Human Rights & Development. Business, Human Rights, and Climate Change: Evolution of Global Frameworks and Supply Chain Management Frameworks

Administrative Information and Course Logistics

The course is structured as a compressed or "depressed" course, requiring strict attendance with virtually no absences permitted. Limited exceptions may exist for excused absences, but these must be coordinated through the university administration. Attendance is taken at every session. Student names recorded in the session include Hugo, Yarchel, Sofia, Ariana, Giovanni, Anna, Liz, Estebanelle, William Guerra, Muhammad, and David. One student, Estebanelle, will need to provide their name and email following the break to ensure proper credit for the course.

A scheduling conflict was noted by a student regarding Friday's class due to a meeting in New York. The professor noted that a guest speaker will be present on Friday and mentioned the possibility of recording the session to facilitate make-up work. Professor Vera Lovore, a preeminent expert in the field, will join the teaching rotation next Thursday. Guest speakers will begin appearing as early as Thursday of the current week. Students are encouraged to interact with these guests and seek their contact information for further professional networking.

Grading is divided into two primary categories. Eighty percent of the final grade is determined by an open-book essay exam. This exam requires students to certify that they have not used generative AI in the preparation of their responses. The exam is intended to be a deliberative exercise focused on the application of frameworks to field challenges rather than a rote regurgitation of facts. The remaining twenty percent of the grade is based on class participation. The instructor emphasizes that the course is intended as an exchange of ideas rather than a pure lecture format.

Course Subject and Objectives

This course, specifically titled "Business and Human Rights and Climate Change," examines the evolving relationship between governments and corporations within the context of international law. The primary focus is the human rights impacts of global corporations and the capacity of international law to address those impacts. The course investigates various learning frameworks and emerging standards used to capture these impacts.

A significant portion of the curriculum focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and development finance. The SDG framework is distinct from the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) in that it is a voluntary system not tethered to specified legal mechanisms. Given the global challenges of climate science and the integration of environmental dialogue into human rights, the course now heavily integrates climate change into the business and human rights discourse. The first half of the course focuses generally on the UNGPs, while the second half, led by Professor Vera Lovore, focuses on climate mitigation and the evolution from modern human rights to contemporary regulations.

Weekly Schedule and Guest Lectures

The course follows a structured progression over the coming days. Tomorrow's session will focus on the tools utilized by governments and companies to integrate human rights into their operations and identify refugee impacts. Thursday will address key stakeholders such as labor activists and public/private finance actors. A guest expert in public finance mechanisms will discuss how institutions like the World Bank identify risk impacts in lending and address grievances from local communities.

Friday will focus on global supply chains and the challenges of regulation. The class will be joined by Zohr Menon Baird, who has initiatives both in the State Department and the private sector regarding risk identification. Monday's curriculum covers technology and digital rights, featuring Janet Woodson from Oxford. This session will specifically drill down into Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the human rights implications in the digital space. Tuesday focuses on climate and environmental challenges in Latin America, featuring a guest speaker who works within the Inter-American system regarding adverse climate impacts. The final night serves as a reflection on the 15-year history of the UNGPs, exploring current advances, continuing challenges, and future directions for the field.

Historical Evolution of Business and Human Rights

The modern human rights framework originated in 1948 following the establishment of the United Nations (UN). The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) served as the first global recognition of rights that every individual should enjoy. This period also saw the incorporation of the International Labour Organization (ILO), which had been established after World War I, into the UN system. The ILO is a tripartite organization involving governments, employers, and workers, providing expertise, conventions, and research on labor rights.

The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ($ICESCR$), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ($ICCPR$). Prior to this framework, international law generally dictated that how a state treated its own citizens was not the concern of other states. The UN founding marked a shift toward global citizenship and global scrutiny of human rights and trade. Following the 1948 declaration, regional systems in Europe, Asia, and Latin America developed additional layers of rights protection.

In the 1970s, developing countries that had recently gained independence from colonial authorities sought a new economic relationship to combat what they deemed "economic colonialism." They appealed to the UN to establish a Code of Conduct to regulate transnational corporations. While this effort failed, it led the UN to create a center on transnational corporations. Simultaneously, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) developed guidelines for member states (primarily North American and Western European governments) addressed to companies operating in their jurisdictions. Originally focused on bribery and corruption, these guidelines have evolved to include human rights and, most recently, a chapter on climate change and environmental impact.

