United Kingdom
The UK was the first country to publish an inaugural NAP in September 2013 and the first country to publish an update in May 2016.
Information on the implementation of the NAPs was included in annual FCO Human Rights and Democracy Reports covering 2013-2017.
There have been no recent reports on implementation or moves to update the NAP, hence it is classified as ‘Other’.
On 27 September 2024, the UK published a tender to undertake a national baseline assessment, with a 12 month timeline for delivery.
Available NAPs
United Kingdom: 1st NAP (2013-open)
NAP Development Process
Status
The UK Government produced its inaugural National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights entitled ‘Good Business – Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (NAP) in September 2013.
Process
The drafting process began in June 2012 and ended in the Summer of 2013. The UK committed to continuing the development and implementation of its NAP, noting that the inaugural NAP was just the first step. The UK planned to have representatives of civil society, government, and business meet periodically to monitor implementation of the UK NAP and to update it.
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department (BEIS) jointly lead on the implementation of the UK National Action Plan in collaboration with a Steering Group made up of key Government Departments.
The UK NAP was launched by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The responsibility for the NAP process was placed with the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), specifically, under its Human Rights and Democracy Department. The Deputy Chief of Human Rights and Democracy Department of the FCO was in charge of leading the drafting process. Two policy officers assisted the Deputy Head, in addition to input and assistance from officials from a number of other departments on an ad hoc basis. A steering committee composed of different government ministries was created to guide the process.
After the initial draft was complete, it was sent to government agencies for consultation. In December 2012, a draft was sent to about 40 government agencies, whose comments and feedback were taken into account and incorporated into the finalised NAP. Publication of the NAP was delayed repeatedly and NGOs have stated that this was done without communication. As the NAP development process became more advanced information relayed to the NGO sector became scarcer.
There is no information publicly available on the level of funding provided for the NAP process.
This NAP was also published in:
- Arabic (خطة عمل الحكومة البريطانية حول تطبيق المبادئ التوجيهية للأمم المتحدة بشأن الأعمال التجارية وحقوق الإنسان)
- Chinese (良好的企业 – 落实《联合国商业与人权指导原则》)
- French (Bonnes pratiques: Mise en oeuvre des Principes directeurs des Nations Unies relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme)
- Lithuanian (Geras verslas: kaip įgyvendinti JT pagrindinius verslo ir žmogaus teisių principus)
- Portuguese (Boa Conduta de Negócios: Implementação dos Princípios Orientadores das Nações Unidas sobre Empresas e Direitos Humanos)
- Russian (Надлежащее ведение дел – Реализация Руководящих принципов ООН по вопросам бизнеса и прав человека)
- Spanish (Buenas prácticas comerciales: Aplicación de los Principios Rectores de la Organización de Naciones Unidas sobre las empresas y los derechos humanos)
Stakeholder Participation
The pre-draft consultation with stakeholders had a clear plan and meetings were set up and run by FCO, using an external facilitator. The meetings occurred in early 2012 and each category of stakeholders had its own separate meeting. A final meeting was then held, with all categories of stakeholders in attendance. The government sent a copy of the draft to selected stakeholders, but the draft NAP was not publicly circulated before it was finalized and launched. Thus, there were no broad consultations with external stakeholders on the draft document, and no timeline for stakeholder participation was published. Furthermore, the UK did not facilitate the participation by disempowered or at-risk stakeholders.
The UK did not establish a multi-stakeholder steering group or advisory committee only a governmental, inter-departmental steering committee. Interdepartmental meetings and debates were not transparent, and discussions were not made public. Although draft outlines were sent to a few stakeholders prior to finalization, this was done informally, and for the most part the draft NAP was not made available until it was officially published.
Transparency
The NAP was presented to Parliament in September 2013 and is available on the Government website.
National Baseline Assessment (NBA)
A National Baseline Assessment (NBA) was not conducted before the 2013 NAP.
Follow-up, monitoring, reporting and review
The NAP details actions taken and actions planned in relation to each of the three pillars by the UK Government. The actions planned include eleven under pillar one, four under pillar two, and five under pillar three.
The vast majority of the planned actions contain broad commitments without concrete outcomes or outputs, which means monitoring is not easily achieved. Furthermore, the commitments are not explicitly attached to Government departments.
The NAP states:
“This paper marks the start of the UK’s work on implementing the UN Guiding Principles. We are one of the first States to produce such a plan. We expect that the increasing international momentum on business and human rights will see new ideas and best practice develop. We will monitor these closely and use them to inform future policy development. We will do this together with representatives of government, business and civil society by meeting periodically to monitor implementation of this plan and help us to refresh and update it in future. We will report back each year on progress in the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We commit to bring out an updated version of the action plan by end 2015. We also welcome input and comment to inform our work at any time, from any interested party, which should be clearly marked “Business and Human Rights” and sent to: HRDDenquiries@fco.gov.uk”
Annual Progress Reports
- Highlights the new NAP
- No progress report on NAP
- Commitment to an updated NAP
FCO Human Rights and Democracy Report 2014 (published March 2015)
- Brief progress report on NAP
- Wider BHR work
- Brief progress report on NAP
- Wider BHR work
- Highlights work to update NAP
Stakeholders views and analysis on the NAP
- International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), European Coalition for corporate Justice (ECCJ): Assessments of Existing National Action Plans (NAPS) on Business and Human Rights, November 2015
- Andreas Graf: Developing National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: Lessons from European States’, April 2013
- International Service for Human Rights: UK shows welcome leadership on human rights defenders and corporate accountability, 4 September 2013
- John Morrison, Institute for Human Rights and Business: “UK Government prepares to launch National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights – Now the real work begins”, 2 September 2013
- Alexa Roscoe, CARE International: “Three reasons why the UK National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights should prioritise gender” 3 September 2013
- CORE Coalition & Trades Union Congress: “Action plan on human rights must go beyond business as usual” 4 September 2013
- Professor John Ruggie, former UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights: “Remarks at UK Government Launch: Action Plan for Implementing the UN Guiding Principles”, 4 September 2013
- Nadia Bernaz, Rights as Usual: “Initial Thoughts on the UK National Action Plan Implementing UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”, 4 September 2013
- Peter Frankental, Amnesty International UK: “UK’s Action Plan on Business and Human Rights – a break with the past?”, 4 September 2013
- Intl. Service for Human Rights: “UK shows welcome leadership on human rights defenders and corporate accountability”, 4 September 2013
- Robert McCorquodale, British Institute of International and Comparative Law: “Expecting business to respect human rights without incentives or Sanctions”, 4 September 2013
- Gerry Boyle, Care International UK: “UK guidance for business on human rights issues needs some legal teeth”, 4 September 2013
- Rights & Accountability in Development: “The UK Action Plan on Business and Human Rights will bring little comfort to victims of corporate abuse”, 4 September 2013
- Peter McAllister, Ethical Trading Initiative: “A first step towards good business?”, 5 September 2013
- Samah Abbasi, UNICEF: “Does the UK’s action plan on business and human rights deliver for children?”, 6 September 2013
- Jehan-Philippe Wood & Stuart Neely, Norton Rose Fulbright: “Action plan shows human rights breaches are still a serious legal risk for UK companies”, 27 Sep 2013
- CORE Coalition: “Good Business? Analysis of the UK Government Action Plan on Business & Human Rights”, Aug 2014
Additional resources
- UK Government: Survey on the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: The role of States as economic actors, 2015
- UK Government: Questionnaire for States: National Action Plans On Business and Human Rights, 2014
- UK Government, Good Business Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2016. Also available in:
- UK Parliament, House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Report: Any of our business? Human rights and the UK private sector, 16 December 2009
- Damiano de Felice, Andreas Graf: The Potential of National Action Plans to Implement Human Rights Norms: An Early Assessment with Respect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. J Hum Rights Pract 2015; 7 (1): 40-71. doi: 10.1093/jhuman/huu023
- UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Wilton Park: Business and human rights: implementing the Guiding Principles one year on, June 2012 | WP1172,
- International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), European Coalition for corporate Justice (ECCJ): Assessments of Existing National Action Plans (NAPS) on Business and Human Rights
- Andreas Graf: Developing National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: Lessons from European States’
- International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), European Coalition for corporate Justice (ECCJ): Assessments of Existing National Action Plans (NAPS) on Business and Human Rights, November 2015
Explore NAP by Issue
The UK 2013 NAP states in Section 2. The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights, New Actions planned that [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: … (vi) Promote new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples, women, national or ethnic minorities, religious and linguistic minorities, children, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers and their families, by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns. The UK 2013 NAP states in Actions taken that [page 9]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, we have: (v) taken account of business activity in conflict and fragile states, or countries with high levels of criminal violence, within the Building Stability Overseas Strategy. Companies operating in these difficult environments have an important role to play in contributing to stability, growth, development, prosperity and the protection of human rights. We support the implementation of the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones. We will also continue to help develop, and monitor implementation of, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas. The Government will also continue to encourage higher standards in the diamond supply chain.” The UK 2013 NAP in the chapter on References [page 20] makes note of the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative: The UK 2013 NAP provides in the section detailing The existing UK legal and policy framework that [page 9]: “The UK has created or endorsed a number of instruments that motivate different aspects of good corporate behaviour and respect for human rights. These include: The UK 2013 NAP states in Actions taken that [page 10]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, we have: … (vi) continued to provide financial support to the UN Global Compact, a global mechanism that encourages and enables companies to align their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the area of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.” The UK 2013 NAP The Data Protection Act 1998, which applies to companies and ensures respect for the privacy of individuals. The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (v) In line with the UK Cyber Exports Strategy, develop guidance to address the risks posed by exports of information and communications technology that are not subject to export control but which might have impacts on human rights including freedom of expression on line. The UK 2013 NAP does not make an explicit reference to Development finance institutions. The UK 2013 NAP provides in relation to New Actions planned [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (v) In line with the UK Cyber Exports Strategy, develop guidance to address the risks posed by exports of information and communications technology that are not subject to export control but which might have impacts on human rights including freedom of expression on line.” The UK 2013 NAP states in relation to Further actions planned that [page 15]: “We will: (ii) encourage trade associations/sector groupings of companies to develop guidance relevant to their members’ sector of activity on developing human rights policies and processes, including due diligence. There is generic guidance online about doing this e.g. at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Some sector-specific guidance also exists, for example the International Council on Mining and Metals has produced a guide for mining companies on human rights due diligence. The European Commission has created guidance on the information communications technology (ICT), oil and gas and employment and recruitment sectors; http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/human-rights/index” The United Kingdom NAP does not make a direct reference to the Energy sector. The UK 2013 NAP does not make an explicit reference to Environment and Climate Change. