The Connection between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Respect for Human Rights
Published Online: Jul 24, 2019
Page range: 103 - 127
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2019-0006
Keywords
© 2019 Ana Čertanec, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is normally defined as a concept whereby business entities voluntarily incorporate social, environmental and ethical standards into their operations in order to improve the lives of employees, the local community and society as a whole. The concept of CSR is based on the view that business entities should consider broader social goals in their activities, rather than just financial ones. As early as 1993, Korže stated that entrepreneurial liberalism was permissible, but had to be in accordance with social principles.
The goal of generating profit has been supplemented with broader social goals, such as maintaining long-term stability, maintaining internal stability, promoting development, protecting the interests of all stakeholders, engaging in activities with and protecting the interests of the broader social community, and respecting human rights.
Human rights are rights intended for an individual and the protection of his or her values. Wettstein (2009) says that human rights ‘secure the moral minimum necessary for us to live a liveable, dignified life as human beings’. When the international human rights regime was set up, states were designated as the sole duty-bearers and the only subject that could violate international human rights law. Economic and Social Council (2006, para 9). International organisations such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, NATO, etc., are also important duty-bearers in the field of human rights protection but have been intentionally omitted from this paper, since the focus here is entirely on business entities.
Therefore, the question about the connection between CSR and corporate respect for human rights is raised. Unambiguously, the respect for human rights forms part of CSR. While CSR has been gaining global importance, business and human rights (BHR) issues have been neglected. Business entities have acknowledged their social responsibility and adopted CSR policies without being aware as to what CSR actually includes. Human rights are normally considered a completely different topic that results in actual problems relating to the implementation of the appropriate CSR strategy. The adoption of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN GPs),
The main focus of this article is the extent to which the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues. This question is significant, because the CSR issues have a tendency to crowd out the BHR issues. The author believes that the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues in their legal nature and content, while the strategic approach in the implementation of these concepts is the same. The author explains the role of various legal, including socio-legal theory approaches to CSR and brings in the emergent theory on business and human rights as an interdisciplinary field. The aim is to discuss some issues that arise from the manner that the CSR and human rights respect interact, with particular emphasis on the review of CSR initiatives from the perspective of human rights.
In the initial chapters, the author presents the basic theoretical findings of CSR and of BHR on which a further analysis can be carried out. The aim is to provide a theoretical contribution by contextualizing this data in light of the main debates and theories put forward by CSR and BHR scholars. Then the author studies the connection between the CSR and corporate respect for human rights and examines to which extent the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues by integrating the emergent legal theory and norms. The author further examines whether voluntary CSR initiatives include human rights, and how society understands the connection between them.
There are many definitions of CSR. In both theory and practice, terms such as corporate citizenship, corporate sustainability, etc., are also used.
At first CSR was not thought to have any legal implications, but then a number of cases before the US courts found that business entity’s impacts on labour rights, human rights and the environment were indeed of legal relevance. Ibid. it is a legal requirement; it is not a legal requirement; it is a requirement based on social and normative pressure only.
In 2001, the Commission of the European Communities defined CSR as ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’, but at the same time it emphasised that CSR was not ‘a substitute for regulation or legislation concerning social rights or environmental standards’ (para 20, 22). It defined CSR as ‘not only fulfilling legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance’ (para 21). In 2006, the Commission of the European Communities explicitly stated that CSR was only voluntary. Even though the EU in 2011 revised its definition of CSR and deleted the previous reference to a ‘voluntary’ action or action ‘beyond the requirements of the law’, the majority view that CSR is not a legal requirement.
Buhmann (2006) rejects this view and asserts that CSR acts as informal law and is based on a set of fundamental principles of law. Buhmann (2011) attributes the confusion about the nature of CSR to its having been defined as actions that go beyond legal requirements, since this definition created the damaging idea that CSR and the law are distinct from each other. Wettstein (2009) shares this view, and sees it as a consequence of a poor understanding of ethics. Ibid.
For the purpose of the debate on the legal status of CSR it is also important to point out the distinction between the ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ CSR. Matten and Moon (2008) refer to the explicit CSR, that is characteristic of the United States, as voluntary programmes and strategies by business entities that assume and articulate their social responsibility and do not reflect any broader formal or informal institutions. On the other hand, the implicit CSR, that is characteristic of Europe, emphasizes business entities’ social role within the wider formal and informal institutions that define mandatory and customary requirements to address social issues for all business entities. Ibid.
