Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:18:13.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neglecting the Proactive Aspect of Human Rights Due Diligence? A Critical Appraisal of the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive as a Pillar One Avenue for Promoting Pillar Two Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

Karin BUHMANN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Firms’ human rights due diligence (HRDD) and communication on their human rights impacts are not only elements in the Corporate Responsibility to Respect human rights (Pillar Two), but also to be promoted by States as part of their State Duty to Protect (Pillar One) through regulatory strategies aiming at shaping business conduct. Analysing the EU’s 2014 Non-Financial Reporting Directive as an example of governmental regulation for promoting responsible business conduct, the article discusses conditions for HRDD and reporting as a communication process to stimulate organizational change in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles to avoid harm, including through affected-stakeholder engagement. Applying socio-legal regulatory theory along with organizational and accounting literature, the article finds that the Directive’s predominant focus on ex-post measures appears to be a neglected opportunity to induce ex-ante organizational learning and changed business conduct to prevent adverse human rights impact. It offers recommendations for regulators and stakeholders for stronger regulation.

Keywords

corporate responsibility to respectnon-financial reportinghuman rights due diligenceorganizational change and regulatory strategystate duty to protect
Type
Scholarly Article
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 23 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article has benefitted from comments from three anonymous reviewers, the journal editors and participants at the international research conferences ‘To pursue or not to pursue CSR goals: legal risks and liabilities’ (6–7 October 2016, University of Copenhagen), and ‘Life-cycle based management and reporting’ (Oslo University, 29–30 November 2016) where previous versions were presented. The author is a member of the SMART research team, funded under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 693642, project SMART (Sustainable Market Actors for Responsible Trade). The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

**

Professor, Dr. scient. adm. and PhD, Professor with special responsibilities for Business and Human Rights, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Department of Management, Society and Communication, DK-2000 Frederiksberg; email: [email protected]

References

1 Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011) [hereinafter ‘UNGP’].

2 Human Rights Council, ‘Resolution 17/4’, A/HRC/RES/17/4 (2011).

3 Human Rights Council, ‘Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights’, A/HRC/8/5 (7 April 2008) [hereinafter ‘UN Framework’].

4 UNGP3.

5 UNGP21.

6 Elaboration of an internationally legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights, UN Doc. Res. A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1, 26 June 2014.

7 Douglass Cassel and Anita Ramasastry ‘White paper: Options for a treaty on Business & Human Rights’, prepared for the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, and the Law Society of England and Wales, May 2015. Available at https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/whitepaperfinal%20ABA%20LS%206%2022%2015.pdf (accessed 2 May 2017).

8 For example, Kamminga, Menno T, ‘Company Responses to Human Rights Reports: An Empirical Analysis’, (2016) 1:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Felice, Damiano De, ‘Challenges and Opportunities in the Production of Business and Human Rights Indicators to Measure the Corporate Responsibility to Respect’, (2015) 37:2 Human Rights Quarterly 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arnold, Denis G, ‘Corporations and Human Rights Obligations’, (2016) 1:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fasterling, Björn and Demuijnck, Geert, ‘Human Rights in the Void? Due Diligence in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’, (2013) 116:4 Journal of Business Ethics 799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Martin-Ortega, Compare Olga, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence for Corporations: From voluntary standards to hard law at last?’, (2014) 32:1 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Schutter, Olivier De, ‘Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights’, (2016) 1:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which treat both Pillar One and Pillar Two aspects.

9 Buhmann, Karin, ‘Public regulators and CSR: The “Social Licence to Operate” in recent United Nations instruments on Business and Human Rights and the juridification of CSR’, (2016) 136:4 Journal of Business Ethics 699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2015 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups [hereinafter Directive 2014/95/EU].

11 The UK Modern Slavery Act (2015) and Netherlands’ Child Labour Due Diligence Bill (2016/2017) apply sanctions; France’s Loi Devoir Vigilance (2016) does not.

12 Early leading initiative include the US mandatory Toxic Release Inventory (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act), section 313 (1986); Denmark’s mandatory ‘Green Accounting’ for certain firms (1995).

