Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks - 1.! November 2013
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Using Leverage in Business Relationships
! to Reduce Human Rights Risks
!
!
!
!
November 2013
1.!
Rights and Permissions!
Quoting, copying and/or reproducing portions or all of this work is welcomed provided
the following citation is used:
Shift, “ Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks”. New
York, 2013.
Cover photographs: iStockphoto
!
Shift!
Shift is an independent, non-profit center for business and human rights practice. It is
staffed by a team that was centrally involved in shaping and writing the UN Guiding Prin-
ciples on Business and Human Rights, and is chaired by the author of the Guiding Prin-
ciples, Professor John Ruggie.
!
Shift provides the expert knowledge and guidance for businesses and governments to
put the UN Guiding Principles into practice. Based on lessons from this work, Shift de-
velops public guidance materials to support improved practices for the respect and pro-
tection of human rights globally.
!
Further information on Shift and its work is available at www.shiftproject.org or at the fol-
lowing contact details:
!
Shift
432 Park Avenue South, 4th floor
New York, NY 10016
USA
email: info@shiftproject.org
!
!
!
!
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !1
I. Introduction!............................................................................................................3!
1. Leverage and the UN Guiding Principles ....................................................3
2. Distinguishing Responsibility from Leverage ...............................................5
3. Leverage Over Whom, How and for what Purpose? ...................................5
5. Identifying Opportunities for Leverage .........................................................7
6. Building the Skills of Persuasion ..................................................................7
II. EXTERNAL LEVERAGE!.......................................................................................8!
1. Leverage over Suppliers ...............................................................................9
2. Leverage over Joint Venture and Other Horizontal Business Partners .........9
3. Leverage over Customers, Clients and End-Users .....................................10
4. Leverage over Government .........................................................................10
III. INTERNAL LEVERAGE !.....................................................................................11!
1. Through Top Management Messaging .......................................................11
2. Through Internal Peer Influence ..................................................................12
3. Through Exposure to Information ................................................................12
4. Through Engagement and Offers of Support ..............................................12
5. Through External Demand ..........................................................................13
IV. NEXT STEPS!......................................................................................................13!
ANNEX A: TYPES OF LEVERAGE!..........................................................................14!
1. LEVERAGE OVER SUPPLIERS/CONTRACTORS .......................................14
2. LEVERAGE OVER JOINT VENTURE OR OTHER BUSINESS PARTNERS ..17
3. LEVERAGE OVER BUSINESS CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS/END-USERS.........19
4. LEVERAGE OVER GOVERNMENT ACTORS..............................................21
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !2
I. Introduction report
aggregates
some
key
ideas
that
contributed
to
or
resulted
from
the
discus-‐
! sions.
!
On
October
31
and
November
1
2013,
Shi7
held
the
fourth
in
its
series
of
work-‐
shops
with
companies
par@cipa@ng
in
its
Business
Learning
Program,
co-‐hosted
with
1. Leverage and the UN
the
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
Ini@a-‐ Guiding Principles
@ve
of
Harvard
Kennedy
School.
The
workshop
focused
on
the
concept
of
!
leverage
in
the
context
of
the
UN
Guiding
Leverage
gets
to
the
heart
of
what
compa-‐
Principles
on
Business
and
Human
Rights.
nies
can
realis@cally
be
expected
to
do
in
! prac@ce
when
faced
with
human
rights
The
concept
of
‘leverage’
plays
a
key
role
challenges.
Even
when
companies
have
a
for
companies
in
mee@ng
the
corporate
dominant
or
influen@al
commercial
posi-‐
responsibility
to
respect
human
rights.
@on
in
a
business
rela@onship,
there
are
The
Commentary
to
Guiding
Principle
19
many
ques@ons
about
how
to
iden@fy
and
states
that
leverage
is
considered
to
exist
exercise
the
most
effec@ve
forms
of
lever-‐
where
the
company
has
the
ability
to
ef-‐ age.
At
the
same
@me,
every
company
–
fect
change
in
the
wrongful
prac@ces
of
regardless
of
size,
industry
or
geography
–
an
en@ty
that
causes
harm.
In
other
faces
situa@ons
in
which
they
do
not
have,
words,
leverage
is
a
company’s
ability
to
or
do
not
perceive,
sufficient
leverage
to
influence
the
behavior
of
others.
influence
the
behavior
of
others.
