兒少人權監督平台

來源 PDF: 34_20240703164612_8800291.pdf

NATIONAL ACTION

PLANS ON BUSINESS

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

TOOLKIT 2 0 1 7 E D I T I O N

1 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 NATIONAL ACTION

PLANS ON BUSINESS

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

TOOLKIT 2 0 1 7 E D I T I O N

2 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (DIHR) is Denmark’s National Human Rights

Institution (NHRI), with an international mandate to promote and protect human rights and equal

treatment in Denmark and abroad. The Human Rights and Development Department focuses on the

intersection between economics and human rights and in particular on the role of business in relation

to human rights.

THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE (ICAR) is a civil society

organisation that believes in the need for an economy that respects the rights of all people, not just

powerful corporations. ICAR harnesses the collective power of progressive organisations to push

governments to create and enforce rules over corporations that promote human rights and reduce

inequality.

AUTHORS

The report National Action Plans on Business And Human Rights: A Toolkit For The Development,

Implementation, And Review Of State Commitments To Business And Human Rights Frameworks (June

2014) was written by Claire Methven O’Brien and Cathrine Bloch Poulsen-Hansen at DIHR and Amol

Mehra and Sara Blackwell at ICAR.

This 2017 Edition was written by Paloma Muñoz Quick and Elin Wrzoncki, with contributions from Nora

Götzmann, Dirk Hoffmann and Daniel Morris, at DIHR and Cindy Woods and Sarah McGrath at ICAR.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

DIHR and ICAR would like to thank all the individuals and organisations that have used and provided

feedback on the Toolkit, especially the participants of the Global NAPs Workshop held in Washington,

DC in September 2016. We would also like to thank Marion Cadier, who provided strategic input in the

development of the National Baseline Assessment template.

3 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

CONTENTS

Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Diagrams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Boxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.1 About the Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 Objectives and Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.3 What are National Action Plans?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4 NAPs on Business and Human Rights: Global Developments. . . . . . 13

1.5 NAPs on Business and Human Rights: National Developments. . . . 15

1.6 Benefits and Challenges of NAPs on Business and Human Rights . . 16

1.7 Structure of the NAPs Toolkit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 THE NAP LIFECYCLE: STEP-BY-STEP GUIDANCE

ON THE NAP PROCESS AND CONTENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.1 Establish a Governance framework for NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2 Conduct a National Baseline Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.3 Elaborate the NAP: Scope, Content and Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.4 Implement, Monitor, and Review the NAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.5 Update the NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO NAPS:

3 PARTICIPATION, NON-DISCRIMINATION,

TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.1. Equality and Non-discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.2 Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.3 Transparency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.4 Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.5 Engaging specific rights-holders in a NAP process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.6 Conflict Affected-Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

ACRONYMS

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

AU African Union

CoE Council of Europe

CPRD UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women

DIHR Danish Institute for Human Rights

EIDHR European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

EU European Union

FUR Follow-up and review

FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent

LGBTQI Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer and intersex

HLPF High-Level Political Forum for voluntary review on SDG advancement

HRBA Human Rights-Based Approach

HRDs Human Rights Defenders

IACHR Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

ICAR International Corporate Accountability Roundtable

ICMM International Council on Mining and Metals

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

ILO International Labour Organization

ISHR International Service on Human Rights

IOE International Organisation of Employers

NBA National Baseline Assessment

NHRI National Human Rights Institution

OAS Organization of American States

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises

UN United Nations

UNDRIP UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

UNGPs United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council

UNWG United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights

UPR Universal Periodic Review Process by the UNHRC

VNR Voluntary National Review

5 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

DIAGRAMS

Diagram 1: Structure of the NAPs Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Diagram 2: Overview of NAP Lifecycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Diagram 3: NBA Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Diagram 4: Monitoring and Review of NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

BOXES

Box 1: Business and Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Box 2: States that Have Adopted NAPs on Business and Human Rights (as of November 2017) . . . . . . 16

Box 3: Formally Committing to a NAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Box 4: Coordination across State Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Box 5: Ensuring Transparency Throughout the NAP Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Box 6: Budgeting for a NAP and Donor Support for NAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Box 7: Multi-stakeholder Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Box 8: Capacity Building of Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Box 9: Tools to Map Adverse Human Rights Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Box 10: Transparency in the NBA Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Box 11: NBA at the Beginning of NAP Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Box 12: NBA Conducted by an NHRI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Box 13: Stakeholder Participation in NBA Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Box 14: Stakeholder Input on Draft NBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Box 15: Linking the NBA and the Content of the NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Box 16: Publication and Dissemination of the NBA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Box 17: Addressing the Full Scope of the State’s Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Box 18: Prioritise Actions to Address the Most Serious Human Rights Abuses by Business. . . . . . . . . . 34

