"Constructive dialogue" as a cornerstone of the human rights treaty bodies supervision

State Parties to human right treaties are required to report periodically on their progress with regard to the implementation of human rights standards. If approached in an open and sincere manner, the reporting process can be used to enhance constructive dialogue with UN human rights bodies and contribute to the enhancement of human rights protection in the reporting State Party. Using the example of Poland, and drawing from her State Party report writing experience, the author analyses the consequent stages of the reporting procedure and 'constructive dialogue' to indicate what potential they might have if used and approached in a positive way

The Government and Civil Society roles in the CSR: the case of Poland

Paper presented at the Third Core Conference: The potential of CSR to drive integration in an enlarged Europe held in Nottingham, June 19-20, 2008Taking for granted that a joint action of all actors of the society is necessary to ensure sustainable development and human rights protection universally, and that State and civil society roles not only complement each other, but often overlap, this paper attempts to define the roles of the State and civil society in the area of CSR, focusing on Poland as a case study. The role of State with regards to CSR is approached from a human rights perspective. States are not only obliged to ensure that appropriate legislation protecting human rights from abuse by business, is in place and is enforced, but also have an explicit duty under ratified treaties to promote human rights. The author argues that promoting CSR should be viewed as a way of contributing to a better realization and respect for human rights and therefore constitutes part of a State’s obligations. Finally, the author provides a number of suggestions regarding State policies, strategy,‘leading by example’ approach and relevant institutional frameworks, which aim at encouraging CSR practices among companies and involve civil society organisations. These, due to their very nature and purpose, could be a State’s natural ally in this quest, particularly in the area of multi-stakeholder engagement, ensuring mechanisms of verification and raising awareness.CORE is financed by the European Commission, Sixth Framework Programme and it is coordinated by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)

The Role of the State in Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights and Business with Special Consideration of Poland

Recent years have seen improvements in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) consistency and interconnectedness. It is argued that one of the reasons for this development is the adoption of a clear, universal UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework for Business and Human Rights and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which encouraged CSR to be understood as a management process with the normative substance that it has, to some extent, been lacking. The business community was actively engaged in developing and testing the UN Guiding Principles in practice. Yet equally important, if not more so, is the role the Framework envisages being played by states, particularly with regards to the skilled implementation of the UN Guiding Principles and the development by states of legal and incentives frameworks aligned with them and aimed at improving the business and social environment within its jurisdiction. This article examines the UN Guiding Principles provisions concerning states and their obligations, as well as looks at how their implementation advances in the case of Poland. It also offers some suggestions for a way forward where relevant

TOWARDS EU-WIDE MANDATORY HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE FOR BUSINESS: A BREAKTHROUGH IN EUROPE AND BEYOND?

<p>In March 2022, the European Commission presented its long-awaited legislative proposal on the EU-wide human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) for business. This article argues that the proposed Directive fails to be an effective and innovative legislation in three respects. Firstly, it does not draw lessons from the shortcomings of the to-date regulatory policy relating to business and human rights. It mainly consolidates at the EU level the status quo of extant due diligence legislation in Europe. Secondly, the proposal falls short of the established international standards and its own objectives insofar as it fails to establish instruments for effectively preventing and remedying human rights and environmental harm. Thirdly, the proposal's normative preference for process- (rather than result-) oriented HREDD risks reducing it to yet another compliance instrument. Beside amending these shortcomings, to achieve a breakthrough, the upcoming legislation should in any case define HREDD as the legal standard of care; the compliance with which does not per se exclude civil liability. The general negotiation approach of the Council is not proposing much improvement in that regard. The stakes for the European Parliament's possible role to raise the bar are thus very high.</p&gt