CSR Vs BHR to Eradicate Modern Slavery
Modern-day slavery is highly prevalent in the global supply chains of big business conglomerates. Especially in developing nations, many workers are forced into labour in inhumane working conditions. While CSR, with welfare initiatives, can uplift the lives of the labourers, it is not enough to eradicate modern slavery altogether. The concept of Business and Human Rights (BHR) comes into the picture to fill this gap.
CSR activities are mostly independent and completely voluntary. More often than not, they do not directly address the negative impacts that might arise from a company’s own business operations. CSR does not typically address human rights issues and is therefore notably flawed as a method for combating modern slavery in supply chains.
Companies can freely decide the extent to which they want to create value for the wider society. Volunteering and donating are important actions, but they do not absolve a company from its duty and responsibility to respect the rights of workers in its operations and supply chains. While a company’s commitment to CSR might contribute significantly to society, it is unlikely to address modern slavery risks arising from its direct and indirect business activities.
Consequently, CSR measures are not a replacement for the due diligence measures required to address the challenges present in today’s supply chains.
It is this awareness of CSR as being insufficient in tackling the potential negative impacts of business activities on human rights which resulted in a new wave of customers and investors insisting on tighter human rights measures. This has contributed to the emergence of the BHR movement, which aims to prevent worker exploitation and to hold companies accountable for their activities.
The adoption of the U.N. Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011 marks the cornerstone of the BHR movement. The UNGPs for the first time confirmed the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights within their business activities.
Building on this framework, several national and regional laws and regulations have been passed, obliging organizations to implement human rights due diligence processes. These regulations require corporations to assess their operations and supply chains in order to mitigate the risk of human rights violations.
This development from voluntary measures toward legal reporting obligations marks the key difference between CSR and BHR.
In order to conform to these new laws, it is essential for companies to conduct regular modern slavery due diligence. The complex nature of modern slavery, the scale of today’s supply chains and increasing economic competitiveness means modern slavery will not be eliminated overnight. But respect for human rights is non-negotiable and needs to be guaranteed unconditionally. Thus, BHR goes beyond the desire to simply “do good” by turning the implementation of effective measures to mitigate modern slavery risks into a must-have.
Thank you for reading. In addition, your thoughts and inputs will genuinely make a difference to us. Please drop a line and help us do better.
Regards,
The CSR Journal Team