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights The relevant legal framework in the UK includes employment regulations that require companies not to discriminate against employees on grounds of sex, race, sexual orientation and religious belief, and environmental regulations. The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (vi) Promote new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples, women, national or ethnic minorities, religious and linguistic minorities, children, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers and their families, by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns. The UK 2013 NAP notes in relation to Actions Taken that [page 10]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, we have: … (iii) negotiated and agreed the OECD 2012 Common Approaches, including a requirement for Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) to take into account not only potential environmental impacts but also social impacts, which is defined to include “relevant adverse project-related human rights impacts.” The OECD 2012 Common Approaches also require ECAs to “consider any statements or reports made publicly available by their National Contact Points (NCPs) at the conclusion of a specific instance procedure under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.” UK Export Finance will consider any negative final NCP statements a company has received in respect of its human rights record when considering a project for export credit.” The UK 2013 NAP in the section on Further actions planned [page 15] states: “We will: … (ii) encourage trade associations/sector groupings of companies to develop guidance relevant to their members’ sector of activity on developing human rights policies and processes, including due diligence. There is generic guidance online about doing this e.g. at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Some sector-specific guidance also exists, for example the International Council on Mining and Metals has produced a guide for mining companies on human rights due diligence…” The UK 2013 NAP lists a number of initiative around extractives and mining in its chapter of References. The UK 2013 NAP states in the chapter on The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights in relation to The existing UK legal and policy framework that [page 8]: “The UK is subject to international human rights obligations under customary international law and as a result of the international legal instruments we have signed and ratified. Human rights obligations generally apply only within a State’s territory and/or jurisdiction. Accordingly, there is no general requirement for States to regulate the extraterritorial activities of business enterprises domiciled in their jurisdiction, although there are limited exceptions to this, for instance under treaty regimes. The UK may also choose as a matter of policy in certain instances to regulate the overseas conduct of British businesses.” The UK 2013 NAP makes no reference to finance and banking. The United Kingdom NAP does not make a direct or explicit reference to the Fisheries and Aquaculture sectors. The UK 2013 NAP makes no direct reference to slavery or forced labour. The UK 2013 NAP notes the importance of ‘personal freedom’ and ‘democratic freedoms’ in the Ministerial Forward. The UK 2013 NAP does not make a direct or explicit reference to the Garment, Textile and Footwear Sector. The UK 2013 NAP in the section on New Actions planned states [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (vi) Promote new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like … women … by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns.” The UK 2013 NAP in the section on Government expectations of business provides [page 13]: “The UNGPs guide the approach UK companies should take to respect human rights wherever they operate. The key principles of this approach are to: The UK 2013 NAP in the section on Actions taken notes that [page 9]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles … : …We will also continue to help develop, and monitor implementation of, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas. The Government will also continue to encourage higher standards in the diamond supply chain.” The UK 2013 NAP in the section on New Actions planed notes that [page 11-12]: The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: “(v) In line with the UK Cyber Exports Strategy, develop guidance to address the risks posed by exports of information and communications technology that are not subject to export control but which might have impacts on human rights including freedom of expression on line. (x) Support the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises in their role to promote uptake of the UNGPs and develop guidance and best practice (we contributed £100,000 in 2012).” The UK 2013 NAP in the section on Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs states [page 14-15]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights we have so far: (iv) updated the Government’s “Business and Human Rights Toolkit” – a detailed guidance manual for officials – in light of the UNGPs and have brought it to the attention of all relevant officials, including through the training courses we run for FCO and UKTI staff.; (vii) funded an online hub – in 6 languages – providing guidance and information on the UNGPs where companies can share successful outcomes and promulgate best practice. http://www.business-humanrights.org/UNGuidingPrinciplesPortal/Home” The UK 2013 NAP in the section on Further actions planned provides that [page 15]: “(i) continue to develop Government guidance so that it is accessible and helpful, especially to SMEs. We will work with relevant industry associations and other corporate groupings. And we will signpost guidance specifically intended to help SMEs, such as that available from the Equality & Human Rights Commission at: and the European Commission at: (ii) encourage trade associations/sector groupings of companies to develop guidance relevant to their members’ sector of activity on developing human rights policies and processes, including due diligence. There is generic guidance online about doing this e.g. at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Some sector-specific guidance also exists, for example the International Council on Mining and Metals has produced a guide for mining companies on human rights due diligence. The European Commission has created guidance on the information communications technology (ICT), oil and gas and employment and recruitment sectors; http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/human-rights/index” The UK NAP does not make an explicit reference to health and social care. The UK 2013 NAP provides in relation to New Actions planned that [page 12]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (xi) Instruct our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders.” Additionally, in the section on Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs that [page 14-15] “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights we have so far: (v) instructed our embassies and high commissions to work with host governments, local and UK business, trade unions, NGOs, human rights defenders, academics, lawyers and other local experts so we can help inform companies of the human rights risks they face” The UK 2013 NAP in the section on The existing UK legal and policy framework states [page 9]: “The Government exercises controls on the export of “strategic” goods and technology through the export licensing system. All export licence applications are rigorously assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. These assessments take full account of possible human rights impacts; a license would not be granted if we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.” The UK 2013 NAP New actions planned The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (vi) Promote new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples…,by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns. (xi) Instruct our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders. Government expectations of business Consult people who may potentially be affected at all stages of project design and implementation, in a manner that ensures free and informed participation and takes into account language and other potential barriers to effective engagement, paying particular attention to indigenous peoples and other groups… The UK 2013 NAP states in relation to New Actions planned that [page 12]: ”The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (vii) Ensure that agreements facilitating investment overseas by UK or EU companies incorporate the business responsibility to respect human rights, and do not undermine the host country’s ability to either meet its international human rights obligations or to impose the same environmental and social regulation on foreign investors as it does on domestic firms.” Read more about Investment treaties & investor-state dispute settlements The UK 2013 NAP‘sIntroduction states that the document sets out the UK’s plan for further work to “support access to effective remedy for victims of human rights abuse involving business enterprises within UK jurisdiction”. The UK 2013 NAP notes that [Chapter 2]: “The Human Rights Act 1998 ensures that individuals in the UK have a remedy for the breach of rights which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It applies to all public authorities and other bodies performing public functions, as private companies sometimes do.” The UK 2013 NAP has a section on access to remedy which states [Chapter 4] that: “The UK has a culture of human rights awareness and protection – much of which results from our framework of legislation described earlier – and our range of remedy mechanisms is diverse. We recognize that remedy may include apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial or non-financial compensation and punitive sanctions, as well as the prevention of harm through, for example, injunctions or guarantees of non-repetition. The UK sees its own provision of judicial remedy options as an important element in the remedy mix… We will: … (iv) support projects through the FCO Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund relating to work on remedy procedures in other countries, including: – help to States wishing to develop their human rights protection mechanisms and reduce barriers to remedy within their jurisdiction; – support to civil society and trade union efforts to access effective remedy and promote protection of human rights defenders who are actively engaged on issues relating to business and human rights; – support to business efforts to provide, adopt or participate in effective grievance mechanisms. (v) keep the UK provision of remedy under review.” The UK 2013 NAP New actions planned The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (xi) Instruct our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders. The UK 2013 NAP provides in Government expectations of business that [page 13]: “The UNGPs guide the approach UK companies should take to respect human rights wherever they operate. The key principles of this approach are to: The UK 2013 NAP states in Further actions planned that [page 15]: “We will: (ii) encourage trade associations/sector groupings of companies to develop guidance relevant to their members’ sector of activity on developing human rights policies and processes, including due diligence. There is generic guidance online about doing this e.g. at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Some sector-specific guidance also exists, for example the International Council on Mining and Metals has produced a guide for mining companies on human rights due diligence. The European Commission has created guidance on the information communications technology (ICT), oil and gas and employment and recruitment sectors; http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/human-rights/index” The UK 2013 NAP states in relation to New Actions planned that [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: … (vi) Promote new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like … migrant workers and their families, by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns.” The UK 2013 NAP and the UK Updated 2016 NAP both refer generally to work undertaken by NHRIs within the UK. The UK 2013 NAP notes that: “Non-judicial grievance mechanisms based on engagement between the parties involved are also an important option. This can be done through an internal company grievance procedure or through arbitration, adjudication, mediation, conciliation and negotiation. Such services can be advised on or offered by … the Ombudsman” Read more about National Human Rights Institutions/ Ombudspersons The UK 2013 NAP in the section dedicated to Government expectations of business states that [page 13]: The UNGPs guide the approach UK companies should take to respect human rights wherever they operate. The key principles of this approach are to: – … be transparent about