To conclude, opinions on the legal status of CSR vary. CSR goes beyond mere compliance with the law, but is based on the assumption that the business is already operating according to the national social and environmental legislation (i.e. fulfilling its legal obligations). Therefore, the author believes that CSR cannot be viewed as solely voluntary as some of its aspects are legally mandated. The legal status of CSR also depends on the social issue. Some issues of CSR have already been legally regulated in some states (i.e. labour rights) and consequently there is a strong relationship between CSR and law. Some aspects are a legal requirement, some are not. Nonetheless, even if they are not, they are mostly at least a requirement based on social and normative pressure.
There is no uniform definition of human rights, Throughout this article, ‘human rights’ is used in the sense of human rights and fundamental freedoms. International Organization for Standardization (2010), para 6.3.2.1.
When the international human rights regime was set up, states were designated as the sole duty-bearers and the only subject that could violate international human rights law. Muchlinski (2001), Letnar Černič (2011), De la Vega and Mehra (2009). More about the reasons in Wettstein (2012).
The responsibility of business entities to respect human rights applies to all internationally recognised human rights, On the contrary, Arnold (2010) is of the opinion that a set of basic human rights is more appropriate. United Nations: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012).
As many theoreticians Soh (2013), Monshipouri et al (2003), Weissbrodt (2005), Ruggie (2013), Kinley and Tadaki, (2003–2004).
The protection of human rights in business is mostly governed by non-binding policies, ranging from recommendations issued by international organisations to an individual business’s internal code of conduct. Numerous attempts have been made to secure the adoption of an international legal instrument that would impose a duty on business entities to protect human rights (e.g. UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (26 August 2003).
As previously stated, CSR is a concept whereby business entities voluntarily incorporate social, environmental and ethical standards into their operations. Business entities are responsible for their impacts on society and therefore have a duty to consider not only financial, but also broader social goals. One of these social goals is undoubtedly the respect for the rights of stakeholders affected by their activities. The respect for human rights is therefore an essential component of CSR. This is confirmed in paragraph 52 of the Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (‘Corporate social responsibility has a strong human rights dimension’) and chapter 3.3 of A renewed EU Strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR at least covers human rights’). Ruggie (2013), too, believes that CSR includes human rights; he views slower progress in this area because of greater emphasis on the environment and other social issues. Carasco and Singh (2008) regard the inclusion of human rights responsibilities in corporate codes of conduct as the most dramatic step forward on the path to CSR. Rabet (2009) also thinks human rights form part of CSR: she sees CSR as ‘a form of voluntary self-regulation by corporations, which, amongst other things, claims to bring the protection and promotion of human rights onto the corporate agenda’. Buhmann (2011), too, considers human rights to be part of CSR and argues that they feature prominently in the CSR policies and philosophies of many Nordic and European business entities. She further states that corporate responsibilities for human rights and labour rights are often included in CSR under the heading of ‘social issues’.
From all the facts mentioned above it is clear that CSR and human rights are interconnected. The key question is to which extent the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues and whether CSR clouds the BHR issues. The author believes that the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues in their legal nature and content, while the strategic approach is the same. Therefore, the author further examines the difference between CSR and corporate respect for human rights regarding the law, strategic approach in the implementation of these concepts and the content. The analysis leads to the conclusion if the proposed hypothesis is correct or not.
The purpose of CSR is not simply to fulfil legal expectations, but to make positive contributions to human capital, the environment and relations with stakeholders, beyond mere compliance with the law. Commission of the European Communities (2001, para 21); Taylor (2011).
On the other hand, human rights respect is mostly seen as a matter of legal compliance. Obara’s empirical study on interpretation and management of human rights in 22 large UK business entities showed that business entities recognize human rights as containing a legal and mandatory element. See Obara (2017).
While CSR is seen as a voluntary responsibility and corporate human rights responsibilities as mandatory (at least in an indirect way, if not even in a direct way) business entities do not perceive human rights as a part of CSR. Because CSR for them is something voluntary, human rights fall out of scope of their perception of CSR. If there would be clear evidence that a part of CSR is voluntary and a part of it mandatory, linking these terms would be significantly easier. Compliance with internationally recognised legal standards is a basic requirement for CSR, for which voluntary initiatives can be no substitute. See Lund-Thomsen (2008).