This
! raises
ques@ons
about
what
steps
can
be
As
global
experience
implemen@ng
the
taken
to
create
or
increase
leverage;
what
Guiding
Principles
con@nues
to
grow,
there
steps
could
have
been
taken
earlier
in
the
is
an
increasingly
rich
body
of
company
rela@onship
to
have
created
leverage;
and
experiences
in
rela@on
to
lever-‐ when
and
how
to
consid-‐
age:
how
companies
create,
er
termina@ng
a
busi-‐
build
and
use
their
leverage,
The practice of leverage is criti- ness
rela@onship.
As
across
a
broad
range
of
busi-‐ cal if we are ever going to reach one
par@cipant
noted,
ness
rela@onships
–
upstream
the scale and systematic impact “the
prac@ce
of
lever-‐
with
suppliers,
downstream
that we need with regard to hu- age
is
cri@cal
if
we
are
with
customers
and
end-‐users,
ever
going
to
reach
the
man rights respect”
scale
and
systema@c
and
horizontally
with
joint
ven-‐
ture
partners
and
government
! impact
that
we
need
counterparts.
Drawing
on
this
Workshop participant with
regard
to
human
experience,
the
workshop
rights
respect.”
sought
to
generate
both
prac@-‐ !
cal
and
crea@ve
ideas
for
companies
on
The
Guiding
Principles
set
out
the
three
how
to
exercise
leverage
when
they
find
ways
in
which
companies
can
be
involved
themselves
involved
–
or
at
risk
of
in-‐ with
human
rights
impacts:
cause,
contri-‐
volvement
–
in
adverse
human
rights
im-‐ bu@on
and
‘linkage’.
Each
implies
a
differ-‐
pacts.
The
workshop
operated
under
the
ent
kind
of
responsibility,
and
leverage
Chatham
House
rule,
and
accordingly
this
plays
a
different
role
in
each
case.
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !3! pany,
but
is
nevertheless
directly
linked
to
Cause:
Where
a
company
causes
an
ad-‐ its
opera@ons,
products
or
services
verse
human
rights
impact,
it
should
take
through
a
business
rela@onship,
the
com-‐
the
necessary
steps
to
cease
or
prevent
pany
has
a
forward-‐looking
responsibility
the
impact,
and
remediate
it.
While
ad-‐ to
avoid
the
impact
con@nuing
or
recur-‐
dressing
such
impacts
will
frequently
be
ring.
The
business
rela@onship
may
be
a
within
a
company’s
control,
leverage
may
direct
one
or
with
an
en@ty
more
remote
be
relevant
in
certain
instances,
such
as
in
the
company’s
value
chain.
In
this
‘link-‐
where
a
company
is
under
pressure
to
take
age’
situa@on,
the
company’s
leverage
ac@ons
that
would
harm
human
rights,
for
over
the
en@ty
concerned
becomes
a
cen-‐
example
by
a
government
or
by
the
pur-‐ tral
factor
in
determining
the
appropriate
chasing
decisions
of
a
buyer.
ac@on.
If
the
company
has
leverage
to
pre-‐
! vent
or
mi@gate
the
adverse
impact,
it
Contribute:
Where
a
company
contributes
should
exercise
it.
If
the
company
lacks
or
may
contribute
to
an
adverse
human
leverage,
it
should
seek
to
increase
it,
for
rights
impact,
it
should
take
the
necessary
example
by
offering
capacity-‐building
or
steps
to
cease
or
prevent
its
contribu@on,
other
incen@ves,
or
collabora@ng
with
and
use
its
leverage
to
mi@gate
any
re-‐ other
actors.
Where
this
proves
impossi-‐
maining
impact
to
the
greatest
extent
pos-‐ ble,
it
should
consider
ending
the
rela@on-‐
sible.
It
should
also
take
steps
to
ensure
ship,
taking
into
account
credible
assess-‐
the
remedia@on
of
any
actual
impact
that
ments
of
poten@al
adverse
human
rights
has
occurred.
impacts
of
doing
so.
! !
Linkage:
Where
an
adverse
impact
is
nei-‐ !
ther
caused
nor
contributed
to
by
a
com-‐ !
UNDERSTANDING
IMPACT
AND
RESPONSIBILITY
If we have… …then under the Guiding Principles we should…
…caused
(or
may
cause)
the
…cease
or
prevent
the
ac@on
…and
remediate
the
harm.
harm… causing
the
harm…
!
