— Taking Fortune Global 500 as an Example

 

LIANG Xiaohui* & FU Lanke**

 

eoretical possibilities for the extraterritorial extension of a country’s legal will. While enterprises’ human rights policies may have become customary rules for international business, there are still many limitations and challenges to their application, which may also pose limitations to their practical effects and theoretical significance. Recommendations are made in the hope that the Chinese government and enterprises will pay attention to the significance of enterprises’ human rights policies and improve their understanding and application of the policies to promote global human rights governance in a more equitable, just, reasonable, and inclusive direction.

 

Keywords: business and human rights · Fortune Global 500 · enterprises’ human rights policies · UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights · international human rights law

 

 

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Principles”) was unanimously approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2011, making it the only international document to date dealing with the issues of human rights of business based on universal national will.¹ A three-pillar public-private partnership to address the human rights impacts of business is proposed in the “Guiding Principles”: the states are obliged to protect human rights from violations by third parties including the business, while enterprises must respect human rights and are required to provide effective access to remedy on human rights violations.² Among them, as the primary implementation requirement of “enterprises’ responsibility to respect human rights”, the “Guiding Principles” stipulate that “as the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility through a statement of policy”³. For the first time, the requirement for enterprises to formulate human rights policy was formally proposed in an international document, and the fundamental importance of such policy for enterprises to fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights was specified.

 

In the Human Rights Action Plan of China (2021-2025) issued by The State Council Information Office in September 2021, businesses are encouraged to follow the “Guiding Principles” in their foreign economic and trade cooperation and investment, practice due diligence on human rights and fulfill the social responsibility of respecting and promoting human rights. It Action Plan also encourages enterprises and institutions to establish standing human rights training systems to create a corporate culture that respects and protects human rights. All these requirements indicate that the formulation and promulgation of human rights policies that follow the “Guiding Principles” has been the policy orientation of the Chinese government for Chinese enterprises to fulfill the responsibility of respecting human rights and creating an enterprise culture of respecting human rights.

 

So, what is the human rights policy of the enterprises? What is required for its content and form? What is the significance of the enterprises’ human rights policies from the perspective of the application of international human rights norms? What internal and external factors have driven the development of enterprises’ human rights policies in recent years? What are the theoretical trends in the application of international human rights norms in the enterprise sector that these developments confirm or promote? How will these theoretical trends in turn affect the practices of enterprises? This paper aims to answer some of these questions based on the research and analysis of the human rights policies of Fortune Global 500 enterprises. In terms of methodology, the sample range of Fortune Global 500 represents the largest group of enterprises in the world, and the size of these enterprises is positively correlated with their impacts on human rights including the potential or actual positive and negative impacts on employees, consumers, and communities. In addition, these enterprises represent the highest or even the best level in the world in terms of business vision, management level, and available resources. Therefore, this group of enterprises serves as an ideal sample for the study of the human rights policies of global enterprises and is even representative of practical trends and theoretical directions at a more cutting-edge level.

 

 

 

In enterprise management science, enterprise policy is a general principle guiding enterprises’ behavior, which determines the framework structure for enterprises to set strategic objectives, select strategic plans, and implement strategic plans. “The enterprise policy... reflects the purpose of the enterprises’ basic requirements, the criterion for all behaviors of enterprises, and the main basis for coordinating the relationship and information among all units and departments of enterprises.”⁴ The International Organization for Standardization, which formulates universal International standards for various enterprise management areas, is more straightforward in defining “enterprise policy,” i.e., the intentions and direction of the organization, formally expressed by top management,⁵ which is also the universal definition template for all kinds of management systems formulated by the International Organization for the Standardization.⁶ Thus, for mature, standardized, and systematic enterprise management, enterprise policy is both essential and important, as it is not only the public expression (intention) of the enterprise as an organization for its purpose but also the code of conduct(direction) announced by the enterprise as a social actor. For this reason, enterprises are required by all management systems to formulate relevant policies and, for different matters targeted by the management systems, may formulate various policies on quality, health and safety, environment, occupational health and safety, etc..⁷

 

As for the contents of enterprises’ human rights policies, the “Guiding Principles” puts forward two minimum requirements that the policy shall “make a commitment to fulfilling this responsibility (of respecting human rights)” and “stipulate the enterprise’s human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and other parties directly linked to its operations, products or services”⁸, which is also a commitment to an enterprise’s responsibilities and an expectation of the parties involved.

 

In terms of their commitments, enterprises’ human rights policies should specify at least two contents, i.e., clarify enterprises’ “responsibility to respect,,” and state enterprises’ perception of “human rights”. The “responsibility to respect” is a minimum commitment of human rights policy, not only because it defines the basic method of enterprises to manage human rights risks — human rights due diligence, i.e., to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should “assess actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings,,”⁹ and if enterprises put forward a higher level of human rights commitment, such as “supporting, promoting or fulfilling human rights”, it should be based on the premise of respecting human rights.¹⁰ The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights — understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.¹¹ Therefore, the enterprises’ human rights policies with complete content should “at a minimum” use the term “human rights” and quote these documents to make clear of enterprises’ complete understanding of “human rights”¹². Based on these, enterprises can surely put forward their understanding and commitment to the “responsibility to respect human rights” at a higher level, including making regulations and commitments on respecting specific human rights, identifying human rights priorities, observing more human rights standards and documents, and matching human rights standards and requirements.¹³

 

Since the actions of enterprises to fulfill the responsibility of respecting human rights will inevitably involve their relationship with relevant parties, enterprises’ human rights policies, in addition to the commitment to their responsibilities, should set out human rights expectations for their personnel, business partners and other parties involved. The “personnel” refer to individuals acting on behalf of enterprises, such as managers and employees, rather than those who are the beneficiaries of human rights, such as employees, consumers, and community residents. Enterprises’ “human rights expectations” of them depend on their policies to assist enterprises in fulfilling their duties of respecting human rights in their operations, products, or service relationships.¹⁴ Such expectations apply to enterprises’ business partners and other stakeholders, such as governments and social organizations where they operate.¹⁵

 

In addition, even though there is no clear statement in the “Guiding Principles,”enterprises’ human rights policies should logically include two other basic elements, i.e., the scope of application and the implementation mechanism.¹⁶ While it may often be self-evident as to the scope of application, in some cases, particularly in the presence of group and subsidiary companies, an explicit scope of application would avoid possible misunderstanding,¹⁷ so some enterprises will express it in the text of their policies.¹⁸ In terms of implementation mechanism, policy formulation, approval, supervision, and permission for the report, as well as detailed descriptions of the human rights due diligence, are common elements of existing enterprises’ human rights policies.¹⁹

 

 

Relative to the high generality of its content elements, the “Guiding Principles” puts forward four very specific requirements for the formal elements of enterprises’ human rights policies.²⁰ 

 

First, the statement of human rights policies should be approved by the top management of the business enterprises. Since enterprise policies are the expression of intentions and confirmation of direction by top management, no matter what department or level of authority the policies are drafted and formulated, only the approval of top management can give them the highest authority within an enterprise. The “top management” in management theory refers to “a person or a group of people who command and control the organization at the highest level” and “have the authority to authorize and provide resources within the organization”²¹, i.e., the general manager or managers at the same level of CEO. In reality, the managers who approve enterprises’ human rights policy statements are not only the general manager or CEO but also the chairperson, the chairperson of the board, or the special committee specially authorized by the above top management.²²

 

Second, the statement of enterprises’ human rights policies should be informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise. Since human rights policies involve the comparison and link of international human rights rules with the operations of enterprises, which may lack relevant human resources and expertise resources as the former is a set of expertise systems, it is necessary to ensure that the policy statements are adequately informed of relevant expertise. In line with the “Guiding Principles”, the level of expertise required to ensure that the policy statement is adequately informed will vary according to the complexity of the business enterprise’s operations, expertise can be drawn from various sources, ranging from credible online or written resources to consultation with recognized experts.²³ For instance, some enterprises in practice will specify that their human rights policies are supported by specialized human rights institutions.²⁴

 

Third, the statement of enterprises’ human rights policies should be released and open to all internal and external individuals, business partners, and other interested parties. This is a self-evident requirement that human rights policies should be known to as many stakeholders as possible. Therefore, when enterprises publish policies to non-specific stakeholders, they should also take the initiative to specifically convey them to entities that maintain contractual relations with them and to specific stakeholders that are directly related to their business or operation, including employees, investors, and business partners and community groups. Meanwhile, in operations with huge human rights risks, it should be conveyed to potentially affected stakeholders. In practice, the enterprises generally release human rights policies on their websites and invoke or convey them in documents or systems that cope with the relationship with relevant parties (such as employees’ manuals or training arrangements for personnel performing specific functions).²⁵

 

Last but not the least, enterprises’ human rights policies should be embedded in the business policies and procedures required by the enterprises. It raises the issue of “policy coordination” or “policy coherence” within enterprises, where the enterprises should bring their human rights policies into correspondence with the policies and procedures that govern their broader business activities and relations. The requirement appears to be a matter of form, but it is of key substantiality. For instance, enterprises make policies and procedures for financial issues and other performance incentives, as well as procurement practices. If they are inconsistent with their human rights policies, they may have profound and extensive negative human rights impacts. In line with the “Guiding Principles”, the policy statement should be embedded from the top of the business enterprise through all its functions, which “otherwise may act without awareness or regard for human rights”²⁶.

