that underpins the employer/worker relationship provides a well-defined pathway for providing informed consent, but this may not exist for informal workers.
• Power and vulnerability. There are power dynamics in all employer/worker relationships, and the data-driven digital economy alters this dynamic in significant ways. While the employer has access to an increasing array of data, the most vulnerable workers—those without real options to “walk away”—have the fewest choices open to them and are less able to understand their rights and risks when consenting. Beyond informed consent, this disparity needs to be addressed with clear rules governing what employers are simply not allowed to do.
• Addressing different worksites. The data protection risk-and-opportunities profile will vary significantly across different industries, job types, and workplace environments, including workplaces in the context of new business models, such as gig workers, online sellers, and other novel forms of income generation. These need to be understood individually, for example via assessments into the social, economic inclusion, and the potential human rights impacts of disruptive technologies.

One of the most revealing elements of our research to inform the 21st-century social contract was the lack of international norms for workplace data protection in the context of a data-rich world.  For example, while the International Labour Organization (ILO) published a code of practice providing guidance on the protection of workers’ personal data in 1997, there is no ILO convention or recommendation covering workplace data protection, privacy, and non-discrimination issues in a modern setting.

As the use of workplace technologies evolves, new norms, laws, and regulations will be needed to manage the way disruptive technologies are deployed in the workplace. Technology providers, employers, labor organizations, governments, and civil society organizations all have an important role to play in the dialogue around what these new norms can and should be. As workplace monitoring and surveillance become increasingly commonplace, it will be important for employers to collaborate with labor organizations to define clear boundaries and a social consensus for data protection in the modern workplace.

This piece is the first in a series of blogs exploring The Business Role in Creating a 21st Century Social Contract. Click here to read the full report, to explore the other four principles, and to learn more about how your company can act, enable, and influence to create a social contract fit for purpose.

Blog | Wednesday July 1, 2020

Why Modern Slavery Risks Should Be Top of Mind for Businesses during COVID-19

Preview

Businesses today are facing tough decisions on how to protect their financial viability, serve rapidly changing customer needs, and protect their workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to alter the landscape of the global workforce, forcing millions of vulnerable workers out of work and requiring businesses to make quick and difficult decisions on retaining their workforce and supporting their supply chains through the crisis.

When exploring cost-cutting measures, businesses may unwittingly overlook the human rights impacts of their quick decisions, especially on the most vulnerable workers deep in their supply chain. Through our work addressing modern slavery across supply chains, we have observed an alarming uptick in business actions during this time that may lead to more individuals being forced into conditions of modern slavery, or on the brink thereof. In a joint statement, the Global Business Coalition against Human Trafficking (GBCAT) has urged companies to protect workforces against modern slavery risks when responding to COVID-19.

Below are three key areas in which BSR has noted increased risks of modern slavery:

1. Essential businesses may be inadvertently exposing workers to conditions of forced labor.

Workers who have been able to maintain their jobs with essential businesses may face increased risk of exploitative labor conditions as they experience heightened pressure to work long hours in response to the global demand for goods or to maintain productivity levels despite a reduced workforce. For example, technology companies supporting governments to build digital infrastructure related to COVID-19 or companies producing goods in response to global demand may in their haste subject their own workers and supply chain workers to long hours with little or no overtime pay, which in severe circumstances may amount to forced labor. The use of forced labor has already been well-documented in the production of healthcare products, from masks to surgical instruments, hospital textiles, and rubber gloves.

2. Canceling or delaying purchasing orders may result in supply chain workers losing their livelihoods and accepting precarious work.