policies, activities and impacts, and report on human rights issues and risks as appropriate as part of their annual reports. The UK 2013 NAP in the section dedicated to Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs states that [page 14]: To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights we have so far: (ii) taken steps to ensure that from 1 October a clarification of the Companies Act 2006 means that company directors will include human rights issues, in their annual reports; The UK 2013 NAP notes in the chapter on UK Government and access to remedy for human right abuses resulting from business activity that [page 17]: “The UK sees its own provision of judicial remedy options as an important element in the remedy mix. Non-judicial grievance mechanisms based on engagement between the parties involved are also an important option. This can be done through an internal company grievance procedure or through arbitration, adjudication, mediation, conciliation and negotiation. Such services can be advised on or offered by independent dispute resolution companies, the Ombudsman, the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, the Government regulator in certain sectors, or the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). Finally, the UK National Contact Point (NCP) considers allegations of non compliance by UK companies with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The NCP will seek to mediate an agreement between the parties. But where this is not possible, a determination of whether the enterprise has acted inconsistently with the Guidelines is published and available for public dissemination. http://www.bis.gov.uk/nationalcontactpoint“ The UK 2013 NAP, in the section on Actions Taken, states [page 10]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, we have: (iii) negotiated and agreed the OECD 2012 Common Approaches, including a requirement for Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) to take into account not only potential environmental impacts but also social impacts, which is defined to include “relevant adverse project-related human rights impacts.” The OECD 2012 Common Approaches also require ECAs to “consider any statements or reports made publicly available by their National Contact Points (NCPs) at the conclusion of a specific instance procedure under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.” UK Export Finance will consider any negative final NCP statements a company has received in respect of its human rights record when considering a project for export credit.” The UK 2013 NAP states in the chapter on UK Government and access to remedy for human right abuses resulting from business activity on non-judicial remedy that [page 17]: Finally, the UK National Contact Point (NCP) considers allegations of non compliance by UK companies with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The NCP will seek to mediate an agreement between the parties. But where this is not possible, a determination of whether the enterprise has acted inconsistently with the Guidelines is published and available for public dissemination. http://www.bis.gov.uk/nationalcontactpoint The UK 2013 NAP New actions planned The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (vi) Promote new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like… persons with disabilities…,by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns. The UK 2013 NAP notes in the Introduction that [page 6-7]: “Companies have told us that they need from the Government policy coherence and clear and consistent policy messaging. They need certainty about the Government’s expectations of them on human rights, and expect support in meeting those expectations. This action plan aims to meet those needs. It sets out how the Government has responded to the UNGPs and our plans for further work to: The UK 2013 NAP states in relation to Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs that [page 14]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights we have so far: (i) published this action plan, setting out the Government’s actions and expectations on business and human rights. We will seek clear and consistent communication of this policy through ministers, UK business ambassadors and officials who engage with business, and on Government websites and social media pages, including those of our embassies and high commissions.” The UK 2013 NAP does not make an explicit reference to privatisation. The UK 2013 NAP notes that [page 9] “[t]o give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, we have: (ii) sought and are committed to ensuring that in UK Government procurement human rights related matters are reflected appropriately when purchasing goods, works and services. Under the public procurement rules public bodies may exclude tenderers from bidding for a contract opportunity in certain circumstances, including where there is information showing grave misconduct by a company in the course of its business or profession. Such misconduct might arise in cases where there are breaches of human rights. In addition, UK public bodies are required to have due regard for equality-related issues in their procurement activity.” The UK 2013 NAP refers to security in the section devoted to Actions Taken [page 10]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, we have: (iv) played a leading role in developing the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICOC). This sets out companies’ commitments to standards of behaviour, particularly on human rights, and will be independently audited. By June 2013 a total of 659 companies had signed the ICOC, including about a third from the UK. (v) taken account of business activity in conflict and fragile states, or countries with high levels of criminal violence, within the Building Stability Overseas Strategy. Companies operating in these difficult environments have an important role to play in contributing to stability, growth, development, prosperity and the protection of human rights. We support the implementation of the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones. We will also continue to help develop, and monitor implementation of, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas. The Government will also continue to encourage higher standards in the diamond supply chain. …” The UK 2013 NAP notes in the section on New Actions Planned that [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: … (ii) Begin certifying Private Security Companies in the UK based on the agreed UK standard for land-based companies, by working with the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) to take forward the certification process, ensuring this includes expert human rights advice. We will also agree a standard for maritime PSCs this year. We will take forward our work with the Swiss, Australian and US governments, industry and NGOs to establish an international mechanism to monitor compliance with the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. We will engage with state and non-state clients to urge them to commit to contracting only with PSCs that are pursuing certification against recognised standards by accredited certifying bodies, and membership of the ICOC Association. (iii) Work together with partners in the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights to strengthen the implementation, effectiveness and membership of the Voluntary Principles, including through the UK Chairmanship of the initiative beginning in March 2014. …” The UK 2013 NAP provides in the Introduction that [page 4]: “To capitalise on the opportunities of our commercially-networked world, we need all companies – from the biggest to the smallest – to embrace their responsibilities towards society, including respecting human rights.” The UK 2013 NAP notes in relation to Government expectations of business that [page 14]: “We recognise that different businesses will need to take different approaches to embedding this approach; that implementation will be progressive; and in particular that implementation will need to be compatible with the resource limitations of small and medium-sized enterprises.” The UK 2013 NAP New actions planned The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (iv) Review the degree to which the activities of UK State-owned, controlled or supported enterprises, and of State contracting and purchasing of goods and services, are executed with respect for human rights, and make recommendations to ensure compliance with the UNGPs. Read more about State Owned Enterprises/ Public Private Partnerships The UK 2013 NAP states in Actions Taken that [page 10]: “We will also continue to help develop, and monitor implementation of, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas. The Government will also continue to encourage higher standards in the diamond supply chain.” The UK 2013 NAP notes in regard to Government expectations of business that [page 13]: “The UNGPs guide the approach UK companies should take to respect human rights wherever they operate. The key principles of this approach are to: The UK 2013 NAP further notes in Action for business to ensure access to remedy that [page 18]: “The Government encourages companies to review their existing grievance procedures to ensure they are fair, transparent, understandable, well-publicised and accessible by all, and provide for grievances to be resolved effectively without fear of victimization. It is also important for businesses to require similar good practice of their supply chains, especially in areas where abuses of rights have been identified.” The UK 2013 NAP makes no reference to tax. The UK 2013 NAP does not make an explicit reference to Sustainable Development Goals. The UK 2013 NAP does not make an explicit reference to the tourism sector. The UK 2013 NAP in the section on Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs states that [page 15] “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights we have so far: (iii) developed the joint FCO-UKTI Overseas Business Risk (OBR) service, which provides information about business environments in the countries where UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) has a presence, to ensure it includes specific country human rights information and links to the UNGPs and other relevant tools and guidance; http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/howwehelp/overseasbusinessrisk/countries.html” The UK 2013 NAP states in the section on The existing UK legal and policy framework that [page 8]: “Legislation has also been passed to plug specific gaps in the protection of workers under the law such as the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which created an agency to prevent the exploitation of workers in agricultural work, shellfish-gathering and related processing or packaging.”Children’s rights
Conflict-affected areas
Construction sector
Corporate law & corporate governance
Corruption
Data protection & privacy
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
New actions planned
Development finance institutions
Digital technology & electronics sector
Energy sector
Environment & climate change
Equality & non-discrimination
The existing UK legal and policy framework
New actions planned
Export credit
Extractives sector
Extraterritorial jurisdiction
Finance & banking sector
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors
Forced labour & modern slavery
Freedom of association
Garment, Textile and Footwear Sector
Gender & women’s rights
Guidance to business
Health and social care
Human rights defenders & whistle-blowers
Human rights impact assessments
Indigenous peoples
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
3. UK companies’ responsibility to respect human rights
Investment treaties & investor-state dispute settlements
Judicial remedy
Land
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
Mandatory human rights due diligence
Migrant workers
National Human Rights Institutions/ Ombudspersons
Non-financial reporting
Non-judicial grievance mechanisms
OECD National Contact Points
Persons with disabilities
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
Policy coherence
Privatisation
Public procurement
Security sector
Small & medium-sized enterprises
State Owned Enterprises/ Public Private Partnerships
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
Supply chains
Taxation
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Tourism sector
Trade
Workers’ rights
United Kingdom: 2nd NAP (2016-open)
NAP Development Process
Status
The UK Government produced an Updated National Action Plan entitled ‘Good Business – Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – Updated May 2016’ (Updated NAP).
Process
The UK was the first state to publish an updated NAP on 12 May 2016.
The UK included a commitment in its inaugural NAP to “to bring out an updated version of the action plan by end 2015.”
On the 24th March 2015 there was an event held to engage with stakeholders as a beginning to the consultation process. This was followed by eight 2.5 hour issue-specific workshops taking place over five days in June-July 2015 in London on the three pillars, and two specific workshops on conflict-affected areas and modern-day slavery and human trafficking. A total of 55 organisations (including Government departments) were represented at one or more workshop/s. A summary of the workshops can be found here. The Government also welcomed submissions from stakeholders to the NAP review process.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, noted that the update “was produced following consultation with a broad range of stakeholders from business and civil society. Whilst jointly owned by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, this update was contributed to by a number of government departments.”
