Recent years have heralded increasing attention to the role of multinational corporations in regard to human rights violations. The concept of complicity has been of particular interest in this regard. This article explores the conceptual differences between silent complicity in particular and other, more “conventional” forms of complicity. Despite their far-reaching normative implications, these differences are often overlooked. Rather than being connected to specific actions as is the case for other forms of complicity, the concept of silent complicity is tied to the identity, or the moral stature of the accomplice. More specifically, it helps us expose multinational corporations in positions of political authority. Political authority breeds political responsibility. Thus, corporate responsibility in regard to human rights may go beyond “doing no harm” and include a positive obligation to protect. Making sense of this duty leads to a discussion of the scope and limits of legitimate human rights advocacy by corporations.

Reference: Wettstein, F. (2010), Journal of Business Ethics, The Duty to Protect: Corporate Complicity, Political Responsibility, and Human Rights Advocacy, 96(1), pp 33-47.

Source: Springer Link

--Laureen van Breen.....2016-08-11 13:13:20 UTC

Article title: Sport events and human rights: positive promotion or negative erosion?

Authors: Andrew Adams & Mark Piekarz

Abstract:

In this paper, we build upon recent scholarship on sport event legacies to identify, categorise, and describe the key processes underpinning sport event interactions with human rights (HR). It develops a simple, representative model to illustrate the points where sport events bisect with HR and considers what factors can modify these impacts. The development of this model is based on a meta-review of literature and examination of case studies. It is clear from our analysis that sport events are malleable, symbolic, and political occurrences that can be positioned to provide evidence and support of benefice or harm to the cause of HR. The model also provides a nuanced approach to consider how sport event organisers may begin to think about the tactics and strategies that might be employed, and how they might leverage HR through their sport event. The model also indicates that HR, being similarly malleable political tools, are paradoxical in application in the sport event context and consequently cannot be assumed to be taken-for-granted as event outcomes or outputs.

Reference: Adams, A., & Piekarz, M. (2015) Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Sport events and human rights: positive promotion or negative erosion?, 7(3), pp 220-236. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2014.997864

Source: Taylor & Francis Online

--Laureen van Breen.....2016-08-11 13:41:06 UTC

Article title: Companies can help advance human rights; Sochi shows they rarely do (7 Febuary 2014)

Author: Ella Skybenko

Key message:

Human Rights Watch urged the main corporate sponsors of the Sochi games – Atos, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, McDonald's, Omega, Panasonic, Procter & Gamble, Samsung and Visa – to speak out against the human rights abuses. Eight of them provided written responses saying that they had raised concerns with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and some made general public statements against discrimination. However, none of them explicitly agreed to urge the IOC to press Russia to repeal its shameful anti-gay law.

A recent study by NGO Swedwatch concluded that one of the reasons many companies do not have have procedures for mitigating the risk of adverse human rights impacts related to sponsoring activities, is that the Olympic movement lacks a human rights policy.

Source: The Guardian - Sustainable Business

--Laureen van Breen.....2016-08-11 13:53:32 UTC

HUMAN RIGHTS AND MSE SPONSORS - What's at stake?

To assess the human rights impact of their activities, many Olympic and FIFA sponsors have recognised the need for human rights due diligence in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles). According to findings by IHRB in Striving for Excellence: Mega-Sporting Events and Human Rights (see page 25), the majority of global Olympic and FIFA sponsors already have a human rights policy that explicitly commits to respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A policy commitment of this kind is the first step set out under the Guiding Principles in order for companies to demonstrate that they respect human rights. The Guiding Principles also urge companies to undertake a range of human rights due diligence measures, including assessing their human rights impacts and engaging directly with human rights experts and affected stakeholders; and to provide victims of human rights abuse with access to remedy, for example through setting up grievance mechanisms.

For full text see: Mega Sporting Events - Institute for Human Rights and Business

--Laureen van Breen.....2016-08-11 14:00:47 UTC

Athletes might have the answer.

--Hala @WR.....2017-01-02 14:28:03 UTC

Further Reading

+Discussion