Mass order cancellations, non-payment of orders, workforce cuts, and factory shutdowns pose serious repercussions for supply chain workers, many of whom already live below the poverty line. For example, in Bangladesh’s textile industry alone, one million workers already have lost their jobs. Unpaid wages and job losses, particularly in the developing world, make individuals desperate for alternative means of income and more likely to accept precarious and even exploitative work. Women, who represent the majority of low wage workers, are more likely to be unemployed and are particularly susceptible to sexual exploitation or sex trafficking. Migrant workers also may face a heightened risk of debt bondage since many are unable to pay off loans they took out in order to secure a job abroad. Forced into mandatory quarantine once they return home and now unemployed, workers may be forced to take on new debt to cover basic necessities for themselves and their families. Some may continue to borrow, digging deeper in debt, while others may even have family members or children working to pay off their loan.     

3. As the economy recovers, rush orders can create or exacerbate situations of modern slavery in supply chains.

As COVID-19 restrictions ease and businesses recover, business should be attuned to how practices such as tight production windows, last-minute orders and short-term contracts can create or contribute to abusive labor practices that may lead to forms of modern slavery. For example, meeting quick turnaround times or filling last minute orders for a client keen to kickstart financial recovery may subject supply chain workers to excessive working hours and unpaid overtime. In addition, if orders are too difficult to fulfill with the current workforce, suppliers may enlist local temporary workers to support, providing them with short-term contracts which offer little labor protection and limited remedy for abusive working conditions. As immigration restrictions are lifted, suppliers also may rely on labor brokers to provide migrant labor. In many cases, migrant workers are subjected to excessive and illegal recruitment fees, placing these new workers in situations of debt bondage. In all cases, extreme competition for jobs will make workers less likely to report abuses and accept working conditions, even the most exploitative.

Recommendations for Business

As businesses continue to respond and adapt to COVID-19 realities, they should continue to take a human rights-based approach to their decisions. Below are three key actions which businesses should take during and after COVID-19:  

1. Conduct a hot-spot analysis of your operations and supply chain for modern slavery risks.

Businesses should conduct a modern slavery risk assessment to understand the parts of their operations and supply chains which may be most susceptible to modern slavery because of geographic or sector-related risks or because of factors that increase the vulnerability of workers (e.g. use of temporary or migrant workers), especially in light of COVID-19.

BSR has developed a Rapid Human Rights Due Diligence tool to help businesses assess potential and actual negative impacts of their business decisions. GBCAT’s new resource for business, entitled Addressing Forced Labor and Other Modern Slavery Risks: A Toolkit for Small and Medium-Sized Suppliers, enables suppliers to quickly identify areas of their business which carry the highest risk of modern slavery and formulate a plan to prevent and address identified risks.

2. Support suppliers in protecting their workers. 

Businesses should honor existing contracts and consider extending payment and offering credit to vulnerable suppliers and exploring longer-term contracts to protect the financial viability of their suppliers. As work resumes, businesses should engage closely with suppliers and industry associations to discuss realistic timelines and pricing for the delivery of goods and services. Supporting the continuity of suppliers’ operations helps protect its workforce. 

Businesses should also help suppliers to protect their own workforce directly if suppliers are financially unable to do so. This can include providing personal protective equipment (PPE) to supply chain workers and emphasizing the importance of implementing hygiene best practices and safe working conditions (e.g. modifying shifts and limiting workplace traffic). Some other avenues of support include offering to pay sick leave when not provided by the government, compensating workers who have been laid off, and offering emergency funds to workers. Businesses should also collaborate with industry associations or business associations to pool resources if practicable.

3. Provide channels for workers to raise concerns as they go back to work.   

All workers should have access to an anonymous channel to raise concerns to their employer. This is of greater importance now, as some workers have expressed concerns that their employers have not provided them with appropriate PPE. Although travel restrictions inhibit a business’s ability to conduct on-site supplier assessments, businesses can ascertain the working conditions of supply chain workers through an anonymous hotline, direct virtual meetings with supply chain workers, or through online discussion boards where supply chain workers can report concerns and obtain information on their rights. If none of these channels currently exist and it is not practicable to implement them, a business should consider extending its own grievance channel to its supply chain workers.

Fostering open and regular communication with workers both internally and across the supply chain can help your business better understand emerging risks and explore ways to support the most vulnerable workers. Please join GBCAT members in condemning any and all forms of modern slavery and using your influence to help protect those that are most vulnerable during these challenging times.

