On 27 February 2019, in a 7-1 decision, the US Supreme Court made an end to the absolute immunity from suit that international organisations (IOs) had consistently enjoyed in US courts. The decision realigns the immunity regime for IOs with that for foreign states, which leaves the opportunity to sue organisations such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) when they engage in commercial activities. In a flare of enthusiasm among academics and (human rights) activists, the decision was immediately granted a landmark​ status and marked as a turning point in the long history of impunity for social, ecological and human harm caused by the activities of IOs. This Doing Business Right Talk ​will summarise the reasoning in the decision and explore the foreseeable effects on the legal accountability of IOs, and international financial institutions in particular. The most immediate effect, in that sense, might not be located on the avenue of adjudication, but in the various accountability mechanisms that have been created within IOs themselves.

Dimitri van den Meerssche is a researcher in the Dispute Settlement and Adjudication strand at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut. His research reflects on the law of international organisations, international legal practices and technologies of global governance. This work is inspired by insights from science and technology studies, performativity theory and actor-network theory. Dimitri is currently finalising his doctoral dissertation at the European University Institute, which he expects to defend in winter 2019. His dissertation is entitled “The World Bank’s Lawyers – An Inquiry into the Life of Law as Institutional Practice”. In the context of this dissertation, Dimitri has worked for three months at the World Bank Legal Vice-Presidency and spent one semester as visiting doctoral researcher at the London School of Economics.

When: Wednesday 24 April 2019 at 16:00

Where: Asser Institute in The Hague

Register Here

Doing Business Right – Monthly Report – May & June 2019

Editor’s note: Shamistha Selvaratnam is a LLM Candidate of the Advanced Masters of European and International Human Rights Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Prior to commencing the LLM, she worked as a business and human rights solicitor in Australia where she specialised in promoting business respect for human rights through engagement with policy, law and practice. Maisie Biggs graduated with a MSc in Global Crime, Justice and Security from the University of Edinburgh and holds a LLB from University College London. She is currently working with the Asser Institute in The Hague. She has previously worked for International Justice Mission in South Asia and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) in Amsterdam.

Introduction

This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on Doing Business Right based on the coverage provided on our twitter feed @DoinBizRight and on various websites. You are invited to contribute to this compilation via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we may have overlooked.

The Headlines

Dutch Court allows Case against Shell to Proceed

On 1 May the Hague District Court rules that it has jurisdiction to hear a suit brought against the Royal Dutch Shell by four Nigerian widows. The widows are still seeking redress for the killing of their husbands in 1995 in Nigeria. They claim the defendants are accomplices in the execution of their husbands by the Abasha regime. Allegedly, Shell and related companies provided material support, which led to the arrests and deaths of the activists. Although Shell denies wrongdoing in this case, the Court has allowed the suit to proceed. The judgment is accessible in Dutch here. An English translation is yet to be provided.

The Netherlands Adopts Child Labour Due Diligence Law

On 14 May the Dutch Government passed legislation requiring certain companies to carry out due diligence related to child labour in their supply chains. The law applies to companies that are either registered in the Netherlands that sell or deliver goods or services to Dutch consumers or that are registered overseas but sell or deliver goods or services to Dutch consumers. These companies will have to submit a statement declaring that they have due diligence procedures in place to prevent child labour from being used in the production of their goods or services.

While it is not yet clear when the law will come into force, it is unlikely to do so before 1 January 2020. The Dutch law is part of the growing movement to embed human rights due diligence into national legislative frameworks. The law is accessible in Dutch here.

First case under the French Due Diligence law initiated against Total

French NGOs Amis de la Terre FR and Survie have initiated civil proceedings against French energy company Total for the planned Tilenga mining project in Uganda. These organisations and CRED, Friends of the Earth Uganda and NAVODA have sent a formal notice to Total in relation to concerns over the potential expropriation of people in proximity to the site of the Tilenga project and threats to the environment. Information on the case from the initiating civil society organisations can be found here. This is the first initiated case under the new French Due Diligence law, and may act as a test case for future litigation.

In a similar vein, civil society organisations CCFD-Terre Solidaire and Sherpa have launched Le Radar du Devoir de Vigilance [The Vigilance Duty Radar], a resource to track the compliance of French companies to the law. The site lists potentially subjected companies, and their published vigilance plans (or lack thereof).

Bolstering the UK Modern Slavery Act

During a speech at the International Labour Organisation’s centenary conference on 11 June 2019, Theresa May outlined the UK Government’s further commitments to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act 2015; these included a central public registry of modern slavery transparency statements by businesses (in a similar vein to the Gender Pay Gap Service), and the extension of reporting requirements to the public sector. Individual ministerial departments will be obliged to publish modern slavery statements from 2021, while central Government has committed to publish voluntarily this year. The focus on public sector procurement will apparently also include a “new programme that will improve responsible recruitment in parts of our public sector supply chains that pass through Asia.”

The Final Report of the Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was released in May, and considered in Westminster Hall on 19th June.

UN and International Organisations Publications and Statements 

•       European Commission – Corporate Social Responsibility, Responsible Business Conduct, and Business & Human Rights: Overview of Progress

•       International Labour Organisation – Public sector clients pledge action to foster fair recruitment

•       OHCHR – Statement by the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights: Time for the G20 to act on commitments and step up leadership on business and human rights

NGOs, NHRIs, CSOs and Human Rights Organisations Publications and Statements

•       Amnesty International – Thailand: Defamation charges for exposing labour abuse

•       Business & Human Rights Resource Centre – Out of Sight: Modern Slavery in Pacific Supply Chains of Canned Tuna: A Survey & Analysis of Company Action

•       Business & Human Rights Resource Centre – Out of Sight: Modern Slavery in Pacific Supply Chains of Canned Tuna: A Survey & Analysis of Company Action

•       Center for International Legal Cooperation – Summary of Sounding Board Consultation Round 1 – Results Elements Paper on the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

•       Clean Clothes Campaign – Questions raised after agreement reached on Bangladesh Accord

•       Coalition for Human Rights in Development – Uncalculated Risks: Threats and attacks against human rights defenders and the role of development financiers

•       Conectas – Following Pressure, Vale Withdraws from UN Social Responsibility Network

•       Conflict and Environment Observatory – New UN legal report addresses the responsibility of states and corporations for environmental damage in conflict

•       CORE – 49 global CSOs call for justice for Nigerian villages devastated by Shell oil spill

•       CORE – Improving the effectiveness of the supply chain reporting requirement in UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and moving towards mandatory human rights due diligence

•       European Coalition of Corporate Justice – Finnish Government commits to HRDD legislation