 

 

The “Guiding Principles” methodologically requires enterprises to manage human rights risks, and thus include human rights due diligence within broader enterprise risk management systems”,²⁷ which means that enterprises need to take human rights as the target or include them in the management system, along with quality, environment and health and safety. It is also the managerial foundation of the “Guiding Principles” for enterprises to formulate their human rights policy statements, namely, the adoption of a human rights policy is a prerequisite for enterprises to meet their human rights due diligence management with respect for their human rights responsibilities.²⁸ Its importance in management also makes human rights policy, “human rights due diligence” and “the remediation of any adverse human Rights” constitute three elements of action by enterprises in implementing their responsibilities to respect human rights.²⁹ In terms of the specific aspects of human rights risk management, human rights policies formulated by enterprises will have positive significance in many aspects, i.e., laying a foundation for embedding the responsibility of respecting human rights into all business functions; responding to the expectations of stakeholders on human rights issues; identifying policy gaps and reminding enterprises of new risk; building trust with stakeholders and addressing their concerns; stipulating the internal personnel’s capacity for learning, management, and leadership in human rights; demonstrating good business practices, etc..³⁰ Therefore, the “Guiding Principles” proposes to make human rights policies, which define the human rights responsibilities of enterprises from the perspective of management concepts and normative mechanisms. In other words, human rights policy statements not only constitute the basic connotation of the purpose of enterprises, but also serve as the code of conduct that guides their business activities that may have human rights impact, with the basic purpose of describing whatever means an enterprise employs to “set out publicly its responsibilities, commitments, and expectations”³¹. The enterprise management science also believes that when formulating policies, enterprises should focus on the basic requirements for labor employment and the provisions on the basic rights of citizens”³². So enterprises’ human rights policies are therefore the basic method by which private business entities apply human rights norms and are an important embodiment of international human rights norms.

 

To be specific, the normative significance of the content requirements of enterprises’ human rights policies lies in the following aspects: First, enterprises recognize and accept the responsibility of respecting human rights, i.e., human rights norms also apply to enterprises; Second, the normative origin and boundary of this responsibility are “internationally recognized human rights”, which can be concretely translated into corresponding international human rights conventions and documents. Third, the implementation of these norms of enterprises’ human rights responsibilities requires enterprises to take specific actions related to their products, services, or business relationships.

 

The formal requirements of enterprises’ human rights policies also have very important normative significance. For example, the approval of top management is not only a form to establish the commitment of human rights responsibility of enterprises and make it binding, but also a confirmation of the internalization of international human rights norms. By taking in internal and external expertise, human rights policies can make human rights norms more appropriate and substantive, so as to ensure their better implementation and compliance. The promulgation and communication of human rights policy statements to relevant internal and external parties is not only a process of expanding and clarifying the scope and limits of the application of human rights norms but also a process of enhancing the binding force and authority of policy norms by raising the awareness and supervision of relevant parties. It is the basic method to exclude the parallel effect of other competitive regulations by embedding the enterprises’ human rights policies into the business procedures as a whole.

 

 

 

Over the past decade, there is a tendency for transnational enterprises to make human rights policies. In the 2021 Fortune Global 500,³³ enterprises with human rights policies³⁴ totaled 258.³⁵ Out of 357 enterprises excluding Chinese enterprises, 249 enterprises have set out human rights policies, accounting for about 70 percent of them, most of which state respect for international human rights norms in their human rights policies. As early as 2007, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other business Enterprises conducted a study on the human rights policies of Fortune 500 enterprises, when only over a hundred enterprises were under investigation, so the data sample was very limited. Despite that, most of the enterprises surveyed have made some form of policy commitment or statement to fulfill their human rights responsibilities. But at the time, most enterprises with such policies had incorporated them into the enterprises’ code of conduct, and it is also quite different from the current practice of separating human rights policy.³⁶ Enterprises, in the meantime, tended to deal with human rights issues under makeshift arrangements while lacking systematic strategies and systems. The release of the “Guiding Principles” provides enterprises with guidance in this regard.³⁷ A few years after its release, the Working Group on Human Rights and Multinationals and Other Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the Working Group) conducted a new round of research in 2014 and found that: More than half of the 153 enterprises surveyed have a public human rights policy,³⁸ and more and more enterprises have incorporated human rights into their policies to regulate their operations and those of their supply chains.³⁹ Obviously, over the past decade, it has become a common practice for enterprises to formulate and issue human rights policies.

 

A review of the human rights policies of the Global 500 enterprises shows that their normalization and standardization are also being strengthened. For instance, among 258 enterprises that have formulated human rights policies, about 83 percent and 88 percent of enterprise statements abide by the “Guiding Principles” and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respectively. In addition, out of these 258 enterprises, about 79 percent of enterprises have pledged to comply with one or more conventions/declarations established by the International Labour Organization, about 58 percent of enterprises have made commitments to abide by the Global Compact, and about 46 percent of enterprises stated to observe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Thus, the enterprises’ choice of international human rights norms in human rights policies coincides with the universality of international documents and international human rights norms in relation to enterprises’ human rights responsibilities, taking on an even more obvious standardization and normalization.

 

 

On the other hand, the survey of the human rights policies of enterprises in various fields shows that the universalization of the application of international human rights norms is accompanied by relativity and particularity related to industries, countries, and other factors.

 

First of all, there is a certain correlation between the possibility of enterprises making human rights policy and the scale of enterprises. Among the top 100 enterprises in the Fortune Global 500, a total of 60 enterprises have made human rights policies, while among the bottom 100 enterprises, only 50 enterprises have made human rights policies. If Chinese enterprises are excluded, among the remaining 357 enterprises, 82 of the top 100, 66 of those listing 101-200, and 62 of the bottom 100 enterprises have made human rights policies, presenting a descending trend; respectively among the top 50 enterprises and the 51-100 enterprises, 43 and 39 have made human rights policies. It can be seen that, on the whole, larger-scale enterprises are more inclined to make human rights policies.

 

Second, there is also a great correlation between enterprises’ human rights policies and enterprises’ nationality, which shows the relative differences depending on national conditions. For instance, enterprises from Japan and the United Kingdom with human rights policies listed among the Global 500 account for more than 90 percent of all listed enterprises from their respective countries. Swiss, German, and Dutch enterprises are slightly less, with over 70 percent. For US enterprises, the proportion is more than 60 percent. By comparison, only about 6 percent of Chinese enterprises have made human rights policies.⁴⁰ Another example is that the “cultural relativity” in the human rights policy of multinational enterprises is also notable. For instance, US enterprises usually have special policies of “equality, diversity, and inclusiveness” to show respect for racial equality, and support for the re-employment of veterans is also commonly seen in the policies of US enterprises.⁴¹ Maybe stuck in the crisis of an aging society, Japanese enterprises, compared with enterprises of other countries, are more inclined to support the “Children’s Rights and Business Principles” advocated by UNICEF in their policies. ⁴²

 

In the end, the contents of human rights policies of enterprises in different industries vary with the industrial nature, showing the characteristics of meeting the challenges of human rights and applying the standards of human rights in the industry. Taking non-Chinese-funded enterprises of the Global 500 as an example, about 43 percent of insurance companies that have made human rights policies mention the observation of UNPSI or UNPRI in their policies. Among the banking enterprises that have made human rights policies, about 67 percent mention that they follow the Equator Principles.⁴³ Moreover, enterprises in the mining, crude oil production, oil refining, and energy industries focus on the rights of vulnerable groups, indigenous people, and local communities. Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are common guidance for enterprises’ human rights policies of these industries, among which more than half that have made human rights policies mention Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights in their policies.⁴⁴ Automotive and automotive parts enterprises usually place greater emphasis on due diligence management of minerals and supply chains.⁴⁵ As a communication medium, telecommunication enterprises attach more importance to freedom of speech and privacy than enterprises in other industries, and the proportion of children’s rights mentioned is significantly higher than that in other industries.⁴⁶ This is because children are not only active users of the internet and mobile technology but also common victims of cyber crimes including privacy violations, bullying, and fraud.⁴⁷

 

The different sizes, national backgrounds and industry attributes of enterprises, not only means that the applicability of international human rights norms needs to be understood in the different development stages and environments of enterprises in relation to their human rights policies, but also indicates that these policies are in continuous evolution.⁴⁸

 

 

 

Both internal and external driving factors jointly promote the institutionalization of enterprises’ human rights policy. Internally, avoiding human rights risks and pursuing the value of enterprises is the main impetus for enterprises to make human rights policies. For example, some enterprises set a value orientation for themselves that is higher than the legal requirements,⁴⁹ stating that it aims to “create a positive impact on the environment, society at large and individual lives”,⁵⁰ and technologies and products that can be trusted should respect human rights, promote human dignity and improve human well-being.⁵¹ As mentioned above, in 2007, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises studied the Human rights policies of Fortune 500 enterprises and found that at least 100 enterprises have made some form of policy commitment or statement to fulfill their human rights responsibilities. However, among these enterprises, less than half have ever been involved in human rights risks before formulating their human rights policies, while others may adopt human rights policies based on government policy innovation and implementation.⁵²

 

From the perspective of more realistic external factors, there are two very important purposes or motives for enterprises (especially listed companies) to formulate and release human rights policies: to meet market expectations or requirements and to address increasing policy requirements, legal, regulatory and compliance risks that impact human rights.⁵³

 

From the perspective of the capital market, in recent years, the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance rating and index systems of the capital market represented by S&PDJSI and FTSE4Good have incorporated or strengthened human rights requirements in their root indicators.⁵⁴

 

Since such ratings and index performance will affect investors’ evaluation of the stock value of enterprises and their investment decisions, they also serve as an important driving force for enterprises to improve their human rights performance, including the formulation and release of human rights policy.⁵⁵ The fact that many banks mention the respect of Principles for Sustainable Investment in their policies proves that investors’ policies exert great influence on enterprises’ policymaking. Enterprises with a greater focus on sustainability may also be more attractive due to lower expected risk, and information disclosure reduces problems caused by information asymmetry.⁵⁶

 

Meanwhile, the expectations and demands of consumers in the market are another key external driving force for enterprises to make human rights policies. As early as the 1990s, in response to the consumer movement, some enterprises began to establish codes of conduct related to labor rights.⁵⁷ In a European survey on the driving force for enterprises’ due diligence management, the respondents from enterprises and industry organizations generally identified reputation, investors’ requirements, and consumers’ requirements as the driving forces for their enterprises conducting human rights due diligence management.⁵⁸ Some enterprises mentioned consumers’ expectations of enterprises in human rights policy and made corresponding commitments.⁵⁹ Various studies have shown that consumers are increasingly willing to pay for products and services provided by companies demonstrating social responsibility.⁶⁰