Blog | Wednesday June 24, 2020

The Business Role in Creating a 21st-Century Social Contract

Preview

Long before the urgent challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the long overdue focus on racial justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion changed history, it was clear that our social contracts—the relationship between individuals and institutions—were no longer fit for purpose.  

For much of the second half of the 20th century, the roles and responsibilities of business, government, civil society, and people remained relatively constant and provided vital protections to support healthy and productive lives. But today, people are relying on strained protection systems that fail to keep up with our 21st-century realities. And criticism is on the rise over the value of capitalism and the purpose of business, with the desire to build an economic system that delivers truly shared prosperity while preserving the natural environment.   

BSR launched our contribution to the essential work of modernizing social contracts in 2018. We are committed to taking this work forward, and today we are pleased to present our new report, The Business Role in Creating a 21st-Century Social Contract. 

We are at a hinge point in history where transformation is both possible and necessary. 

In addition to the profound structural changes already remaking our world, 2020 has delivered truly epochal change. At the time of the publication of this blog, COVID-19 has left a global death toll that currently stands at nearly 475,000 people, remade public finances, and threatens to eliminate the equivalent of 195 million jobs around the world. And the tragic murder of George Floyd—and far too many others—is a powerful reminder of the deep structural racism not only in the U.S., but also globally, in addition to other forms of discrimination that continue to plague all societies globally.  

2020 has demonstrated powerfully the importance of a fully functioning social safety net, public health systems, and global collaboration. We see more clearly that the world remains too focused on short-term thinking, leaving us extraordinarily susceptible to shocks that create wide social and economic destruction, with the greatest impacts on the most marginalized groups. In the United States, recent powerful examples of how systemic and institutional racism continues to plague the country, and Black Americans in particular, reinforce the urgency of ensuring a social contract based on more inclusive models and practices.   

We are at a hinge point in history where transformation is both possible and necessary. Reforms to the social contract are clearly needed to protect public health, economic security, and the right of all people to participate fully in society.  

Without a truly modern social contract, the ability of business to innovate and thrive will be compromised.  

There is also a powerful case for business to embrace and contribute to this effort, We believe this work is essential to lay the foundation for business success through increased trust, workforce development fit for the changing needs of business, stable economic conditions, and social consensus on the development and implementation of new technologies and business models. Without a truly modern social contract, the ability of business to innovate and thrive will be compromised.  

Achieving this ambition will require unprecedented collaboration among leaders from all sectors of society: business, government, philanthropy, and civil society, with a goal to define and align on a vision for a post-virus world grounded in equity and inclusion, what the new social contract must deliver, and the roles of each sector in translating that vision into reality. The world is looking for leadership in a time of profound change. Business can and should fully embrace and fulfill its appropriate role by asserting leadership and innovation in its own practices, collaborating with business partners and other stakeholders, and using its voice to call for the public policy solutions that are so badly needed. 

The paper we are publishing today is a first step toward this vision. It speaks both to the underlying structural issues that prompted this effort as well as the new context brought by the pandemic and the renewed call for diversity, equity, and inclusion, not least concerning racial justice. We hope it serves as a foundation for further discussion with companies and other partners about how to make progress. Working together will be critical to achieve these crucial objectives and to turn our current crisis into an opportunity to create models that enable more resilient, fair, and sustainable economic and human development.  

The time is right to pursue a grand bargain that can create a more inclusive economy that enables people to thrive in dignity, preserves the natural world on which we rely, and creates more just and humane institutions that respect the rights of all. With this effort, we can truly meet the moment, and build the future. 

Reports | Wednesday June 24, 2020

The Business Role in Creating a 21st-Century Social Contract

Preview

About This Report

The social contract—the relationship between individuals and institutions—needs an overhaul.

Well before the urgent challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the long overdue focus on racial justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion changed history, it was clear that our social contracts were not fit for purpose.