Box 19: Inclusion of Marginalised Groups in a NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Box 20: SMART Actions in NAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Box 21: Sustainable Development Goals and NAPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Box 22: Implementation Plans in NAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Box 23: Progress Review by Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Box 24: Multi-stakeholder Mechanisms for Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Box 25: NHRI-led Follow-up and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Box 26: Reporting through the UPR Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Box 27: Nine Core Human Rights Instruments with a Treaty Body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Box 28: The UNWG Repository of NAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Box 29: Reporting to International Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Box 30: Options for Reviewing NAPs under an International Business and Human Rights Instrument. . . 43

Box 31: Promoting Peer-review at EU Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Box 32: Updating NAPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Box 33: Special Focus on Children in NAPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Box 34: Human Rights Defenders content in NBA in Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Box 35: Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in NAP Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Box 36: Addressing Women’s Rights in NAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Box 37: Addressing the Role of Business in Conflict-affected Contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 I

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), endorsed by the

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in June 2011,1 are a significant milestone in the

evolution of normative standards on the responsibility and accountability of business actors.

Three years after the adoption of the UNGPs, the UNHRC called on all Member States to develop

National Action Plans to support implementation of the UNGPs (hereafter NAPs on business and

human rights or NAPs).² This call came in the wake of similar developments at the European level.³

Moreover, the Organization of American States (OAS) has encouraged its Member States to implement

the UNGPs,⁴ while the African Union (AU) is currently drafting a policy framework on business and

human rights.⁵ The UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UNWG), established in 2011,

strongly encourages all states to develop, enact, and update NAPs on business and human rights.⁶ The

G20 leaders have also articulated their support for NAPs.⁷

In June 2014, the UNHRC adopted a resolution to establish an inter-governmental working group to

explore options for elaborating an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international

human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations.8 There is now an ongoing debate among

states and global civil society on the relationship between NAPs on business and human rights and the

treaty process. In practice, the development of NAPs is complementary to the treaty process, as they

provide an essential tool for states to discharge their duty to protect human rights against adverse

impacts of business articulated by the UNGPs, and in turn, help advance normative developments at

the global level.9

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015 recognises the role

of business as a major driver for economic growth and infrastructure, necessary components for

achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while at the same time, explicitly calling for

businesses to act in accordance with the UNGPs.10 The Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which provides

a global framework for financing the implementation of the 2030 Agenda by aligning financial flows

and policies with economic, social, and environmental priorities, also refers to the UNGPs as a key

framework to help realise this vision.11

8 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.1 ABOUT THE TOOLKIT

In August 2013, the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) and the International Corporate

Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) launched a joint project to develop guidance on NAPs in the form

of a toolkit for use by governments and other stakeholders.12 DIHR and ICAR undertook a global

programme of consultation with representatives of governments, civil society, businesses, investors,

academia, NHRIs, and regional and international organisations,13 which fed into the contents of the

first edition of this Toolkit, published in 2014.

Following publication, the different components of the Toolkit have been used by various stakeholders,

including governments, NHRIs, academia, and civil society organisations (CSOs) to inform their

work on NAPs on business and human rights, as well as to analyse published NAPs, autonomously

or with the support of DIHR and/or ICAR. Thematic guidance relating to NAPs on business and

human rights has also been developed by DIHR and/or ICAR in the area of children’s rights with

UNICEF14 and on human rights defenders with the International Service on Human Rights (ISHR).15 A

thematic guidance on NAPs and the extractive sector, developed by ICAR and the Due Process of Law

Foundation (DPLF) will be published in December 2017.

The Toolkit has also been referenced by inter-governmental organisations that have encouraged the

development of NAPs, including the Council of Europe (CoE) and the UNWG.17

As part of the Toolkit revision process, in September 2016, DIHR and ICAR brought together business

and human rights practitioners from fourteen countries who have utilised the Toolkit to gather user

experiences in relation to the guidance materials, and collect feedback and suggestions for improvement.

The 2017 update of the Toolkit attempts to reflect this feedback. It also recognises the UN Working Group

on Business and Human Rights’ guidance on NAPs and seeks to align and complement it.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND TARGET AUDIENCE

The overall goal of this Toolkit is to promote implementation of the UNGPs and other relevant business

and human rights frameworks by states and businesses.

The Toolkit provides guidance on how to:

• Undertake a national baseline assessment (NBA) of how the requirements of Pillars I, II, and III

of the UNGPs are being met by state and business duty-bearers (see further Annex B);

• Plan an inclusive and participatory NAP process (see further Section 2.3.4);

• Undertake a fact-based analysis for determining the priorities and actions to be addressed in a

NAP (see further Section 2.2);

• Establish effective follow-up measures for monitoring, reporting, and evaluating how the NAP is

being implemented (see further Section 2.4.6);

• Enhance monitoring and reporting on NAPs at the national, regional, and international levels; and

• Measure progress in implementing the UNGPs (see further Section 2.4.6).