 

Faced with human rights-related risks, enterprises are increasingly recognizing that “there are also various instances in which inadequate handling of these issues causes a major decline in the brand value of global enterprises and leads to product boycotts.”⁶¹ Therefore, it is becoming a strategic consideration for enterprises to correctly identify risks and take follow-up actions, which also makes many enterprises mark the identified human rights risks or priority risk areas in their human rights policies.⁶² Meanwhile, the occurrence of legal disputes on human rights has also prompted enterprises to make human rights policies, which means that transnational enterprises usually build their human rights capacity in a passive way.⁶³

 

The state policy is also a key driver of enterprise policy. As of now, 26 countries have formulated National Business and Human Rights Action Plans (hereinafter referred to as “national action plans”), among which most developed countries have expressed their expectations that enterprises respect human rights and formulate relevant policies to this end.⁶⁴ A few national action plans set goals and state that if enterprises do not meet those goals, national legislative processes may be triggered.⁶⁵

 

The above internal and external mechanisms have made the formulation, release, and update of human rights policy an important concern of the internal management of enterprises, and the “institutionalization” of the management system has been continuously realized. As mentioned above, the authorization, drafting, and approval of human rights policy may involve different departments or subjects. Generally speaking, the top management, the board of directors, the communication departments, and the social responsibility departments are indispensable in the formulation of human rights policy. Among them, the top management authorizes, the department’s draft, and the CEO or the board of directors are responsible for the final review and approval.⁶⁶

 

 

As required by Principle 16 of the “Guiding Principles,” enterprises should commit to human rights policy. Principles 16 to 21 emphasize the key points of the due diligence management mechanism, i.e., enterprises integrate human rights policy into the governance system, identify and prevent, mitigate, follow up and publicize human rights risks in their operations. The Human Rights Policy is to be implemented through human rights due diligence⁶⁷ and has now evolved into a universal mechanism for enterprises to implement human rights policies and fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights.

 

There are different statements about the relationship between human rights policy and due diligence management, which, however, do not detract from their substantive relevance. The human rights policy itself, human rights due diligence management practice, and due diligence management information disclosure can be understood as the “intention”, “action” and “speech” of enterprises’ fulfilling human rights responsibilities. Among them, “action” is the core requirement of most international norms and domestic legislation. For instance, as early as 2010, Professor John Ruggie put forward in the report of the Human Rights Council that human rights due diligence management consists of four parts: clarify the policy of enterprises’ commitment to respect human rights; make regular assessment of the actual and potential human rights implications of enterprises’ activities and relationships; integrate these commitments and assessments into internal control and supervision systems; follow up and report on performance.⁶⁸ In other words, enterprises should implement “intention” via “action”. Similarly, enterprises’ human rights due diligence obligation required by the German Enterprises Supply Chain Due Diligence Obligation Law includes the release of human rights policies which shall cover risk identification, risk prevention strategy, human rights guidelines for suppliers, etc.. In short, in German legislative thinking, enterprises’ human rights policy, as the “intention” of enterprises’ human rights responsibility, constitute the inherent element of the human rights due diligence, which is the “action” of the implementation mechanism of human rights responsibility. However, they are overlapped and supported by each other, and cannot be separated.⁶⁹ It is also reflected in Germany’s National Business and Human Rights Action Plan.⁷⁰

 

Furthermore, due diligence management, as a methodology for enterprises to fulfill human rights responsibilities, should be closely related to human rights policy. It can be written into the human rights policy as a mechanism for implementing the policy publicly committed by enterprises, or it can be operated separately as a set of systems of implementing human rights responsibility. However, the form of its existence will not change its essence as a mechanism for implementing human rights commitments, no matter whether enterprises have a formal “human rights policy” or not.

 

On the other hand, empirically, although the human rights due diligence management mechanism has received wider and wider recognition, there are not too many enterprises with a well-developed due diligence management mechanism, which has distinct industrial features.⁷¹ Among the Global 500, there are many enterprises mentioning due diligence management in their policies. However, most enterprises only briefly refer to due diligence management in their policies or just mention conducting due diligence management in line with the “Guiding Principles”, which is short of detailed explanation. In terms of industry, the commitment and explanation of due diligence management in the human rights policy of the mining⁷², vehicle manufacturing, and retailing industries is more comprehensive and in-depth than that of other industries.⁷³ Enterprises in the financial sector, such as insurance and banking, tend to use ESG due diligence mechanisms to implement norms such as the United Nations Principles for Sustainable Insurance, UNPRI or the Equator Principles.

 

 

 

Although in traditional international law theory only states and intergovernmental organizations are subjects of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights imposes requirements on subjects other than the traditional subjects of national law.⁷⁴ In a practical sense, enterprises claim to respect International Human Rights Law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and core human rights conventions, in their human rights policies, which has become normal conditions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also has profound implications for private subjects,⁷⁵ and the general statement of enterprises in human rights policy to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the recognition of this significance.

 

The rapid expansion of the transnational industrial chain, the globalization of corresponding human rights issues, and the lag and governance defects of the government in formulating policies on transnational business and human rights have encouraged enterprises to adopt and follow international human rights norms in policies and strategies, so as to respond to the demands of multiple stakeholders and realize the privatization of the international human rights norms. The release of the “Guiding Principles” gives enterprises certainty in formulating human rights policies, and the international human rights norms are included and become an important principle in human rights policy.⁷⁶

 

The multi-stakeholders of human rights issues in enterprises include but are not limited to employees, community residents, suppliers, and consumers, this forms a universal connection between enterprises and society beyond commercial relations and builds a new cooperative governance model.⁷⁷ From a horizontal perspective, a large number of transnational enterprises incorporate international human rights conventions into enterprises’ human rights policies, and follow them in practice, transforming international human rights norms into value norms and behavioral norms in the international business community. On the one hand, whether enterprises follow an international human rights convention is not necessarily related to whether their home country is a State party to the corresponding convention.⁷⁸ And whether out of coordination or commercial pressure, many enterprises generally adopt international human rights norms in their policies, which means the transformation of international human rights norms into industry norms and operation rules. On the other hand, compared with the flexibility of state will expressed in the international human rights system, when enterprises follow a certain international human rights norm by making human rights policy, there is no mechanism such as reservation, withdrawal, or consistent opposition, so they have a higher and more consistent consensus. It also serves as a prerequisite for the universality of policymaking. Vertically speaking, international enterprises with transnational operations incorporate human rights requirements into contracts with suppliers or supplier codes and even further require suppliers to apply similar rules to their suppliers. This makes the privatization of international human rights norms extend efficiently in commercial relations. For suppliers, the “non-compliance means non-cooperation” clause in supplier codes or contracts on international human rights norms makes international enterprises become human rights lawmakers to some extent. The international enterprises play a dual role: the follower that has privatized international human rights norms under pressure, and the “legislator” and “law-executor” of human rights norms that are transmitted to suppliers.

 

The international human rights norms are privatized by enterprises’ human rights policies and their implementation, which can complement the shortcomings of international human rights norms among national subjects, making the application of international human rights norms extend not only to states and intergovernmental organizations but also to the private sector. Meanwhile, with the extension of applicable subjects, the degree of socialization of international human rights norms will be improved and generalized, and gradually penetrate all aspects of social life with the practice of enterprises. It will further promote the normative effect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the respect and realization of human rights throughout society.

 

 

As social norms are shared expectations of how a given behavior should behave in a given situation, the responsibility of enterprises to respect human rights is a shared expectation in the global public sphere.⁷⁹ In terms of the human rights responsibilities of business, the social norms include at least soft norms such as industry standards, voluntary standards, and human rights guidelines promoted by governments or social organizations.

 

According to the international documents followed by enterprises’ human rights policies, more and more soft laws are following the trend of transforming into “hard law”. For instance, although the “Guiding Principles” are not binding, more than 83 percent of the Global 500 enterprises in the world, which have made human rights policy, claim to respect the “Guiding Principles”, or have committed to developing human rights policy and the due diligence management process under the framework of the “Guiding Principles”.⁸⁰ Considering the range of its recognition and examples of practice, it can be seen that the “Guiding Principles”, which have only been released for ten years, may have as much influence on enterprises as any international human rights convention. The general recognition of the human rights policy of the “Guiding Principles” and the practice of making the human rights policy by enterprises can jointly ensure human rights policy refined into “customary rules” in the field of business and human rights, and further develop to ground rules in operations. Meanwhile, other enterprises that have not yet formulated human rights policies will be pushed aside to the lowland of rules and ethics in the business. The broad consensus resulting from the non-binding nature of the “Guiding Principles” does not equate to enterprises’ full recognition of the human rights obligations covered by the “Guiding Principles”, but enables states and enterprises to accept the link between their “responsibility to respect human rights and the international human rights files”.⁸¹ To give another example, the United Nations Global Compact is the world’s largest sustainable development initiative for enterprises. The ten principles in the Compact represent the shared values of Business and Human Rights.⁸² More than half of the Global 500 enterprises which have made human rights policies claim to respect the Global Compact. Although the well-recognized OECD Guidelines on Transnational Enterprises cannot match the above UN guidelines, enterprises from some non-OECD countries declare to respect the OECD Guidelines on Transnational Enterprises in their human rights policies,⁸³ which is not limited by the scope of OECD countries.