There is no information publicly available on the level of funding provided for the Updated NAP process.
Stakeholder Participation
On the 24th 2015 there was an event held to engage with stakeholders as a beginning to the consultation process. This event was attended by 80 people from business, civil society, academia and government. This was followed by five 2.5 hour issue-specific workshops taking place in June-July 2015 over five days in London on the three pillars, and two specific workshops on conflict-affected areas and modern-day slavery and human trafficking. A total of 55 organisations (including Government departments) were represented at one or more workshop/s. The Government also welcomed submissions from stakeholders to the NAP review process. However the stakeholder engagement events were conducted solely in London with none elsewhere in England or in the UK’s devolved jurisdictions.
Transparency
The NAP was announced in Parliament in May 2016 and is available on the Government website.
National Baseline Assessment (NBA)
A National Baseline Assessment (NBA) was not conducted before the 2013 NAP, nor the 2016 Updated NAP. Neither of the NAPs commit to an NBA, and one has not been conducted subsequently.
Follow-up, monitoring, reporting and review
The Updated NAP details a number of planned actions taken by the UK Government. It contains eight Government commitments for ongoing actions, and five commitments to help businesses fulfil their responsibilities. There are no explicit commitments in relation to remedy.
The vast majority of the actions contain broad commitments without concrete outcomes or outputs, which means monitoring is not easily achieved. Furthermore, the commitments are not explicitly attached to Government departments.
The Updated NAP states:
“Thinking and action continues to develop in this area and we anticipate that there will be increasing international momentum on business and human rights with proposals for new ideas and best practice. The Government will continue to monitor these closely and use them to inform future policy development. We will do this together with representatives of business and civil society by meeting periodically in the cross-Whitehall Steering Group to monitor implementation of this plan. We will continue to report back each year on progress in the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”
The Updated NAP further states:
“A non-exhaustive list of the different mechanisms for the promotion of good corporate behaviour, together with the Government departments that lead on them, is available on the online copy of this paper, found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bhr-action-plan
We also welcome input and comment to inform our work at any time, from any interested party, which should be clearly marked “Business and Human Rights” and sent to: HRDDenquiries@fco.gov.uk”
It is unclear where lead Government departments can be found in the online version referred to in pdf of the NAP published online.
Annual Progress Reports
- Brief progress report on NAP
- Wider BHR work
- Highlights updated NAP
FCO Human Rights and Democracy Report 2017 (published July 2018)
- No progress report on NAP
- Wider BHR work
2017 UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry on Business and Human Rights
In March 2017 the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published the report of its inquiry into human rights and business. The inquiry received evidence from a range of stakeholders and the report highlighted criticisms of the Updated National Action Plan including that:
- It was limited in scope
- There was no baseline study or timetable
- There was a failure to reflect consultation with NGOs
The JCHR concluded that:
“59. While acknowledging the leadership the Government has shown in producing the updated National Action Plan, we share the disappointment of many of our witnesses over its modest scope and lack of new commitments. It is difficult to evaluate progress on the older commitments in the absence of a baseline study or a timetable for meeting objectives.
60. We call on the Government, when producing the next update to the National Action Plan, to consult widely with a range of stakeholders, to develop more ambitious and specific targets, and to implement measures to allow for these targets to be evaluated.”
The JCHR further included a section on the wider governmental approach to business and human rights, noting:
- A perceived lack of ministerial leadership
- Questions over departmental responsibility
- Questions over the Cross-Whitehall Steering Group
- Inconsistent messages between departments
The JCHR concluded that:
“71. Issues relating to human rights and business cut across at least six different Government departments. The Government must do more to help relevant stakeholders understand the various departmental responsibilities and must guard against prioritising business concerns over human rights. We also recommend that the Cabinet Office plays a role in coordinating activity across departments.”
Explore NAP by Issue
The UK 2016 NAP states in Section 2. The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights, Government commitments that [page 11]: “18. The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: … (vi) Consider new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples, women, national or ethnic minorities, religious and linguistic minorities, children, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers and their families, by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns.” The UK 2016 NAP makes direct reference to conflict affected areas in the section The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights noting that the UNGPs “recommend that states should … Support businesses in conflict affected contexts”. The UK 2016 NAP discusses actions already taken by the Government, which include among others [page 8], taking: “account of business activity in conflict and fragile states, or countries with high levels of criminal violence, within the Building Stability Overseas Strategy. Companies operating in these difficult environments have an important role to play in contributing to stability, growth, development, prosperity and the protection of human rights. We support the implementation of the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones. We will continue to promote implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP makes no direct reference to construction. The UK 2016 Updated NAP reiterates these instruments [page 7] and makes an implicit reference to corporate law and governance when it raises the issue of the Modern Slavery Act which regulates reporting obligations of certain companies. The UK 2016 Updated NAP also notes in the chapter on UK Action Plan implementation and further development that [page 24]: “A non-exhaustive list of the different mechanisms for the promotion of good corporate behaviour, together with the Government departments that lead on them, is available on the online copy of this paper, found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bhr-action-plan” The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to corruption in the section on Actions Taken to Support Business Implementation of UNGPs [page 16]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights the Government has: (…) (viii) continued to provide financial support to the UN Global Compact, a global mechanism that encourages and enables companies to align their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the area of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP (ix) strengthened international rules relating to digital surveillance, including leading work in the Wassenaar Arrangement to adopt new controls on specific technologies of concern. Specifically new controls were agreed on: equipment and software for creating and delivering “intrusion software” designed to be covertly installed on devices to extract data. “internet surveillance systems” which can monitor and analyse internet traffic and extract information about individuals and their communications. Government has: (iii) partnered with the Cyber Growth Partnership industry guidance on assessing human rights risks relating to cyber security exports, with techUK and input from civil society. https://www.techuk.org/images/CGP_Docs/Assessing_Cyber_Security_Ex port_Risks_website_FINAL_3.pdf Box – Cyber Export Guidance [page 17] The expansion of ‘cyber space’ has brought huge economic and social benefits. However, it also poses risks and new opportunities for hackers, criminals and terrorists. To help mitigate these risks, companies have developed security products and services which defend networks from malicious activity. In many countries, such as the UK, these products are used legitimately, including by law enforcement authorities, in accordance with domestic and international law obligations. However, in some countries which do not adhere to their international human rights obligations, there is a risk that the same products are used in ways that could breach state’s legal obligations, e.g. to restrict freedom of expression or to contribute to internal repression. Normally, exports that could cause harm, such as arms, are covered by the export-licensing regime. However, many cyber capabilities, products and services are not listed. This problem was recognized by the Cyber Growth Partnership a joint body representing industry, academia and government. The FCO worked with techUK, a technology trade association, and the Institute for Human Rights and Business to produce practical guidance for companies on managing human rights risks. “Assessing Cyber Security Export Risks: Human Rights and National Security” was published in November 2014. It is the first guidance for this sector in the world, and sets out: The UK 2016 NAP does not make an explicit reference to Development finance institutions. The UK 2016 Updated NAP also makes a reference to ICT in the section discussing Actions taken [page 9]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: (…) strengthened international rules relating to digital surveillance, including leading work in the Wassenaar Arrangement to adopt new controls on specific technologies of concern. Specifically, new controls were agreed on: – equipment and software for creating and delivering “intrusion software” designed to be covertly installed on devices to extract data. – “internet surveillance systems” which can monitor and analyse internet traffic and extract information about individuals and their communications.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to ICT in the section Cyber Export Guidance [page 18]: “The expansion of ‘cyber space’ has brought huge economic and social benefits. However, it also poses risks and new opportunities for hackers, criminals and terrorists. To help mitigate these risks, companies have developed security products and services which defend networks from malicious activity. In many countries, such as the UK, these products are used legitimately, including by law enforcement authorities, in accordance with domestic and international law obligations. However, in some countries which do not adhere to their international human rights obligations, there is a risk that the same products are used in ways that could breach state’s legal obligations, e.g. to restrict freedom of expression or to contribute to internal repression. Normally, exports that could cause harm, such as arms, are covered by the export licensing regime. However, many cyber capabilities, products and services are not listed. This problem was recognized by the Cyber Growth Partnership a joint body representing industry, academia and government. The FCO worked with techUK, a technology trade association, and the Institute for Human Rights and Business to produce practical guidance for companies on managing human rights risks. “Assessing Cyber Security Export Risks: Human Rights and National Security” was published in November 2014. It is the first guidance for this sector in the world, and sets out: Government commitments [page 11] (viii) Continue to work through our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders. Case study- Supporting human rights defenders in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil [page 22] The UK supported International Service for Human Rights to deliver an intensive training and advocacy programme for human rights defenders working on issues relating to business and human rights in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. ISHR also created a toolkit to equip human rights defenders to engage with and influence business and supported an advocacy mission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of briefing diplomats and decisionmakers on the situation of human rights defenders working on issues of business and human rights in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico and obtaining recommendations in that regard. Case study from NCP – World Wildlife Fund (WWF) & SOCO International Plc, June 2014 [page 23] WWF’s complaint alleged that SOCO’s oil exploration activities in Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of Congo – DRC) did not contribute to sustainable development and that this conduct was prohibited under existing International agreements and DRC law. The activities specifically risked adverse impacts on the local communities, the environment and wildlife. This case had aroused considerable International media attention. The UK NCP accepted the complaint and asked both parties to take part in professional external mediation in London, which resulted in an agreed joint statement. As part of the statement, SOCO agreed that they will not undertake or commission any exploratory or other drilling within Virunga National Park unless UNESCO and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its World Heritage status. They also stated that “when we undertake