9 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Multiple actors may find particular value in the Toolkit:

• Government officials and elected representatives may use this Toolkit to, for example, orient

domestic policy-making, including at the local and sub-national levels; inform positions taken in

international institutions or standard-setting processes; support alignment between NAPs and

other national plans; and inform capacity-building efforts at all levels of government.

• National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) may use this Toolkit to undertake NBAs

on business and human rights on their own accord or on request from their government.

This Toolkit will also be helpful to NHRIs where they act as conveners of NAP development

processes, including through NAP stakeholder committees. Principles and indicators contained

within this Toolkit can further be utilised by NHRIs to inform monitoring, investigations,

education, and reporting activities linked to business and human rights issues, in line with their

UN Paris Principles mandates.18

• Civil Society Organisations may use this Toolkit to inform the standard of a NAP process or to

help in the creation of shadow NBAs to monitor and evaluate state commitments and progress

in implementing the UNGPs, thereby supporting advocacy and dialogue with states and

businesses. They can also use this Toolkit when preparing reports and submissions to national,

regional, or international supervisory bodies on topics relevant to business and human rights.

• Businesses may utilise this Toolkit to inform themselves about measures that can be expected

of states in implementing the UNGPs, thereby preparing themselves for participation in

NAP development processes. Businesses may also use the NBA template on the corporate

responsibility to respect provided in the Toolkit to inform and benchmark their own

implementation processes.

• Multilateral and bilateral development agencies may find this Toolkit useful when analysing

country contexts and in designing and monitoring programmes and projects.

• Media, researchers, and academia may use this Toolkit to help orient investigations, analysis,

research, and reporting on government responses to the UNGPs, corporate accountability, and

sustainable development more broadly.

10 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.3 WHAT ARE NATIONAL ACTION PLANS?

National action plans are policy documents in which a state articulates priorities and actions that

it will adopt to support the implementation of international, regional, or national obligations and

commitments with regard to a given policy area or topic.

Calls for NAPs on the implementation of the UNGPs were inspired by the increasing use of national

action plans to support a range of other policy areas including human trafficking, climate change,

energy efficiency, health literacy, child accident prevention, and water quality. In the Vienna

Declaration and Programme of Action,19 adopted in June 1993, the World Conference on Human

Rights recommended states consider drawing up a national action plan on the promotion and

protection of human rights.20 Similarly, national action plans are increasingly being used in relation to

implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (see Box 1 below).

In its 2011 strategy for corporate social responsibility (CSR), the European Commission called on

EU Member States to develop NAPs to support the implementation of the UNGPs, as well as national

plans on CSR.21 At the time of this Toolkit’s publication, thirteen of twenty-eight EU Member States had

developed NAPs on business and human rights.22 Although the EU’s communication on CSR requested

Member States to produce separate NAPs on CSR and the UNGPs, some CSR NAPs address the

implementation of Pillar 2 of the UNGPs.23

A challenge for states developing NAPs on business and human rights is addressing how these plans

can be integrated or aligned with national action plans on other issues, particularly where there might

be an overlap in subject matter. Through practical examples, this Toolkit will demonstrate how a

NAP on business and human rights can build upon and be incorporated within other action plans, for

example, on CSR, sustainable development, or human rights more broadly.

11 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 BOX 1

BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE 2030

AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In 2015, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which

established seventeen SDGs, containing global targets and indicators, as well as follow-up and review mechanisms.

The “2030 Agenda” seeks to achieve transformative change with respect to people, planet, prosperity, peace and

partnership. Unlike the Millennium Development Goals, the precursor to the SDGs, the SDGs require all actors in

society to take responsibility to fulfil this agenda. In particular, the SDGs call on businesses to act as a catalyst and

an agent of change in the transition to a world where development is inclusive and sustainable for all.

DIHR has developed the Human Rights Guide to the SDGs to demonstrate the anchoring of the SDGs in human

rights. This Guide highlights that over ninety percent of the 2030 Agenda’s 169 Targets are linked to provisions

established in international human rights instruments and labour standards. Therefore, when engaging with the

SDGs, businesses should consider their actual and potential impacts on underlying human rights. The UNGPs

provide a vehicle for which to do so, as noted in paragraph 67 of the 2030 Agenda, which calls on businesses to

act in line with the UNGPs. Business and Industry also constitute one of the nine Major Groups24 which are major

stakeholders in UN processes related to sustainable development.

In addition to minimising the adverse impacts of their core business on the human rights underlying the SDGs,

businesses can play additional roles in the implementation of the SDGs, such as providing basic services, like

health and education; participating in public-private partnerships; and paying taxes. In all cases, business conduct

should be carried out with respect for human rights. Finally, the 2030 Agenda encourages businesses to adopt

specific measures to comply with the SDGs, including target 12.6, which calls on states to encourage businesses to

adopt sustainable practices and to integrate information on sustainability into their reporting cycles.

