the toxic truth - Greenpeace

the toxic truth
While developed countries are by no means immune
from corporate bad practice, the challenges that some
developing countries face in regulating companies has
meant that people living in poverty are more likely to
experience corporate human rights abuses and less able
to access remedies.
Because of the multi-jurisdictional nature of corporate
networks, and the phenomenon of powerful multinational
companies causing or contributing to abuses in developing
countries, human rights advocates have argued for law with
extra territorial effect. They have also argued for increased
options for victims of abuse to seek redress in states other
than the state where the violation occurred. In the absence
of laws with extraterritorial effect, victims of human rights
abuses are denied an effective remedy – which is itself a
human rights violation.
The extraterritorial dimension of the state duty to protect
human rights is not uncontroversial. Some states and
many companies have argued that action to prevent and
address human rights abuses by companies should be
based on the territorial jurisdiction only. However, the
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
has clarified that states have a duty to respect rights
in other countries and prevent third parties – such as
companies – from violating those rights, if they are able to
influence these third parties by legal or political means.
The Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of
States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
adopted by a group of experts on international law and
drawn from international law, aim to clarify the content of
extraterritorial state obligations to realize economic, social
and cultural rights. 321 The principles highlight that “[s]tates
must desist from acts and omissions that create a real risk
of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment of economic, social
and cultural rights extraterritorially. The responsibility of
states is engaged where such nullification or impairment is
a foreseeable result of their conduct.” 322
The corporate responsibility to respect
The UNSRSG’s Guiding Principles confirm that companies
have a responsibility to respect all human rights, and a
corresponding need to take concrete action to discharge
this responsibility.
The Guiding Principles provide valuable guidelines to
companies that are genuinely seeking to prevent their operations
from causing or contributing to human rights abuses.
However, the guidance provided within the Guiding Principles
is largely directed at companies that are willing to respect
human rights. While many companies are implicated in
human rights abuses and violations because of they lack the
appropriate tools and/or frameworks to avoid unintended
adverse impacts on rights, some companies are implicated
in human rights abuses and violations because of their
deliberate or negligent actions and inactions, and because
they believe they can act with impunity.
77