For example, one of the human rights is a right of fair wage. The amount above fair wage determined by the law of the State is considered a good CSR policy, as there is no legal duty to pay more than a statutory minimum wage. This is an example of going beyond legal compliance, but also including legal compliance. A statutory minimum wage is a legal standard and anything higher is a social standard. On the other hand, CSR and human rights coincide in ensuring safe and healthy working conditions. Passing and enforcing proper working conditions is a legal and social standard. Lastly, human rights and CSR do not coincide in philanthropy, as this is only a social standard.
The BHR issues are therefore distinct from the CSR issues as they are narrower than the CSR issues. The CSR issues are going beyond legal compliance, but also include legal compliance, including the BHR issues. Business entities have a difficulty in understanding this, as there is so much emphasis on voluntary aspects of CSR. It would be necessary to increase awareness of the interconnection between these two issues, as the lack of this is harmful for the potentially affected stakeholders.
CSR and respect for human rights are viewed as two different concepts. While CSR is comprised of imperfect, positive and special duties, human rights are perfect, negative and universal moral obligations on business entities.
On the other hand, human rights are perceived to deal with the negative aspects of business activity. Business entities have to do no harm, with the state watching over them to hold them accountable if they do not act accordingly and providing access to remedies for victims of human rights abuses. For example, Wettstein (2012); Arnold (2010). The same is also argued by Ruggie (2013); Campbell (2006); Letnar Černič (2011); Soh (2013).
The content of CSR issues is undoubtedly broader than of that of BHR issues as CSR has a focus on proactive activities for the wellbeing of society, while the BHR issues are focused on having a positive process of human rights due diligence to ensure respect for human rights. The BHR issues are a part of the CSR issues, but unfortunately, this is ordinarily overlooked, because too much attention is paid on CSR proactive activities, while neglecting its legal compliance component.
According to McCorquodale (2009) CSR policies and human rights operate in fundamentally different ways. As a rule, CSR is managed strategically. Business entities have strategies on how to incorporate social, environmental and ethical standards into their operations and communicate this approach explicitly. They have in place policies and procedures to ensure social responsibility and to annually report on their progress. CSR has become a strategy for increasing profit. CSR also manages some human rights issues, but does not explicitly present them as such.
Human rights issues are managed more implicitly. Business entities have to avoid infringing the human rights of others, mostly by respecting national legislation. Corporate responsibilities to respect human rights have not been a part of business strategy, but only one of the compliance issues. This has changed with the adoption of the UN GPs that claim that business entities have the responsibility to respect human rights by having in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances. According to the second pillar of UN GPs business entities should express their commitment to respect human rights through a statement of policy and carry out human rights due diligence process through assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. According to UN GPs, business entities should ‘know and show’ that they respect human rights. The consequence of the UN GPs is that now also for human rights the explicit strategic approach has been put into effect. In their study of practices of business entities worldwide in attempting to implement human rights due diligence McCorquodale, Smit, Neely and Brooks (2017) found that there are still great shortcomings in identification, implementation and responding to human rights impacts across all business entities.
Previously CSR and human rights had different approaches and therefore the two terms were not sufficiently linked. With the adoption of the UN GPs and its human rights due diligence, a similar strategic approach has been developed. CSR and corporate respect for human rights have to be known internally and shown externally and form a part of business decisions. In both cases it must become a part of their strategic decisions, all employees and shareholders should be aware of it and consider it in their business decisions. Integrating human rights within business strategies has demonstrated as an extremely difficult and time-consuming processes with high organisational costs, even if businesses are committed to doing so (Institute for Human Rights and Business, 2011); Arkani and Theobald (2005). Arkani and Theobald’s research (2005) suggests that business entities rather involve in the provision of general support for welfare programmes than to more high-risk direct intervention in human rights issues.
From all the facts mentioned above it is evident that the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues in their legal nature and content. The BHR issues are mandatory, while the CSR issues are mandatory only in the part where business entities should comply with the regulations and other parts are voluntary. The BHR issues are meant to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts and refrain from actions that could lead to human rights abuses, while the CSR issues are, in addition to legal compliance, also intended for proactive company involvement to help improve welfare. As CSR is broader than BHR issues, it is necessary to be cautious so that BHR issues are not clouded.