 

In addition to the well-perceived universality, soft regulations are reinforced in enforceability. Non-state enforcement mechanisms make it possible for human rights principles and rules to achieve at the local level what national enforcement mechanisms cannot. Taking the methodology of human rights due diligence management as an example, the OECD Due Diligence Management Guide for Responsible Business Practices (hereinafter referred to as the Due Diligence Management Guide) was published in 2018. Although it has been in effect for a very short time, it has been adopted by quite a few enterprises in their human rights policies.⁸⁴ The OECD Guidelines on Responsible Supply Chain Due Diligence for Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-risk Areas (hereinafter referred to as Conflict Minerals Guidelines) have been published for ten years since the first edition⁸⁵ and they have been widely recognized by enterprises in related industries. Although there are more enterprises committed to complying with the Conflict Minerals Guide,⁸⁶ it is expected that over time, the Due Diligence Management Guide, which applies to the whole industry, will be recognized and applied by a wider range of enterprises’ human rights policies, and its strong enforceability will continue to enhance its regulatory intensity.

 

It should be particularly indicated that the guidelines led by industry and social organizations integrate industry practices and standards. Although they are less authoritative than the various enterprise human rights guidelines developed by intergovernmental organizations, they are better in terms of flexibility and industry pervasiveness, and even close to establishing the “customary law” in the industry.⁸⁷ For instance, many enterprises emphasize their leadership or participation in the formulation of a relevant industrial standard in the official policy,⁸⁸ and the guidance to the industry may also serve as the basis for judges to consider and decide the verdict of disputes in discretion.⁸⁹ So the direct participation of market entities and the interdependence of these entities with NGOs and governments in many transnational private regulatory systems may have advantages in terms of effectiveness and legitimacy compared to a single intergovernmental system.⁹⁰ Meanwhile, the joining of industry organizations and other social organizations makes the issue of business and human rights go beyond the business relationship and pure compliance orientation, creating a situation of diversified cooperative governance. It provides a multi-dimensional perspective and experience for the formulation and practice of enterprises’ human rights policies.⁹¹

 

In conclusion, solidifying and implementing human rights rules in international guidelines or industrial initiatives by enterprises’ human rights policies does not need complicated procedures or strong national will like making treaties, but its effect of implementation may be more powerful. As a result, the power of private subjects to make rules is becoming more and more important, and thus the influence of public subjects and that of private subjects on human rights norms in the business field take turns or even got inverted.

 

 

As shown above, domestic legislation is one of the most direct factors affecting the formulation of enterprises’ human rights policies. Meanwhile, national legislation indirectly affects the extraterritorial stakeholders in the supply chain of enterprises by regulating their human rights policy or due diligence management.

 

As of now, there is an increasing amount of supply chain due diligence management legislation in countries or regions based on laws that cover many extraterritorial enterprises, public sectors where the enterprises are located, and other relevant parties, with extremely far-reaching influence. For instance, the Enterprises Supply Chain Due Diligence Obligation Act of Germany states that if the violation of human rights-related or environment-related obligations by a direct supplier prevents enterprises from terminating the violation in the foreseeable future, enterprises shall develop and implement a concept to terminate or minimize the violation without undue delay.⁹² In other words, when an extraterritorial direct supplier of a German enterprise violates human rights or environmental obligations, the German enterprise must immediately take strict measures against this supplier. In March 2021, the European Parliament voted in the first round to pass the draft Enterprises Due Diligence Management and Enterprises Accountability Bill, which states that termination of cooperation with suppliers or other commercial relationships may be a last resort if adverse effects cannot be prevented or mitigated and influence cannot be increased. It should be done responsibly. ⁹³

 

In addition, Norway, in an Act relating to enterprises’ transparency and work on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions released in 2021, requires enterprises to conduct due diligence management in accordance with the OECD Guidelines on Transnational Enterprises and indicates in the scenario that specific due diligence management processes may be legislated later.⁹⁴ In another example, the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development announced in December 2021 that relevant domestic legislation would be enacted, following a stalemate in European Union legislation.⁹⁵ It should be specifically pointed out that these laws explicitly or implicitly require enterprises subject to their regulations to formulate corresponding human rights policies or make a commitment to respect human rights. It proves that putting pressure on extraterritorial enterprises and countries in the supply chain through domestic or regional legislation has become an invisible trend of extraterritorial application of laws. By means of the integration with the international human rights norms and the extension of international business mechanisms, these countries have met the legal objectives that are hard to be reached under normal circumstances. In the future, the “long-arm” legal norms of a country deeply involved in a global supply chains may shape the entire supply chain, and then profoundly affect business decisions.

 

Proved by the above-mentioned three trends, with the popularization and implementation of enterprises’ human rights policies, the applicable subject of international human rights norms expands in the dual dimensions of attribute and space due to the promotion of domestic regulations and social norms, while the intensity of the norms keeps building up in the business field. In other words, the international human rights norms have changed from being only applicable to countries to being widely recognized by enterprises, while domestic legal norms have changed from restricting domestic enterprises to affecting extraterritorial enterprises.

 

There is no doubt that these changes and trends may also have an impact on the existing order. The most obvious manifestation is that there are two distinct sets of conflicts between different categories of norms: the “long-arm” norms of a specific country and the domestic legal norms of other countries, and the international human rights norms and the domestic norms of countries. On the one hand, in the conflict between domestic “long-arm” regulations and domestic regulations of other countries, enterprises of countries that do not establish “long-arm” regulations or counter “long-arm” regulations are easy to be the object of pressure on human rights issues by enterprises of countries that have established “long-arm” regulations. On the other hand, the international norms may lead to a decline in the national government’s recognition of international norms if they contradict domestic regulations and policies. In particular, certain countries may use the international human rights norms related to business’s human rights impact to manipulate international relations, which leads to the countries that are targeted to be the subject of moral narrative and international opinion of the business. Such politicization and instrumentalization will inevitably result in the departure of the implementation of various norms from the supreme vision of protecting human rights.

 

 

The human rights policies of enterprises are becoming a practice that is increasingly generalized and institutionalized and has created far-reaching theoretical shocks in the field of international human rights law. But there are clear limits to this practice and may conflict with goals and agendas in many other areas. As such, it may also limit relevant practical trends and theoretical implications.

 

 

In essence, enterprises’ human rights policies are a voluntary unilateral statement of the enterprises, so the binding effect on the enterprises is limited. Several studies have shown that previous due diligence management legislation in France and the United Kingdom was ineffective due to its lack of oversight and enforcement systems.⁹⁶ A legally regulated enterprises’ human rights due diligence management has a low force of law, let alone a unilateral enterprise human rights commitment in the absence of legal constraints.

 

To strengthen the seriousness and binding power of enterprises’ human rights policies, some scholars suggest that enterprises’ human rights policies should be incorporated into the “contract” from the perspective of private law norms, to construct the contractual relationship between the private law⁹⁷ and transform the human rights policy from a unilateral commitment to a bilateral contract. Some scholars believe that although the effect of human rights policy formulated by enterprises may not be satisfactory in the short term if it is incorporated into the top-level long-term policies of enterprises, good results may be achieved in the end.⁹⁸ In other words, combining human rights policy with other restrictive mechanisms or more authoritative policies is a possible solution to this limitation, which has not been realized.

 

Another possibility is that enterprises’ human rights policies are invoked by a court to give a verdict on the human rights disputes related to enterprises, but that seems not to have become a universal reality. In the case of Doe vs. Wal-Mart, workers alleged to the court that Wal-Mart knew that suppliers routinely violated the Supplier Code of Conduct but did not give enough supervision. The court held that the supplier code of conduct did not create any legal liability and that Walmart reserved the right to inspect suppliers, but this was not the same as the obligation to inspect suppliers.⁹⁹ Similarly, in France, a court held in a case that non-compliance with a company’s code of ethics does not violate international law and that commitments to the Global Compact wouldn’t result in legal liability.¹⁰⁰

 

 

The human rights policy of enterprises is pursued globally through the due diligence management mechanism and the supply chain business mechanism, which not only meets the requirements of the domestic law of the country in which the policy is formulated and establishes the public law relationship between enterprises and the country but also extends the private law relationship between enterprises and suppliers from other countries. Therefore, the policies become the joint point of the relationship between public law and private law. Such a joint public-private legislation mechanism may, to some extent, help domestic legislation avoid direct interference in other countries’ internal affairs.¹⁰¹ However, a long-arm application channel of domestic policies is inevitably established within the business relationship of enterprises, which to a certain extent intensifies the possibility of conflicts between domestic policies of different countries and places enterprises in the dilemma of choosing between domestic laws and external markets.

 

Although countries must protect human rights as per the International Human Rights Law, there are great differences in the human rights obligations and ways of protecting human rights undertaken by each country. In other words, an international human rights norm recognized by the home country of enterprises may not be accepted as a human rights obligation of the host country. When enterprises follow international human rights norms not accepted by the host country in their policies, and the normative effect conflicts with the internal governance of the host country or the home country of the supplier, then enterprises are likely to face both market and political pressure in the host country. In particular, institution-building in the field of Business and Human Rights inevitably involves economic development issues. Therefore, the effect of enterprises’ application of international human rights norms in human rights policy may vary a lot among different countries due to the overlapping effect of political and economic structure, national human rights obligations, etc., resulting in strong conflicts with the domestic policy objectives of the host country and the supplier’s home country. It is not conducive to economic and trade exchanges and commercial cooperation between countries, and to the integrated application of international human rights norms among different countries.¹⁰²

 

 

Transnational enterprises usually require suppliers to comply with the human rights requirements of suppliers based on their human rights policies, such as supplier guidelines or purchasing policies. Some international brands even claim “non-compliance, no trade.” Among the Global 500 enterprises that have formulated human rights policies, more than one-third have stated that suppliers must comply with certain human rights requirements in their supplier policies. If the situation is serious or the supplier does not correct their actions after being reminded, enterprises will terminate their business relationship with the supplier.¹⁰³ Therefore, international human rights values and norms are “privatized” by the supply and demand relationship in the international supply chain as a “vertical” and “non-compliance, no trade” power structure basis between the two parties, and in a sense, international brands and purchasers are given the “ power to police” the human rights performance of suppliers.¹⁰⁴