13 Ruggie, John G, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013)Google Scholar.

14 United Nations Global Compact, Annual Review 2010 (New York City: United Nations Global Compact Office, 2010); Pedersen, Esben RG, ‘Conformance and Deviance: Company Responses to Institutional Pressures for Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting’, (2013) 22 Business Strategy and the Environment 357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Fung, A and O’Rourke, D, ‘Reinventing Environmental Regulation from the Grassroots Up: Explaining and Expanding the Success of the Toxics Release Inventory’, (2000) 25 Environmental Management 115 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16 Heim, Lawrence, ‘Dodd-Frank: what has been the impact of the conflict-mineral law’ (2016, ThomsonReuters Commodities)Google Scholar, https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/financial-risk/commodities/dodd-frank-impact-conflict-minerals-law/ (accessed 18 May 2017); Knud Sinding and Karin Buhmann, ‘Copy-paste or real change? An assessment of Danish mandatory CSR reporting 2009–2013’, (2015), conference paper, Trends in Accounting Research Conference, University of Lodz, 7–9 October 2015.

17 McPhail, Ken and Ferguson, John, ‘The past, the present and the future of accounting for human rights’, (2016) 29:4 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2016-2441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Nonet, Philip and Selznick, Philip, Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law (New York: Harper/Colophon, 1978)Google Scholar

20 Teubner, Gunther, ‘Substantive and reflective elements in modern law’, (1983) 17:2 Law and Society Review 239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 e.g., Selznick, Philip, ‘Self-regulation and the theory of institutions’ in Gunther Teubner, L. Farmer and D. Murphy (eds), Environmental Law and Ecological Responsibility: The Concept and Practice of Ecological Self-Organisation (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994) 395 Google Scholar; Rogowski, Rolf and Wilthagen, Ton, Reflexive Labour Law: Studies in Industrial Relations and Employment Regulation (Deventer and Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1994)Google Scholar; Arthurs, Harry, ‘Corporate Self-Regulation: Political economy, state regulation and reflexive labour law’ in Brian Bercusson and Cynthia Estlund (eds), Regulating Labour in the Wake of Globalisation (Oxford: Hart, 2008) 19 Google Scholar.

22 Orts, Eric W, ‘A reflexive model of environmental regulation’, (1995) 5:4 Business Ethics Quarterly 779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hess, David, ‘Social Reporting: A reflexive law approach to Corporate Social Responsiveness’, (1999) 25:1 Journal of Corporation Law 41 Google Scholar.

23 Gond, Jean-Pascal and Herrbach, Olivier, ‘Social Reporting as an organisational learning tool? A theoretical framework’, (2006) 65 Journal of Business Ethics 359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid, art 1(3).

25 Directive 2014/95/EU, paras 6 and 21.

26 Ibid, para 3.

27 Ibid, paras 6 and 14 and art 1(1), 1(3) and 1(4).

28 Ibid, para 6 and art 1(1) and 1(3).

29 Ibid, para 6.

30 Daniel Kinderman, ‘The politics of Corporate Transparency and the struggles over the Non-Financial Reporting Directive 2014/95/EU’, The CLS Blue Sky Blog, Columbia University, New York City (1 September 2015).

31 European Coalition for Corporate Justice, ‘Making EU Corporate Reporting Work for People, Planet and Companies’, ECCJ Position Paper, September 2013; Daniel Kinderman, ‘The struggle over the EU Non-Financial Disclosure Directive’, WSI-Mitteilungen, issue 6/2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2614983, (accessed 21 April 2017); see also David Monciardini, ‘Lawyers, accountants and financial analysts: The “Architects” of the new EU regime of corporate accountability’, Onati Socio-legal Series: Past, Present and Future of Sociology of Law 6:3, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2833767 (accessed 1 May 2017).

32 European Coalition for Corporate Justice, ‘Press release: European Parliament votes for rules of corporate accountability and business transparency’, Brussels, 14 April 2014.

33 On the significance of prevention of reputational damage as drivers of proactive action in favour of sustainability with managers, see Berger-Walliser, Gerlinde and Shrivastava, Paul, ‘Beyond compliance: Sustainable development, business, and Proactive Law’, (2015) 46 Georgetown Journal of International Law 418 Google Scholar.