…contributed
to
(or
may
…cease
or
prevent
the
ac@on
…and
contribute
to
remedia-‐
contribute
to)
the
harm… contribu@ng
to
the
harm;
@on
of
the
harm.
use
leverage
to
mi@gate
the
risk
that
any
remaining
impact
con@nues
or
recurs
…
…idenLfied
a
linkage
between
…use
leverage
to
mi@gate
the
the
harm
and
our
operaLons,
risk
of
the
impact
con@nuing
or
products
or
services,
but
no
recurring
to
the
greatest
extent
cause
or
contribuLon… possible.
! !
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !42. Distinguishing company
had
actually
established
that
it
was
not
linked
to
a
par@cular
human
rights
Responsibility from Leverage impact
as
defined
by
the
UN
Guiding
Prin-‐
! ciples.
Ironically,
that
had
helped
remove
that
issue
from
discussions
within
the
Discussions
during
the
workshop
high-‐
company
and
enabled
the
leadership
to
lighted
the
importance
of
dis@nguishing
focus
on
what
other
reasons
and
opportu-‐
between
the:
ni@es
it
may
have
to
help
address
what
a)
process
of
iden@fying
what
responsibili-‐
was
a
systemic
challenge
relevant
to
its
ty
a
company
has
with
regard
to
a
human
wider
opera@ons.
In
the
end,
it
did
exer-‐
rights
impact,
and
cise
leverage
and
with
posi@ve
results.
b)
use
of
leverage
to
address
the
impact.
Interes@ngly,
company
staff
felt
that
it
was
the
ability
to
deal
on
a
principled
basis
Two meanings Leverage over
Impact on those
exposed to risk of “Influence” those who can with
the
sugges@on
that
they
had
a
re-‐
effect change sponsibility
to
exercise
leverage,
and
to
explain
their
posi@on,
that
cleared
the
Impact Responsibility
space
for
them
to
take
ac@on
on
different
grounds.
Otherwise,
fears
of
seeng
an
Leverage Action ! impossible
precedent
(“wherever
we
have
! leverage
we
are
responsible
for
impacts,
Case
studies
used
in
the
workshop
empha-‐ even
when
they
are
unconnected
to
our
sized
that
where
these
two
discussions
get
products”)
may
have
made
this
more
diffi-‐
confused,
with
responsibility
being
linked
cult.
to
leverage
instead
of
impacts,
this
can
lead
to
poor
outcomes.
! 3. Leverage Over Whom,
In
one
case,
a
company
had
iden@fied
that
it
had
limited
leverage
in
rela@on
to
one
of
How and for what Purpose?
its
business
rela@onships
and
deduced
from
that
that
it
had
no
responsibility
for
!
The
workshop
highlighted
three
ques@ons
human
rights
harms
caused
by
the
busi-‐
that
a
company
can
ask
itself
when
it
is
ness
concerned.
A
more
rigorous
analysis
seeking
to
build
and
exercise
leverage
over
would
have
shown
that
a
responsibility
an
en@ty:
existed
due
to
a
‘linkage’
between
the
im-‐
1)
Over
whom
am
I
seeking
to
ex-‐
pacts
concerned
and
the
company’s
ser-‐
ercise
leverage?
vices.
This
would
then
have
created
space
2)
How
could
I
exercise
leverage?
for
a
construc@ve
discussion
of
the
reali-‐
3)
What
purpose
could
different
@es
of
its
limited
leverage,
as
well
as
cre-‐
forms
of
leverage
achieve?
a@ve
thinking
about
how
it
might
increase
its
leverage.
Instead,
by
confusing
the
is-‐
!
sues,
it
found
itself
in
a
significant
dispute
a.
Over
whom?
over
the
ques@on
of
its
responsibility
and
Discussions
looked
first
at
the
range
of
its
reputa@on
was
harmed
as
a
result.
business
rela@onships
through
which
a
! company
might
be
at
risk
of
involvement
Conversely,
another
case
showed
a
com-‐ with
a
nega@ve
human
rights
impact.
pany
that
had
deliberately
separated
these
These
were
the
actors
over
whom
it
might
two
discussions
and
found
it
beneficial
for
be
seeking
to
exercise
leverage.
The
prin-‐
clear
and
consistent
decision-‐making.
The
cipal
rela@onships
were
iden@fied
as:
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !5• Up-‐stream
suppliers
!