 

For international brands and purchasers, the “power to police” is a double-edged sword. While controlling the human rights performance of suppliers, it may also be abused, and even damage the brand under certain circumstances. Ultimately, whether suppliers will comply with the supplier guidelines that form part of the human rights policy depends on a contest of “commercial power” between the two sides. First of all, in the absence of the ability of the brand or the purchaser to implement the human rights policy, the influence on the supplier may be very limited. Second, the leverage between brand owners and suppliers is in a state of dynamic change, which is affected by the operation, the social and economic structure of the host country, and such.¹⁰⁵ In particular, the influence of brands and purchasers on suppliers will decline with the decrease of commercial power, i.e., the realistic basis of this power is the continuous existence of supply-demand relations. In the end, from a realistic perspective, the scope for brands and purchasers to enforce their human rights policies in the supply chain is also very limited. In the best case, it works only with tier-1 suppliers with which they have a direct business relationship, and it is often unable to do anything about suppliers at other levels further down the chain.¹⁰⁶

 

In addition, the implementation of human rights policy by enterprises is also subject to the objective limitations of time and space. For instance, the due diligence management law of the German supply chain stipulates that if a direct supplier violates its human rights obligations, the brand shall cooperate with the supplier to develop and implement the corresponding plan and prove in the annual report that it has not “neglected its duties” or “bent the law for personal purposes,” otherwise it will face administrative punishment.¹⁰⁷ However, international brands and suppliers are often far away from each other. Therefore, when suppliers are suspected of violating human rights obligations, not all brands or purchasers can get to know the truth the first time, nor can they supervise and cooperate free of objective conditions, which undoubtedly increases the difficulty for enterprises to undertake obligations.

 

 

In the process of implementing human rights policies, enterprises may encounter difficulties caused by conflicts with development goals. First of all, if enterprises terminate business dealings due to violations of relevant human rights policies by other business partners, it may cause a more serious human rights crisis. Some argue, for example, Article 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, could backfire and harm civilians.¹⁰⁸ In 2014, 70 industry figures and academics released an open letter arguing that regulations on conflict minerals had left many miners unemployed and that extreme poverty had forced them to join militias.¹⁰⁹ Similarly, terminating a relationship with a supplier because of child labor does not address the plight of these children and may lead to the placement of these children in more dangerous workplaces.¹¹⁰ Such a result is contrary to the original intention of human rights policymakers. However, for downstream enterprises, it may be the best choice for them to terminate their business partnership after comprehensive consideration of cost accounting and legal compliance.

 

Second, when the host government infringes on human rights, enterprises may also have to carefully consider whether to terminate their business operations in the country if their operations there directly violate their human rights policy, or if they have to pay a large amount of taxes to make an implicit “subsidy” to the government. However, the cessation of enterprises’ operations in a country may do even more harm to the human rights situation of that country. In this case, the enterprises’ human rights policy is in sharp conflict with the local reality, so “staying put” may be a better choice.¹¹¹

 

Take the human rights crisis in Myanmar in 2021 as an example. Total Energy detailed its rationale for choosing to continue natural gas production in Myanmar. The top management of Burmese companies would face arrest if they stop paying taxes; shutting down gas production in Myanmar would leave millions without power and even hospital patients without access to care. And it argues that a hasty exit from Myanmar could expose those laborers who remain to be forced to produce gas.¹¹² In addition, Total decided to make donations to Myanmar Human Rights Association, with the amount comparable to taxes paid to the government, to compensate for the “funding” of paying taxes to the government.¹¹³ The dilemma of Total is an example of an enterprise’s human rights policies conflicting with the social reality, but its practices protect the human rights of residents and enterprises’ employees and safeguard the real value advocated by enterprises’ human rights policies.

 

Conflicts between enterprises’ human rights policies and the goals of social development weaken the legitimacy of enterprises having “police power” and point directly to the gap in the consideration of human rights policies. Under different circumstances, enterprises have different ways to get out of the difficulties, and it is hard to have a unified response plan. However, in the final analysis, enterprises should take their human rights policies as the baseline, to identify risks, carry out actions and make explanations, and open their predicament to society with a sincere attitude and achieve basic self-consistency.¹¹⁴

 

 

Whether a perfect human rights policy can improve the business competitiveness of enterprises is also a major consideration for many enterprises when formulating human rights policies. Although a large number of studies have shown that enterprises’ fulfillment of social responsibility is conducive to their long-term development.¹¹⁵ Investors will be more willing to pay a premium for the shares of enterprises that disclose social responsibility than those that have a social responsibility crisis.¹¹⁶ However, there are still many enterprises that occupy high positions in the revenue rankings without formulating human rights policies. The vast majority of consumers do not always pay attention to which enterprises violate human rights, and even do not know the relevant information. Some enterprises, such as “invisible” enterprises that play an important role in the supply chain but do not directly face consumers and monopolistic suppliers of daily necessities, do not see their revenue fluctuate due to reputational impact even if they violate human rights.

 

In the absence of a compulsory legal contract, the formulation and implementation of human rights policy can only improve the commercial competitiveness of specific enterprises. A large number of “invisible” or monopolistic enterprises still choose to “remain idle” on human rights policy. Compared with these enterprises, enterprises that respect human rights have higher operating costs and are at a disadvantage in the market competition. This is not conducive to fair competition among enterprises. It is especially true for several enterprises in the same industry. In the short term, enterprises that formulate and follow human rights policies will inevitably invest more costs than enterprises that do not. Therefore, after some enterprises join or launch a human rights initiative or establish a human rights mechanism, they should promote it in the whole industry to achieve the fairness of human rights costs in the same industry.¹¹⁷

 

Theoretically, the law obliges all enterprises above a certain scale to make human rights policies and conduct due diligence management, which can bring about a fair and competitive environment for enterprises. As stated in the European Union’s latest Due Diligence Management Legislation (draft), the lack of unified enterprise due diligence management legislation endangers a level playing field for enterprises operating within the European Union.¹¹⁸ In the joint letter of German enterprises, they believe that the supply chain due diligence management legislation, including the requirement for enterprises to develop a human rights policy, can promote fair competition among enterprises. Therefore, they not only support the German supply chain due diligence management legislation but also hope that the German domestic law will become the cornerstone of the corresponding legislation in Europe,¹¹⁹ to promote the fair competition of enterprises in a wider scope and avoid conflict between enterprises’ human rights policies and the comapies’ commercial objectives.

 

 

 

As more and more transnational enterprises make human rights policies and more and more countries make domestic legislation on human rights due diligence management, the Chinese government should be aware that enterprises’ human rights policy is a rapidly developing global trend that cannot be ignored and avoided. It is also a great challenge to the concept and ability of national governance. These trends are reshaping the perception of traditional human rights and their enforcement mechanisms, as well as the social impact and function of business, both in practice and in theory, and require forward-looking systematic study and response. Therefore, the Chinese government should attach more importance to the mechanism of the enterprises’ human rights policies. It requires the state to clarify its extraterritorially narrative logic, and guide enterprises to formulate human rights policies in line with the “Guiding Principles”. It also requires the state to be able to skillfully use enterprises’ human rights policies to safeguard the rights of its enterprises, such as establishing coping mechanisms for politicizing human rights issues in the field of commerce and trade,¹²⁰ to actively encourage Chinese enterprises to adapt to and make use of these trends and relevant mechanisms. This includes formulating national action plans in the field of 

Business and Human Rights, clarifying the requirements for enterprises to formulate human rights policies, and meeting expectations for implementing agendas such as respecting and protecting human rights at home and abroad through business mechanisms. Of course, in this process, the human rights policy mechanisms of enterprises should not be treated in a one-sided and absolute way. Instead, we should actively make use of these mechanisms, overcome their limitations, and make them match the management capabilities and business objectives of the enterprises. It should also be consistent with the policy goals of the state and the social development goals of the communities in which enterprises operate. We should adhere to the principles of equality, mutual trust, inclusiveness, mutual learning, win-win cooperation, and common development,¹²¹ to achieve human rights governance outcomes that are perceived by all parties.

 

 

For Chinese enterprises that have been fully integrated into the global industry chains, it is essential that abide by the customary rules of the international supply chain, learn from the existing excellent international practices and actively formulate human rights policies. On the one hand, the mechanism of human rights policy can create checks and balances on extraterritorial enterprises and prevent other enterprises from using human rights policy to unilaterally suppress Chinese enterprises in the same industry or supply chain. On the other hand, the establishment of this mechanism can encourage Chinese and foreign transnational enterprises to negotiate on the same way of thinking and rules, reach an agreement on the way of behavior, and promote business cooperation.

 

While applying human rights policy, Chinese enterprises should pay attention to avoiding the possible adverse effects of human rights policy. First of all, from the perspective of social development goals, while implementing human rights policies, enterprises should embed the concept of human rights protection in every department, and “strengthen the coordination of departments in procurement, production, and technical support”¹²². With the primary principle of protecting human rights and promoting the development of local societies, a specific due diligence mechanism is selected on a case-by-case basis rather than a procedural rigid application of human rights norms. Second, enterprises should pay attention to their due diligence in human rights with their business partners, committed to establishing a supply chain human rights due diligence mechanism with upstream and downstream partners based on shared human rights values and the “common but differentiated responsibilities” model, including the requirement to establish a business transaction system with balanced rights and obligations, “share responsibilities and risks” with partners¹²³ and cooperate with suppliers about their due diligence on human rights. In addition, from the perspective of business costs, the industry should consider how to enable enterprises to profit from human rights practices while raising operating costs due to human rights practices. For example, enterprises can make human rights initiatives among their peers to achieve a certain degree of equity in human rights costs. Downstream Chinese brands can choose suppliers with better human rights performance, so as to achieve a proportional effect between commercial ability and human rights ability. Enterprises in the same value chain are a community of human rights responsibility and risk bearing. In a larger dimension, they are also the promoters and bearers of the community with a shared future for human beings. Therefore, understanding and applying human rights policy must be an indispensable cornerstone for the development of enterprises.

