The article examines the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in the European Union via National Action Plans (NAPs). We argue that some of the shortcomings currently observed in the implementation process could effectively be addressed through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) – a governance instrument already used by the European Union (EU) in other policy domains. The article sketches out the polycentric global governance approach envisaged by the UNGPs and discusses the institutional and policy background of their implementation in the EU. It provides an assessment of EU member states’ NAPs on business and human rights, as benchmarked against international NAP guidance, before relating experiences with the existing NAP process to the policy background and rationale of the OMC and considering the conditions for employing the OMC in the business and human rights domain. Building on a recent opinion of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the article concludes with a concrete proposal for developing an OMC on business and human rights in the EU.

This article addresses tax avoidance by companies in the context of the emerging field of business and human rights. It describes the mechanics of corporate tax avoidance and the human costs of such practices. It then considers the extent to which tax issues have been addressed by corporate social responsibility, before turning to business and human rights and assessing the potential value of the United Nations Guiding Principles on business and human rights in this context. The article draws on the experience of Ireland, given the country’s connection to abusive tax practices associated with large multinational corporations and its support for the United Nations Guiding Principles on business and human rights.

Firms’ human rights due diligence (HRDD) and communication on their human rights impacts are not only elements in the Corporate Responsibility to Respect human rights (Pillar Two), but also to be promoted by States as part of their State Duty to Protect (Pillar One) through regulatory strategies aiming at shaping business conduct. Analysing the EU’s 2014 Non-Financial Reporting Directive as an example of governmental regulation for promoting responsible business conduct, the article discusses conditions for HRDD and reporting as a communication process to stimulate organizational change in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles to avoid harm, including through affected-stakeholder engagement. Applying socio-legal regulatory theory along with organizational and accounting literature, the article finds that the Directive’s predominant focus on ex-post measures appears to be a neglected opportunity to induce ex-ante organizational learning and changed business conduct to prevent adverse human rights impact. It offers recommendations for regulators and stakeholders for stronger regulation.

Scholars have suggested that ‘home’ states of transnational corporations (TNCs) have a legal duty to protect against human rights abuses occurring in ‘host’ states that may be breached by failure to regulate TNCs’ extraterritorial activities. This article challenges the claim that such a duty of home states to regulate TNCs’ extraterritorial human rights impacts can be said currently to exist as a matter of law. The article first summarizes the general structure of arguments made in favour of such a ‘home state duty to regulate’. It then considers the foundations and meanings of extraterritorial jurisdiction in public international law and international human rights law; requirements and conditions of attribution and state responsibility for the conduct of non-state actors; and the scope and limits of ‘positive obligations’ to ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights, domestically and extraterritorially, as they relate to prevention of human rights abuses by TNCs.

This article explores the innovative use of public procurement as a tool to respect, protect and promote human rights by capitalizing on the significant leverage that public buyers have over corporate practices in their supply chain. It provides an analysis of Electronics Watch, an organization that focuses on the role of states’ own procurement practices as central to the state duty to protect the human rights of those who are affected by its activities as an economic actor. Through the assessment of the Electronics Watch model this article argues that by bringing together the economic leverage of public buyers and corporate human rights due diligence, one can create transformative tools for the improvement of working conditions in global supply chains.

The divide between hard law and soft law approaches to global regulation of corporations in relation to human rights is partly based on empirical assumptions. Taking a step back, we assess the claims concerning the current state of global regulation and political feasibility of hard law approaches. Moving beyond the usual suspects, we map 98 existing standards that regulate corporations and find a great variation in how different sectors treat human rights and accountability issues. Turning to the explanation of the current jungle of global business and human rights regulation, we contrast and test dominant and competing expressive theories with a consequentialist commitment curve, in which corporations and states seek to minimize human rights commitments. We find support for all approaches to regulatory reform, but argue that greater attention should be given to the consequentialist insights, and how political economy can be leveraged to strengthen regulatory outcomes.

This article considers the practices of companies worldwide in attempting to implement human rights due diligence (HRDD) as envisaged by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Based on empirical research conducted through surveys and interviews, it analyses corporate practices in this area. It examines the responses of companies with reference to the core elements of implementing HRDD: identifying actual or potential human rights impacts; taking action to address these impacts; and tracking or monitoring the effectiveness of actions. In addition, the article places these practices in the context of the legal developments in the field of HRDD. The research shows the difference that dedicated HRDD – in comparison with non-human rights specific processes – can make in terms of identifying adverse human rights impacts of both the company as well as of those which are part of its business relationships.