• Joint
venture
or
other
‘horizontal’
C.
Leverage
together
with
business
business
partners
partners
• Down-‐stream
business
customers,
-‐
leverage
created
through
collec@ve
ac-‐
clients
or
end-‐users
@on
with
other
companies
in
or
beyond
• Government.
the
same
industry.
! !
b.
How?
D.
Leverage
through
bilateral
en-‐
gagement
These
actors
were
then
coupled
with
five
-‐
leverage
generated
through
engaging
bi-‐
categories
addressing
how
a
company
laterally
and
separately
with
one
or
more
could
exercise
leverage:
other
actors,
such
as:
government,
busi-‐
! ness
peers,
an
interna@onal
organiza@on,
or
a
civil
society
organiza@on.
A.
TradiLonal
commercial
leverage
-‐
leverage
that
sits
within
the
ac@vi@es
the
!
company
rou@nely
undertakes
in
commer-‐ E.
Leverage
through
mulL-‐stakehold-‐
cial
rela@onships,
such
as
contrac@ng.
er
collaboraLon
! -‐
leverage
generated
through
collabora@ve
ac@on
–
collec@vely
with
business
peers,
B.
Broader
business
leverage
-‐
leverage
that
a
company
can
exercise
on
governments,
interna@onal
organiza@ons
its
own
but
through
ac@vi@es
that
are
not
and/or
civil
society
organiza@ons.
rou@ne
or
typical
in
commercial
rela@on
ships,
such
as
capacity-‐building.
!
FIGURE
1:
FIVE
CATEGORIES
FOR
HOW
A
COMPANY
CAN
EXERCISE
LEVERAGE
A.
TradiLonal
commercial
leverage
B.
Broader
internal
leverage
C.
Leverage
together
with
business
peers
D.
Leverage
through
bilateral
engagement
with
one
or
more
third
parLes
E.
Leverage
through
mulL-‐stakeholder
collaboraLon
Figure 1 does not represent the universe of a company’s necessary stakeholder engagement efforts, nor is it
intended to suggest a sequencing of approaches or that one is more or less valid than any other.
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !6c.
For
what
purpose?
plementa@on
of
an
ac@on
plan
to
address
human
rights
risks,
or
on
the
key
issues
Ul@mately,
leverage
is
about
crea@ng
the
raised
through
its
grievance
mechanism,
opportunity
to
change
how
people
think
gives
an
opportunity
for
follow-‐up
en-‐
and
behave.
In
the
context
of
the
UN
gagement
on
human
rights
developments.
Guiding
Principles,
it
is
about
changing
the
!
thinking
and
behavior
of
key
people
within
Poten@al
“moments
of
trac@on”
were
seen
a
supplier,
contractor,
business
partner,
to
include:
customer,
client
or
government,
where
• Contract
nego@a@on
their
organiza@on’s
ac@ons
are
increasing
• Licensing
agreements/renewal
risk
to
human
rights.
• Seeng
qualifica@on
criteria
for
bidding
processes
Par@cipants
discussed
different
purposes
• Periodic
reports
on
implementa@on
of
a
of
leverage
within
this
wider
goal
of
chang-‐ service
or
plan
of
ac@on
ing
thinking
and
behavior.
In
broad
terms,
• Renewal
of
service
agreements
these
were:
• Points
when
services
or
products
require
• To
oblige
another
en@ty
to
address
an
maintenance
issue
• Disbursement
of
funds
• To
oblige
another
en@ty
to
engage
in
dis-‐ • Monitoring/audit
engagements
cussion
about
an
issue
• Provision
of
technical
or
advisory
as-‐
• To
engage
another
en@ty
in
order
to
per-‐ sistance
suade
them
to
address
an
issue.
• Processes/inves@ga@ons
for
addressing
complaints.
Oblige Engage Persuade
!
6. Building the Skills of
These
approaches
can
be
thought
of
as
ranging
along
a
spectrum
of
ways
of
exer-‐ Persuasion
cising
leverage,
as
represented
in
the
Fig-‐
ure
above.
!
In
prac@ce,
discussions
highlighted
that
leverage
for
real
behavioral
change
more
5. Identifying Opportunities for typically
comes
through
persuasion
than
through
obliga@on.
This
in
turn
implies
a
Leverage need
for
par@cular
skill
sets
among
staff
who
handle
key
business
rela@onships.