 

(Translated by XU Chao)

 

* LIANG Xiaohui ( 梁晓晖 ), Deputy Chief Economist, Researcher in China Textile Information Center, Doctor of Laws.

 

** FU Lanke ( 傅兰珂 ), Ph.D. candidate, Law School of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

 

1. The United Nations documents, A/HRC/17/31 (2011).

 

2. For a description of the drafting process and methodology of this framework, please refer to John Ruggie, “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A United Nations Policy Framework For Business And Human Rights”, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 103 (2009): 282-287.

 

3. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 16.

 

4. Xu Shenghua and Lin Yelin, Modern Enterprises Management (3rd Edition) (Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2016), 11.

 

5. ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex SL Appendix 2, May 2021, 17 edition.

 

6. For instance, see National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Fundamentals and Terms of Quality Management System (GB/T 19000 - 2016/IS0 99000: 2015), 3.5.8, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China, issued on December 30, 2016; National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Environmental management systems — Requirements with Guidelines for Use (GB/T 24001-2016-2016/ISO 14001: 2015), 3.1.3 (“The intention and direction of an organization as formally expressed by top management with respect to environmental performance), General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China, issued on October 13, 2016; National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Compliance management systems-Guidelines (GB/T35770-2017/ISO 19600 : 2014), 2.8, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China, issued on December 29, 2017; and National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use (GB/T45001-2020/ISO 45001: 2018), 3.14, 3.15, State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration of China, issued on March 6, 2020.

 

7. For instance, the above-mentioned National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Environmental management systems — Requirements with Guidelines for Use has Chapter 5 “Leadership” in which the Article 5.2 “Environmental policy” requires that “top management shall establish, implement and maintain an environmental policy that, within the defined scope of its environmental management system”; and National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use has Article 5.2 “OH&S policy” which demands “Top management shall establish, implement and maintain an OH&S policy”.

 

8. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 16 (c).

 

9. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 17. 

 

10. For instance, (1) Rio Tinto: “Human Rights Policy,” on the official website, “Rio Tinto respects and supports the dignity, well being and human rights of our employees, the communities in which we live and those affected by our operations”; (2) 3M:“Human Rights Policy,” on the official website, “3M is committed to upholding human and workplace rights in all 3M operations globally”, accessed January 20, 2022. Apart from “respect to human rights,” the United Nations Global Compact requires business to “support internationally recognized human rights,” and its interpretation of “support” is as follows: “Beyond respecting human rights, business is encouraged to take action to support human rights. This means seeing the opportunity to take voluntary action to make a positive contribution towards the protection and fulfillment of human rights whether through core business, strategic social investment/philanthropy, public policy engagement/advocacy, and/or partnerships and other collective action.”.

 

11. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 12.

 

12. The United Nations Global Compact, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, A Guide for Business: How to Develop a Human Rights Policy (2nd Edition, 2015), on the website of United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.

 

13. For instance, (1) Toshiba, abiding by the “Guiding Principles,” stated that it would follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Global Compact, the Conventions and Declarations of the International Labour Organization, OECD norms and guidelines, ISO26000, GRI standard, and the code of conduct for responsible business alliances. Toshiba, “Respect for Human Rights,” on the official website; (2) In its human rights policy, BBVA stated to abide by the Guiding Principles and comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Conventions and Declarations of the International Labour Organization, OECD Guidelines on Transnational Enterprises, Principles for the Empowerment of Women, Equator Principles, Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc, BBVA: “Commitment to Human Rights,” on the official website. And there are not a few of such concurrence as the two cases. In general, enterprises’ claim to respect a wide range of internationally recognized human rights is accompanied by an emphasis on the “Guiding Principles”.

 

14. For instance, (1) Chevron clearly points out in its human rights policy, “All employees of Chevron are required to comply with this policy.” See Chevron, “about our human rights policy,” on the official website; (2) Apple states in its human rights policy: “We require our employees to be and to conduct business ethically, honestly, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.” See Apple, “Our Commitment to Human Rights,” on the official website, accessed February 10, 2022.

 

15. Many enterprises refer to human rights requirements for business partners in independent human rights policies or other supplier guidelines. For instance, (1) Amerisour-ceBergen mentioned in the human rights policy: “We expect our suppliers to maintain a safe and healthy working environment as well, including, but not limited to, protecting workers from unnecessary exposure to hazards and excessive physically demanding tasks.” See AmerisourceBergen, “Human Rights Policy,” on the official website; (2) Total stated in the human rights policy: “We expect our suppliers and contractor to adhere to standards that are equivalent to ours, in particular towards their employees, and to make ongoing efforts so that their own suppliers and subcontractors also respect these principles.” See Total, （Continued on Next Page）(Continued) “Human Rights Guide,” on the official website. On the other hand, enterprises rarely mention their expectations for the government in their human rights policies, and even when they do, they are tactful in wording and brief in content. For instance, (1) Anglo American states: “We also recognise that our host governments have a duty to protect the human rights of everyone within their jurisdiction. Where it is appropriate and within our power to do so, we also seek to promote the observance of human rights in the countries where we work and will work with states to build capacity in support of that objective.” See Anglo American, “Group Human Rights Policy,” on the official website (2) Sainsbury’s: “Although the primary duty to protect human rights sits with national governments, we fully recognise our responsibility as a company to respect human rights throughout all our operations.” See Sainsbury’s, “Our Policy on Human Rights,” on the official website.

 

16. The United Nations Global Compact, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner classified these two elements as “Fundamental Elements” of human rights policy in A Guide for Business: How to Develop a Human Rights Policy (2nd Edition, 2015), 20.

 

17. For instance, “Huawei’s Commitment to Human Rights 2020” is published in English on the website of Huawei (UK). The full text of this document, which seems to be a statement of human rights policy, uses “Huawei” to refer to the subject of issue. But since it fails to explain the scope of application of the statement, it is inclined to be mistaken that this is the policy of Huawei as a whole. However, there is no similar human rights commitment in Chinese or English on Huawei’s Chinese website (i.e., Huawei Headquarters website), Huawei, “Huawei’s Commitment to Human Rights 2020” can be found on the official website.

 

18. For instance, (1) Verizon indicates at the very beginning of its statement on human rights policy: “This Statement applies to Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiaries (‘Verizon’), see Verizon, “Human Rights Statement,” on Verizon’s official website; (2) The Coca-Cola Company states in its human rights policy: “Our Human Rights Policy applies to The Coca-Cola Company, the entities that we own, the entities in which we hold a majority interest, and the facilities that we manage.” See The Coca-Cola Company, “Human Rights Principles,” on the official website of The Coca-Cola Company.

 

19. For instance, (1) Tesco details policy making, supervision methods and human rights due diligence in its human rights policy, Tesco, “Our approach to human rights,” on the official website; (2) Panasonic introduced the executive departments and head of department for human rights affairs, Panasoni, “Respect for Human Rights,” on the official website。

 

20. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 16. 

 

21. For instance, refer to national and international standards for definitions of management systems, including: National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Basics and Terms of Quality Management System (GB/T 19000-2016/ISO 9000: 2015), 3.1.1 (term related to personnel, “top management”), General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China, issued on December 30, 2016; National Standard of the People's Republic of China: Environmental management systems — Requirements with Guidelines for Use (GB/T24001-2016-2016/ISO 14001: 2015), 3.1.5, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China, issued on October 13, 2016; and National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use (GB/T45001-2020/ISO 45001: 2018), 3.12, State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration of China, issued on March 6, 2020.

 

22. For instance, (1) Rio Tinto states: “It is a responsibility we take seriously — from governance of our human rights-related policies, which are overseen by the Sustainability Committee of the Board of Directors, to processes like pre-screening suppliers and providing human rights training to key employees.” See Rio Tinto, “Human Rights”; (2) Aegon states: “The Executive Board has approved this statement, and together with the Management Board, is responsible for the ongoing development of this statement and firm’s overall commitment to respect human rights.” See Aegon, “Statement on Human Rights,” on its official website.

 

23. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Commentary of Principle 16. 

 

24. For instance, (1) Tesco states that its due diligence management process was developed in consultation with more than 50 internal and external stakeholders, including suppliers, multi-stakeholder bodies (such as the Ethical Trade Initiative), trade unions, civil social groups (e.g., Unseen and Oxfam) and government agencies, Tesco, “Our approach to human rights,” on the official website; （Continued on Next Page）(Continued) (2) Unilever mentions in its human rights policy: “We believe that working through external initiatives and partnerships, for example with other industry, NGOs, trade union, supplier and other business partners, is often the best way to address shared challenges.” See Unilever, “Unilever’s Human Rights Policy Statement,” on the official website.

 

25. For instance, (1) BHP states in its human rights documents: “We engage with and respond to civil society, communities and investors on issues related to our business and strive for transparency in our interactions. We undertake regular engagement with our stakeholders to listen, understand, prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of our activities...” See BHP, “Human Rights Policy Statement, on the official website; (2) Anglo American mentioned in its human rights policy: “Anglo American will communicate this Policy and its requirements to internal and external stakeholders, including general awareness raising and specific training on human rights-related issues where deemed necessary.” See Anglo American, “Group Human Rights Policy,” on the official website.

 

26. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Commentary of Principle 16.

 

27. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 13 and Commentary of Principle 17. 

 

28. The United Nations Global Compact, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, A Guide for Business: How to Develop a Human Rights Policy (2nd Edition, 2015), 3.

 

29. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 15.

 

30. The United Nations Global Compact, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, A Guide for Business: How to Develop a Human Rights Policy (2nd Edition, 2015), 8.

 

31. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Commentary of Principle 16.