•       FERN, Tropenbos International and Fair Trade Advocacy Office – Towards sustainable cocoa supply chains: Regulatory options for the EU

•       Justice Project Pakistan & Equidem Research and Consulting – Through the Cracks: The Exploitation of Pakistani Migrant Workers in the Gulf Recruitment Regime

•       Mahidol University, ASEAN CSR Network & Article Thirty – Human Rights Disclosure in ASEAN

•       MVO Platform – MVO Platform position paper on due diligence and certification

•       MVO Platform – The Netherlands takes an historic step by adopting child labour due diligence law

•       OECD Watch – The State of Remedy under the OECD Guidelines: Understanding NCP cases concluded in 2018 through the lens of remedy

•       OECD Watch – Use with caution: The role of the OECD National Contact Points in protecting human rights defenders

•       Sancroft – The Sancroft-Tussell Report: Eliminating modern slavery in public procurement

•       SOMO – European Development Bank significantly strengthens its grievance mechanism

•       SOMO – Shell put Nigeria under pressure with ISDS process to obtain oil field OPL 245

•       SwedWatch – Copper with a Cost: Human rights and environmental risks in the mineral supply chains of ICT: A case study from Zambia

•       The Danish Institute for Human Rights – Nestlé first company to publicly share its human rights training for employees

•       The Freedom Fund – Going Dutch: The Netherlands’ Adoption of a Child Labour Law Reaffirms Trend of Mandating Corporate Due Diligence

•       Treaty Alliance Germany – Briefing Paper on Zero Draft: Unpacking Arguments against a Treaty

•       Trial International – German and Belgian Prosecutors Urged to Shed Light on Exports of Dual-Use Goods to Syria

Government Press Releases and Publications

•       Canadian Government – Consultation on labour exploitation in global supply chains

•       Dutch Working Group on Enabling Remediation – Discussion Paper

•       G7 – G7 Social Communique

•       United Kingdom Modern Slavery Unit – Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015: Final Report

In Court 

•       Court of The Hague – Kiobel v Shell

•       Sydney Morning Herald – 'It's game on': BHP hit with record $7b claim in UK over deadly dam collapse

In the News 

•       Aljazeera – Brazil indigenous affairs head fired amid push to develop Amazon

•       Amnesty International – Nigeria/Netherlands: Shell ruling “a vital step towards justice”

•       Bloomberg - Kenya Cancels Environment License of $2 Billion Coal-Power Plant

•       Ethical Corporation – 'UK multinationals will face greater scrutiny after the Vedanta decision'

•       EUReporter Economy – Europe takes a big step towards companies having ‘duty of care’ on #HumanRights

•       Financial Times – National courts have global companies in their sights

•       Financial Times – Pressure builds on mining industry over supply chains

•       Financial Times – Vedanta starts arbitration against Zambia after mines seized

•       Financial Times has launched Moral Money, a platform and newsletter to cover ESG, impact investing and sustainable business practice.

•       Ground Up – Aussie company show big profits from South African West Coast mine

•       Japan Times – 'Culture of fear': Report alleges low pay and overwork for laborers at Tokyo Olympics sites

•       Khaleej Times – Worker injured at work in UAE gets Dh1.5 million compensation

•       Le Monde – Bolloré sued by ten NGOs

•       Mail Online – PM to unveil new measures to tackle `abhorrent´ modern slavery

•       Nikkei Asian Review – Uniqlo discloses all garment factories for first time

•       Reuters – UK urged to 'lead by example' on slavery as top state suppliers flout law

•       Reuters – UPDATE 1-BNP Paribas must face revived lawsuit over Sudanese genocide- U.S. appeals court

•       Reuters – Widows of hanged Nigeria activists can continue case vs Shell: Dutch court

•       The Guardian – 'I had pain all over my body': Italy’s tainted tobacco industry

•       The Guardian – Are your tinned tomatoes picked by slave labour?

•       The Guardian – Dozens killed in DRC Glencore copper mine accident

•       The Guardian – Low pay in the garment industry still a reality despite pledges – study

•       The Guardian – Murder, rape and claims of contamination at a Tanzanian goldmine

•       The Guardian – WhatsApp spyware: UK firm promises new 'respect for human rights' following allegations

•       The Sunday Times – Law on parent company liability moving in right direction

•       The Sydney Morning Herald – BHP faces beefed up class action over Samarco disaster

•       Triple Pundit – Companies Need More Than CSR To Tackle Modern Slavery

Academic Materials

•       Amy Sinclair and Justine Nolan – Modern Slavery Laws in Australia: Steps in the Right Direction? – Business and Human Rights Journal

•       Bernice Yeung – In a Day's Work: The Fight to End Sexual Violence Against America's Most Vulnerable Workers – Human Rights Quarterly

•       Charlotte Villiers – Global Supply Chains and Sustainability: The Role of Disclosure and Due Diligence Regulation – In Beate Sjåfjell and Christopher M. Bruner (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Sustainability (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming).

•       David Strouss – Bringing Pesticide Injury Cases to US Courts: The Challenges of Transnational Litigation – Business and Human Rights Journal

•       Dorota Weziak-Blalowolska, Piotr Bialowolski and Eileen McNeely – Worker’s well-being. Evidence from the apparel industry in Mexico – Intelligent Buildings International

•       Girogia Papalia – Doing Business Right: The Case for a Business and Human Rights Treaty – Perth International Law Journal

•       Karin Buhmann, Jonas Jonsson and Mette Fisker – Do No Harm and Do More Good Too: Connecting Business and Human Rights with Political CSR to Identify Business Opportunities for Contributing to the SDGs – The International Journal of Business in Society (Forthcoming)

•       Maddalena Neglia – Striking the Right(s) Balance: Conflicts between Human Rights and Freedom to Conduct a Business in the ILVA Case in Italy – Business and Human Rights Journal

•       Samentha Goethals – Exploring Migrant Employees’ ‘Rights-Talk’ in the British Hospitality Sector – Business and Human Rights Journal

Blogs           

Asser Institute Doing Business Right Blog

•       Maisie Biggs – Background Information to the Lundin Case

•       Maisie Biggs – International Criminal Law and Corporate Actors - Part 1: From Slave Trade Tribunals to Nuremberg 

•       Maisie Biggs – International Criminal Law and Corporate Actors - Part 2: The Rome Statute and its Aftermath

•       Maisie Biggs – International Criminal Law and Corporate Actors - Part 3: War Crimes before Domestic Courts

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part II): The Pluralist Struggle to Shape the Practical Meaning of the Concept

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part III): A Deep Dive into Adidas’ Practices

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part IV): A Deep Dive into Unilever’s Practices

•       Shamistha Selvaratnam – The Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence (Part V): Does it Foster Respect for Human Rights by Business?