On the other hand, the strategic approach is the same; the distinction originates only from the difference in the content. Therefore, business entities should have strategies on how to include the CSR and BHR issues in their operations. Acknowledging of the CSR and BHR issues has to become a part of their business decisions, everyone in the business entities should be aware of the importance of these two issues and accept their decisions based on them.
With regard to the findings, the author will now study the specific CSR initiatives regarding the law, content, and strategic approach in the implementation of these concepts and attempt to find whether the findings stated in this chapter are correct.
For a long time global CSR initiatives did not focus on human rights, but only mentioned them in passing. In 1983, the UN Draft Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations E/1983/17/Rev. 1 (21 May 1983).
It is also important to mention the national law regulation on CSR. Countries are always more in favour of CSR regulation. In 2013, India in its Companies Act prescribed a mandatory CSR spend of at least two per cent of the average net profits made during the three immediately preceding financial years on all companies meeting specified financial thresholds (Section 135/5). In 2014 the European Union (EU) Directive 2014/95/EU prescribed mandatory CSR reporting for large public-interest undertakings, whose balance sheets showed an average of more than 500 employees during the financial year. The EU member states therefore have had to implement in their national law the requirements on the mandatory CSR reporting by 6 December 2016. France went even a step further and adopted the law that specifically regulates human rights impacts on business. The French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Act 2017 establishes a legally binding obligation for all business entities meeting specified requirements to identify and prevent adverse human rights and environmental impacts resulting from their own activities or activities linked to their activities. The law mandates business entities to practice human rights due diligence – they must establish, publish and implement a vigilance plan.
An overview of the CSR initiatives with the greatest emphasis on human rights is given in further sections.
The UN Global Compact is the biggest global voluntary initiative on CSR, designed with the purpose of developing and disseminating CSR in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. It is intended for business entities willing to commit to aligning their policies and strategies with ten universally accepted principles derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, GA Res 217A (III), UN Doc A/810. UN Doc A/58/422. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I).
The UN Global Compact Principles relating to human rights stipulate that business entities should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights (Principle 1); and ensure they are not complicit in human rights abuses (Principle 2). When business entities respect human rights, the rule of law is promoted, consumer perception of working conditions is improved, the management supply chain is strengthened, employee productivity is increased, and good relationships with the community are formed. UN Global Compact Principles therefore go beyond business entities’ legal obligations. UN Global Compact and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2017).
In 2010, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published International Standard on Social Responsibility ISO 26000, the purpose of which is to provide business entities with guidance on social responsibility; help them integrate, implement and promote socially responsible behaviour; and contribute to sustainable development.
ISO 26000 states that organisations should respect human rights set out in the International Bill of Human Rights and acknowledge their importance and universality. Ibid, 13–14. Ibid.
Chapter 6.3, which is entirely dedicated to human rights, deals with eight issues relating to human rights: due diligence; human rights risk situations; avoidance of complicity; resolving grievances; discrimination and vulnerable groups; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; and fundamental principles and rights at work. ISO 26000 sets out how organisations are expected to address each of these issues. The chapter is fully in accordance with the UN GPs.
In June 1976, OECD adopted the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, incorporating the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These were updated in 2000 and 2011. The OECD Guidelines set out principles and standards for socially responsible activities in accordance with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards in the following areas: disclosure; human rights; employment and industrial relations; environment; combating bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion; consumer interests; science and technology; and competition and taxation.
Chapter 2 of the OECD Guidelines requires business entities to ‘(r)espect the internationally recognised human rights of those affected by their activities’ (paragraph 2). Chapter 4 is wholly dedicated to human rights, and specifies the obligations on business entities. Unlike states, which have a duty to protect human rights, business entities are required, within the framework of internationally recognised human rights, the international human rights obligations of the countries in which they operate, as well as all relevant domestic laws and regulations, to meet their responsibility to respect human rights by having in place policies and processes in accordance with UN GPs.
For a long time EU initiatives on CSR pushed human rights into the background. A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility finally recognizes ‘the need to give greater attention to human rights, which have become a significantly more prominent aspect of CSR’. Ibid, para 4.8.2. Ibid. Ibid.
Human rights were also incorporated into Directive 2014/95/EU. Article 19a was added to Directive 2014/95/EU, requiring large public-interest undertakings, whose balance sheets showed an average of more than 500 employees during the financial year, to include a non-financial statement in their management reports. This statement must contain the information required for an understanding of the undertaking’s development, performance, position, and impacts of its activities, in relation to, as a minimum, environmental, social and employee issues, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery. The same applies to the consolidated non-financial statement, regulated by Article 29a. The purpose of this change was to ensure a level playing field for enterprises on a European level.