For much of the second half of the 20^th century, the roles and responsibilities of business, government, civil society, and people remained relatively constant and provided vital protections to support healthy and productive lives. But today, people are relying on strained protection systems that fail to keep up with our 21^st-century realities. And there is increasing attention on the need to align the purpose of business with essential societal needs, such as the transition to a net-zero economy; a digital economy that sustains jobs, livelihoods, and economic fairness; and the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Blog | Tuesday June 23, 2020

Access to Grievance Mechanisms and Remedy during the COVID-19 Crisis

Preview

Providing remedy for individuals harmed as a consequence of company decisions and actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a critical avenue for addressing not just this moment, but also the deeper inequalities that make our society vulnerable to crisis and for building resilience in the future.

COVID-19 has aggravated existing inequalities, with rapidly changing business operating environments requiring fast decision-making based on often imperfect information. There is little doubt that some company decisions will have caused harm to employees, local residents, or customers. Companies will be held to account and asked to rectify these harms and to fulfill their duties to provide access to remedy, a fundamental pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

The UNGPs outline the duty of the state, which is to protect human rights, and the responsibility of business, which is to respect human rights. The third pillar of the UNGPs is the requirement to provide individuals whose rights are harmed by business with access to remedy. Effective remedy has five recognized forms of reparation, which include a broad range of measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to survivors and victims: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.

Access to remedy is the least developed and least well-understood and practiced pillar of the UNGPs and one that deserves more attention in general and should not be forgotten or overlooked during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially now as we move into new phases in our response to the pandemic. To ensure access to remedy during all phases of the COVID-19 crisis, companies should:

• Continue to ensure access to appropriate, independent, and effective grievance mechanisms, including dedicated hotlines, email addresses, instant messaging systems or applications, and letters and other written communication, to the extent possible, during all phases of the pandemic. Some companies will have to think creatively about how to ensure access to legitimate grievance mechanisms, with an understanding that many of the good practices that require face-to-face contact will have to be modified during this time. For all companies, it is important to ensure access to grievance mechanisms to enable reporting of non-compliance with safety measures and guidelines which have been adopted to protect people from COVID-19, not only for isolated communities and marginalized groups, but also for employees and contractors.
• For companies with large footprints, special considerations are needed for those located in isolated or remote communities. Communities with limited access to communications channels, communities which may be economically marginalized or have lower levels of literacy, or indigenous communities often have a greater dependence on person-to-person engagements to lodge complaints or submit grievances. Companies will have to think creatively about how to ensure access to legitimate grievance mechanisms during the global pandemic, with an understanding that many of the good practices that require face-to-face contact will have to be modified during this time and for some time in the future. It may be necessary, for example, to partner with trusted local organizations, like grocery stores and their suppliers, who have legitimate access to communities to gather and deliver grievances.
• Companies that rely on human moderators to review online content flagged for violating human rights and company policies should continue to prioritize reported content that has the greatest potential to harm when dealing with limited content moderator capacity while also ensuring that the data are preserved for future analysis with appropriate privacy controls in place.  These companies should also increase their investment in mental health support and resources for their content moderators, both to ensure their well-being and to adapt to the increased burden of harmful content that may result as a consequence of this global crisis.  
• Companies can avoid causing potential human rights-related grievances through their response to COVID-19 by conducting rapid human rights assessments and other due diligence before making decisions that could negatively impact human rights. This is especially important when rapid decisions are being made in the midst of a crisis, especially one like COVID-19 with potential human rights impacts. For example, companies can ensure responsible disengagement from supplier contracts during the pandemic by conducting rapid human rights assessments. If cancellation of supplier contracts is legal and absolutely necessary (after evaluating all possible options for alternatives), start by formulating a responsible exit strategy in consultation with potentially impacted rightsholders. For instance, ensure that workers and suppliers receive ongoing compensation for the duration of the unemployment or offer trainings and financial capacity building (microcredit) to mitigate loss of employment for workers and other people living in surrounding communities.
• As much as possible, continue with any efforts underway to remediate past harms that the company has caused or contributed to before the pandemic. If appropriate, use company’s leverage to push business partners to do the same.
• As the COVID-19 situation improves, conduct a post-crisis assessment to ensure that all grievances are lodged and assess if and how people have been impacted by company action (or inaction) during the pandemic. Companies will and should be held to account for their actions during the pandemic. Responsible companies will acknowledge harms and provide remedy.