human rights due diligence, the processes we adopt will be in full compliance with international norms and standards and industry best practice, including appropriate levels of community consultation and engagement on the basis of publicly available documents.” The full joint statement and NCP Final assessment published in June 2014 can be seen at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330392/bis14-967-uk-ncp-final-statement-following-agreement-reached-in-complaint-from-wwfinternational-against-soco-international-plc.pdf More details on each complaint case which UK NCP have received can be found via the link to the Initial & Final assessments page which lists cases in chronological order https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-national-contact-point-statements (ix) strengthened international rules relating to digital surveillance, including leading work in the Wassenaar Arrangement to adopt new controls on specific technologies of concern. Specifically new controls were agreed on: equipment and software for creating and delivering “intrusion software” designed to be covertly installed on devices to extract data. “internet surveillance systems” which can monitor and analyse internet traffic and extract information about individuals and their communications. Government has: (iii) partnered with the Cyber Growth Partnership industry guidance on assessing human rights risks relating to cyber security exports, with techUK and input from civil society. https://www.techuk.org/images/CGP_Docs/Assessing_Cyber_Security_Ex port_Risks_website_FINAL_3.pdf Box – Cyber Export Guidance [page 17] The expansion of ‘cyber space’ has brought huge economic and social benefits. However, it also poses risks and new opportunities for hackers, criminals and terrorists. To help mitigate these risks, companies have developed security products and services which defend networks from malicious activity. In many countries, such as the UK, these products are used legitimately, including by law enforcement authorities, in accordance with domestic and international law obligations. However, in some countries which do not adhere to their international human rights obligations, there is a risk that the same products are used in ways that could breach state’s legal obligations, e.g. to restrict freedom of expression or to contribute to internal repression. Normally, exports that could cause harm, such as arms, are covered by the export-licensing regime. However, many cyber capabilities, products and services are not listed. This problem was recognized by the Cyber Growth Partnership a joint body representing industry, academia and government. The FCO worked with techUK, a technology trade association, and the Institute for Human Rights and Business to produce practical guidance for companies on managing human rights risks. “Assessing Cyber Security Export Risks: Human Rights and National Security” was published in November 2014. It is the first guidance for this sector in the world, and sets out: The UK 2016 NAP makes a reference to export credit in the Actions taken section [page 8]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has … implemented the requirements of the OECD 2012 Common Approaches, and considered relevant adverse project-related human rights impacts in providing applicable Export Credit Agency (ECA) support through UK Export Finance (UKEF). UKEF will consider any reports made publicly available by the UK National Contact Point (NCP) in respect of the human rights record of a company when considering a project for export credit. The UK has been involved with the discussions, and negotiations, on the implementation of the OECD 2012 Common Approaches and the need to amend this, in respect of ongoing experience on project-related human rights. The UK continues to be involved in negotiations on any agreed clarifications to the OECD 2012 Common Approaches.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP in the Government Commitment section states that [page 10]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar1 of the UNGPs: (…) Continue to work closely with Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative (VPI) member governments, extractive companies and civil society organisations, to promote greater understanding of the Voluntary Principles and strengthen the implementation, effectiveness and membership.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP, in the section on Case studies, includes an example from Kenya regarding responsible business conduct and extractives [page 12]. UK 2016 Updated NAP includes a section devoted to Actions Taken [page 8]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: (…) Taken account of business activity in conflict and fragile states, or countries with high levels of criminal violence, within the Building Stability Overseas Strategy. … We will continue to promote implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas; In March 2015 the Government concluded its chairmanship of the Voluntary Principles Initiative. During our chairmanship we worked to raise awareness of the VPI in priority countries for membership, to support UK oil, gas and mining companies to use the VPs to manage security and human rights risks more effectively, and encouraged greater openness by companies in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP mentions extraterritoriality while discussing the existing UK legal and policy frameworks in section devoted to the State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights [page 6]: “The UK is subject to international human rights obligations under customary international law and as a result of the international legal instruments we have signed and ratified. Human rights obligations generally apply only within a State’s territory and/or jurisdiction. Accordingly, there is no general requirement for States to regulate the extraterritorial activities of business enterprises domiciled in their jurisdiction, although there are limited exceptions to this, for instance under treaty regimes. The UK may also choose as a matter of policy in certain instances to regulate the overseas conduct of British businesses.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to two state-based bodies mandated to address financial matters in section 4 Access to Remedy for Human Rights Abuses Resulting from Business Activity [page 20] where it states: “We also provide a number of state-based non-judicial mechanisms, including: … a considerable number of Ombudsman, Regulators and other Government Complaints Offices in industry sectors that have various mechanisms to hear complaints, impose sanctions and award compensation. For example, the Health and Safety Executive, Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Ombudsman Service and Advertising Standards Authority.” The United Kingdom NAP does not make a direct or explicit reference to the Fisheries and Aquaculture sectors. The UK 2016 NAP recognises in the Introduction that the Global Goals for Sustainable Development contains commitments to “take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking (SDG 8.7)“ The Introduction further notes that: “The G7 Leaders’ Declaration (7-8 June 2015) contained the following commitments: The UK fully supports these commitments which the Government is addressing through our work to implement the UNGPs and through the Modern Slavery Act and Modern Slavery Strategy.” In the action-oriented section Actions Taken, the NAP states [page 8]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: Introduced the Modern Slavery Act which consolidates and simplifies existing legislation, toughened penalties to allow a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and provides safeguards for victims. Companies covered by the Act are required to produce a “slavery and human trafficking” statement for each financial year setting out what steps they have taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business and supply chains. The Act, which entered into force on 31 July 2015, also created an Independent Anti- Slavery Commissioner. …” The UK 2016 Updated NAP provides a Case Study [page 11]: “MODERN SLAVERY ACT It is estimated that there are between 10,000-13,000 potential victims of modern slavery in the UK alone. Globally, the ILO estimates the total illegal profit made from the use of forced labour amounts to more than $150 billion a year. The UK Government is committed to tackling this heinous crime and as a response the Modern Slavery Act came into force on 31July 2015. It makes the penalties for those who perpetrate Modern Slavery simpler and tougher and provides help for victims, including through a statutory defence for victims of modern slavery who are forced to commit some offences as a direct consequence of their slavery. It also created an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner whose work is expected to lead to an increase in investigations and convictions. His work will also look at the countries of origin for victims of slavery and recommend measures to address the problem at source. The Act is supported by a Modern Slavery Strategy, published in November 2014 and guidance for companies on eliminating slavery through increased transparency in supply chains, published in October 2015.” The Updated NAP also refers to forced labour in the section Actions Taken to Support Business Implementation of the UNGPs [page 15]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights the Government has (…) provided guidance to companies on transparency in supply chains and implementing the reporting requirement in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-in- supply-chains-a-practical-guide” The UK 2016 Updated NAP further notes that: “The UK has a range of judicial mechanisms that help to support access to remedy for human rights abuses by business enterprises both at home and overseas. This includes: … Specific criminal law provisions, including under the Bribery Act 2010, Modern Slavery Act 2015, Serous Crime Act 2007, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004” The UK 2016 NAP notes the importance of ‘personal freedom’ and ‘democratic freedoms’ in the Introduction. RANA PLAZA The collapse of Rana Plaza, in 2013, a building housing a number of commercial ventures including several garment factories, shocked the world and the implications still continue to reverberate over two years later. Over 1,100 people were killed and many more were injured. For the victims and their families the events that unfolded on that day have irrevocably affected their lives. Following the collapse, the British High Commission in Dhaka alongside DFID Bangladesh, have done a number of things to support the victims and try and ensure a disaster like this never happens again. DFID Bangladesh, in partnership with Canada and the Netherlands, will provide a total of £7.4m to improve building safety and working conditions, empower workers and urge buyers to take responsibility for their supply chains To date over 1000 structural, fire and electrical safety inspections have been carried out, nearly 200 new inspectors recruited and 299 survivors trained to enable them to find alternative jobs or start small businesses. 144 senior masters have been trained in health and safety, who will in turn train 7,600 supervisors that will themselves train over 300,000 workers. DFID Bangladesh funding has also worked to try and ensure justice for garment workers, supporting a number of NGOs to file public interest litigation to protect workers’ rights, and increase awareness of worker rights. To support this, in 2015 the British High Commission began work with Global Rights Compliance and Action Aid Bangladesh to increase state, corporate, trade associations and trade union understanding and uptake of the UN Guiding Principles, increase accountability and reduce human rights violations in the garment, leather and tannery sectors. – Page 12 The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to women’s rights in the Introduction [page 3]: “Since the publication of the UNGPs, in 2011, and the UK’s National Action Plan in 2013, there have been a number of developments at the international level. In particular: … Protect labour rights, promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment (SDG 8.8)”. The UK 2016 Updated NAP states in the section devoted to Government Commitments, [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: … Consider new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like … women … by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns.” The UK 2016 NAP’s Introduction provides that [page 2 & 4]: “This update allows us to: -reflect the developments which have taken place at the international level since the UK’s National Action Plan was first published, including guidance on implementation and the experience of other countries; As part of our commitment to updating the National Action Plan the Government held a series of public consultation events, looking at the plan as a whole, the approach to implementation, and examining in more detail some of the elements contained in the three pillars of the UNGPs. The consultations produced some clear messages from business and civil society regarding the Government’s responsibilities and actions in this regard. These included suggestions that the Government should: The UK 2016 NAP in The existing UK legal and policy framework states that [page 6]: “The UNGPs set out the general regulatory and policy measures a state may take in order to fulfil their duty to protect against human rights violations by third parties, including business enterprises. They recommend that states should: The UK 2016 NAP in Actions taken states [page 9] “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: (v) in 2015, the ISO 28007 maritime standard and ISO 18788 land standard for Private Security Companies were published. The UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) conducted