! One
company
par@cipant
talked
about
Par@cipants
also
discussed
a
range
of
spe-‐ training
they
ran
for
staff
on
the
“art
of
cific
“moments
of
trac@on”
when
there
influencing”.
Cialdini’s
“Six
Principles”
may
be
a
par@cular
opportunity
to
exercise
were
introduced
from
the
dispute
resolu-‐
leverage.
These
would
be
moments
worth
@on
area
as
a
useful
resource
when
think-‐
iden@fying
at
the
start
of
a
rela@onship
in
ing
about
the
skills
of
persuasion.
order
to
structure
them
into
that
rela@on-‐
ship
to
the
extent
possible.
For
example,
although
a
lender
may
have
limited
lever-‐
age
a7er
loan
covenants
with
a
client
are
agreed,
building
into
the
covenant
a
re-‐
quirement
that
the
client
reports
on
im-‐
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !7Cialdini’s
Six
Principles:
The
Art
of
Persuasion
Robert
Cialdini
is
a
social
psychologist
whose
research
suggests
that
there
are
six
key
principles
that
underlie
all
approaches
to
influencing
others,
based
on
basic
human
ins@ncts.
These
are:
• Reciprocity:
the
tendency
to
want
to
return
a
favor
• Commitment
and
Consistency:
the
tendency
to
wish
to
honor
commitments
and
be
true
to
one’s
self-‐image
• Social
proof:
the
tendency
to
do
things
one
sees
other
people
doing
• Liking:
the
tendency
to
be
persuaded
by
people
one
likes
• Authority:
the
tendency
to
obey
authority
figures
• Scarcity:
the
tendency
to
want
something
that
is
in
short
supply.
For
more
on
Cialdini’s
Principles,
see
“Secrets
from
the
Science
of
Persuasion”
at:
hmp://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw
FIGURE
2:
DECISION
TREE
FOR
USING
AND
BUILDING
LEVERAGE
The
following
decision
tree
sets
out
a
sequence
of
ques@ons
a
company
can
use
to
explore
what
leverage
it
can
use
or
generate
to
address
human
rights
risks
arising
in
its
business
rela@onships.
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !8II. EXTERNAL in
the
rela@onship.
However,
there
are
many
instances
in
which
buyers
lack
such
a
strong
posi@on,
as
well
as
instances
where
LEVERAGE suppliers
themselves
have
greater
com-‐
! mercial
clout
than
their
buyers
or
cus-‐
tomers.
Nevertheless,
the
expecta@on
Workshop
par@cipants
shared
examples
remains
that
companies
will
take
appro-‐
from
their
experience
of
ways
in
which
priate
steps
to
influence
supplier
behavior.
companies
have
been
able
to
exercise
leverage
to
mi@gate
actual
or
poten@al
!
While
there
may
be
various
possibili@es
human
rights
impacts
with
regard
to
busi-‐
for
crea@ng
leverage
with
regard
to
suppli-‐
ness
rela@onships.
Some
of
these
were
ers,
par@cipants
agreed
that
the
deeper
in
more
compliance-‐based
approaches,
and
the
supply
chain
that
a
human
rights
chal-‐
others
were
more
interest-‐based
–
aimed
lenge
occurs,
the
less
possible
it
is
to
cre-‐
at
appealing
to
or
increasing
the
interests
ate
change
though
the
of
the
other
en@ty
in
meet-‐
use
of
audits.
In
ing
certain
standards
of
other
words,
the
prac@ce.
This
sec@on
re-‐ “We have limited leverage with our sup-
further
away
the
views
some
of
the
par@cu-‐ pliers because we are a small buyer. By
company
is
from
lar
challenges
and
oppor-‐
teaming up with other larger companies the
en@ty
it
is
seek-‐
tuni@es
for
leverage
with
i n g
t o
e x e r c i s e
regard
to
the
four
main
from our industry, we created combined
leverage
over,
the
types
of
business
rela@on-‐ leverage.”
more
collabora@ve
ship
iden@fied:
suppliers;
Workshop participant
the
approach
will
joint
venture
and
other
typically
need
to
be.
horizontal
business
part-‐
ners;
business
customers,
!
It
was
noted
that
an@-‐trust
issues
some-‐
clients
or
end-‐users;
and
governments.