The links between the 2030 Agenda, human rights, and the role of businesses implies that states should ensure

their efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda align with the standards laid out by the UNGPs. This can be achieved in

a number of ways, including through NAPs on business and human rights that promote respect for human rights in

relation to businesses’ contribution to implementation of the SDGs.

In the Follow up and Review (FUR)25 of the 2030 Agenda, states are encouraged to conduct regular and inclusive

reviews of progress at the national, regional, and international levels. In this context, states are encouraged to

draw on contributions from various stakeholder groups. At the international level, the institutional framework

for FUR revolves around the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), which comprises both thematic debates and

voluntary state reviews. These voluntary national reviews (VNRs) aim to facilitate experience sharing and lessons

learned, accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, strengthen government policies and institutions, and

mobilise multi-stakeholder engagement in the implementation of the SDGs. In 2016, twenty-two states volunteered

for review, and in 2017 thirty-one states did so. At the national level, implementation processes will vary, but

states’ human rights obligations can provide a starting point for the development of a human rights-based

approach to national implementation.26 Because implementation of both the UNGPs and the SDGs are facilitated

through national action plans, there is considerable scope for these plans to be mutually reinforcing, or aligned to

emphasise the contribution that responsible business can make to the achievement of the SDGs.

In a statement on the business and human rights dimension of the 2030 Agenda,27 the UNWG called on Member

States developing SDG implementation plans at the national level to ensure “coherence with national action plans

for the implementation of the Guiding Principles. Conversely, national action plans focused on business and human

rights should clarify how the Guiding Principles will be integrated in the context of SDG implementation.”28

12 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.4 NAPs ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

There has been broad and strong uptake of the UNGPs following their adoption by the UN Human

Rights Council in 2011. Since then, a number of regional and international organisations and other

stakeholders have called for and endorsed the development of NAPs to implement the UNGPs.29 The

following is a summary of global developments in this regard.30

1.4.1 African Union

In 2014, the AU and the EU held a joint seminar on the implementation of the UNGPs, where both

organisations reiterated their commitment to promote and implement the UNGPs.31 Furthermore, in

2017, the AU, with support from the EU, developed a Draft Policy Framework on Business and Human

Rights.

1.4.2 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

The ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) has undertaken a thematic

study on CSR and Human Rights, which reviews national measures with reference to the UNGPs. Two

ASEAN-wide conferences have been organised, in November 2016 in Singapore and in June 2017 in

Bangkok, to advance the implementation of the UNGPs and in particular NAPs on business and human

rights in the region.

1.4.3 European Union

In 2011, the European Commission issued a Communication inviting all EU Member States to develop

“national plans for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles” by the end of 2012.32 This

commitment to NAPs on business and human rights at the EU level was strengthened in 2012, when

the European Council also called on all EU Member States to develop NAPs on the implementation

of the UNGPs, with an extended deadline to the end of 2013.33 In June 2016, the EU Council adopted

its Conclusions on Business and Human Rights, renewing this commitment.34 At the time of writing,

thirteen EU Member States had published NAPs on business and human rights.35

The 2011 EU CSR Strategy contained a commitment to develop an EU-level UNGPs implementation

plan.36 The European Commission further committed to the development of an EU Action Plan on

Responsible Business Conduct in 2016.37 However, this commitment has yet to be realised.38

The 2015 EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy39 commits to promoting the adoption of

NAPs on business and human rights by partner states. The European Parliament has also called on

the European Commission to step up its efforts with regard to such NAPs.40 A report published in

February 2017 by the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights on the Implementation

of the UNGPs recommended “to establish NAPs’ peer-to-peer review mechanism aimed at assisting

and inspiring states to strive for continuous improvement.”41 Under the Presidency of the Netherlands

in 2016, a peer review meeting was held amongst Member States to discuss progress in this area.

Following suit, the Belgian government hosted a peer review meeting in May 2017.

13 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.4.4 Council of Europe (CoE)

In 2011, the CoE Committee of Ministers requested that the Steering Committee on Human Rights

(CDDH) develop new standards on corporate responsibility and human rights.42 Following a

Declaration of the Committee of Ministers in 2013 that advocated for the adoption by CoE Member

States of NAPs on the implementation of the UNGPs, in March 2016, the Committee of Ministers

adopted a Recommendation on Human Rights and Business. The recommendation calls on Members

States to “share plans on the national implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business

and Human Rights (“National Action Plans”),”43 in a shared information system established by the

Council of Europe. The recommendation also provides for a process within the Committee of Ministers

for examining the implementation of the recommendation.