a pilot certification process and has issued guidance for certifying bodies for ISO28007, including on human rights. UKAS will also issue guidance on ISO18788. (vi) supported the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises in their role to promote uptake of the UNGPs and develop guidance and best practice. The UK 2016 NAP makes an explicit reference to guidance to business in the section devoted to Government Expectations of Business [page 14]: “The Government has supported important industry led initiatives that have gained ground over the last two years, including on reporting, benchmarking performance and practical sector guidance”. The UK 2016 NAP in the section on Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs notes that [page 15]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights the Government has: (ii) provided guidance to companies on transparency in supply chains and implementing the reporting requirement in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-insupply-chains-a-practical-guide (iii) partnered with the Cyber Growth Partnership industry guidance on assessing human rights risks relating to cyber security exports, with techUK and input from civil society. https://www.techuk.org/images/CGP_Docs/Assessing_Cyber_Security_Ex port_Risks_website_FINAL_3.pdf (iv) provided funding to the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark Initiative, the first wide scale project to rank companies on their human rights performance.. http://business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-human-rightsbenchmark (v) supported the UNGPs Reporting Framework, the world’s first comprehensive guidance for companies to report on how they respect human rights. http://www.ungpreporting.org/ (vi) provided funding for the Economist Intelligence Unit research report on business leadership attitudes to and actions on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. http://www.economistinsights.com/businessstrategy/analysis/road-principles-practice (vii) continued to update and promote the joint FCO-UKTI Overseas Business Risk (OBR) service, which provides information about business environments in the countries where UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) has a presence, to ensure it includes specific country human rights information and links to the UNGPs and other relevant tools and guidance. http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/howwehelp/overseasbusinessrisk/countries.Html” The UK 2016 NAP in the section on Government Commitments mentions guidance to business while discussing how the government will continue to encourage UK companies to respect human rights in their work [page 16]: “We will: provide support to Board Directors on human rights reporting and practical guidance for companies in the care and security sectors in the UK, through Equality and Human Rights Commission funded projects. (…)” The UK 2016 NAP, states in the section UNGPs Reporting Framework + Unilever Human Rights Report, that [page 17]: “The FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund supported Shift to develop the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework. This is the first comprehensive guidance for companies to report on human rights issues in line with their responsibility to respect human rights. In today’s ever more transparent world, companies are under increasing pressure to show that they respect human rights throughout their operations and value chains. There is increasing demand for greater formal reporting by companies on their human rights performance, including from regulations such as the EU non-financial reporting directive and the UK’s Companies Act and Modern Slavery Act reporting requirements. The UNGPs Reporting Framework provides companies clear and straightforward guidance on how to answer these questions with relevant and meaningful information about their human rights policies, processes and performance. We are pleased to see UK companies at the forefront of best practice in reporting on human rights. Unilever became the first adopter of the Framework when they published their groundbreaking human rights report in July 2015”. The UK 2016 NAP refers to guidance to business in Care and Security Sectors [page 17]: “The Commission is working with the Institute of Human Rights and Business to publish guidance in early 2016 for UK businesses in the care and private security sectors. The guidance will include an assessment of the main human rights impacts in each sector and practical guidance for managers in areas such as human resources, operational delivery and procurement.” The UK 2016 NAP further addresses guidance to business with regards to Cyber Export [page 18]: “Normally, exports that could cause harm, such as arms, are covered by the export licensing regime. However, many cyber capabilities, products and services are not listed. This problem was recognized by the Cyber Growth Partnership a joint body representing industry, academia and government. The FCO worked with techUK, a technology trade association, and the Institute for Human Rights and Business to produce practical guidance for companies on managing human rights risks.” The UK 2016 NAP, in the section devoted to Government Commitments, a case studies highlights the EHRC-project on grievance mechanisms [page 22]: “The Commission is working with Ergon Associates to publish guidance early in 2016 for UK companies to ensure their grievance procedures are aligned with their human rights impacts. It will provide guidance on how to satisfy the criteria for effective grievance mechanisms in the UN Guiding Principles and illustrate these with relevant case studies. It will help companies to think about their human rights impacts and how they manage complaints in relation to their workforce (including supply chain), their customers and for the communities they operate in. It is being developed in consultation with business, government and civil society stakeholders.” The UK NAP does not make an explicit reference to health and social care. The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to Human rights defenders several times: The UK 2016 Updated NAP provides a case-study on Supporting human rights defenders in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil which states [page 22]: “The UK supported International Service for Human Rights to deliver an intensive training and advocacy programme for human rights defenders working on issues relating to business and human rights in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. ISHR also created a toolkit to equip human rights defenders to engage with and influence business and supported an advocacy mission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of briefing diplomats and decision- makers on the situation of human rights defenders working on issues of business and human rights in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico and obtaining recommendations in that regard.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP notes in The existing UK legal and policy framework that [page 6]: “The UNGPs set out the general regulatory and policy measures a state may take in order to fulfil their duty to protect against human rights violations by third parties, including business enterprises. They recommend that states should: The UK 2016 Updated NAP further notes in The existing UK legal and policy framework that [page 8]: “The Government exercises controls on the export of “strategic” goods and technology through the export licensing system. All export licence applications are rigorously assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. These assessments take full account of possible human rights impacts; a licence would not be granted if we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP, in the section devoted to The state’s duty to protect human rights: The existing UK legal and policy framework mentions the impact assessment with regards to controls on the export highlights that [page 8]: “The Government exercises controls on the export of “strategic” goods and technology through the export licensing system. All export license applications are rigorously assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. These assessments take full account of possible human rights impacts; a license would not be granted if we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP makes a reference to impact assessment in Government Commitments section while discussing UNGPs Reporting Framework and Unilever human rights report [page 17]: “The Commission is working in partnership with the Financial Reporting Council and Shift to publish guidance early in 2016 to help company boards to understand what they are expected to know, do and say about human rights. It will provide company boards with smart questions to ask of the business, help them to understand how human rights risks align with business risk, and bring clarity and coherence to different human rights reporting requirements. The Commission is working with the Institute of Human Rights and Business to publish guidance in early 2016 for UK businesses in the care and private security sectors. The guidance will include an assessment of the main human rights impacts in each sector and practical guidance for managers in areas such as human resources, operational delivery and procurement.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP Government commitments [page 11] (vi) Consider new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples…by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns. (viii) Continue to work through our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders. consult people who may potentially be affected at all stages of project design and implementation, in a manner that ensures free and informed participation and takes into account language and other potential barriers to effective engagement, paying particular attention to indigenous peoples… Case study- Supporting human rights defenders in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil [page 22] The UK supported International Service for Human Rights to deliver an intensive training and advocacy programme for human rights defenders working on issues relating to business and human rights in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. ISHR also created a toolkit to equip human rights defenders to engage with and influence business and supported an advocacy mission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of briefing diplomats and decision makers on the situation of human rights defenders working on issues of business and human rights in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico and obtaining recommendations in that regard. The UK 2016 NAP makes no explicit reference to investment treaties or ISDS. Read more about Investment treaties & investor-state dispute settlements The 2016 Updated UK NAP reiterates a number of the commitments in relation to judicial remedy included within the UK 2013 NAP, but further notes that [page 20]: “The UK has a range of judicial mechanisms that help to support access to remedy for human rights abuses by business enterprises both at home and overseas. This includes: The UK 2016 Updated NAP also refers to judicial remedy in action oriented section Actions Taken to Promote Access to Remedy and notes that the Government has [page 21]: (iii) supported projects through the FCO Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund on work on remedy procedures in other countries, including: v) commissioned an independent survey of the UK provision of remedy to help our understanding of judicial and non-judicial remedies available to victims of human rights harms involving business enterprises. The UK 2016 Updated NAP, in the section Government’s Commitments, states that [page 22]: “The Government will: (i) continue to ensure that the UK provides access to judicial and non-judicial remedies to victims of human rights harms linked to business activity. We will keep the UK provision of remedy under review. (ii) continue to support work on remedy procedures in other countries, including help to other States, civil society and trade union efforts and support to business efforts.” The UK 2016 NAP Government commitments [page 9] (viii) Continue to work through our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders. Case Study- Support for Land Tenure and Other Property Rights [page 13] The UK Government is committed to supporting the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (Land Guidelines, VGGT) including through commitments to accelerate VGGT implementation during its G8 Presidency in 2013. The UK supports the VGGT: Through its funding to the Food and Agriculture Organisation in a three-year programme for £4.9 million to raise awareness, improve tenure governance, and support global reporting on progress with VGGT implementation; Through its leadership in the 2013 G7 commitment to implement the VGGT through country partnerships with interested governments. These partnerships aim to accelerate and target support to countries’ existing land governance programmes in conjunction with businesses, in particular farmers, and civil society; The global donor working group on land chaired by the UK (DFID) in its inaugural year has published a global land programme database and map. The database includes an initial 589 programmes in 127 countries with a combined worth of US$4.9 billion. All programmes are mapped against relevant sections of the human rights based VGGT; Jointly with US, Germany, France, the AU Land Policy Initiative and FAO, the UK has developed a land investment due diligence framework based on the VGGT and other international standards, to guide private sector investments under the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. In 2015, under the German Presidency, the UK joined a new G7 commitment to