Background
Over through the past five decades, Peru’s environmental management system has grown into a comprehensive complex of legislation, policies, as well as institutions that strive to address the country’s environmental challenges. Recently, progress has been made in decreasing deforestation; developing integrated water resource management; and constructing the region’s most unified Natural Protected Area network. Peru has lately launched a number of measures to further integrate the many aspects of its environmental management system. For Peru’s attempts to combat poverty, decrease inequality, and build a more robust and productive environment, environmental deterioration and the loss of natural resources represent a difficult hurdle[1]. This country’s rapid urbanisation is a major contributor to environmental deterioration. Because of increased population and economic activity in certain locations, air pollution levels have risen, putting more people at risk of its harmful effects. The following section discusses the aspect of advising advise the PPP with respect to its obligation towards the Pillar II of the UNGPs as well as the obligation to respect human rights with respect to the operations, it has been carrying out.
According to UN Guiding Principle II, corporations must uphold standards of human rights compliance. This applies to all businesses, regardless of sector or location, across the world. It is therefore applicable to both big and small construction corporations in Peru. However, although some of the major multinational corporations working in the country have already had prior experience in resolving human rights concerns as well as executing the measures outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles within the ambit of the corporate duty to comply, there are still several hurdles in firms adhering to and executing the utmost environmental and operational norms, as well as social and human rights standards, across their activities on a daily basis[2]. Compliance with national regulations is a foremost step for regional and national enterprises to reduce negative impacts and improve their ecological, human and social rights performances to entice new business partners. The UNGP entails the three steps pursuant to the corporate responsibility as set out within three steps, that is development of policy commitment towards the human rights and throughout the company, further undertaking of due diligence in relation to the human rights as well as providing cooperation such that remedies are easily established wherever any kind of abuse or operational level grievance are there[3]. With respect to the case of PPP corporations, its operations of constructing a car park at the base of Macchu Picchu (in Peru) as claimed by the local residents have contaminated local groundwater. Local residents at the same time, also allege that their health had been affected due to the contaminated groundwater, therefore, in order to survive for the company in Peru’s society, the company is required to comply by its duty towards society. It will require that the company indulged in human due diligence process is comprised of various sub-steps such that it is ensured that identification of factors affecting these human rights to get affected are assessed, integration of these findings, tracking the progress as well as communication of this information to various stakeholder[4].
Corporate Responsibility towards Human Rights Compliance as per UN Guiding Principle II
In accordance with the UN Guiding Principles, corporations are held accountable for the human rights implications of their business partners, including as their contractors, suppliers, including exploration partners, and this obligation to respect applies to their commercial partnerships as well. The acts of business partners who offer goods or services or engage in a company’s operations should be assessed and addressed by all firms, large and small. With more expertise in human rights, larger multinationals can take a proactive role in assisting local construction sector businesses and other business partners in implementing good practices and engaging Peru employees. In order to comply with applicable international rules, local enterprises will likely require unambiguous messaging, contractual obligations and compliance, as well as help for capacity building[5].
International human rights law does not now force States to control the extraterritorial actions of corporations based within their territory and/or jurisdiction, as they do not have to. As long as there is a recognized jurisdictional basis for doing so, they are not normally forbidden from doing so, either. Some human rights treaty authorities propose that home States take measures to avoid mistreatment abroad by corporate companies under their control. Global corporations, notably in less developed nations, were not adequately regulated by the laws of individual countries because of the rate of economic development and the States’ own international human rights obligations, which were not being met. In the wake of human rights allegations, businesses reacted in a variety of ways, involving through voluntary efforts and self-regulation. CSR emerged from corporate philanthropy as a phrase to describe these kinds of activities[6]. Collaborations such as supply chain codes of conduct and multistakeholder, public-private activities are common examples of CSR initiatives., and therefore contaminated ground water due to PPP corporation’s activities is also notable instance wherein company shall take measures to correct it as a part of CSR. The need to protect human rights rests on the foundation of adherence to the law. International human rights values should guide businesses in the face of contradictory legal mandates. The danger of being implicated in egregious human rights violations must be considered a legal requirement everywhere they do business. CSR and public relations are more market-driven operations; thus, they ought not be given the primary duty for recognizing and resolving the dangers of such abuses[7].