34 Directive 2014/95/EU, para 7.

35 Ibid, para 9.

36 The Human Rights Reporting and Assurance Frameworks Initiative, supported the by UN and developed by the civil society organization/consulting firm SHIFT and the accounting firm Mazars.

37 Directive 2014/95/EU, para 10 and art 1(4).

38 Ibid, art 1(1)5.

39 See, e.g., Scherer, Andreas G et al ‘Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0’ (2016) 53:3 Journal of Management Studies, doi: 10.1111/joms.12203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 See, e.g., Ruggie, note 13.

41 UN Framework, para 54; UNGP 12, commentary.

42 UN Framework, para 58.

43 Ibid, para 54.

44 Ethan B Kapstein, ‘The Corporate Ethics Crusade’, (2001) 80:5 Foreign Affairs 105.

45 Ruggie, note 13, 136–138; see also R Davis and D Franks, ‘Costs of Company-Community Conflict in the Extractive Sector’, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Report No. 66, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.

46 Buhmann, Karin, ‘The Danish CSR reporting requirement as reflexive law: Employing CSR as a modality to promote public policy’, (2013) 24:2 European Business Law Review 187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 UN Framework, para 54.

48 Hess, note 22; Buhmann, note 46.

49 Teubner, Gunther, Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David, ‘The Autonomy of law: An introduction to legal Autopoiesis’ in James Penner, David Schiff and Richard Nobles (eds) Jurisprudence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 897 Google Scholar.

50 More detailed guidance is provided in Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An interpretive guide (Geneva: OHCHR, 2012)Google Scholar.

51 For an explanation and critical review of these foci, see Fasterling, Björn, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence as Risk Management: social risk versus human rights risk’, Business and Human Rights Journal (2016), https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2016.26 Google Scholar.

52 UNGP 15–24.

53 UNGP 17.

54 UNGP 17.

55 Bonnitcha, Jonathan and McCorquodale, Robert, ‘Is the concept of “due diligence” in the Guiding Principles coherent?’, ( forthcoming) European Journal of International Law Google Scholar, SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208588; Hansen, Hans K and Tang-Jensen, Morten Hove, ‘Making up corruption control: Conducting due diligence in a Danish law firm’ (2015) 15:2 Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 365 Google Scholar.

56 See also Human Rights Council, ‘Clarifying the concepts of “Sphere of Influence” and “Complicity”’, A/HRC/8/16 (15 May 2008) (authored as a companion report to the UN Framework report); and Fasterling, note 34.

57 UNGP 4, commentary.

58 UNGP 3(c).

59 UNGP 4.

60 See note 11.

61 e.g., Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, 3rd rev edn (Paris: OECD, 2016)Google Scholar, http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mining.htm (accessed 13 October 2016); Institute for Business and Human Rights & Shift, Oil and Gas Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Brussels: European Commission, 2012)Google Scholar, https://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/O&G/EC-Guide_O&G.pdf (accessed 12 October 2016).

62 Taylor, Mark, ‘The Ruggie Framework: Polycentric regulation and the implications for Corporate Social Responsibility’, (2011) 5:1 Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 9 Google Scholar; Buhmann, Karin, ‘Business and Human Rights: Analysing Discursive Articulation of Stakeholder Interests to Explain the Consensus-based Construction of the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” UN Framework’, (2011) 1:1 International Law Research, 88 Google Scholar.

63 Bonnitcha and McCorquodale, note 55. John Gerard Ruggie and John F Shermann III, ‘The concept of “Due Diligence” in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Reply to Professors Bonnitch and McCorquedale’ (forthcoming), European Journal of International Law.

64 Fasterling, note 51.

65 Buhmann, Karin, Normative discourses and public-private regulatory strategies for construction of CSR normativity: Towards a method for above-national public-private regulation of business social responsibilities (Copenhagen: Multivers Publishing, 2014)Google Scholar.

66 Kinley, David, Nolan, Justine and Zerial, Natalie, ‘The politics of corporate social responsibility: Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Norms for Corporations’, (2007) Company and Securities Law Journal 30 Google Scholar.