 

32. Xu Shenghua and Lin Yelin, Modern Enterprises Management (3rd Edition).

 

33. The Fortune Global 500 ranking is based on enterprises’ operating revenue. In the 2021 Top 500, there are 143 Chinese enterprises and 122 US enterprises. Fortune China, the 2021 Fortune Global 500.

 

34. The paper uses “human rights policy” in the narrower sense. That is, the policy naming incorporates “human rights,” including Human Rights Statement, Human Rights Policy, Respect for Human Rights, etc.. The social responsibility report and the sustainable development report are not included in the “human rights policy” in this paper.

 

35. The vast majority of the enterprises’ data in this paper was collected and analyzed in 2021, so there may be slight difference from the data when readers read this article.

 

36. The United Nations documents, A/HRC/4/35/Add.3 (2007), para. 74.

 

37. The United Nations documents, A/HRC/14/27 (2010), para. 56.

 

38. The United Nations documents, A/HRC/26/25/Add.1 (2014), para. 37.

 

39. The United Nations documents, A/70/216 (2015), para. 31.

 

40. They are Huawei Investment Holdings Co., LTD., Lenovo Group, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Compal Computer, Cathay Financial Holdings Co., LTD., CK Hutchison Holdings Co., LTD., Fubang Financial Holdings Co., LTD., Wistron Group, and Longfor Group Holdings Co., LTD. For instance, Longfor Group has published its human rights policy on its official website. The policy direction includes “prohibition of forced labor,” “prohibition of child labor,” “respect for labor diversity and against discrimination,”“freedom of association,” and “safe and healthy working environment,” Longfor Group: “Human Rights Policy of Longfor Group,” on the official website 

 

41. Maybe considering the length of the paper, the “content of cultural relativity” may appear on the official website of enterprise in the form of a separate web page independent of human rights policy. Diversity Policy: e.g. (1) Verizon, “We are all included,” on the official website; (2) Apple, “Inclusion & Diversity,” on the official website. (1) Valero, “Jobs for Veterans,” on the official website; (2)General Dynamics, “Veterans and Transitioning Military,” on the official website.

 

42. For instance, Mitsubishi Corporation, Marubeni Corporation, Toyota Tsusho Corporation, SoftBank Group, Itochu Corporation.

 

43. Insurance enterprises, such as AXA group, Assicurazioni Generali, Aegon N.V.; banking business, such as BNP Paribas, HSBC Holdings, and Lloyds Banking Group PLC.

 

44. Enterprises that state they respect the rights of indigenous peoples, such as Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Rosneft Oil, Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Rio Tinto; enterprises that state they respect the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, such as Rio Tinto, Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, Anglo American plc, Idemitsu Kosan, Glencore.

 

45. Examples include Daimler AG, Kia Motors, and Continental AG.

 

46. Examples include AT&T, Telefonica, and Vodafone Group.

 

47. Industry Analysis Guide for Enterprises in the ICT Industry to Respect Children’s Rights, retrieved on February 10, 2022; Industry Guide for the Protection of Children Online (2020), available on the International Telecommunication Union website.

 

48. John Ruggie, “Business and Human rights: The Evolving International Agenda,” 101 American Journal of International Law 4 (2007): 819-840.

 

49. Cardinal Health states in its human rights policy: “In cases where a national law conflicts with an internationally recognized human right, Cardinal Health will, while complying with the law, seek to follow the higher international standard.” Cardinal Health, “Global Human Rights and Labor Standards”, on the official website.

 

50. AXA group mentions in its human rights policy: “We aim to create a positive impact on the environment, society at large and individual lives.” AXA group, “Human Rights Policy,” on the official website.

 

51. In its human rights policy, Microsoft declares that technology should benefit, empower and protect human rights without distinction. Respect for human rights is a core value of Microsoft. Empowering every person and every organization around the world to achieve more with its technology is an integral part of mission. It believes that individuals, organizations and societies will only use technologies that can be trusted, and only technologies that respect human rights and promote human dignity, initiative and well-being can be trusted. Microsoft, “Microsoft’s Global Human Rights Statement,” on the official website.

 

52. The United Nations documents, A/HRC/4/35/Add. 3 (2007), para. 72.

 

53. Robert MeCorquodale, Lise Smit, Stuart Neely and Robin Brooks, “Human Rights Due Diligence in Law and Practice: Good Practices and Challenges for Business Enterprises,” 2 Business and Human Rights Journal 2 (2017): 195-224.

 

54. For instance, in S&PDJSI’s 2021 CSA Methodology Updates, the standard of “human rights” has changed: the ‘commitment’ has expanded to have the commitment of the enterprise included. In the “Method of Evaluation” of the Media & Stakeholder Analysis-Methodology Guidebook (2021), S&PDJSI Global ESG study expects human rights policy to apply to the enterprises’ suppliers as well.

 

55. For instance, in November 2020, Baidu, a company listed on NASDAQ and Hong Kong stock exchanges, issued its Baidu Human Rights Policy, which states that “this policy is approved and promulgated by Baidu ESG Committee and subject to its supervision, and the ESG working group will regularly report the work progress in this field to the ESG Committee”. Baidu, Baidu Human Rights System, Baidu ESG website; In its Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) System released in early 2021, the company stated, “This ESG system governs and complements other relevant standards and systems of the company which include the code of conduct, the human rights system...,” and “This ESG system aims to ensure that the company’s ESG management and performance meet the increasing requirements and expectations of the capital market in which we operate for the company’s environmental, social and governance performance”. Baidu: Baidu Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) System, available on Baidu ESG website.

 

56. European Commission, “Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain,” final report, January 2020, 451.

 

57. Anke Hassel, “The Evolution of a Global Labor Governance Regime,” 21 Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 2 (2008): 239.

 

58. European Commission, “Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain,” final report, January 2020, 16.

 

59. For instance, (1) Sainsbury’s states in its human rights policy: “Our customers want to be confident that the people who make, grow or sell our products are not being exploited or exposed to infringements on their human rights. Although the primary duty to protect human rights sits with national governments, we fully recognize our responsibility as a company to respect human rights throughout all our operations.” Sainsbury’s, “Human Rights,” on the official website. (2) Maersk Group states that: “Respect for human rights is rooted in our values and key to our license to operate from employees, customer, investors, communities, governments and other stakeholders.” Maersk Group, “Human Rights,” on the official website.

 

60. ZHANG Dongyong, Stephen Morse & Uma Kambhampati, Drivers for Corporate Social Responsibility (2017).

 

61. Tokio Marine Holdings states in its human rights policy: “There are also various instances in which inadequate handling of these issues causes a major decline in the brand value of global enterprises and leads to product boycotts.” Tokio Marine Holdings, “Respect for Human Rights”, accessed January 10, 2022.

 

62. (1) ConocoPhillips, “Valuing Human Rights”; (2) Coles Group: “Human Rights at Coles,”on the official website.

 

63. Judith Schrempf-Stirling and Florian Wettstein, “Beyond Guilty Verdicts: Human Rights Litigation and its Impact on Corporations’ Human Rights Policies”, 145 Journal of Business Ethic 3 (2017): 545-562; Kishanthi Parella, “Improving Human Rights Compliance in Supply Chains,” 95 Notre Dame Law Review 2 (2019): 775.

 

64. For instance, (1) Netherlands: National Business and Human Rights Plan, page 28, official website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; (2) Italy: National Business and Human Rights Plan, page 9, official website of the Italian government.

 

65. Germany: National Business and Human Rights Plan, page 10, official website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

66. For instance, (1) L’Oreal states in its human rights policy: “This policy has been approved by L’ORSAL’s chairperson and Chief Executive Officer and its Executive Committee and presented to our international social dialogue body and the Board of Directors.” L’Oreal, “L’OREAL Human Rights Policy,” on the official website; (2) Telefonica released the approved institutions in its home page of human rights policy, Telefonica, “Global Human Rights Policy,” on the official website, accessed January 10, 2022, https://www.telefonica.com/es/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/08/human-rights-policy-telefonica-may-2019.pdf.

 

67. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principles 16-21.

 

68. The United Nations documents, A/HRC/14/27 (2010), para. 83.

 

69. “Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains of July 16 2021,” official website of the German Federal Ministry of Labor and Affairs.

 

70. Germany: National Business and Human Rights Plan, page 8, official website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

71. Similar findings have been found in other studies. Robert MeCorquodale, Lise Smit, Stuart Neely and Robin Brooks, “Human Rights Due Diligence in Law and Practice: Good Practices and Challenges for Business Enterprises,” 206.

 

72. Kendyl Salcito, Chris Wielga & Burton H. Singer, “Corporate human rights commitments and the psychology of business acceptance of human rights duties: a multi-industry analysis”, 19 The International Journal of Human Rights 6 (2015): 673 -696.

 

73. Some enterprises have made their own due diligence management system, and may adopt the OECD Due Diligence Management Guidebook for Responsible Business Operations, such as Chevron, Toshiba, Daimler, Hyundai Motor, Kia Motors, and Hyundai Mobis. The latter four enterprises happen to be enterprises in the vehicle and parts industry.

 

74. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, It is hoped that every individual and social institution always remember this Declaration; Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as acquiescing to the right of any State, group or individual to engage in any activity or behavior aimed at undermining any of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration.

 

75. Louis Henkin, “The Universal Declaration at 50 and the Challenge of Global Markets”, 25 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1 (1999): 25.

 

76. The “Guiding Principles” of the United Nations, Principle 12.

 

77. Liang Xiaohui, Business and Human Rights: From Legal Regulation to Cooperative Governance (Beijing:Peking University Press, 2019), 114.

 

78. John Ruggie, Just Business (New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2013), 104. Take AT&T in the United States as an example: AT&T promised to incorporate the values of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in its policies, but the US is the only country in the world that has not ratified the convention. AT&T, “AT&T’s Human Rights Policy,” on the official website; “Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” official website of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies.

 

79. John Ruggie, “The social construction of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,” in Surya Deva & David Birchall eds., Research Handbook on Business and Human Rights (Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020), 75.