1.4.5 G7/G20

In 2015, the participating states of the G7 effectively committed to developing NAPs on business

and human rights in the Leader’s Communiqué.44 In 2017, the G20 followed suit, agreeing to “work

towards establishing adequate policy frameworks in our countries such as national action plans on

business and human rights.”45

1.4.6 United Nations (UN)

In June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council established the UNWG and tasked it, inter alia, with

facilitating the global dissemination and implementation of the UNGPs.46 Based on this mandate, the

UNWG has “strongly encourage[d] all states to develop, enact[,] and update a national action plan

as part of the state responsibility to disseminate and implement the Guiding Principles on Business

and Human Rights.”47 To facilitate experience sharing amongst states in meeting this goal, the UNWG

has established a collection of all published NAPs on business and human rights.48 The UNWG also

published guidance for states on NAPs in 2014,49 which was updated in November 2016.50

1.4.7 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are a set of state-supported recommendations

relating to responsible business conduct applicable to multinational enterprises operating in or

from adhering states. These Guidelines were revised in 2011 and, as part of this update, now

include a chapter on human rights aligned with the UNGPs.51 Since 2015, the OECD has organised, in

collaboration with the UNWG, an annual session for policy-makers on NAPs on business and human

rights.52 This session was upgraded in 2016 to a one-day High-Level Roundtable for Policy-Makers

aimed at facilitating dialogue and exchanges of experiences in designing and implementing policies to

enable responsible business conduct.53

14 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

1.4.8 Organization of American States

The General Assembly of the OAS adopted a resolution in June 2014 supportive of the UNGPs, which

triggered a set of measures to promote and implement them, including exchange of information and

sharing of best practices.54 In a 2016 resolution, the OAS called on Member States to implement the

UNGPs and recognised “national action plans on human rights and business as one way of applying

the Guiding Principles.”55

1.4.9 Business Associations

Global business and industry associations have expressed their support for NAPs on business

and human rights, including the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).56 In November

2016, business organisations including the IOE, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the

International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD), and the US Council for International Business (USCIB) issued a joint

statement supportive of NAPs as a means to implement the UNGPs.57

1.4.10 Civil Society Organisations

Many CSOs have expressed their support for and engaged in advocacy around NAPs on business and

human rights. A number of civil society groups have published “shadow” NBAs, as a tool to advocate

for increased efforts at the national level to address business impacts on human rights, including

as a tool to advocate for the future creation of a NAP; this includes CSOs in South Africa, Tanzania,

Mozambique, Guatemala, and Burma/Myanmar. CSO support for NAPs can also be seen in their

engagement with NAPs processes, by participating in consultations, providing comments on drafts,

and/or assessing the content and application of published NAPs. For example, over forty CSOs or

individuals provided written comments to the NAP process in the United States. In Mexico, a group

of seven CSOs formed the Mexican Focal Group on Business and Human Rights to advocate for the

creation of a NAP in Mexico. This group authored the Mexican NBA, and formed part of the multi-

stakeholder committee steering the NAP process.

1.5 NAPs ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

Since 2011, a number of states across all regions have embarked on processes to develop NAPs on

business and human rights. As of November 2017, nineteen states had adopted a NAP, and many more

countries are in the process of developing, or have committed to developing, a NAP on business and

human rights.

States that have published NAPs have taken various approaches. Most processes have included

numerous governmental agencies in the drafting of the NAPs content, either through the creation of

official inter-governmental working groups or ad hoc consultations.58 Most NAP processes have also

provided for the participation of a variety of stakeholders before, during, and/or after the drafting

process.59 However, relatively few NAP processes have sought to facilitate the participation of at-risk

or marginalised stakeholders.60 An increasing number of processes have undertaken NBAs by experts,

15 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

governmental departments, academic institutions, or a combination of these to inform the content of

their NAPs; however, this number is still limited.61

For further information on NAP developments worldwide, visit DIHR’s website62 and the ICAR, European

Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ), Dejusticia compendium of assessments of existing NAPs.63

1.6 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF NAPs ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

There are both benefits and challenges associated with the creation and implementation of NAPs on

business and human rights. Some of the benefits can include:

• Stimulating national dialogue, mobilisation, and progress

on implementing the UNGPs;

• Enhancing awareness and understanding of business and

human rights issues and the UNGPs;

BOX 2

• Mobilising additional resources to promote the

implementation of the UNGPs across society; STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED NAPs

• Serving as a mechanism for holding governments ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

accountable to stakeholders; (as of November 2017)

• Strengthening a culture of respect for human rights and of 1. Belgium 11. Lithuania

honouring international commitments; 2. Chile 12. Netherlands

• Supporting state reporting requirements to regional and 3. Colombia 13. Norway

international human rights supervisory and other bodies; 4. Czech Republic 14. Poland

5. Denmark 15. Spain

• Contributing to preventing and reducing business-related

human rights abuses and improving remediation when 6. France 16. Sweden

abuses occur; 7. Finland 17. Switzerland

8. Germany 18. United Kingdom

• Providing opportunities for stakeholders to come together

to engage in meaningful dialogue, build trust, and improve 9. Ireland 19. United States

communication between stakeholders on issues of 10. Italy

business and human rights;

• Reducing business-related social conflicts;

• Empowering marginalised rights-holders and protecting

human rights defenders in relation to business impacts on human rights;

• Helping to align and improve synergies between state policies on business and human rights

and other topics; and

• Promoting human rights-based sustainable development.