67 Fasterling and Demuijnck, note 8.

68 Lambooy, note 8; Buhmann, Karin, ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t? The Lundbeck case of Pentobarbital, the Guiding Principles on business and human rights, and competing human rights responsibilities’ (2012), Summer Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Cassel, Doug, ‘Outlining the Case for a Common Law Duty of Care of Business to Exercise Human Rights Due Diligence’, (2016) 1:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 179, doi:10.1017/bhj.2016.15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Schutter, Olivier et al, Human Rights Due Diligence: The Role of States (Brussels: The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR)Google Scholar, the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ), and the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA), 2012); McCorquodale, Robert, Smith, Lise, Neely, Stuart and Brooks, Robin, ‘Human Rights due diligence in law and practice: Good practices and challenges for business enterprises’, (2017) Business and Human Rights Journal, doi:10.1017/bhj.2017.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Footer, Mary, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence and the Responsible Supply of Minerals from Conflict-affected Areas: Towards a Normative Framework?’ in Jernej Letnar Černič and Tara Van Ho (eds), Direct Human Rights Obligations of Corporations (The Hague: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2015) 179 Google Scholar.

71 Ralph, Hamann et al, ‘Business and human rights in South Africa: An analysis of antecedents of human rights due diligence’, (2009) 87:2 Journal of Business Ethics 453 Google Scholar.

72 Martin-Ortega, note 8; Footer, note 70.

73 Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, rev May 2011 (Paris: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, 25 May 2011)Google Scholar.

74 Ibid, General Policies, II.A.10 and commentary, para 14. The Guidelines’ due diligence recommendations do not apply to the chapters on Science and Technology, Competition and Taxation (see para 14, Commentary to General Principles).

75 Buhmann, Karin, ‘Business and Human Rights: Understanding the UN Guiding Principles from the perspective of Transnational Business Governance Interactions’, (2015) 6:1 Transnational Legal Theory 399 Google Scholar.

76 Humberto Cantu-Rivera, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence: a developing concept for human rights and environmental justice?’, paper for ‘3rd UNITAR-Yale Conference on Environmental Governance and Democracy,’ 5–7 September 2014, New Haven.

77 Mares, Radu, ‘Business and Human Rights After Ruggie: Foundations, the Art of Simplification and the Imperative of Cumulative Progress’, in Radu Mares (ed), The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Antwerp: Brill, 2012) 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 European Commission, A renewed EU Strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2011) 681 final (Brussels, 25 October 2011), sec 3.1.

79 Efforts to ensure policy coherence in accordance with the UNGPs influenced the EU Commission to include explicit reference to mandatory human rights reporting.

80 Baumann-Pauly, Dorothée et al, ‘Organizing Corporate Social Responsibility in small and large firms: Size Matters’, (2013) 115 Journal of Business Ethics 693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 UNGP 21.

82 UNGP 21.

83 UNGP 17, 21 with commentary.

84 For example, most studies on the mandatory CSR reporting statute introduced by Denmark in 2008 have assessed reports from a disclosure perspective rather than analysing effects on firms’ internal procedures or their actions or impact. See Pedersen et al, note 14, Neergaard, Peter, Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting in Denmark (Copenhagen: Ministry of Business and Growth, 2011)Google Scholar; Neergaard, Peter, CSR and reporting in Denmark: the impact of the 3rd year of CSR reporting in the Financial Statements Act (Copenhagen: Danish Business Authority, 2013)Google Scholar; Danwatch, The Impact of the Danish Law on CSR Reporting, report for the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (Copenhagen: Danwatch and ICCCJ, 2011). Several studies on non-financial accounting and effects on accountability also assess the effects from the disclosure perspective looking at information provided rather than the organizational change perspective, see for example Chauvey, Jean-Noël et al, ‘The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France’, (2015) 133 Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-041-2114-y Google Scholar (6 March 2015), and discussion in Smith, Malcolm and Taffler, Richard J, ‘The chairman’s statement: A content analysis of discretionary narrative disclosures’, (2000) 13:5 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 The United States Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (‘Dodd-Frank Act’), section 1504. The EU Transparency Directive (2013/50/EU) requires the disclosure of payments made to governments by both listed and large, non-listed companies active in the extractive industry or in the logging of primary forests.