 

80. For instance, (1) Verizon: “Guided by the human rights due diligence framework set forth in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, we are committed to assessing the impacts of our business activities on human rights and to addressing adverse impacts.” Verizon: “Human Rights Statement,” on the official website; (2) Vodafone Group: “Our human rights due diligence approach is aligned with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.” Vodafone Group, “Human Rights Policy Statement,” on the official website, accessed January 10, 2022, vodafone. com/content/dam/vodcom/ sustainability/pdfs/vodafone-group-human-rights-policy-statement-december- 2019. pdf.

 

81. Nadia Bernaz, Business and Human Rights; History, law and policy-Bridging the accountability gap (New York: Routledge, 2017), 104.

 

82. “The United Nations Global Compact: Find solutions to global challenges,” official website of the United Nations.

 

83. For instance, Rosneft Oil: “Rosneft Public Position in the Field of Human Rights”.

 

84. Examples include Hyundai Motor, Hyundai Mobis, Toshiba and Spanish Energy Group.

 

85. Editions are available on the OECD website.
 

86. Examples include Bosch Group, SONY Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Best Buy Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corp.

 

87. Such rules can be broadly divided into two categories: those that focus on sustainable development for raw material use, and those that focus on values such as labor protection and freedom of speech. Sustainable development, especially the sustainable development of raw materials, is the foundation of industrial stability, which reflects the common interests of all enterprises in an industry and is easy to be accepted by enterprises. For example, the Roundtable Initiative for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) stated, as a non-profit organization, it brings together stakeholders in the palm oil industry to develop and improve global standards for sustainable palm oil, with more than 1,600 members worldwide representing 40 percent of palm oil enterprises and covering the entire link of global commodity supply chain.”. 40 percent of palm oil enterprises are committed to this standard, which means that RSPO standards have a fundamental impact on the entire palm oil industry and are comparable in effectiveness to soft regulations. The emphasis on RS-PO can also be seen in the palm oil policies of some enterprises, P&G, “P&G Palm Oils Policy 2021,” on the official website.GNI is dedicated to helping enterprises respect freedom of expression and privacy when faced with government pressure to hand over user data, remove content or restrict communications. Among the Global 500, GNI’s members include eight information and communication technology (ICT) enterprises, including Microsoft, Ericsson and Vodafone Group. Official website of GNI. Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), formerly known as Citizens Coalition for the Electronics Industry (EICC). Code of Conduct (version 1.0) was released in 2004, and the latest version 6.0 was released in 2018. The RBA’s code of conduct aims to establish standards to ensure a safe working environment in the electronics industry or industries where electrical products are a key element and their supply chains, and that employees are treated with respect and dignity, and operations are conducted in an environmentally friendly and ethical manner. Almost all of the electronics industry enterprises in the Global 500 have joined in alliance, including Sony, Toshiba, Canon, Quanta Computer, LG Electronics, Samsung, IBM, Intel, Apple, Facebook, and so on.

 

88. For instance, Bridgestone has launched the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR); Exxonmobil’s participation in the development of Sustainability Report Guidelines for the Oil and Gas Industry; and Basf is one of the initiators of the Global Charter for Responsible Care of the Chemical Industry.

 

89. Robert MeCorquodale, Lise Smit, Stuart Neely and Robin Brooks, “Human Rights Due Diligence in Law and Practice: Good Practices and Challenges for Business Enterprises,” 204.

 

90. Colin Scott, Fabrizio Cafaggi & Linda Senden, “The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation,” 38 Journal of Law and Society 1 (2011): 19.

 

91. Liang Xiaohui, Business and Human Rights: From Legal Regulation to Cooperative Governance, 116.

 

92. “Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains of July 16 2021,” Article 1, Division 2, Section 7, Remedial action, official website of the German Federal Labor and Affairs Department.

 

93. “Corporate due diligence and corporate accountability,” official website of the European Parliament.

 

94. Section 4 in the Transparency Act “relating to enterprises’ transparency and work on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions ,” official website of the Norwegian government.

 

95. “Dutch minister announces national corporate due diligence legislation,” official website of European Coalition for Corporate Justice.

 

96. Elsa Savourey and Stéphane Brabant, “ The French Law on the Duty of Vigilance: Theoretical and Practical Challenges Since Its Adoption,” 6 Business and Human Rights Journal 1 (2021): 147; “Modem Slavery Act, Five years of reporting,” Business and Human Rights Resource Centre & Modem Slavery Registry; Claire Bright, “Creating a Legislative Level Playing Field in Business and Human Rights at the European Level: is the French Duty of Vigilance Law the Way Forward?” MWP 2020/01 Max Weber Programme, 9; “Remise a Bruno Le Maire du rapport du Conseil Ceneral de l’economie sur le bilan de loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017,” the French government website.

 

97. Jan Smits, “Enforcing Corporate Social Responsibility Codes Under Private Law: On the Disciplining Power of Legal Doctrine,” 24 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 1 (2017): 99-113.

 

98. Tricia Olsen, Kathleen Rehbein, Annie Snelson-Powell & Michelle Westermann-Behaylo, “Human Rights in the Oil and Gas Industry: When are Policies and Practices Enough to Prevent Abuse?”, Business & Society 1-46.

 

99. Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F. 3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009).

 

100. Adeline Michoud, “Can Soft Words Lead to Strong Deeds? A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Human Rights Commitments’ Enforcement,” 18 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 2 (2020): 584.

 

101. Maria Monnheimer, Due Diligence Obligations in International Human Rights Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 311.

 

102. Arianne Griffith, Lise Smit & Robert McCorquodale, “Responsible Business Conduct and State Laws: Addressing Human Rights Conflicts,” 20 Human Rights Law Review 4 (2020): 641-673.

 

103. For instance, (1)Huawei claims, “For those suppliers with poor CSR performance, especially those which violated CSR red line requirements, Huawei will require suppliers make corrections within an agreed timeframe and at the same time decrease procurement volume, restrict business opportunities or, in the worst case, terminate the business relationship.”）Huawei, “Huawei Supplier Social Responsibility Code of Conduct,” on the official website. (2) AB InBev claims, “If AB InBev has a reasonable suspicion that a Business Partner has violated the terms of this Policy, AB InBev may terminate or restrict its business relationship with the Business Partner.”) AB InBev: “Global Responsible Sourcing Policy,” on the official website

 

104. Liang Xiaohui, Characteristics Analysis of Supplier Code of Conduct and its Legal Significance to Rights Protection, Tsinghua Law Review, September 2007, 58.

 

105. Mark B. Taylor, “Human rights due diligence in theory and practice,” in Surya Deva & David Birchall eds., Research Handbook on Human Rights and Business (Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020), 95.

 

106. Verónica H. Yillena and Dennis A. Gioia, “On the riskiness of lower-tier suppliers: Managing sustainability in supply networks,” 64 Journal of Operations Management, November (2018): 66.

 

107. “Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains of July 16 2021,” Article 1, Section 7 (1), Section 9 (3), Section24 (1), website of the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Affairs.

 

108. Dominic P. Parker & Bryan Vadheim, “Resource Cursed or Policy Cursed? US Regulation of Conflict Minerals and Violence in the Congo,” 4 Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists1 (2017): 731-774.

 

110. Mark B. Taylor, “Human rights due diligence in theory and practice,” in Surya Deva & David Birchall eds., Research Handbook on Human Rights and Business, 94. Another reference: Global Compact Human Rights and Business Dilemma Forum on Child Labour.

 

111. Peter Vanham, “When a Country is Facing Political and Human Rights Issues, Should Businesses Leave or Stay?” Harvard Business Review (December 17, 2018).

 

112. Total: “How TotalEnergies is facing dilemmas in Myanmar and implementing concrete actions,” official website of Tota.

 

113. Patrick Pouyanné (chairperson and CEO at TotalEnergies), “Total and the human rights crisis in Myanmar”(April 4, 2021), Linkedin profile page.

 

114. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, When National Law Conflicts with International Human Rights Standards, page 4.

 

115. Hakan Kalkavan, “The Relation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Reviewing Empirical Studies and Discussing the Ethical Aspect,” in Hasan Dincer & Serhat Yuksel eds., Strategic Out-look for Innovative Work Behaviours (Cham: Springer, 2020), 179-191; Brijlal Mallik & Dasarathi Sahu, “Effect of CSR Expenditure on Profitability of a Company: Comparative Analysis Between Sail and Tata Stell Ltd. Through Regression Analysis,” 17 KIIT Journal of Management 1 (2021): 47-255.

 

116. Li Xiaohui, Tsang Albert, Zeng Sanyun and Zhou Gaoguang, “CSR Reporting and Firm Value: International Evidence on Management Discussion and Analysis,” 23 China Accounting and Finance Review 2 (2021): 102-145.

 

117. Kishanthi Parella, “Improving Human Rights Compliance in Supply Chains,” 95 Notre Dame Law Review 2 (2019): 790.

 

118. EU Law on Enterprises Due Diligence Management and Enterprises Accountability (Draft), website of European Parliament.

 

119. “Our responsibility in a globalized world”, website of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.

 

120. On December 6, 2015, General Secretary Xi Jinping said in the 35th collective learning session of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPC, “we should promote the domestic rule of law and the rule of law concerning foreign affairs, to strengthen the legislation concerning foreign affairs in the principle of urgency first, to further improve the legal system of anti-sanctions, anti-interference, anti- “long arms jurisdiction,” and to promote the legal system that is applicable outside territory.” Xi Jinping, Follow the Path of Socialist Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics and Further Develop a Socialist Rule of Law System With Chinese Characteristics, qstheory.cn.

 

121. General Secretary Xi Jinping, Speech of the General Secretary Xi Jinping in the 35th Collective Learning of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPC, people.com.cn.

 

122. CSC9000T Social Responsibility Management System of China Textile and Apparel Enterprises (2018), page 25, website of Social Responsibility Office of China National Textile Industry Council.

 

123. Ibid.