align all its Overseas Development Assistance-supported investments with the VGGT. This is being taken forward over the coming years. DFID is increasing its work on land, bilaterally and at the global level (for an overview of what we do to drive responsible land investments by the private sector, see our 2nd Land Policy Bulletin. Case study- Supporting human rights defenders in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil [page 22] The UK supported International Service for Human Rights to deliver an intensive training and advocacy programme for human rights defenders working on issues relating to business and human rights in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. ISHR also created a toolkit to equip human rights defenders to engage with and influence business and supported an advocacy mission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of briefing diplomats and decision-makers on the situation of human rights defenders working on issues of business and human rights in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico and obtaining recommendations in that regard. The UK 2016 Updated NAP‘s Introduction states [page 3]: “The G7 Leaders’ Declaration (7-8 June 2015) contained the following commitments: The UK 2016 Updated NAP‘s Introduction further states [page 3]: “Companies understand the business case for respecting human rights and the benefits this brings. They understand that positive action, supported by due diligence, transparency and reporting can: The UK 2016 Updated NAP states in Actions taken that [page 8]: “We will continue to promote implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP states in the case study on Support for Land Tenure and Other Property Rights that [page 13]: “Jointly with US, Germany, France, the AU Land Policy Initiative and FAO, the UK has developed a land investment due diligence framework based on the VGGT [Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (Land Guidelines, VGGT)] and other international standards, to guide private sector investments under the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP in Government expectations of business that [page 14]: “The UNGPs guide the approach UK companies should take to respect human rights wherever they operate. The key principles of this approach are to: The UK 2016 Updated NAP makes a reference to human rights due diligence in a NCP case study concerning World Wildlife Fund & SOCO International Plc [page 23]: “As part of the statement, SOCO (…) also stated that “when we undertake human rights due diligence, the processes we adopt will be in full compliance with international norms and standards and industry best practice, including appropriate levels of community consultation and engagement on the basis of publicly available documents.” The UK 2016 NAP refers to migrant workers in the Introduction [page 3]: “Since the publication of the UNGPs, in 2011, and the UK’s National Action Plan in 2013, there have been a number of developments at the international level. In particular: The UK 2016 NAP, in the Government Commitments section [page 11], states: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (..) Consider new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples, women, national or ethnic minorities, religious and linguistic minorities, children, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers and their families, by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns.” The UK Updated 2016 NAP refers to NHRIs and Ombudsman with regards to non-judicial mechanisms [page 20]: “We also provide a number of state-based non-judicial mechanisms, including: (…) Read more about National Human Rights Institutions/ Ombudspersons The UK 2016 NAP states in the Introduction that [page 3-4]: “Companies understand the business case for respecting human rights and the benefits this brings. They understand that positive action, supported by due diligence, transparency and reporting can: – help to protect and enhance a company’s reputation and brand value; – safeguard and expand their customer base; – help them attract and retain good staff; – build and maintain sustainable and effective relationships with employees and external stakeholders; – reduce risks to operational continuity resulting from conflict inside the company itself or with the local community or other parties; – reduce the risk of litigation for human rights abuses; – attract institutional investors, including pension funds, who are increasingly taking ethical , including human rights, factors into account in their investment decisions; – help companies become partners/investors of choice for other businesses or governments concerned about human rights risks; – support company ethics and values. Since the UK’s National Action Plan was published there has been an increased emphasis within the business community on the importance of reporting, benchmarking companies’ social and ethical performance, and corporate transparency. These can be an effective complement to regulation and a tool for protecting and promoting corporate reputation, and providing reassurance to both customers and investors.” The UK 2016 NAP notes in relation to Government Expectations of Business that [page 14]: “The Government has supported important industry led initiatives that have gained ground over the last two years, including on reporting, benchmarking performance and practical sector guidance.” The UK 2016 NAP states in Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs that [page 14-15]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights the Government has: (ii) provided guidance to companies on transparency in supply chains and implementing the reporting requirement in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-insupply-chains-a-practical-guide (v) supported the UNGPs Reporting Framework, the world’s first comprehensive guidance for companies to report on how they respect human rights. http://www.ungpreporting.org/ “ The UK 2016 NAP refers to non-financial reporting in the section devoted to the Government Commitments [page 16]: “The Government will continue to encourage UK companies in their work to respect human rights. We will: (…) ii) ensure the provisions of an EU Directive on non-financial disclosure are transposed in the UK to enable greater consistency and comparability of public information on the human rights policies and performance of listed companies in Europe.” The UK 2016 NAP, while highlighting the UNGPs Reporting Framework + Unilever human rights report, refers to non-financial reporting [page 17]: “There is increasing demand for greater formal reporting by companies on their human rights performance, including from regulations such as the EU non-financial reporting directive and the UK’s Companies Act and Modern Slavery Act reporting requirements.” The UK 2016 NAP discusses non-judicial mechanism in the section titled Access to remedy for human rights abuses resulting from business activity [page 20]: “We also provide a number of state-based non-judicial mechanisms, including: The UK 2016 NAP on actions taken to promote access to remedy states that the Government [page 21] has: “commissioned an independent survey of the UK provision of remedy to help our understanding of judicial and non-judicial remedies available to victims of human rights harms involving business enterprises”. The UK 2016 NAP states under Government commitments [page 22] that the government will: “continue to ensure that the UK provides access to judicial and non-judicial remedies to victims of human rights harms linked to business activity. We will keep the UK provision of remedy under review.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP makes a reference to NCPs in the section devoted to Access to Remedy for Human Right Abuses Resulting from Business Activity [page 20]: “We also provide a number of state-based non-judicial mechanisms, including: The UK National Contact Point (NCP) which considers allegations of non compliance by UK companies with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The NCP seeks to mediate an agreement between the parties. But where this is not possible, a determination of whether the enterprise has acted inconsistently with the Guidelines is published and available for public dissemination.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP states in the section Actions Taken, [page 8]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: (…) implemented the requirements of the OECD 2012 Common Approaches, and considered relevant adverse project-related human rights impacts in providing applicable Export Credit Agency (ECA) support through UK Export Finance (UKEF). UKEF will consider any reports made publicly available by the UK National Contact Point (NCP) in respect of the human rights record of a company when considering a project for export credit. The UK has been involved with the discussions, and negotiations, on the implementation of the OECD 2012 Common Approaches and the need to amend this, in respect of ongoing experience on project-related human rights. The UK continues to be involved in negotiations on any agreed clarifications to the OECD 2012 Common Approaches.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to NCP in the Case Study from NCP [page 23] where it provides a brief description of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) & SOCO International Plc. case June 2014: “WWF’s complaint alleged that SOCO’s oil exploration activities in Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of Congo – DRC) did not contribute to sustainable development and that this conduct was prohibited under existing International agreements and DRC law. The activities specifically risked adverse impacts on the local communities, the environment and wildlife. This case had aroused considerable International media attention. The UK NCP accepted the complaint and asked both parties to take part in professional external mediation in London which resulted in an agreed joint statement. As part of the statement, SOCO agreed that they will not undertake or commission any exploratory or other drilling within Virunga National Park unless UNESCO and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its World Heritage status. They also stated that “when we undertake human rights due diligence, the processes we adopt will be in full compliance with international norms and standards and industry best practice, including appropriate levels of community consultation and engagement on the basis of publicly available documents.” The full joint statement and NCP Final assessment published in June 2014 can be seen at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330392/bis- 14-967-uk-ncp-final-statement-following-agreement-reached-in-complaint-from-wwf- international-against-soco-international-plc.pdf More details on each complaint case which UK NCP have received can be found via the link to the Initial & Final assessments page which lists cases in chronological order https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-national-contact-point-statements.” The UK 2016 Updated NAP Government commitments [page 11] Consider new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like…persons with disabilities…,by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns. The UK 2016 NAP refers to policy coherence already in the introduction [page 4], where it explains that: “As part of our commitment to updating the National Action Plan the Government held a series of public consultation events, looking at the plan as a whole, the approach to implementation, and examining in more detail some of the elements contained in the three pillars of the UNGPs. The consultations produced some clear messages from business and civil society regarding the Government’s responsibilities and actions in this regard. These included suggestions that the Government should: The UK 2016 NAP further refers to policy coherence in the section The existing UK Legal Policy Framework [page 6]: “The UNGPs set out the general regulatory and policy measures a state may take in order to fulfil their duty to protect against human rights violations by third parties, including business enterprises. They recommend that states should: (…) Ensure policy coherence across government, including by providing training, information and support”. The UK 2016 NAP states in relation to Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs that [page 15]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights the Government has: (i) updated this action plan, setting out the Government’s actions and expectations on business and human rights. We will seek clear and consistent communication of this policy through ministers, UK business ambassadors and officials who engage with business and other appropriate channels.” The UK 2016 NAP does not make an explicit reference to privatisation. The UK 2016 NAP highlights the report on “Public Procurement and Human Rights” launched by The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [page 5] The UK 2016 NAP, in the Government Commitments section [page 10], states: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (…) Continue to ensure that UK Government procurement rules allow for human rights-related matters to be reflected in the procurement of public goods, works and services, taking into account the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives and Crown Commercial Service guidance on compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts. In addition, UK public bodies are required to have due regard for equality-related issues in their procurement activity.” The UK 2016 NAP further highlights that [page 17]: “The [Equality and Human Rights] Commission is working with the Institute of Human Rights and Business to publish guidance in early 2016 for UK businesses in the care and private security sectors. The guidance will include an assessment of the main