John Ruggie, world-renowned champion for Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, recapped findings from his influential research and longtime leadership in this field, this week at the Institute. He launched a debate about the risks and challenges for Swiss companies —and a lively exchange about the best path forward.
With a full house of over 400 at the Institute’s Auditorium Ivan Pictet, Professor Ruggie was joined by panelists representing various Swiss sectors, public and private, in an event co-sponsored by the Fondation Guilé.
Ruggie introduced the polycentric governance of human rights, sharing that all business functions need to adapt (from procurement to production, etc) in a global economy, and that countries, companies and consumers each have a responsibility to play. Versions of the Guiding Principles have been adopted (sometimes verbatim) by the OECD and other influential organisations across regions, like the ASEAN, African Union and OAS.
Among the next challenges, according to Ruggie, is a movement toward some version of a universal treaty on business and human rights—one that he opposes, arguing from experience that “it is humanly impossible to try to squeeze all of business and human rights into one treaty”. He said such a treaty would have to be cast so generally and at such a high level that it would not ultimately be applicable—nor relevant.
He explained that different industries have different challenges so it is difficult to make sweeping statements and generalizations without the particular context, so a global constitution for business becomes impracticable. Ruggie emphasized that “achieving Human Rights will never be a final destination—the expectations of society will change over time”—but he sees it as a shared journey worth taking, now possible thanks to a unanimously approved common framework.
Sharing the Swiss context, panelists from across sectors each drew different conclusions about the best way forward. Ultimately the center of the debate was about whether binding laws or normative standards best serve the purpose, a point raised by Professor Cédric Dupont of the Graduate Institute, in his opening remarks. There is “easier adoption and less political influence among so-called soft law initiatives”.
In Switzerland, the central question of the evening’s debate has been on top of the political agenda since 2012, in response to a Parliamentary motion to prepare a national action plan to promote the implementation of the UN Human Rights Council’s Guiding principles. “This plan is still in preparation in the offices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Economy and civil society has become impatient with the slow motion of the process”, says Prof. Dupont. “As a result, a broad coalition of civil society organizations decided to launch a popular initiative called ‘For Responsible Business’ that could ultimately lead to binding legislation.”
Ambassador Claude Wild from the Department of Foreign Affairs shared Berne’s ongoing process to define a direction with a clear set of expectations among Swiss companies. He shared that “good engineering of legislative policy is a collaborative process”, and admitted that the one which Switzerland is undertaking (with reports expected in June) is perhaps slow—but necessarily so. In the meantime, he encouraged voluntary and innovative business plans led by industry which have and should happen sooner than such a processes unfolds.
But not all are convinced that voluntary standards will hold companies accountable. One panelist argued that since all consumers can become voters, the best way to influence the adoption of just practices is to inform consumers (implying they will either vote with their wallets or vote for the proper changes to be implemented). And there are some sectors which are not directly influenced by a broad egalitarian consumer base, such as the Swiss banking and commodities sectors. Here, Ruggie offered an opportunity with a fairly direct challenge for Switzerland: to take the lead on more transparency in these two influential sectors, which are often seen as opaque and inaccessible.