The adoption of the UN GPs led to international CSR initiatives to regulate human rights in a business context in a similar way. The UN Global Compact Principles, ISO 26000 and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises all have a special chapter dedicated to human rights and regulate human rights in business in accordance with the requirements of the UN GPs. Following the adoption of the UN GPs, EU CSR initiatives also focused their attention on human rights. Directive 2014/95/EU, with its requirement for the management report to include information on human rights issues, was a major step forward, putting pressure on business entities to respect human rights.
The findings from the theoretical part regarding the law were not confirmed in the studied CSR initiatives. As the CSR initiatives are non-binding, they do not give an answer regarding the legal nature of the BHR issues. The exception applies to Directive 2014/95/EU that imposes mandatory reporting regarding human rights respect and in this way creates an obligation for corporate respect of human rights. All other CSR initiatives make it a requirement for business entities to respect human rights; only the UN Global Compact Principles also require to support and protect human rights.
The findings regarding the content were confirmed. Human rights are only a small part of CSR; the scale of activities is narrower and mostly limited to negative activities to respect human rights. All the commitments to respect human rights are superficial, simply referring to internationally recognized human rights. Only ISO 26000 gives a detailed insight into a number of human rights issues. The analysis has shown that CSR initiatives lack clarity regarding human rights, and that human rights are still not at the heart of the CSR debate. Although all mention human rights, the commitments are too vague, and do not offer specific instructions for business entities on how to meet their human rights obligations.
The findings regarding the strategic approach in the implementation of these concepts were also confirmed – the approach is the same. The same strategic approach was established due to the UN GPs. All CSR initiatives require a due diligence procedure in accordance with the UN GPs. None of these initiatives gives any further instructions regarding respect for human rights; neither are there any sanctions in the event of human rights abuses. This is a great weakness of these initiatives, because without clear guidance as to how to act in relation to human rights and predefined sanctions, these initiatives cannot be effective in ensuring respect for human rights.
Business entities have acknowledged that they have responsibilities towards society. The majority of business entities in McBeth and Joseph (2005) and Obara’s (2017) empirical study recognized that they have direct human rights responsibilities, while Kamminga’s (2016) study showed that less than one per cent of business entities acknowledge that they have these responsibilities. Institute for Human Rights and Business’s study (2011) found that there are still too few business entities seriously engaging in human rights.
Regarding the law, the author agrees with Buhmann (2011) that the lack of clarity about the mandatory and voluntary aspects of CSR has caused confusion about the relationship between CSR and human rights. In a qualitative study involving 22 international business entities based in the United Kingdom (UK) Obara and Peattie (2017) found that human rights are understood as a ‘vague, complex, abstract and conceptual’ term; connected not to a domestic country but to the global arena and supply chain operations; concerning mostly employees and workplace commitments; associated with legislation, regulation and compliance; belonging mainly to the state and not business entities. CSR by contrast was understood by business entities either as voluntary and philanthropic measures or as ‘a natural part of doing business’. Empirical research was carried out between 19 November 2014 and 19 February 2015. The survey consisted of 44 questions, divided into five sets. It was based on the author’s theoretical findings and then published in online form using a tool for online surveys. More than 4,800 direct invitations to participate in the survey were issued, with a further 15,000 issued indirectly. This resulted in 255 respondents, of which 152 withdrew before the start. Of the remaining 103 respondents, 57 partially completed the survey and 46 fully completed it. More details in Čertanec (2015).
Regarding the content, the Obara and Peattie (2017) study showed that business entities adopted both negative and positive responsibilities in terms of CSR commitments, while in terms of human rights commitments, business entities generally focused on negative responsibilities. The issues recognized as human rights were narrower in scope than CSR, with labour rights referenced most often, while the environment, community and product safety being rarely explicitly related to human rights. On this basis, it is clear that there has not been enough awareness of the fact that many of the issues covered by CSR are actually human rights concerns. Obara’s study (2017) showed that the label of ‘human rights’ was viewed as controversial and abstract and therefore unsuitable for employees to comprehend and relate to in their activities. It demonstrated that it is better to incorporate human rights within other terms such as CSR as they are considered more positive and clear. The same result originates from Wright and Lehr’s (2006) analysis of human rights in corporate policies of 314 Global FORTUNE 500 companies. The research was conducted among FTSE 100 constituent firms. More details in Čertanec (2015). This is consistent with Institute for Human Rights and Business’s study (2011) that relatively few business entities have an explicit statement on human rights.