Other Blogs

•       Alessandro Runci – Critical shareholding as a tool to hold Italian corporations accountable – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Anne Manschot – Audits are failing – brands should cut out waste so suppliers can pay their workers a living wage – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Benjamin Hoffman – Many segments of the business and human rights field have been co-opted & captured by corporate actors – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Bobbie Sta. Maria, BHHRC and JJ Rosenbaum – Why women workers in global garment supply chains are saying #MeToo – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Chiara Macchi – The Human Rights Obligations of International Organisations towards their Civilian Personnel – BHR Journal Blog

•       Daniela Chimisso dos Santos – The Effect on Business: The Reality of the Nevsun Case in Canada – BHR Journal Blog

•       Dr Bärbel Kofler – Duty-bound to protect – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Ekaterina Aristova – Clarifying the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction of English courts to try business-related human rights violations – BHR Journal Blog

•       Elena Blanco – Jurisdiction, access to remedy in business and human rights cases and the corporate structure: A tale of two cases – BHR Journal Blog

•       Emily Dwyer – Canada's 'toothless' new corporate watchdog is a broken promise and a major setback for human rights – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Geert Van Calster – Kiobel v Shell in The Netherlands – GAVC LAW

•       Genevieve LeBaron – How to Spur Corporate Accountability with Modern Slavery Legislation – Delta87

•       Heidi Hautala – Responsible Business Conduct - the European Business model of the 2020s – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Jolyon Ford – Can consumers and market actors ‘regulate’ corporate reporting on Modern Slavery risk? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Joseph Wilde – Going Dutch: Four things you should know about the Netherlands’ new law to eliminate child labour – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Kelly Groen and Lis Cunha – Due diligence laws must not leave women behind – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Kristen Casper – Reality bites: Fossil fuel companies face climate liability claims after decades of denial – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Larry Cata Backer – Norwegian Ethics Information Committee Seeks Input on Methods to Improve Respect For Human Rights Through Supply Chain Transparency Mechanisms – Law at the End of the Day

•       Lauren Armistead and Mark Dummett – Why the UK Supreme Court must hear Nigerian oil pollution appeal – Medium

•       Maria Khan – What are the legal tools for holding corporations to account globally? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Marilyn Croser – Towards mandatory human rights due diligence in the UK: Developments and opportunities – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Martijn Boersma & Justine Nolan – Blockchain can help break the chains of modern slavery, but it is not a complete solution – The Conversation

•       Maysa Zorob and Antonella Angelini – Are shareholders the new champions of climate justice? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Miriam Saage- Maaβ – Jabir et al vs. KiK: Do EU companies have an extraterritorial duty towards suppliers in global production chains? – BHR Journal Blog

•       Nora Götzmann – New UN Gender Guidance is a reminder that real equality requires tackling discrimination – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Peter Barnett – Shareholder litigation as the next frontier in shareholder climate action – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Phil Bloomer – Europe takes a big step towards companies having a ‘duty of care’ on human rights – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Sara Seck – Extraterritoriality: A Problem of Terminology – BHR Journal Blog

•       Sara Thornton – Listening to survivors, the role of business and supporting law enforcement  – Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Blog

•       Seunghyun Nam and Changrok Soh – Business and Human Rights in the Republic of Korea and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction – BHR Journal Blog

•       Shannan Burrow and Phil Bloomer – Could Finnish presidency fix labour-chain abuse? – EU Observer

•       Sonia HIerzig – Investors need to hold all sectors to account on climate change – not just the fossil fuel industry  – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Tom Wills – Stop Making The 'Business Case' For A Responsible Private Sector – Huffpost Blog

•       Urs Rybi – What does Switzerland's vote on mandatory due diligence mean - and what happens next? – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Walker Syachalinga – Vedanta v Lungowe: An irreconcilable regulatory outreach? – BHR Journal Blog

•       William Anderson – Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence: A business perspective – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

•       Yousuf Aftab – Business, Human Rights & the Limits of Law – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Call for Papers, Submissions and Abstracts 

•       Call for blogs – Business and Human Rights Journal Blog – Cambridge University

•       Call for session proposals and snapshot proposals – UN Forum on Business and Human Rights

•       Call for public consultation on the first draft of The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights - CILC

Upcoming Events 

•       22-26 July 2019 – International Summer Course Human Rights Law in Context (special focus on business and human rights) – Centre for Human Rights Erlangen-Nürnberg in cooperation with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Nuremberg, Germany

•       12-13 September 2019 – Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association 5th Annual Conference – University of Essex, Colchester, England

•       16-18 October 2019 – 4^th Coimbra International Conference on Human Rights: a transdisciplinary approach – CIDH Coimba, Portugal

•       25-27 November 2019 – UN Forum on Business and Human Rights – Geneva, Switzerland

Editor’s note: Shamistha Selvaratnam is a LLM Candidate of the Advanced Masters of European and International Human Rights Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands and a contributor to the Doing Business Right project of the Asser Institute. Prior to commencing the LLM, she worked as a business and human rights solicitor in Australia where she specialised in promoting business respect for human rights through engagement with policy, law and practice.

Soon after the introduction of the UK Modern Slavery Act (UK Act) in 2015, discussions about establishing similar legislation in Australia commenced. In February 2017, the Attorney-General asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Committee) to commence an inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia. The terms of reference of the inquiry included, inter alia, considering the ‘prevalence of modern slavery in the domestic and global supply chains of companies, businesses and organisations operating in Australia’ and whether a Modern Slavery Act comparable to the UK Act should be introduced in Australia. The Committee released an interim report in August 2017 and then a final report in December 2017 – both reports supported the idea of developing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia and set out the Committee’s recommendations with respect to the parameters of a corporate reporting requirement. In the meantime, the Australian Government also published a consultation paper and regulation impact statement outlining its proposed reporting requirement for an Australian Modern Slavery Act.

In June this year, the first draft of the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 (Cth) (the Federal Bill) was introduced into the Australian Parliament. It set out a reporting requirement for large Australian entities to submit a statement on risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Federal Bill stated that it supports ‘large businesses to identify and address modern slavery risks and to develop and maintain responsible and transparent supply chains. It will drive a ‘race to the top’ as reporting entities compete for market funding and investor and consumer support.’ On 29 November 2018 the Federal Bill passed both houses of the Australian Parliament incorporating amendments made by the Upper House of Parliament. The amendments resulted in the inclusion of a provision giving the Minister power to request explanations from entities that fail to comply with the reporting requirement (discussed in further detail below) and gives the Minister the power to cause an annual report to be prepared providing an overview of compliance by entities and identifying best practice modern slavery reporting. 