16 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Challenges related to the creation and implementation of NAPs can include:

• Considering how existing NAPs on other issues and a NAP on business and human rights can

be integrated or aligned, particularly where overlap in subject matter may cause confusion and

overstretch resources;

• Ensuring that NAP processes are inclusive and participatory;

• Ensuring that NAPs receive broad support and enduring buy-in and participation across

stakeholder groups;

• Not exacerbating conflict between stakeholders in high-risk and/or conflict-affected contexts;

• Ensuring the adoption and implementation of robust NAP commitments where corporate

capture of state institutions may inhibit the ability or political will of government actors to do

so; and

• Adopting legislative or judicial measures due to the separation of powers between the

executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

1.7 STRUCTURE OF THE NAPS TOOLKIT

DIAGRAM 1: STRUCTURE OF THE NAPs TOOLKIT

CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 ANNEXES THEMATIC

The NAP Lifecycle A Human Rights- NAP Checklist

GUIDANCE

Step-by-step based Approach to NBA Template

Children’s Rights

Guidance on the NAPs on Business

Human rights

NAP Process and and Human Rights

Defenders

Content

Extractive Sector

(forthcoming

December 2017).

17 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 II

THE NAP LIFECYCLE:

STEP-BY-STEP GUIDANCE ON THE

NAP PROCESS AND CONTENT

A NAP lifecycle is generally comprised of five phases, though the specifics of each phase will vary. This

section provides an overview of the main phases of a NAP lifecycle.

In line with a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA), as discussed in Chapter 3, each phase of the

NAP lifecycle, summarised in Diagram 2 below, should be based on the principles of equality and non-

discrimination, participation, transparency, and accountability.

DIAGRAM 2: OVERVIEW OF NAP LIFECYCLE

1.

Establish a Gover-

nance Framework

for the NAP

5. 2.

Conduct a National

Update the NAP

Baseline

Assessment (NBA)

4. 3.

Implement, Elaborate NAP:

Monitor, & Review Scope, Content,

the NAP & Priorities

18 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.1 GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

2.1.1 Commit to the NAP Process and Assign Responsibility

A first and central step in a NAP process is for the government to set a firm and long-term

commitment to the development and implementation of a NAP. This commitment will help ensure that

the process of developing a NAP is adequately prioritised within the government.

There are various examples of leadership in NAP processes. In several countries, development of a

NAP on business and human rights has been led by the Foreign Ministry in cooperation with other

ministries. This is often due to the nature

of the mandate of Foreign Ministries,

which includes representing the state

in international human rights bodies,

coordinating with other state institutions BOX 3

to ensure implementation of international

commitments, and reporting to human

FORMALLY COMMITTING TO A NAP

rights bodies on the state’s human rights In 2015, the Kenyan Government officially accepted a recommendation

compliance. These factors notwithstanding, during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process to develop a

the capacity of Foreign Ministries to lead NAP on business and human rights. In February 2016, the Attorney

a robust NAP process is somewhat limited General made a formal statement of commitment thereby initiating the

in that their mandates to operate within process. Similarly, during its second UPR review in May 2016, the Royal

Thai Government received a recommendation to develop, enact, and

the state are usually minimal compared to

implement a NAP on business and human rights. The Thai government

institutions with stronger internal mandates,

has accepted this recommendation, and the government agency

such as Ministries of Interior, Economy, responsible for the implementation of UPR recommendations at the

and Finance. In some cases, NAP processes domestic level, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of the

have been led by the office of the Presidency Ministry of Justice, is now leading the NAP process.

through a Presidential Advisor on Human

The Swiss NAP on business and human rights was developed in

Rights, as in the case of Colombia. response to a request from the Parliament (postulate 12.3503 “A Ruggie

strategy for Switzerland”) to the Swiss Federal Council to develop a

As for any policy-making process, efficiency

national strategy to implement the UNGPs.

and accountability demand that there is

clear leadership within the government for

the development of a NAP. Responsibility for

the NAP process should be unambiguously

allocated to an entity or entities within the government (for example, to a specific government

ministry, office, or agency), and this allocation of responsibility should be publicly communicated

through an official announcement or published decision. The responsible entity should have the

organisational capacity, political authority, and resources necessary to develop a NAP.

2.1.2 Ensure Coordination and Coherence across Government Actors

Almost all government departments, offices, and agencies have responsibilities that are relevant to

the implementation of the UNGPs. In order to be comprehensive, and for the sake of its long-term

success, a NAP on business and human rights should reflect input from, and enjoy the full support

19 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

of, departments and

offices across government.