@mes
get
raised
as
a
block
on
such
collab-‐
Annex
A
sets
out
in
a
table
a
range
of
ex-‐
ora@on
with
regard
to
supply
chains.
amples
of
leverage
discussed
at
the
work-‐
Many
par@cipants
commented
that
in
shop,
and
organized
in
terms
of
the
actor
prac@ce
most
industry
or
mul@-‐stakehold-‐
‘over
whom’
leverage
is
exercised
and
the
er
ini@a@ves
have
established
clear
ways
of
five
suggested
categories
for
‘how’
lever-‐
defining
what
may
and
may
not
be
dis-‐
age
may
be
exercised.
A
final
column
indi-‐
cussed
in
these
collabora@ons,
and
that
cates
‘why’
(for
what
purpose)
that
mode
there
is
considerable
la@tude
for
legal
col-‐
of
leverage
may
be
useful.
! labora@on
provided
compe@@ve
issues
such
as
pricing
are
not
discussed.
1. Leverage over Suppliers 2. Leverage over Joint
! Venture and Other Horizontal
As
companies
look
upstream
to
their
sup-‐
pliers,
there
is
o7en
a
par@cular
expecta-‐ Business Partners
@on
that
they
will
have
sufficient
leverage
to
require
suppliers
to
take
the
necessary
!
steps
to
respect
human
rights.
This
may
Horizontal
business
rela@onships
pose
dis-‐
be
the
case,
par@cularly
where
the
com-‐ @nct
challenges
for
companies
with
re-‐
pany
has
a
dominant
commercial
posi@on
spect
to
building
and
exercising
leverage.
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !9Companies
(for
instance,
in
extrac@ve,
A
company’s
rela@onships
with
its
down-‐
construc@on,
and
telecommunica@ons
in-‐ stream
business
customers
and
clients
can
dustries)
may
be
junior
partners
in
joint
raise
similar
challenges
to
those
with
its
ventures,
joint
opera@ng
agreements
or
upstream
suppliers,
in
that
these
rela@on-‐
consor@a,
and
therefore
somewhat
reliant
ships
may
be
remote
and
indirect.
In
more
on
their
business
partners
to
make
the
direct
rela@onships,
a
company
may
be
right
decisions.
Across
industries,
business
able
to
create
and
exercise
leverage
early
rela@onships
with
state-‐owned
enterprises
in
the
rela@onship,
such
as
through
con-‐
may
pose
even
greater
challenges
with
tract
nego@a@ons.
In
other
instances,
par-‐
respect
to
leverage,
par@cularly
in
indus-‐ @cularly
where
commercial
or
government
tries
such
as
oil
and
gas
where
working
end-‐users
are
several
steps
removed
in
the
with
the
state-‐owned
na@onal
oil
and
gas
value
chain,
there
are
greater
challenges
in
company
may
be
a
condi@on
of
market
exercising
leverage
over
how
the
compa-‐
entry.
ny’s
products
or
services
are
used.
More-‐
over,
once
a
deal
is
agreed
in
a
down-‐
Workshop
par@cipants
stream
rela@onship,
highlighted
that
in
the
there
is
rarely
an
context
of
peer-‐to-‐peer
easy
equivalent
to
“Once the business product is out
rela@onships,
human
per-‐ the
monitoring
of my hands, and in the hands of
suasion
may
be
even
more
my customer, I have lost a lot of my and
audit
tools,
or
important
than
in
rela-‐ leverage.” many
other
busi-‐
@onships
with
suppliers.
In
other
words,
these
rela-‐
! Workshop participant
ness
incen@ves,
that
are
familiar
in
@ o n s h i p s
n e c e s s i tate
supply
chain
rela-‐
more
interest-‐based
lever-‐ @onships.
age,
rather
than
compliance-‐ !
based
leverage.
This
in
turn
requires
that
companies
seek
to
understand
what
it
is
that
drives
the
decisions
of
their
joint
ven-‐ 4. Leverage over Government
ture
or
other
horizontal
partners,
and
find
ways
to
connect
these
interests
with
the
!
Leverage
with
regard
to
government
can
objec@ve
of
respect
for
human
rights.
For
also
pose
par@cular
challenges.
Discus-‐
instance,
a
joint
venture
partner
may
have
sions
highlighted
the
various
ways
in
which
an
interest
in
securing
repeat
business
in
a
governments
themselves
could
heighten
country,
building
its
reputa@on
in
the
in-‐
risks
to
human
rights
for
business:
dustry
or
beyond,
avoiding
the
costs
asso-‐
• By
failing
to
act
with
respect
for
human
ciated
with
social
conflict,
being
seen
as
a
rights
as
a
customer,
for
example
using
global
leader,
and/or
simply
learning
good
technologies
designed
for
basic
phone
prac@ce.