This second blog of a series of articles dedicated to the global modern slavery developments provides an overview of the main elements of the Federal Bill and how it compares to the UK Act. It also discusses the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (NSW) (NSW Act), which was introduced by New South Wales (NSW), a State in Australia. The introduction of NSW Act was relatively unexpected given the movement at the Federal level to introduce national legislation addressing modern slavery in the corporate context. Therefore, this blog will discuss the NSW Act’s interplay with the Federal Bill. It will be followed by a final piece on the modern slavery developments in other jurisdictions in the corporate context.

Key Aspects of the Federal Bill

The Federal Bill requires reporting entities with at least $100 million global consolidated revenue to submit an annual modern slavery statement on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.

What is ‘modern slavery’?

As stated in the first blog post in this series, while there is no globally agreed definition of ‘modern slavery’ under international law, it does appear that modern slavery is an umbrella term that covers a range of exploitative practices. As summarised by Anti-Slavery International, human exploitation characterised by only one of the following features is classed as ‘modern slavery’: (i) coercion to work through either mental or physical threat; (ii) being owned or controlled by an employer, usually through mental or physical abuse or the threat of abuse; (iii) being dehumanised or treated as a commodity; or (iv) being physically constrained or with limited freedom of movement.

The Federal Bill defines ‘modern slavery’ by reference to certain offences in the Australian Criminal Code, including slavery, servitude, forced labour, trafficking in persons, forced marriage, child trafficking, debt bondage and other slavery-like practices, and certain forms of child labour. Accordingly, the acts caught by the term ‘modern slavery’ under the Federal Bill are broader than the acts caught under the UK Act, which states that the offences of ‘modern slavery’ are slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking.

Who is required to report?

The term ‘reporting entity’ is defined as any of the following:

• An Australian entity or an entity carrying on a business in Australia with a consolidated revenue of at least $100 million for the reporting period.
• The Commonwealth.
• A corporate Commonwealth entity or Commonwealth company which has a consolidated revenue of at least $100 million for the reporting period.
• An entity that volunteers to comply with the Federal Bill.

Accordingly, similarly to the UK Act, the Federal Bill applies to an entity regardless of its geographic location, so long as it carries on at least a part of its business in Australia. A body corporate carries on a business in Australia if it, inter alia, has a place of business (i.e. a business address) in Australia.[1] Entities that do not meet the definition of a ‘reporting entity’ can voluntarily produce a Modern Slavery Statement. However, the monetary threshold in the Federal Bill is higher than that in the UK Act and, accordingly, a smaller group of entities will be captured under the Federal Bill. It is anticipated that approximately 3,000 entities will be captured.

What are reporting entities required to report on?

Unlike the UK Act which sets out optional criteria which Modern Slavery Statements may include information about, the Federal Bill sets out mandatory criteria which such Statements must cover, namely: 

a)     the identity of the reporting entity;

b)     a description of the structure, operations and supply chains of the reporting entity;

c)     a description of the risks of modern slavery practices in the operations and supply chains of the reporting entity, and any entities that the reporting entity owns or controls;

d)     a description of the actions taken by the reporting entity and any entity that the reporting entity owns or controls, to assess and address those risks, including due diligence and remediation processes;

e)     a description of how the reporting entity assesses the effectiveness of such actions;

f)      a description of the process of consultation with any entities that the reporting entity owns or controls; and

g)     any other information considered relevant.

Accordingly, the Federal Bill is prescriptive about the content of Modern Slavery Statements and goes beyond the optional criteria in the UK Act by requiring reporting entities to not only report on modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains, but also on how they assess the effectiveness of the actions they take to address those risks.

Further, the Federal Bill allows for joint statements to be published by a reporting entity on behalf of the reporting entities that it owns or controls. The parent entity must consult with the boards of the relevant subsidiaries when preparing the statement on their behalf.

Who is responsible for reporting?

Similarly to the UK Act, the Board of directors will bear the ultimate responsibility for Modern Slavery Statements with the Federal Bill requiring the Board to approve the statement and a director to sign the statement.

How can published Modern Slavery Statements be accessed?

Unlike the UK Act, the Federal Bill provides for a Modern Slavery Statements Register to be established and maintained by the Minister, with Statements being available for public inspection online.

What happens if reporting entities do not report?

In the event that a reporting entity that is required to report under the Federal Bill does not report, similarly to the UK Act, no financial penalties will be imposed on that entity. However, the Minister does have the power to request an explanation from an entity about its failure to comply with a requirement in relation to Modern Slavery Statements, and may also request that the entity undertake remedial action in relation to that requirement. If the entity fails to comply with the request, the Minister may publish information (including the identity of the entity) about the failure to comply on the Modern Slavery Statements Register or elsewhere. The publication of such information is likely to result in public, shareholder and investor criticism, which can be costly to the reputation of reporting entities.

The critiques of the Federal Bill

While the Federal Bill is very young, it has received some critiques.

Human Rights Watch has argued that the Federal Bill ‘falls short of an effective response to the widespread and growing role of modern Slavery in Australia’s supply chains.’ Among other things, it stated that the monetary threshold is too high thereby limiting the scope of application of the Federal Bill. Further, it contends that because the Federal Bill does not require entities to carry out due diligence, they may simply engage in a ‘”checking the box” exercise’. It recommends that minimum guidelines for due diligence that are ‘proportional to the size of a company’s supply chain and modern slavery risk’ be introduced in the Federal Bill. It has also strongly recommended the inclusion of financial penalties for failure to report under the Federal Bill in order to provide an ‘additional incentive toward compliance’ by businesses.

Oxfam International notes that the Federal Bill is ‘not strong enough’ as it is ‘missing critical elements to ensure companies will be compelled to take the urgent action needed to protect’ victims of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. It argues that the Federal Bill should include penalties for entities that fail to report and an independent oversight body should be established to monitor the implementation of the Bill. 

Similarly to Oxfam International, Justine Nolan and Fiona McGaughey have also stated that a shortcoming of the Federal Bill is the lack of penalties for non-compliance with the reporting requirement. They argue that enforcement is effectively left to NGOs, shareholders and investors to ‘put pressure on the companies to comply with their reporting obligations’. They also state that the lack of independent oversight raises questions regarding the ‘efficacy’ of the reporting requirement.