While many restrictions remain in place and extreme caution is still needed, this is a moment when companies should start examining their approaches, both past and current, and ensure they are accountable for their actions. Failure to remedy past harms is not just counter to international standards outlined in the UNGPs—it can also destabilize the business environment whether due to social unrest or increased vulnerability to crisis.

Blog | Wednesday June 17, 2020

Blockchain through the Whole Supply Chain: Traceability Builds Business Resilience

Preview

Over the past year, The Estée Lauder Companies and Aveda have been working with LMR Naturals by IFF, BSR, and Envisible to establish a blockchain-enabled traceable supply chain that identifies opportunities to deliver sustainability benefits to all the actors in the supply chain. This post is the third in a series documenting the journey of this innovative partnership and follows up on a first blog (published in July 2019) and a second blog (published in December 2019). 

COVID-19 has caused shockwaves across global industries as most of us throughout the world experience firsthand the challenges of supply chain resiliency and transparency. From sudden shortages of certain food and household staples to questions about the safety or future availability of certain items based on their source of manufacturing, we are all realizing that we live in an extremely interconnected but paradoxically opaque world.  

At first these shortages could be dismissed as simply a rush of demand that outstrips supply (i.e. panic and hoarding), but as we explore deeper, we can find curious anomalies about the way many supply chains function. A realization begins to emerge that many supply chains are only designed to function within the framework of a globalized society with its multitude of interdependent systems that can be relied upon to predictably function all the time, exactly as expected. And then...the unexpected happens, and it becomes painfully clear that traceability, transparency, and resilience are the only way to ensure a lasting and sustainable business model. 

When we begin to emerge from the shock of the current worldwide health crisis and its impact on the global economy, smart businesses will take this opportunity to reevaluate their supply chains in order to reduce the unknowns that erode resiliency when unanticipated changes occur. This means having a granular understanding of not only your suppliers, but the suppliers of your suppliers and the associated risks to which you are exposed, so that in the future businesses can better anticipate both direct and indirect concerns. 

By taking steps to ensure greater visibility into supply chains before times of crisis, companies gain greater awareness of potential critical disruptions, or other unexpected business concerns, that might arise in the future.

Over the past nine months, LMR Naturals, BSR, and Envisible have been working with The Estée Lauder Companies and Aveda to better understand these issues in a supply chain that starts on a bumpy road in rural Madagascar and ultimately crosses three continents to deliver the vanilla that is an essential component to the many of Aveda’s fragrances and formulas. Our work began long before COVID-19 and involved laying the track for a fully digitized supply chain, with transactions at each point in the chain of custody being immutably recorded on a blockchain using Wholechain. It started as an exercise—a compulsory first step—to facilitate sustainable and responsible sourcing all the way back to a co-op of smallholder farmers.  

This product has enabled The Estée Lauder Companies and Aveda, along with its natural ingredients partners LMR and the local cooperative Biovanilla, to achieve full traceability and greater visibility into the vanilla supply chain in real time. This will enable it to move forward on a path toward obtaining fully sustainably sourced vanilla in Madagascar—a win for the companies and for the cooperative and the farmers with whom it works. 

Now in light of COVID-19, this important work reveals a broader opportunity to evaluate the systems that enterprises have in place to monitor the myriad indirect yet consequential concerns that arise in our interconnected world. 

By taking steps to ensure greater visibility into supply chains before times of crisis, companies gain greater awareness of potential critical disruptions, or other unexpected business concerns, that might arise in the future. So, what are some supply chain lessons we can take away from this work, especially in light of COVID-19? 

