Author: Francis Muwonge
Business impact human rights however and wherever they operate and these impacts can be either positive i.e. employment, development and infrastructure; or negative i.e. child labor, pollution and corruption. Corporations are not only concerned about potential legal penalties for breaching human rights legislation but, are acutely aware of the impact which negative publicity around human rights practices (whether or not this results in legal action) can have on their business.
Nowadays companies are global and that means that their impacts are too. Companies operate in poor countries and post conflict countries in countries where the local governments are unable or unwilling to enforce its own laws. With all these complexities, it’s not clear as to who is responsible for preventing companies from violating human rights.
Is it the companies fault for paying less than the living wage? Or is it the governments fault for setting the minimum wage below the poverty line? Such questions keep lingering around as victims of human rights abuses find themselves trapped between two actors who have no interest in making things right.
In 2011 the UN issued a set of Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for States and companies to prevent address and remedy human rights abuses committed in business operations. These were proposed by the then UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, John Ruggie.
These UN Guiding Principles are based on three pillars that help define the responsibilities of governments and business in solving the dilemma of Human Rights violation in the corporate world.
I. State duty to protect Human Rights: Governments got to make sure that business do not violate human rights i.e. forced labor, discrimination, pollution, resettlement among other human rights violations. Governments also got a duty of making sure that these laws are implemented by ensuring; labor inspection, compliance with licensing requirements and by carrying out necessary investigations conclusively in an accountable manner and giving guidance on practice of proper business ethics.
Based on the guiding principles governments play a key role in the prevention of the violation of Human rights by businesses regardless of whether these are State owned or private corporations.
II. The corporate responsibility to respect Human Rights: Business have to refrain from violating Human Rights wherever and however they do business. Doing corporate social responsibility alone is not enough in its own, companies are obliged to uphold all human rights in territories they operate without offsetting any and this is regardless of whether the state government holds them to account or not. Companies have to perform human rights due diligence and that means talking to people whose lives they may be affecting, Policy commitment, Risk assessment, integration, communication and remediation of any pertinent issues concerning the reservation and protection of Human Rights. Just like the government’s responsibility, respecting Human Rights isn’t a switch that companies can always turn on and off it’s a continuous process.
III. Access to remedy for victims of business related abuses: if a company abuses Human Rights, governments have to make sure that the court system or other legitimate process to file a complaint and that complaint is investigated and settled. Companies have this obligation too, part of human rights due diligence is allowing people affected by the company to file their complaints and participating in the processes to make them right. Whatever route they may choose, remedy mechanisms should fit with the effective criteria defined by the guiding principles.
“An effective remedy is one that is Legitimate, Learning-focused, Predictable, Rights- compatible, Transparent, Accessible and Equitable.”
If the complaint system is slow, expensive, inaccessible or corrupt it does not count. The above principles were unanimously approved by the UN Human Rights Council and since then they have been endorsed by governments and business actors all over the world.
Businesses should often conduct due diligence assessments in order for them to understand whether poor human rights practices exist within their supply chains. Exposure of such practices by the media or NGOs can have a devastating impact on the reputation of a corporation, with a corresponding impact on consumer opinion and increased litigation risk and yet this can be avoided at all costs.
Uganda accepted a recommendation to develop a national action plan on human rights given the fact that the private sector is playing an increasingly prominent role in the country’s development. Therefore it is crucial that Uganda adopts the laws, policies and action plans needed to effectively operationalize the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
There are still some loop holes in Uganda’s Human Rights Protection Framework as regards to Business.
Article 20(2) of the Constitution explicitly recognizes that private actors have human rights responsibilities. Nevertheless, laws to regulate the human rights impact of corporate activities have weaknesses in their design, implementation and enforcement.The Employment Act and the Workers Compensation Act offer remedies for abuses and injuries arising in the course of formal employment; the Acts do not cover those in the informal sector, yet they make up the vast majority of the labor force at 80% as of 2020.
The minimum wage has not been adjusted since 1984 and stands at UGX 6,000 (Barely USD 2) per month; by contrast, the national poverty line is equivalent to USD 30 per month (MoFPED, 2014).
“The MPs and trade unions should attract investors and not chase them away. Workers MPs should help me attract factories and stop those slogans of minimum wage…,” those were the words of President Museveni in 2005 as he publicly made known his stance about the minimum wage.
Ever since then the amendments in the minimum wage bill have stalled and up to date nothing has come to pass in this regard, something that’s rather a little unfortunate.
The Mining Act obliges a mining licensee to carry out an Environment Impact Assessment and to take all necessary steps to prevent and minimize environmental pollution. However, assessment reports are rarely shared with or explained to communities, leaving them without benchmarks to hold companies accountable.
Critically, there is no requirement to assess human rights impacts.
The Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act vests the minister with broad discretionary powers and leaves Parliament without a meaningful oversight role and thus fails to establish an open and transparent procedure for determining applications for licenses (UCCA, 2016).
A lot is left to be desired for from all agencies that care enough about human rights protection of Ugandans against violations by companies whether private or state owned.
Business are failing to respect labor rights and other basic principles like free prior and informed consent in the cases of land evictions to pave way for business. National human rights institutions that comply with the Paris Principles have an important role to play in helping States identify whether relevant laws are aligned with their human rights obligations and are being effectively enforced and in providing guidance on human rights also to business enterprises and other non-State actors.