Modern Slavery Act in New South Wales

In June 2018, prior to the passing of the Federal Bill, the NSW Act was passed (for more on the NSW MSA, see here and here). The NSW Act requires ‘commercial organisations’ to prepare an annual Modern Slavery Statement. ‘Commercial organisations’ are organisations with more than one employee in NSW that supply goods and services for profit or gain with a total global turnover of not less than $50 million per financial year. The criteria that must be satisfied by the Statement will be set out in regulations that have not yet been introduced in the NSW Parliament. However, the criteria may include information about the following:

a)     the organisation’s structure, its business and its supply chains,

b)     its due diligence processes in relation to modern slavery in its business and supply chains,

c)     the parts of its business and supply chains where there is a risk of modern slavery taking place, and the steps it has taken to assess and manage that risk,

d)     the training about modern slavery available to its employees.

Unlike both the UK Act and the Federal Bill, the NSW Act has teeth as failure to report may result in financial penalties of up to $1.1 million being imposed on the relevant organisation. Further, failure to make a Modern Slavery Statement public or to provide false or misleading information in a Statement carry financial penalties of up to $110,000.

The position as to whether entities will be required to report under both the Federal Bill and the NSW Act is still unclear. However, the NSW Act does state that it will not apply to a commercial organisation where it is subject to obligations under a Commonwealth law that is ‘prescribed as a corresponding law’. The Federal Bill is yet to be prescribed as a ‘corresponding law’. If it is so prescribed, then entities that would otherwise be required to report under the Federal Bill and the NSW Act will only be required to report under the Federal Bill. Accordingly, the NSW Act will capture entities with a total global turnover of between $50 million and $100 million.

Conclusion

The Federal Bill and the NSW Act are part of the wider movement towards greater corporate regulation and transparency with respect to human rights. It marks another steps towards the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights globally and aims at fostering corporate respect for human rights.

It is clear that the Federal Bill and NSW Act have been heavily influenced by the UK Act but have addressed some of the shortcomings of the UK MSA discussed in the first blog post. In particular, the Federal Bill has mandatory criteria that reporting entities are required to report on and it is likely that the NSW Act will also have similar mandatory criteria. The UK Act on the other hand has optional criteria meaning that business are only required to publish a Modern Slavery Statement that is signed by a director and approved by the Board – the content of the Statement is irrelevant. The use of mandatory criteria is more likely to inspire change within businesses in Australia with respect to their practices relating to addressing and preventing modern slavery.

Similarly to the UK Act, the Federal Bill does not impose financial penalties on businesses that fail to comply with the reporting requirement. It does however give the Minister power to request an explanation from an entity about its failure to comply with a requirement in relation to Modern Slavery Statements, and to publish information in the event of non-compliance with such a request. The effectiveness of this provision will depend on whether the Minister invokes it. The NSW Act goes beyond both the UK Act and Federal Bill by imposing financial penalties on businesses that fail to comply with its reporting requirement. This is a big step forward in the fight against modern slavery as it is likely to incentivise businesses to take active steps to combat modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.

The Federal Bill will come into force on 1 January 2019. It is likely that the NSW Act will come into force around the same time. Accordingly, the first Modern Slavery Statements will be due by 1 January 2021. The date on which the first Modern Slavery Statements will be due under the NSW Act will be known once the regulations have been introduced. It is likely that the reporting dates of the Federal Bill and the NSW Act will be aligned in order to decrease the administrative burden on entities.

[1] An body corporate will also carry on a business in Australia if it establishes or uses a share transfer office or share registration office in Australia, or in the State or Territory, as the case may be, or administers, manages, or otherwise deals with, property situated in Australia, or in the State or Territory, as the case may be, as an agent, legal personal representative or trustee, whether by employees or agents or otherwise.

Editor's Note: Alexandru Rares Tofan recently graduated with an LLM in Transnational Law from King’s College London where he focused on international human rights law, transnational litigation and international law. He is currently an intern with the Doing Business Right project at the Asser Institute in The Hague. He previously worked as a research assistant at the Transnational Law Institute in London on several projects pertaining to human rights, labour law and transnational corporate conduct.

The national human rights institution of the Netherlands is the College voor de Rechten van de Mens (i.e. ‘the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights’). It was established on 1 October 2012 with the entering into force of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights Act of 24 November 2011 as supplemented by the Explanatory Memorandum (EP). It is an independent public body whose mission is to promote, monitor and protect human rights in practice, policy and legislation (see NIHR Act s.1 (3)). For these purposes, it enjoys a wide competence that spans the full breadth of human rights whether stemming from national or international legislation (see EP at page 7). The Institute’s duties include conducting investigations, reporting and making recommendations, advising, providing information, encouraging research, pressing for the observance of internationally recognised human rights, and assessing any complaints alleging violations that it may have received (see NIHR Act s.3). The types of complaints it may entertain are nevertheless rather limited – the Institute may only investigate claims alleging discrimination or unequal treatment (see NIHR Act s.10 (1)).

This article analyses two types of actions in order to assess the extent to which the Institute has assumed its role in promoting access to remedy in business and human rights cases. According to the 2010 Edinburgh Declaration of the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC), the participation of NHRIs in the remedial process may be either direct or indirect. As will be shown, the Dutch NHRI is envisioned as an institution that leans more on indirect rather than direct participation in providing access to remedy.

In terms of direct participation, the complaints procedure of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights has a rather narrow scope. Section 10 of the Act stipulates that the Institute may conduct investigations into allegations of violations in so far as they relate to discrimination or unequal treatment under the Equal Treatment Act, the Equal Treatment (Men and Women) Act or Article 646, Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code. Although the complaint may be submitted against any type of Dutch-based company (see S. 10 (2) (a)–(e)), the limited subject matter jurisdiction prevents the Institute from being a one-stop shop for business-related human rights abuses. This is especially true for transnational corporate misconduct, which normally entails cross-cutting/intersectional human rights abuses. In the same vein, the Institute may only bring a legal action before the courts if this claim relates to discrimination under the aforementioned legislation (see S.13). The Memorandum attached to the Act explains that ‘[…] [g]iven the legal protection already available in the Netherlands and the possibility of lodging a complaint with an ombudsman the government sees no good reason to give the Institute its own jurisdiction to hear legal actions in the broad field of human rights […]’ and that ‘[…] [i]n response to a complaint, the National Ombudsman may investigate whether or not the state has acted properly […] To prevent overlapping it is therefore undesirable for this responsibility to be given to the Institute […]’. The National Ombudsman may nevertheless only exercise authority over public bodies (see Article 1a). In turn, this means that complaints lodged against private actors arguing violations of human rights other than discrimination escape both the Institute and the National Ombudsman. While it is true that the general legal protection available in the Netherlands would apply in those cases, the role of the NHRI as a complementary grievance mechanism is in this way restricted. Under the UNGPs, NHRIs are supposed to offer an alternative to instituting legal proceedings. The rationale behind this is that bringing a legal action may involve many obstacles for the victim such as prohibitive costs, imbalance of expertise between parties, lack of standing for foreign nationals, and protracted duration. Conversely, an NHRI complaints mechanism is perceived as more accessible, expeditious and culturally-appropriate.[1] The limited subject matter jurisdiction of the Institute in handling complaints may therefore be seen as impeding its full direct participation in providing access to remedy.