• Full supply chain awareness is critical. Businesses need to monitor not only their suppliers but their suppliers’ suppliers in order to truly anticipate risks that might arise. There are solutions even for the most complex supply chains, even for companies with relatively small procurement leverage. 
• Digital verification is increasingly important. Businesses have become all too accustomed to hopping on planes in order to understand issues on the ground. COVID-19 has not only made this impossible for a time, but it has raised our awareness of the risks involved with depending solely on local, physical verification of sourcing locations. 
• There is no reason not to start now. The rise of digital tools and solutions to monitor and analyze certain supply chains could significantly improve transparency and resilience in anticipation of the next global crisis. This will better enable business leaders to understand risk exposure, position themselves to respond to disruptions, and promote sustainability collectively along their supply chains.

The common and appropriate management refrain is to "never let a good crisis go to waste." COVID-19 has been a wake-up call on many levels in our globalized world, exposing economic and social blind spots that will demand collective innovation. If there is a positive result that can emerge from this crisis for businesses, it will be a lesson in resilience: use this opportunity to become better prepared for future unexpected disruptions. A transparent supply chain is one element that business can tackle now.  

Blog | Tuesday June 16, 2020

Supporting LGBTI People during Pride Month 2020 and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Preview

In 2019, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) communities around the world filled city streets for LGBTI Pride in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, one of the most important events contributing to the launch of the gay liberation movement and the fight for LGBTI rights in the United States.

In stark contrast, this year’s Pride festivities have been canceled or moved to virtual platforms due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and LGBTI communities, like other vulnerable groups, have been hit hard by the crisis. While Pride is now synonymous with festive celebrations and has become a staple of mainstream and corporate culture, it began as a series of riots led by trans women of color against police brutality and racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination.

As we celebrate Pride Month in 2020, with protests against brutal police violence and racial discrimination against Black people erupting around the world, it is more important than ever to recognize the struggles of disenfranchised communities all over the world and the interconnectedness of these struggles for justice and equality.

But first, some good news. On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that LGBTI people are protected from workplace discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ruling against the Trump administration, which sought to exclude sexual orientation from protected classes. This resounding victory for LGBTI rights is consistent with international human rights principles, particularly those articulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the UN Guiding Principles) and the UN Standards of Conduct for Business Tackling Discrimination Against LGBTI People (the UN Standards). It also affirms the important work the private sector is doing and must continue to do to create inclusive environments for LGBTI employees, customers, and communities wherever they do business.

Which brings us to the bad news. Despite a lot of good work to address inclusivity by the private sector, LGBTI communities around the world remain as vulnerable as ever. COVID-19 has exposed many of the structural and systemic issues disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations, including people of color, LGBTI people, migrants, and more, who were hit hardest by COVID-19. The LGBTI community, for example, suffered from limited access to and deprioritization of healthcare services, stigma and discrimination, violence and abuse, and a decrease in access to work during this crisis, as highlighted by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. These factors existed prior to the pandemic but were quickly exacerbated as LGBTI people sought protections and support during the crisis.  

In response to the severe impact of COVID-19 on LGBTI communities around the world, the Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality (PGLE), a collaborative initiative of BSR in partnership with the World Economic Forum and UN Human Rights, along with our NGO partner OutRight Action International, launched the COVID-19 Global LGBTIQ Emergency Fund. Established by OutRight, the Fund supports LGBTI organizations on the frontlines of the pandemic in the global South, addressing a range of humanitarian needs such as emergency food and/or shelter, access to safe and competent healthcare, safety and security, and financial stability.

The Fund will continue its efforts to mobilize the private sector to support this effort throughout Pride Month and beyond, giving companies an opportunity to reallocate resources in light of cancelled Pride events. Prioritizing financial support to LGBTI communities and advocating on their behalf are concrete steps that the business community can take to empower LGBTI movement leaders and ultimately ensure the survival and long-term viability of local partners leading the grassroots effort to tackle discrimination against the LGBTI community.