A variety of tactics have been taken by states in this area. Some of these are national policies having global. The actual and perceived legitimacy of state acts can be influenced by a variety of circumstances, such as whether or not they are based on multilateral agreement. Because of globalization’s widening governance gaps, businesses and human rights are in a problem today because they lack the ability to regulate the negative effects of economic forces and actors on society[8].
In most cases, international human rights treaties does not in any way impose direct legal responsibilities on economic firms. States have a responsibility to ensure that their international human rights responsibilities are reflected in domestic legislation and enforced. As it turns out, all states have laws in place to safeguard workers’ rights, including labour laws, nondiscrimination legislation, health and safety regulations and the like[9].
Challenges Encountered by Firms in Adhering to Social and Human Rights Standards
There are two parts to the company’s remedial obligation. When it comes to human rights, a firm has an obligation to assist in the rehabilitation of harm it has caused or contributed to. Providing for or participating in valid remedy methods, such as a court or a non-judicial grievance mechanism, that are relevant to the harm’s nature is what this implies here. In the event that the corporation is accused of causing or contributing to injury, it has the option of taking the matter to court. Further, corporations should set up or engage in channels for operational-level grievances in order to avoid and remedy grievances as early as possible, before they have human rights implications, as in case of PPP corporation. Using such systems as a feedback loop can help uncover specific problems or patterns, which can then be used to prevent them in the future. In addition, industry organizations and others should work together to ensure the availability of appropriate procedures for filing grievances[10].
Human rights may not be fully addressed by national laws, which may be weak or not applicable to all individuals, and which may not be enforced by the government and the court. It is clear from the Guiding Principles that businesses should adhere to the higher standard while national laws fall short of internationally recognized human rights; however, when national laws conflict with those standards, businesses should look for ways to uphold the principles of those standards while remaining within the confinements of national law[11].
Conclusion
As a result, human rights recognised by the international community are important to businesses in ways that go beyond simply following the letter of the law, therefore, PPP corporation should take that into consideration such that problem of contaminated water due to its operational activities are resolved or else, it can affect the viability of company’s activities in Peru. People’s human rights can be favourably or adversely impacted by the acts of corporate companies. When companies are not paying enough attention to this issue, they can and do infringe on human rights. Businesses have the ability to influence the human rights of a wide range of stakeholders, including the people who work for them directly, as well as those in their supply chains, the neighbourhoods in which they operate, and the people who utilise the products or services they provide. They can have a direct or indirect influence on nearly every human right recognised by the United Nations. Depending on the industry and the conditions, certain rights will be more important than others in practise, and businesses will focus their attention on them. However, in principle, any business might have a negative influence on any recognised human right and therefore, it is their ultimate responsibility to undertake measures in timely manner.
Buhmann K, ‘Business And Human Rights: Understanding The UN Guiding Principles From The Perspective Of Transnational Business Governance Interactions’ [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal
Fasterling B, and Demuijnck G, ‘Human Rights In The Void? Due Diligence In The UN Guiding Principles On Business And Human Rights’ (2013) 116 Journal of Business Ethics
GN, ‘Guiding Principle 2 | National Action Plans On Business And Human Rights’ (National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, 2022) <https://globalnaps.org/ungp/guiding-principle-2.> accessed 24 January 2022
Hamm B, ‘The Struggle For Legitimacy In Business And Human Rights Regulation—A Consideration Of The Processes Leading To The UN Guiding Principles And An International Treaty’ [2021] Human Rights Review
Lagoutte S, ‘The State Duty To Protect Against Business-Related Human Rights Abuses. Unpacking Pillar 1 And 3 Of The UN Guiding Principles On Human Rights And Business’ [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal
Reif L, ‘The UN Guiding Principles On Business And Human Rights And Networked Governance: Improving The Role Of Human Rights Ombudsman Institutions As National Remedies’ (2017) 17 Human Rights Law Review
THOMPSON B, ‘Determining Criteria To Evaluate Outcomes Of Businesses’ Provision Of Remedy: Applying A Human Rights-Based Approach’ (2016) 2 Business and Human Rights Journal
UNGP, ‘The UN Guiding Principles On Business And Human Rights : UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework’ (Ungpreporting.org, 2022) <https://www.ungpreporting.org/resources/the-ungps/> accessed 24 January 2022
Wettstein F, ‘Normativity, Ethics, And The UN Guiding Principles On Business And Human Rights: A Critical Assessment’ (2015) 14 Journal of Human Rights
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