Regarding the strategic approach, the Obara and Peattie (2017) study observed four types of business entities regarding the extent to which human rights were integrated and implemented within the existing CSR structures and business processes. Most common were CSR strategists that perceive human rights as an integral part of CSR and both are embedded within the core strategy and governance processes. Ibid. Ibid.
CSR is a concept whereby business entities undertake to consider broader social goals in their operations, not just financial ones. One of these social goals is undoubtedly to respect the rights of stakeholders affected by their activities, i.e. human rights. The author therefore concludes that the terms CSR and human rights are interconnected: respect for human rights is a component part of CSR. The next significant question is to which extent the BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues.
The BHR issues are distinct from the CSR issues in their legal nature and content. The BHR issues are mandatory (at least in an indirect way), while the CSR issues are mandatory only in the part where business entities should comply with the regulation. This could not be confirmed in the studied CSR initiatives because they are non-binding. The exception applies to Directive 2014/95/EU that imposes mandatory reporting regarding human rights respect and in this way creates an obligation for corporate respect of human rights. The empirical research in the RS showed that business entities do not associate CSR with human rights. This can be contributed to the fact that 70 per cent of business entities believe respect for human rights in their operations is a legal requirement, while they view CSR as a purely voluntary matter.
The CSR issues cover also the BHR issues, but they go further and demand proactive company involvement. This was confirmed in the studied CSR initiatives. The analysis has shown that human rights are only a small part of CSR; the scale of activities is narrower and mostly limited to negative activities to respect human rights. Although all CSR initiatives mention human rights, the commitments are too vague, and do not offer specific instructions for business entities as to how to meet their human rights obligations. Empirical researches (for example the Obara and Peattie study) showed that business entities adopted both negative and positive responsibilities in terms of CSR commitments, while in terms of human rights commitments, business entities generally focused on negative responsibilities. The issues recognized as human rights were narrower in scope than CSR, with labour rights referenced most often. On this basis, it is clear that there has not been enough awareness of the fact that many of the issues covered by CSR are actually human rights concerns. Therefore, caution is necessary that the CSR issues do not cloud over the BHR issues.
On the other hand, the strategic approach in the implementation of these concepts is the same; the distinction originates only from the difference in the content. This was confirmed in the studied CSR initiatives, since all require a due diligence procedure in accordance with the UN GPs. None of these initiatives gives any further instructions regarding respect for human rights; neither are there any sanctions in the event of human rights abuses. The Obara and Peattie (2017) study revealed that most of the sample business entities perceive human rights as an integral part of CSR and both are embedded within the core strategy and governance processes, while on the other hand the McCorquodale, Smit, Neely and Brooks (2017) study indicated that the process of implementing a human rights due diligence is slow, occurs in stages, and there is a lack of coherent approaches across all the company’s departments. Business entities should have strategies on how to include the CSR and BHR issues into their operations and comply with them. The BHR issues can be included in CSR strategies, but they have to be clear and understandable.
In everyday business there is still not enough awareness that respect for human rights is an element of CSR. Business entities mostly associate CSR with actions that go beyond compliance with the law, and not with actions that are mandated by the law. Business entities see CSR as involving charitable donations, care for the environment, help for the local community, concern for employee welfare, etc. In their view, respect for human rights is only their duty inasmuch as it is mandated by national legislation. The fact that they do not associate the two is in large part attributable to the missing legally binding instrument that would express the connection between them. There are too many vague statements from international organisations: they lack a clear expression of the position. The OECD, UN Global Compact and similar initiatives stating that human rights are an aspect of CSR are all steps in the right direction. The main problem is that they do not state clearly, what is meant by respect for human rights. The adoption of the UN GPs and the adjustment of initiatives to bring them into alignment with them has resulted in a clearer understanding of what is meant by respect for human rights, but there are still many unanswered questions as to how to achieve it in practice.
Over time, changes in society will lead to changes in the legal regime, and legal regimes will need to adapt in order to reflect those social changes.