Contributing to this emergency relief fund is another way companies can fulfil their commitments under the UN Standards, in particular Standard 5, “Act in the Public Sphere.” PGLE’s mandate is to help companies implement these standards and take action to meet the expectations which they articulate, which include supporting LGBTI communities around the world. And in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling, it is as important as ever for the private sector to ensure it is promoting inclusivity of and eliminating discrimination against LGBTI people. Companies interested in becoming supporters of the UN Standards can visit the PGLE website to learn more.

The private sector has an opportunity to drive impactful change for LGBTI people around the world, particularly during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and the civil unrest as people rally and demand an end to racial injustice and police violence around the world. We have an opportunity to mobilize a different kind of Pride campaign this year, one focused on fulfilling the vision of the UN Standards and providing essential financial support in a time where LGBTI communities and nonprofits are facing an acute threat to their health and well-being. For millions, Pride has always been a celebration of survival from persecution and discrimination. This year, the sentiment is even more urgent, and we all must come together to strengthen our commitment and work towards a more inclusive, tolerant, and supportive world for all.

Blog | Thursday June 11, 2020

A Human Rights-Based Approach to COVID-19 Decision-Making

Preview

Every action and decision that companies and governments alike make in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to impose significant human rights impacts on employees, supply chains, customers, and communities around the world.

The impacts of both the pandemic and the swift decisions leaders are having to make to address the risks carried by the virus affect different stakeholders in distinct ways, with vulnerable populations bearing the brunt of not only the virus itself, but the economic consequences as well. Because of this, many human rights organizations, such as the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), have issued statements urging governments and companies to take into consideration the specific needs of rightsholders, particularly vulnerable populations, when developing responses to COVID-19.

Beyond identifying and understanding the impacts of the pandemic on particular populations, companies face additional challenges based on their unique operating circumstances. Indeed, the crisis is playing out in very different ways across sectors, industries, and geographies. For some, COVID-19 has introduced an opportunity to more deeply integrate and embed their platforms and services as the world shifts into a new operating paradigm. For others, the pandemic presents an existential crisis that has severely impacted the business models and long-term viability of entire sectors—from travel and tourism to retail and hospitality, and many more.

To address the diverse impacts and potential approaches companies may face in this crisis, particularly as industries adjust to a new “normal” for the long term, BSR has developed three primers on how to respect human rights during the COVID-19 crisis: one for the energy and extractives sector, one for the food, beverage, and agriculture sector, and one for the transportation and logistics sector.

Regardless of how COVID-19 may affect these three sectors and others differently, a human rights-based approach means understanding how the decisions a company makes in response to COVID-19 impact its own employees, contractors, and supply chain workers and seeking to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts to the greatest extent possible. While the primers focus on three specific sectors, the approach they outline for thinking through how the pandemic may impact human rights can be applied across industries. Furthermore, the risks highlighted in these three sectors present a range of risks that illustrate of the types of issues many other sectors may face—from protecting employee privacy concerns once testing and tracing is implemented to weighing a balance between communal needs and employee health and safety.

How such decisions are made may impact the following rights, which the primers explore in more detail:

• The right to a safe and healthy work environment, due to heightened risk of contracting the virus in the workplace
• The rights to work and to an adequate standard of living, due to layoffs, furloughs, or shutdowns, particularly in countries where unemployment benefits such as medical coverage or paycheck protection are limited or nonexistent
• The right to privacy, as employers and local governments implement preventative measures to test, track, and trace

In some cases, companies—especially those providing essential services—will have to balance the rights of their employees against those of their customers and local communities. This will require a thoughtful, human rights-based stakeholder engagement approach, weighing the impacts on the various stakeholders and including them in this process.

While these primers are not meant to cover every potential human rights issue emerging from COVID-19 across all sectors, we hope they offer companies enough guidance to be able to address any challenge that may emerge through a human rights lens. If you would like to know more about how to ensure respect for human rights in your company’s pandemic response, please get in touch.