Accordingly, a coordinating

BOX 4

mechanism such as a cross-

departmental advisory COORDINATION ACROSS STATE INSTITUTIONS

group or steering committee

should be set up to meet The Chilean NAP on business and human rights stems from the National Plan on Social

periodically throughout a Responsibility 2015-2018 developed by the Council of Social Responsibility for Sustainable

NAP process. Ministries Development within the Ministry of Economy. The coordination for developing the NAP

was assigned to the Directorate of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

responsible for trade,

The NAP was developed by the Directorate, along with an Inter-Ministerial Committee

economy, energy, and state- comprised of the Ministries of Economy, Energy, Environment, Justice, Labour, Mining,

owned enterprises, among Presidency, Social Development, and Women, as well as the National Contact Point of the

others, should be engaged OECD Guidelines. Several other public institutions were regularly engaged in the process,

from the start of a NAP including the Ministry of Finance, the National Statistics Institute, and the National

process to ensure holistic Human Rights Institution, as well as state-owned enterprises. Additionally, the NAP was

launched by the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet. While the Ministry of Interior did

government commitment

not participate in the process, periodic Committee meetings and bi-lateral engagement

and policy coherence.

between ministries over two years resulted in a NAP with 158 actions that cut across

A NAP on business and numerous state institutions.

human rights should also

build on and be articulated The Kenyan NAP process has made efforts to bring on board key government ministries

and agencies including local governments. The key government body responsible for

within other national action

developing the NAP is the Ministry of Justice. In addition, a steering committee including

plans, such as national the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (Kenya’s NHRI) and the Kenya Human

action plans on human Rights Commission has been established.

rights and/or sustainable

development. State and/or

local governments should

also be invited to input into

the process.

2.1.3 Ensure Transparency at All Stages of the NAP Lifecycle

It is critical to the legitimacy of a NAP process, and in line with a HRBA, to ensure transparency at all

stages of the NAP process; this includes the launch of the process, consultation, drafting period, and

implementation.

At the beginning of a NAP process, it is essential to publish terms of reference, objectives, a work plan,

and a timeline to enable all stakeholders, both governmental and external, to plan and manage their

participation. Accordingly, these materials should be published and disseminated through appropriate

media sources in a timely fashion in order to provide adequate notice to all stakeholders.

In order to facilitate the effective participation of all stakeholders in the development of a NAP,

states must ensure transparency throughout the planning process. This requires that stakeholders

are adequately informed, with due notice, of key milestones in the NAP process and participation

opportunities such as dialogues, workshops, consultation events, and comment periods. A consultation

20 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

plan and timeline that is regularly updated

throughout the process, and disseminated

via appropriate channels, can assist in this

BOX 5

regard. It is also important that timelines

for submissions and feedback are realistic ENSURING TRANSPARENCY THROUGHOUT

given the resources and capacities of all

stakeholders.

THE NAP PROCESS

Germany’s Steering Group for the NAP on business and human rights,

States should also ensure that summaries developed and published a document outlining the process of the NAP,

of dialogues, workshops, and consultation which included a timeline. Additionally, a NAP webpage with updated

events, in addition to written submissions information about the process was attached to the website of the German

provided by stakeholders to the process, Foreign Ministry, the government entity leading the German NAP process.

are made publicly available to the extent

Similarly, the U.S. government published a webpage on its NAP process,

possible. States should also take care not to which included terms of reference and an initial timeline for stakeholder

divulge sensitive information that could put consultations.

stakeholders involved in the process at risk.

As part of Ireland’s NAP process, the Department of Foreign Affairs and

Additionally, it is essential that states Trade of Ireland invited submissions from stakeholder on the development

of the NAP on business and human rights, and received over thirty

seek to publish and consult on a draft

submissions from civil society and the business community. All submissions

version of the NAP prior to the publication

were made publicly available on the Department’s website.

of the final product. Consultations on a

draft NAP allow stakeholders to provide While the UK Government did not publish the stakeholders inputs

additional input and also raise concerns which it received as part of the process to update its NAP, it did invite all

stakeholders who wished to make their submissions to the update process

as to the contents of the plan, including

public to submit them to the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

clarifications on how stakeholder input

(BHRRC), which maintained a dedicated webpage to host these submissions.

was incorporated or is reflected in

the draft text. Draft consultations also

allow the state additional opportunities

to reflect upon stakeholder input and

adopt necessary changes before the final

version is released. By publishing a draft

version of a NAP, the state gives additional

transparency to the development of the

final plan.

2.1.4 Allocate Appropriate Financial Resources for the NAP Process

States should allocate adequate human and financial resources to the actors responsible for

developing the NAP throughout the NAP lifecycle, including the development and completion of an

NBA, as well as monitoring and review of the NAP’s implementation.

21 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 BOX 6

BUDGETING FOR A NAP AND DONOR SUPPORT FOR NAPs

At the time of writing, no government that has developed a NAP on business and human rights has published the budget

allocated for the development and/or the implementation of the NAP.