As to indirect participation, one of the main tasks of the Institute is to promote and monitor human rights (see S.3). The Institute has a rather robust presence in the area of business and human rights in the Netherlands and performs an important role in promoting human rights in this policy area. For instance, the Institute drew up a comprehensive response to the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights put forward by the Dutch government in December 2013. This response entailed an in-depth examination of the plan’s compatibility with the UNGPs as well as advice and recommendations for its improvement. Notably, it included a rights-based approach in that it looked at the issue of access to remedy from the victims’ perspectives. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights further advised the government on the proposed law on child labour in supply chains, the human rights implications of the new model bilateral investment treaty, and it partook in the discussions regarding the national sector covenants (e.g. the Agreement on Sustainable Garments and Textile). It further participates in the annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights alongside other stakeholders. Furthermore, the cross-cutting nature of business-related human rights abuses means that they permeate the Institute’s work in other policy areas. For instance, the Institute’s work on the right to housing implies the usage of the UNGPs as a framework to ascertain the human rights responsibilities of housing corporations. In the same vein, one of the four themes from the Institute’s Strategy Plan for 2016-2019 is discrimination and stereotyping in the labour market. This necessarily involves an assessment of the human rights obligations of corporations. The Institute has therefore assumed a firm standing in terms of indirect participation in the implementation of the UNGPs. It promotes education, monitors human rights implementation, undertakes capacity-building exercises, advises and issues recommendations. Nevertheless, one cannot help but notice the absence of business and human rights from the Institute’s Strategic Plan for 2016-2019.

To conclude, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights seems to have only partially assumed the role envisioned for it under the UNGPs as a national human rights institution. On the one hand, it did establish itself as a focal point for expertise on human rights issues in the Netherlands and has taken important steps to promote and advise on issues of business and human rights. On the other hand, a broader mandate would conform more to the second leg of the Paris Principles and to the spirit and aim of the Third Pillar of the UNGPs – the protection of human rights by receiving, investigating and resolving complaints.

[1]           UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises – Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights’ (7 April 2008) A/HRC/8/5 at page 25.

Editor’s note: Shamistha Selvaratnam is a LLM Candidate of the Advanced Masters of European and International Human Rights Law at Leiden University in the Netherlands and a contributor to the Doing Business Right project of the Asser Institute. Prior to commencing the LLM, she worked as a business and human rights solicitor in Australia where she specialised in promoting business respect for human rights through engagement with policy, law and practice.

Introduction

This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on Doing Business Right based on the coverage provided on our twitter feed @DoinBizRight and on various websites. You are invited to contribute to this compilation via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we may have overlooked.

The Headlines

German court rejects KiK lawsuit

On 10 January 2019, a regional court in Dortmund, Germany rejected a lawsuit brought by four affected Pakistanis that related to the death of 262 people and injury of 32 people at a Pakistani textile factory in 2012. The factory was a key supplier to German clothing company, KiK. The case was rejected on the basis that the statute of limitations had expired, despite computer simulation evidence demonstrating that inadequate safety measures were in place at the factory at the time, including no stairs and emergency exits, as well as a lack of fire extinguishers and fire alarms. It was argued that KiK ‘knew or should have known about the structural details if, as they claim, their representatives visited the factory several times’. Read more here and here.

Canadian Supreme Court hears Nevsun appeal

On 23 January 2019, the Canadian Supreme Court heard evidence involving a lawsuit involving Nevsun Resources, a Canadian mining company, which is accused of being complicit in using forced labour by one if its sub-contractors at the Bisha mine in Eritrea. The case was initially brought in 2014 by four Eritrean miners.

In 2016, the British Colombian Supreme Court rejected Nevsun’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was upheld by the British Colombian Court of Appeal in 2017. In 2018, the Canadian Supreme Court allowed Nevsun to appeal the decision of the British Colombian Court of Appeal with the trial being heard earlier this year. The Canadian Supreme Court will need to decide, inter alia, whether it has jurisdiction to hear cases involving alleged breaches of customary international law by a Canadian business involving its actions in a foreign country. Read more here.

Canada introduces bill regulating forced labour and child labour within businesses

On 13 December 2018 a private members bill was introduced in Canada titled ‘C-423 – An Act respecting the fight against certain forms of modern slavery through the imposition of certain measures and amending the Customs Tariff’ (the Bill) to regulate forced labour and child labour in businesses. The Bill requires certain entities[1] to provide the Minister with an annual modern slavery report that sets out the steps it has taken to ‘prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used at any step of the manufacture, production, growing, extraction or processing of goods in Canada or elsewhere by the entity or of goods imported into Canada by the entity.’ Other criteria that must be included in the report includes the entity’s policies in relation to forced labour and child labour and the training provided to employees on these areas. The Bill carries penalties for non-compliance; namely, the relevant entity may be liable of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of up to $250,000.

UK releases report with recommendations to improve transparency in supply chains provision of Modern Slavery Act

The Independent Review of the UK Modern Slavery Act recently released an interim report. The report notes that the UK Government’s current approach to eradicating modern slavery in supply chains through the transparency in supply chains provision ‘while a step forward, is not sufficient’. Among other things, the report recommends that the UK Government should take the following action to improve its approach to addressing modern slavery in supply chains:

• Establish an internal list of companies in scope of the transparency in supply chains provision and check with companies whether they are covered by the legislation.
• Amend the option reporting criteria against which businesses may report, so that they are mandatory criteria against which businesses must report.
• Set up a central government-run repository to which companies are required to upload their statements and that is easily accessible to the public, free of charge.
• Empower the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to monitor compliance and report annually.
• Strengthen the Modern Slavery Act’s approach to tackling non-compliance with the reporting requirement, adopting a gradual approach. For example, initial warnings, fines (as a percentage of turnover), court summons and directors’ disqualification.
• Introduce sanctions gradually over the next few years so as to give businesses time to adapt to changes in the legislative requirements.
• Set up or assign an enforcement body to impose sanctions on non-compliant companies.