Hyper-Globalization and the 1990s Inflection Point

The 1990s marked a period of "hyper-globalization" following the end of the Cold War. Former client states of the major superpowers needed to attract investment and create jobs, leading to a rapid integration into global markets through democratization and the lowering of trade barriers. This era is characterized by widespread outsourcing and the "race to the bottom," where states competed for investment by lowering labor and environmental standards.

Analysis of Landmark Cases: Nike, Shell, and Yahoo

Three classic cases illustrate the failures of traditional legal approaches and the need for new frameworks. The Nike case involved allegations of sweatshops and child labor in the 1990s. Nike’s initial legal defense was that it did not own the factories in question and was therefore not responsible. However, this response was insufficient for activists and the public. This led to a White House convening of executives and the formation of the first voluntary multi-stakeholder initiatives to translate international principles into actionable benchmarks for supply chains.

The Shell Nigeria case highlighted the "resource curse" and the lack of a "social license to operate." Despite holding a legal license from a corrupt government, Shell faced extreme violence and opposition from local communities who saw no benefit from the resource extraction. The case raised questions about corporate complicity in the use of security forces by governments to suppress local populations and the execution of community leaders.

The Yahoo China case involved the turnover of journalist data to the Chinese government, leading to the journalist's imprisonment for ten years. Yahoo argued that they were required to comply with domestic laws to operate in China. This sparked the creation of the Global Network Initiative (GNI), encouraging tech companies to clarify the legal foundation of government requests and minimize their impact on human rights through proactive risk assessments.

The UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) Framework

The UNGPs, authored by John Ruggie, move away from debating whether companies are subjects of international law and instead focus on a tripartite framework. Pillar One is the state's duty to protect human rights, which is a binding legal obligation to enforce laws and provide guidance to businesses. Pillar Two is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which is a non-binding social expectation that companies "know and show" they are not causing adverse impacts. Pillar Three is the access to remedy, requiring both states and businesses to provide grievance mechanisms for those whose rights have been infringed upon.

Questions & Discussion

Prof: Does the case tell you about the state of consensus among stakeholders? How did you answer that?

Student: We talked about how there was a consensus among civil society, university students, and news channels that Nike's actions were problematic. Even if they weren't legally responsible because they outsourced manufacturing, the public was determined to make them responsible through international days of protest and documentaries.

Student: Facts show an evolving consensus. It wasn't the same in 2000 as it is now. Society demonstrated they wanted different regulations.

Student: For stockholders, they were happy with profits and didn't think wages in other countries were their responsibility. While the public cared, the shareholders just cared about profit.

Student: If the Nike case happened today, we have more mechanisms like the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) where we can review the human rights situation of a state and present allegation letters or work with specific committees.

Student: Regarding Shell, there was no consensus between the government, the corporation, and the community. The community was left out. In Ecuador and Mexico, we have legislation about asking the community, but most of the time it is not respected. It is still happening today.

Student: In the Yahoo case, the family sued and Yahoo ended up setting up a human rights fund. We decided that companies often comply with state laws first and react once there is a backlash. There is a reactive rather than proactive approach to digital freedom of speech.

Student: Censorship is a widespread problem not limited to China. We see issues with Facebook and participation in public processes like federal elections in the United States. For victims, the experience varies by location, but the corporate participation is often similar.

Student: I read that terms and conditions are being used as a form of censorship where the user accepts the terms. I wonder if Yahoo would use those today to shield themselves from state intervention.

Student: In the U.S. context, Section 230 allows companies to censor in good faith. It is a slippery slope regarding whether we are comfortable with private companies deciding what content we see versus governments.

Student (Muhammad): Can we do something for existing situations like in Afghanistan? The government of Nigeria got power to do things and the community was affected. Is there a business responsibility there?

Prof: That goes to the point of businesses operating in environments with rights at risk. Often businesses find themselves in a situation where they are distracted and don't follow these principles. We can talk about the maneuvering room they have in that context, but generally, state responsibility for human rights is a bit different than what we are discussing regarding corporate frameworks. We will look at how companies navigate environments where rights are at risk even if the government is the one abusing them.