These
and
other
interests
may
and
internet
services
to
conduct
sur-‐
offer
a
strong
opportunity
to
exercise
veillance
in
breach
of
privacy
rights;
leverage
with
regard
to
human
rights.
• By
failing
to
act
with
respect
for
human
! rights
as
a
supplier,
for
example
where
their
security
forces
guard
company
as-‐
3. Leverage over Customers, sets
and
harass
or
abuse
local
communi-‐
@es;
Clients and End-Users • By
failing
to
adequately
protect
human
rights
as
regulators
of
business,
increas-‐
! ing
the
risk
of
sourcing
from
and
doing
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !10business
within
their
jurisdic@on,
for
ex-‐
ample
in
a
situa@on
such
as
Bangladesh
III. INTERNAL
where
building
safety
standards
have
long
been
ignored,
making
many
facto-‐ LEVERAGE
ries
unsafe
for
workers;
or
in
situa@ons
where
the
government
takes
land
for
!
The
challenge
of
‘embedding’
the
respon-‐
commercial
purposes,
ignoring
legi@-‐ sibility
to
respect
human
rights
across
a
mate
community
claims
to
have
tradi-‐ company
typically
requires
those
who
lead
@onally
occupied
or
used
it.
on
this
issue
to
build
their
own
internal
! leverage
to
effect
change.
Internal
lever-‐
In
any
of
these
situa@ons,
the
role
of
the
age
can
in
turn
be
essen@al
to
exercising
state
as
regulator
–
and
some@mes
as
an
external
leverage,
since
business
rela@on-‐
arbiter
of
whether
a
company
can
do
busi-‐ ships
are
o7en
‘owned’
or
influenced
by
ness
in
that
country
–
makes
the
exercise
others
in
the
company
who
do
not
lead
on
of
leverage
par@cularly
challenging.
Par@c-‐ human
rights.
ipants
highlighted
that
the
key
to
leverage
in
these
situa@ons
is
o7en
to
use
concert-‐
!
Crea@ng
internal
leverage
requires
good
ed
industry
ac@on.
Discussions
also
re-‐ knowledge
of
the
company’s
culture
and
flected
that
it
can
be
important
to
assess
of
the
perspec@ve
of
par@cular
individuals,
and
understand
what
mo@vates
a
govern-‐ business
units
or
func@ons.
For
instance,
ment,
or
par@cular
ministries
or
actors
for
some
companies,
ins@tu@onal
rules
within
government,
and
to
see
and
compliance
whether
and
how
those
in-‐ tools
may
work
terests
and
mo@va@ons
can
“Building internal ownership best;
for
others
be
aligned
with
the
compa-‐ over human rights is essential
the
personal
ele-‐
ny’s
human
rights
objec@ves.
to real progress; this means you
ment
–
speaking
For
instance,
it
may
be
possi-‐ sometimes need to “go slow to
to
i n d i v i d u a l s ’
ble
to
show
how
improved
go fast.”
respect
for
or
protec@on
of
! convic@ons
–
may
be
more
effec@ve;
Workshop participant
human
rights
can
support
and
for
others
it
inward
investment,
local
job
m a y
b e
a b o u t
crea@on,
inclusive
growth,
a
re-‐ building
the
business
case.
duc@on
in
social
conflict
and
so
forth.
There
may
also
be
opportuni@es
where
!
A
variety
of
means
of
building
or
using
in-‐
companies
can
offer
their
own
exper@se
to
ternal
leverage
were
discussed
and
are
build
a
government’s
capacity
with
regard
summarized
below.
to
human
rights-‐related
issues,
for
in-‐
stance
in
rela@on
to
good
community
re-‐
!
semlement
prac@ces.
! 1. Through Top Management
Annex
A
contains
a
range
of
examples
of
leverage
in
rela@on
to
these
four
types
of
Messaging
business
rela@onship.
• Public
lemers/statements
by
the
CEO
publicly
commieng
the
company
to
re-‐
spect
for
human
rights,
or
to
addressing
a
par@cular
human
rights
challenge,
were
seen
as
valuable
internal
leverage
Using Leverage in Business Relationships to Reduce Human Rights Risks | !11You can also read