UN and International organisations publications and statements

• European Commission – Commission publishes draft rules to ensure investment firms and insurance distributors consider sustainability topics when advising clients
• International Labour Organization – ILO and H&M Group expand partnership
• European Commission – EU steps up engagement with Republic of Korea over labour commitments under the trade agreement
• Letter from Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises to Bangladeshi Government
• OECD – Human rights is an integral part of responsible business conduct
• UN General Assembly – Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of economic reforms: Report of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights

NGO and Law Firm publications and statements

•  Amnesty International – Destination: Occupation – Digital Tourism and Israel’s Illegal Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

• Business & Human Rights Resource Centre – From Unacceptable Risks to Shared Prosperity: Building Human Rights into Jordan & Lebanon’s Construction Sector
• Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and Human Rights Now – Human rights concerns in the Japanese apparel industry: A majority of companies fail to implement mechanisms to either prevent or address human rights abuses
• Cambodian Center for Human Rights – Briefing Note on Business and Human Rights Preventing, Mitigating and Remedying Land-Related Rights Violations in the Kingdom of Cambodia: Seven Areas for Improvement
•  CHRB Response to Brumadinho Dam Disaster – Vale Suspension from Human Rights Benchmark
• CORE’s and ICJ’s Draft Statement of Intervention in the Vedanta case
• Engineers Against Poverty – Protecting the Wages of Migrant Construction Workers Part Two: Addressing the problem in Gulf Cooperation Council countries
• Ergon Associates and Ethical Trading Initiative – Managing Risks Associated with Modern Slavery: A Good Practice Note for the Private Sector
• European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights – Regional Court in Dortmund dismisses Pakistanis’ complaint against KiK: KiK evades its legal responsibility for factory fire
• Hogan Lovells – The Australian Modern Slavery Bill: the next frontier in corporate accountability for adverse human rights impacts
• Human Rights at Sea Legal Research Programme – A UN Convention on Business and Human Rights: How it would look for the maritime sector: legal and practical implications
• Human Rights Law Centre – Nowhere to Turn: Addressing Australian corporate abuses overseas
• Human Rights Law Centre – Report highlights impunity of Australian companies linked to serious human rights violations overseas
• Human Rights Watch – Australia Starts Tackling Modern Slavery: New South Wales Adds Penalties for Offenders Under State Law
• Institute for Human Rights and Business – Top 10 Business and Human Rights Issues 2019
• International Commission of Jurists – CORE and ICJ to intervene in UK Supreme Court case
• International Corporate Accountability Roundtable – Good Business: The Economic Case for Protecting Human Rights
• International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, Frank Bold and BHR Young Researchers Summit – Good Business: The Economic Case for Protecting Human Rights
• Know The Chain – 2018 Footwear & Apparel Benchmark Findings Report
• Shift – Human rights reporting in the Canadian mining sector: Maturity trends and insights
• Shift – How to Write a More Meaningful Update Report Under the French Duty of Vigilance Law

In Court

• BBC News – Apple loses legal battle with French tax activists
• Coconuts Jakarta – Supreme Court upholds IDR 1 trillion decision against company for damages caused by forest fires
• Expatica – Sierra Leone abuse claimants lose UK court case
• FIDH – ILVA scandal: following the ECHR decision, Italy must take immediate action to end the environmental crisis
• High Court of Justice in the Queen’s Bench Division (London) – Kalma v African Minerals Limited
• Honolulu Civil Beat – Lawsuit Filed By Injured Chinese Workers Against Saipan Casino
• Reuters – Thai top court orders compensation for Myanmar workers in landmark case
•  Rights and Accountability in Development – UK Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case on Corporate Rights Violations
• Times Live – Ex-Ford Argentina executives convicted in torture case

In the News

• ABC News – Brazil's new President Jair Bolsonaro rolls back Indigenous tribe protections
• Asia Times – Thai junta takes the stench off troubled fisheries industry
• BIV – Activists file securities complaints against Vancouver miners
• Bloomberg – Shell, Eni Face $1.1 Billion Nigerian Lawsuit Over 2011 Deal
• Borden Ladner Gervais – Canada: Business And Human Rights: The Stakes Continue To Grow
• Brookings – How corporations are approaching sustainability and the Global Goals
• Business and Human Rights in Burma / Myanmar – The Vedanta Appeal, Corporate Liability and Access to Justice: Relevance for Myanmar?
• Business for Social Responsibility – Why Multilateral Human Rights Bodies and Frameworks Are Vital for Business: How Companies Can Support the International Human Rights Regime
• Business in Vancouver – B.C. firm seeks to reopen troubled Guatemalan mine
•  CBC – Top court weighs precedent-setting case of human rights breaches at Canadian mine in Eritrea
• CBC – What did Canadian mining executives know about possible human rights violations in Eritrea?
• Climate Liability News – 2018 in Climate Liability: When a Trend Became a Wave
• Delta 8.7 – Fighting Modern Slavery in Supply Chains from the Bottom Up
• EcoWatch – Indigenous Group Sues Exxon, Energy Majors Over Fracking Waste Contamination in Patagonia
• Ethical Corporation – The UK should listen to MPs and fix the holes in the Modern Slavery Act
• Fashion United – What’s next for the Bangladesh Accord? Q&A
• Financial Post – Supreme Court set to hear Nevsun Resources case on Eritrea human rights abuses
• Financial Times – Beyond the bottom line: should business put purpose before profit?
• Financial Times – We must rethink the purpose of the corporation
• Freedom United – Will Nevsun Mining be Punished for Slavery Abroad?
• Global Witness – Global Witness Welcomes Canadian Regulator Ruling on Glencore – Controlled Companies and Executies
• Hellenic Shipping News – Another Dutch ship owner faces huge fine for having beached a vessel
• HuffPost – Modern Slavery Bill Targets Canadian Imports Of Goods Made By Slaves
•  Institute for Human Rights and Business – Channelling Sir Geoffrey Chandler on the History and Future of Business and Human Rights
• International The News – Saeeda Khatoon’s story remains untold in Dortmund court
• IOL – Mining companies rake in huge profits while communities live in poverty
• Juneau Empire – Alaska Native tribes allege human rights violation over Canadian mine pollution
• Khmer Times – W&D followed law when firing workers: GMAC
•  Leigh Day – Statement by Leigh Day in relation to the settlement of the human rights claims against Gemfields Ltd
•  Moneyweb – 3 court judgments that have changed the face of mining in SA
• Open Democracy – Corporate social responsibility helps hide workers’ rights abuse until brands can quietly exit
• Open Global Rights – New business and human rights treaty takes shape
• Radio Free Asia – Chinese Railway Project in Laos Leaves Farmers in the Lurch
• Reuters – Eni, Shell knew of 'sharks' in Nigeria graft case - judge
• SOMO – Higher minimum wage in Myanmar: bad news for workers?
• The Guardian – 'Inhuman conditions': life in factory making Spice Girls T-shirts
• The Guardian – NHS rubber gloves made in Malaysian factories accused of forced labour
• The Guardian – Zambian villagers await outcome of UK mining firm's pollution case appeal
• The Jakarta Post – Environmentalists face greater risks amid development drive
• The Nation – Big Business has a New Scam: the ‘Purpose Paradigm’
• The Wall Street Journal – Glencore-Controlled Miner to Be Fined by Canadian Authorities Over Congo Ops
• Thomson Reuters Foundation – Construction companies failing to protect refugee workers in Jordan, Lebanon - study
• Times Live – Victory for environmentalists in battle over coal mine in Mpumalanga