86 Dodd-Frank Act, note 85, section 1502 (conflict minerals).

87 Berger-Walliser and Shrivistana, note 33; Chauvey et al, note 84; Jan Bebbington, Elizabeth A Kirk and Carlos Larrinaga, ‘The production of normativity: a comparison of reporting regimes in Spain and the UK’, (2012) 37:2 Accounting, Organizations and Society 78; Pedersen et al, note 14; Danwatch, note 84.

88 Buhmann, 2013, note 46.

89 See note 84.

90 Buhmann, 2013, note 46.

91 Sinding and Buhmann, 2015, note 16.

92 Clarkson, Peter M et al, ‘Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis’, (2008) 33:3 Accounting, Organizations and Society 303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Orts, Eric W, ‘Reflexive environmental law’, (1995) 89:4 Northwestern University Law Review 1227 Google Scholar.

94 See Paine, Lynn Sharp, ‘Managing for organizational integrity’, (1994) March–April Harvard Business Review Google Scholar; Santoro, Michael, ‘ Beyond codes of conduct and monitoring: an organizational integrity approach to global labour practices’, (2003) 25:2 Human Rights Quarterly 407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar on human rights-oriented organizational integrity.

95 Gond and Herrbach, note 23; Baumann-Pauly et al, note 80.

96 Gond and Herrbach, note 23; Damien Krichewsky, ‘The socially responsible company as a strategic second-order observer’, MPlfG Discussion Paper 14/10 (2014), Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.

97 Holmstrøm, Susanne, ‘Society’s Constitution and Corporate Legitimacy, or why it might be unethical for business leaders to think with their heart’, in Jacob D Rendtorff (ed), Power and Principle in the Market Place (Cheltenham: Ashgate, 2010) 133 Google Scholar; Krichewsky, note 96.

98 Deegan, Craig, ‘Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting’ in Jeffrey Unerman, Jan Bebbington and Brendan O’Dwyer (eds), Sustainability accounting and accountability (Routledge, 2007) 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bebbington, Jan and Deegan, Craig, ‘The legitimizing effects of social and environmental disclosures: a theoretical foundation’, (2002) 15:3 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 282 Google Scholar.

99 Bader, Christine, ‘Human Rights Intrapreneurs’ in Dorothee Bauman-Pauly and Justine Nolan (eds), Business and Human Rights: From Principles to Practice (Routledge, 2016) 98 Google Scholar; Kinderman, note 31.

100 Hess, note 22; Buhmann, note 46; Berger-Walliser and Shrivistana, note 33, 450–452; compare Krichewsky, note 96.

101 Buhmann, Compare Karin, ‘Navigating from “trainwreck” to being “welcomed”: Negotiation strategies and argumentative patterns in the development of the UN Framework’, in Surya Deva and David Bilchitz (eds) Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2013) 29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Berger-Walliser and Shrivistana, note 33.

103 Baumann-Pauly et al, note 80; Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim, ‘The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting’, Harvard Business School Working Paper 11-100 (26 October 2012).

104 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘The force of law: towards a sociology of the juridical field’, (1987) 38:5 Hastings Law Journal 814 Google Scholar.

105 See, e.g., Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide (Geneva: OHCHR, 2012), p. 19.

106 All quotes in this paragraph: UNGP 18–20 with commentary.

107 UN Framework, para 25, emphasis added.

108 Daniel, Caitlin et al, Remedy remains rare: an analysis of 15 years of NCP cases and their contributions to improve access to remedy for victims of corporate misconduct (Amsterdam: OECD Watch, June 2015)Google Scholar.

109 UNGP 11, commentary.

110 UN Framework, para 54.

111 Compare the UN Framework, para 30, referring to disclosure, with UNGPs 17 and 21, referring to communication as part of HRDD.

112 Ibid, para 24.

113 UN Framework, para 56.

114 Buhmann, note 65, especially chapter 6.

115 European Commission note 63.

116 UNGPs 3 and 4 with Commentary.

117 Ibid, para 3.

118 Ibid, para 16, art 1(1) and 1(3).

119 Directive 2014/95 art 3.