human rights impacts in each sector and practical guidance for managers in areas such as human resources, operational delivery and procurement.” The UK 2016 NAP refers to security sector in the section devoted to Actions Taken [page 9]: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: (…) in March 2015 the Government concluded its chairmanship of the Voluntary Principles Initiative. During our chairmanship we worked to raise awareness of the VPI in priority countries for membership, to support UK oil, gas and mining companies to use the VPs to manage security and human rights risks more effectively, and encouraged greater openness by companies in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. More detail on our chairmanship year can be found in our 2014 annual report.” The UK 2016 NAP states, in the section discussing Government Commitments, that [page 10]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (…) Continue to work closely with Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative (VPI) member governments, extractive companies and civil society organisations, to promote greater understanding of the Voluntary Principles and strengthen the implementation, effectiveness and membership. To maintain the momentum from our chairmanship March 2014-March 2015, we will continue to work on better corporate implementation of the Voluntary Principles on the ground. This includes maintaining dialogues with ‘host’ governments. For example, we have worked with the Government of Angola to promote the Voluntary Principles to the participating governments of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.” The UK 2016 NAP states in the section regarding The Nairobi Process: a Pact for Responsible Business, that [page 12]: “Kenya has recently granted 47 oil and gas exploration licences. This has raised expectations of economic benefits by government, business and local communities. Experience elsewhere in Africa suggests that if the licences are not managed carefully then competing expectations of these actors can lead to community tensions and security risks. The Human Rights and Democracy Programme (2013/14) funded the Nairobi Process: A Pact for Responsible Business – an initiative developed by the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) in collaboration with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR). It aims to embed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the extractives sector in Kenya. It focused on several strands of engagement, including bringing together multinational and national extractive companies, government and civil society and communities to collaboratively address key areas of human rights concern. It also supports business to business learning, capacity building for National Human Rights Institutions in the region and advocates for the implementation of the UNGPs by the government of Kenya.” The UK 2016 NAP highlights security in the section: EHCR Projects – practical guidance for care/security sectors and Boards Directors\reporting [page 17]: “The Commission is working in partnership with the Financial Reporting Council and Shift to publish guidance early in 2016 to help company boards to understand what they are expected to know, do and say about human rights. It will provide company boards with smart questions to ask of the business, help them to understand how human rights risks align with business risk, and bring clarity and coherence to different human rights reporting requirements. The Commission is working with the Institute of Human Rights and Business to publish guidance in early 2016 for UK businesses in the care and private security sectors. The guidance will include an assessment of the main human rights impacts in each sector and practical guidance for managers in areas such as human resources, operational delivery and procurement.” The UK 2016 NAP in the Government Commitments section mentions security [page 16]: “The Government will continue to encourage UK companies in their work to respect human rights. We will: (…) provide support to Board Directors on human rights reporting and practical guidance for companies in the care and security sectors in the UK, through Equality and Human Rights Commission funded projects.” The UK 2016 NAP mentions SMEs in Government expectations of business section [page 15]: “Respect for human rights should be at the heart of a company’s core operations, it is not the same as philanthropy or social investment. The responsibility of businesses to respect human rights exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations. Different businesses will need to take different approaches to embedding this approach. Implementation will be progressive and will need to be compatible with the resource limitations of small and medium-sized enterprises.” The UK 2016 NAP The UK 2016 Updated NAP does not make an explicit reference to State-Owned Enterprises – PPP. Read more about State Owned Enterprises/ Public Private Partnerships The UK 2016 NAP addresses supply chain already in the Introduction [page 3]: “The G7 Leaders’ Declaration (7-8 June 2015) contained the following commitments: (…) To enhance supply chain transparency and accountability, we encourage enterprises active or headquartered in our countries to implement due diligence procedures regarding their supply chains”. The UK 2016 NAP, in Actions Taken section [page 8], states that: “To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: i) introduced the Modern Slavery Act which consolidates and simplifies existing legislation, toughened penalties to allow a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and provides safeguards for victims. Companies covered by the Act are required to produce a “slavery and human trafficking” statement for each financial year setting out what steps they have taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business and supply chain The Act, which entered into force on 31 July 2015, also created an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner; … iii) taken account of business activity in conflict and fragile states, or countries with high levels of criminal violence, within the Building Stability Overseas Strategy. Companies operating in these difficult environments have an important role to play in contributing to stability, growth, development, prosperity and the protection of human rights. We support the implementation of the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones. We will continue to promote implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areas. The Government will also work with EU partners and other like-minded countries to deliver increased effectiveness of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme and higher standards of responsible sourcing in the global diamond supply chain. (…)” The UK 2016 NAP mentions supply chains in the context of the Rana Plaza case [page 12] as well as in Government Expectations of Business [page 14]: “The UNGPs guide the approach UK companies should take to respect human rights wherever they operate. The key principles of this approach are to: (…) – emphasise the importance of behaviour in line with the UNGPs to their supply chains in the UK and overseas. Appropriate measures could include contractual arrangements, training, monitoring and capacity-building.” The UK 2016 NAP further provides that [page 15]: “The Government encourages companies to review their existing grievance procedures to ensure they are fair, transparent, understandable, well-publicised and accessible by all, and provide for grievances to be resolved effectively without fear of victimisation. It is also important for businesses to require similar good practice of their supply chains, especially in areas where abuses of rights have been identified.” The UK 2016 NAP mentions tax in the section devoted to Myanmar Centre For Responsible Business in Burma [page 19], where it points to the tax evasion as being one of the important issues in the context of responsible business conduct: “The media has turned to MCRB for comments on a range of responsible business issues which MCRB is using to shape debates on issues as diverse as tax evasion and environmental impacts, and to highlight international standards and key issues in Myanmar.” The UK 2016 NAP states: 3. Since the publication of the UNGPs, in 2011, and the UK’s National Action Plan in 2013, there have been a number of developments at the international level. In particular: The Global Goals for Sustainable Development, agreed by world leaders and launched at the UN in September 2015, contained commitments to: – take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking (SDG 8.7) – protect labour rights, promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment (SDG 8.8) The UK NAP does not make an explicit reference to the tourism sector. The UK 2016 NAP refers to trade in section Government commitments [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: The UK 2016 NAP states in the section on Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs that [page 16]: “To help businesses to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights the Government has: (vii) continued to update and promote the joint FCO-UKTI Overseas Business Risk (OBR) service, which provides information about business environments in the countries where UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) has a presence, to ensure it includes specific country human rights information and links to the UNGPs and other relevant tools and guidance. http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/howwehelp/overseasbusinessrisk/countries.html” The UK 2016 NAP refers to the workers’ rights in the Introduction [page 3]: “Since the publication of the UNGPs, in 2011, and the UK’s National Action Plan in 2013, there have been a number of developments at the international level. In particular: (…) protect labour rights, promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment (SDG 8.8).” The UK 2016 NAP states in the section The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights that [page 7]: “Legislation has also been passed to plug specific gaps in the protection of workers under the law such as the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which created an agency to prevent the exploitation of workers in agricultural work, shellfish-gathering and related processing or packaging.” The UK 2016 NAP refers to migrant workers’ rights also in Government Commitments section [page 11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (…) Consider new project activity on raising awareness and tackling the negative impacts of business activity, including on the human rights of groups like indigenous peoples, women, national or ethnic minorities, religious and linguistic minorities, children, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers and their families, by tasking our diplomatic missions in countries where these are concerns.” The UK 2016 NAP includes a Case study of Rana Plaza which makes reference to workers’ rights [page 12]: ”DFID Bangladesh funding has also worked to try and ensure justice for garment workers, supporting a number of NGOs to file public interest litigation to protect workers’ rights, and increase awareness of worker rights. To support this, in 2015 the British High Commission began work with Global Rights Compliance and Action Aid Bangladesh to increase state, corporate, trade associations and trade union understanding and uptake of the UN Guiding Principles, increase accountability and reduce human rights violations in the garment, leather and tannery sectors.”Children’s rights
Conflict-affected areas
Construction sector
Corporate law & corporate governance
Corruption
Data protection & privacy
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
Actions taken [page 9]
3. Government expectations on business
Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs [page 15]
Government commitments
Development finance institutions
Digital technology & electronics sector
Energy sector
Environment & climate change
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
4. Access to remedy for human right abuses resulting from business activity
Government commitments
Equality & non-discrimination
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
Actions taken [page 9]
3. Government expectations on business
Actions taken to support business implementation of the UNGPs [page 15]
Government commitments
Export credit
Extractives sector
Extraterritorial jurisdiction
Finance & banking sector
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors
Forced labour & modern slavery
Freedom of association
Garment, Textile and Footwear Sector
2. The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights
Case Studies
Gender & women’s rights
Guidance to business
Health and social care
Human rights defenders & whistle-blowers
Human rights impact assessments
Indigenous peoples
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
3. Government expectations of business [page 14]
4.Access to remedy for human rights abuses resulting from business activity
Government commitments
Investment treaties & investor-state dispute settlements
Judicial remedy
Land
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
4. Access to remedy for human rights abuses resulting from business activity
Government commitments
Mandatory human rights due diligence
Migrant workers
National Human Rights Institutions/ Ombudspersons
Non-financial reporting
Non-judicial grievance mechanisms
OECD National Contact Points
Persons with disabilities
2. The State Duty to Protect Human Rights
The existing UK legal and policy framework
Policy coherence
Privatisation
Public procurement
Security sector
Small & medium-sized enterprises
State Owned Enterprises/ Public Private Partnerships
Supply chains
Taxation
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Introduction [page 2]
Tourism sector
Trade
Workers’ rights