Academic Materials

• Carsten Momsen and Mathis Schwarze – The Changing Face of Corporate Liability – New Hard Law and the Increasing Influence of Soft Law, The Official Journal of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law
• Catie Shavin – Unlocking the Potential of the New OECD Due Diligence Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct, Business and Human Rights Journal
• Charis Kamphuis and Leah Gardner – Effectiveness Framework for Home-State Non-Judicial Grievance Mechanisms
• Cristina Narváez González and Katharine Valencia – Improving Human Rights in the Private Security Industry: Envisioning the Role of ICoCA in Latin America, Forthcoming chapter in Amissi M. Manirabona & Yenny Vega Cardenas, eds, Extractive Industries and Human Rights in an Era of Global Justice: New Ways of Resolving and Preventing Conflicts (LexisNexis, 2019)
• David Bilchitz – The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty, Business and Human Rights Journal
• David Hess – The Transparency Trap: Non-Financial Disclosure and the Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights, American Business Law Journal
•  James Gathii and Sergio Puig – Introduction to the Symposium on Investor Responsibility: The Next Frontier in International Investment Law, American Journal of International Law
•  Kai Ambos and Carsten Momsen – Introduction: Human Rights Compliance and Corporate Criminal Liability, The Official Journal of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law
• Mark Pieth – Corporate Compliance and Human Rights, Criminal Law Forum
• Marya Farah and Maha Abdallah – Security, Business and Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Business and Human Rights Journal
• Mavluda Sattorova – Investor Responsibilities from a Host State Perspective: Qualitative Data and Proposals for Treaty Reform, American Journal of International Law

Blogs           

Asser Institute Doing Business Right Blog

• Asser Institute – Modern Slavery in our backyard: Dutch shipbuilders, Polish shipyards and North Korean Slaves
• Shamistha Selvaratnam – Global Modern Slavery Developments (Part III): Other Modern Slavery Developments
• Shamistha Selvaratnam – Global Modern Slavery Developments (Part II): A Review of the New Australian Modern Slavery Act

Others

•  Aaron Halegua – Labour exploitation in Saipan (again): what difference does 20 years make?, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

• Amy Sinclair and Justine Nolan – The Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018 – will it live up to expectations?, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Carlos Lopez – The UK Supreme Court considers whether parent company Vedanta has a duty of care and so may be held legally responsible for the harm caused by its Zambian subsidiary, Opinio Juris
• Diane Desierto – Are “Transparency” Procedures and Local Community “Consultations” Enough? A Human Rights “Feedback Loop” to International Economic Law Reforms of 2018, EJIL: Talk!
• Elsa Savourey – France's law on the corporate duty of vigilance: process, pedagogy and pragmatism as the way forward, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Flora Sapio – Flora Sapio on the Zero Draft of a Legally Binding Instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprise (Article 2, Statement of Purpose), Law at the End of the Day
• Gabrielle Holly – Access to Remedy Under the UNGPs: Vedanta and the Expansion of Parent Company Liability, EJIL: Talk!
•  Irene Pietropaoli and Phil Bloomer – Governments can help make business more diligent on human rights, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Joylon Ford – Can consumers and market actors ‘regulate’ corporate reporting on Modern Slavery risk? , Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Julia Dehm – Dirty deeds: how to stop Australian miners abroad being linked to death and destruction, The Conversation
• Kate Nicholl, Miriam Wilheim and Vikram Bhakoo – Almost every brand of tuna on supermarket shelves shows why modern slavery laws are needed, The Conversation
• Louise Chappell – The spotlight shifts to gender, business and human rights, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Måns Carlsson-Sweeny – Modern slavery is more than an ‘ethical issue’ to investors, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Maysa Zorob – New business and human rights treaty takes shape, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
• Nadia Bernaz – Companies Operating in a Conflict or Post-Conflict Country: Exercise Leverage or Stand Ready for Litigation, Rights as Usual
•  Nicholas Bueno – The Swiss Responsible Business Initiative and its Counter-Proposal: Texts and Current Developments, Cambridge Core Blog
• Paul Redmond – At last, Australia has a Modern Slavery Act. Here’s what you’ll need to know, The Conversation
• Virginie Rouas – Access to justice and the new French Act on the duty of care: main opportunities and challenges for plaintiffs, Cambridge Core Blog

Call for Papers and Abstracts

•  Call for Papers – Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association 5th Annual Conference 12-13 September 2019 (abstracts due 1 March 2019)

• Call for Blogs –Business and Human Rights Journal Blog – Cambridge University

Upcoming Events

• 13-14 February 2019 – 2019 OECD Forum on Due Diligence Guidance in the Garment and Footwear Sector – Paris, France
• 20 February 2019 – International law in the vegetables department: the Swedish boycott of conflict tomatoes – Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands
• 25 March 2019 – Is Corporate Accountability Possible in Capitalism? – British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, England
• 1 April 2019 – Workshop on giving SMEs the right tools & support to respect human rights – International Organisation of Employers, Madrid, Spain
• 2 April 2019 – Workshop for Employers’ Organisations on Business & Human Rights – International Organisation of Employers, Madrid, Spain
• 3 April 2019 – International Conference on Business & Human Rights – International Organisation of Employers & Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales, Madrid, Spain
• 11-12 April 2019 – Business & Human Rights Young Researchers Summit – St. Gallen, Switzerland
• 22-26 July 2019 – International Summer Course Human Rights Law in Context (special focus on business and human rights) – Centre for Human Rights Erlangen-Nürnberg (CHREN) in cooperation with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Nuremberg, Germany
• 12-13 September 2019 – Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association 5th Annual Conference – University of Essex, Colchester, England

[1] An ‘entity’ is defined as a corporation or a trust, partnership or other unincorporated organisation that: (a) is listed on a stock exchange in Canada; (b) has a place of business in Canada, does business in Canada or has assets in Canada and that, based on its consolidated financial statements, meets at least two of the following conditions for at least one of its two most recent financial years: (i) it has at least $20 million in assets, (ii) it has generated at least $40 million in revenue, (iii) it employs an average of at least 250 employees.