the toxic truth - Greenpeace

76 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Greenpeace activists blockade the Probo Koala at the Estonian port of Paldiski. Activists branded the cargo vessel an EU Toxic
Crime Scene and called for an investigation of the ship by the Estonian authorities, September 2006. © GReenpeace/chRistian Åslund
box: business and human righTs
Under international law, states have a duty to protect
human rights from abuse by non-state actors, such as
companies. The scope of the state duty to protect has been
elaborated in the work of the UN Special Representative
of the Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights
(UNSRSG). The UNSRSG has also developed standards for
corporations that have been endorsed by the UN Human
Rights Council.
The state duty to protect
In the context of corporate activity, the state duty to protect
requires states to have in place adequate and effective
systems for regulating business activity. While action to
prevent corporate operations from harming human rights
should be the priority, the UNSRSG has underlined that:
“State regulation proscribing certain corporate conduct will
have little impact without accompanying mechanisms to
investigate, punish, and redress abuses.” This means that
regulation must be backed by enforcement mechanisms
and appropriate penalties, which should be applicable
to the corporation as a legal entity and to directors and
officers of companies where this is appropriate.
The scope of the state duty to protect human rights in the
context of business activity must include an extraterritorial
dimension. Corporate entities operate across state borders
with ease; however, state borders simultaneously often
present institutional, political, practical and legal barriers
to corporate accountability and redress for the victims of
corporate human rights abuses. There are numerous ways
in which multinational corporate groups can negatively
affect human rights in different jurisdictions. For example,
the decisions made by one branch of a multinational
corporate group based in one country can lead directly to
human rights abuses in another country; the actions of a
subsidiary may be substantially influenced by its parent
company, or the parent may derive financial benefit from a
subsidiary whose operations are responsible for human
rights abuses; a company in one country may contract with
a company in another country whose operations on its
behalf result in abuses.
An additional dimension of the problem is the fact that
corporate groups headquartered in developed countries
but operating in developing countries – directly or through
subsidiaries or partnership – have been shown to operate to
standards that would be unacceptable in their home state.
There are several reasons for this: in some developing
countries the regulatory framework is weak and there are
not sufficient resouces to enforce laws and regulations; in
some cases the company, as a relatively powerful economic
actor, has undue influence in the country, whether over the
executive or legislative arms of government, or – often – the
agencies and civil servants in charge of regulation.