In some countries, civil society and/or the NHRI have contributed through their own resources to the NAP process,

mainly through the elaboration of NBAs and the organisation of stakeholder consultations. For example, CSOs and/

or NHRIs, led the development of NBAs in Kenya, Mexico, and Thailand as part of state-supported NAPs processes. In

Mexico, UNICEF elaborated a baseline assessment on children’s rights in the context of business activities to feed into

the development of the NAP. ICAR and DIHR have both been involved in providing substantive expertise and financial

resources in many of these projects.

Some states, including Sweden and the UK, have committed to encouraging the development of similar NAPs in other

states in their own NAP on business and human rights, and have made funds available through their development

cooperation agencies or regional representation. Development cooperation agencies from Spain, the United Kingdom, and

Sweden provided financial and strategic support to the development of the Colombian NAP. Similarly, the Government of

Norway is providing financial support to the Kenyan NAP process.

Additionally, in its 2015 Action Plan on Democracy and Human Rights, the European Commission committed to promoting

NAPs on business and human rights in partner countries, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

(EIDHR) has since put out calls for proposals to support the development of NAPs on business and human rights beyond

the EU region.

2.1.5 Conduct a Stakeholder Mapping

All stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis during both the process

of creating a NAP and its implementation. Many national stakeholders may be well-known to relevant

government departments; however, others may not be. It is therefore advisable that a state undertake

a stakeholder mapping at an early stage in the NAP process. The following stakeholder categories

should be considered:

• Executive government, including all relevant government departments, agencies, offices, and

state-owned enterprises, as well as police and other law enforcement agencies;

• Judiciary and administrative tribunals, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and informal

justice actors;

• Parliament, including relevant committees;

• Businesses, including significant industry sectors, business associations, small and medium

enterprises (SMEs), the self-employed, sole traders, cooperatives, non-profits, and informal

sector actors;

• Labour unions and other workers’ representative associations;

22 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 • Representatives of affected groups or communities of rights-holders and human rights

defenders, inside and outside the state’s territorial jurisdiction, who may potentially be affected

by the conduct of companies based in or controlled by the state;

• NHRIs, ombudsman institutions, statutory equality bodies, and other national accountability

mechanisms with a human rights mandate;

• CSOs with mandates addressing relevant issues;

• Media, including general news and specialist sources;

• Academia, including research institutes, individual experts, and relevant educational

institutions, such as business schools; and

• International and regional actors, including relevant UN agencies and country teams, the World

Bank, regional development banks, and the OECD.

2.1.6 Consider Establishing a Multi-stakeholder Working Group or Advisory

Committee

Given that the number of stakeholders relevant to an NAP process is often quite substantial, it

is advisable to establish a multi-stakeholder working group or advisory committee composed of

representatives from across stakeholder categories. Engaging through such multi-stakeholder groups

is an effective way of ensuring a participatory approach and the representation of stakeholder views.

To be legitimate, multi-stakeholder groups should include, at the least, CSOs, unions, businesses, and

where they exist, an NHRI. Giving a multi-stakeholder group a formal role within a NAP process can

further legitimise the process. Multi-stakeholder groups can help guide the development of a NAP

process and the substantive issues to be addressed. Such groups may also play an important role in

the follow-up and review process of a NAP, as they may form a multi-stakeholder platform familiar

with business and human rights issues in a position to periodically review NAP implementation.

There are risks associated with insufficient stakeholder engagement. Businesses may be reticent to

support state actions which might affect them without their involvement. The lack of participation by

civil society and rights-holders may undermine the legitimacy of both the NAP process and content.

Therefore, a “bottom-up” participatory approach is advisable to ensure that a NAP on business and

human rights advances the larger goal of generating broad-based support among public, private, and

civil society actors for rights-compatible, sustainable development in the country.

For further information on engagement with rights holders, see Chapter 3: A Human Rights-based

Approach to NAPs.

23 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.1.7 Facilitate participation by marginalised or at-risk groups

Rights-holders from affected groups and communities, especially those from marginalised groups,

human rights defenders, journalists, and members of civil society will often have relevant information

and experiences to contribute to a NAP process. Yet these stakeholders may be weary of or prevented

from participating due to factors such as lack of resources and capacity, government surveillance,

intimidation, fear of reprisals, social hierarchies, stigma, or taboos that prevent equal access to the

public sphere and effective communication of opinions in public dialogue. In line with the state duty

to protect, it is incumbent on the state to ensure that marginalised stakeholders can effectively

participate. Measures to facilitate effective communication may include: provision for confidential

or anonymous submissions; providing financial support for travel and other consultation attendance

costs; interpretation of materials and proceedings into minority languages; protection against

negative repercussions for participation; and arrangements for local or stakeholder-specific dialogue

events, such as gender-segregated events; and specific outreach to children and other groups.

For examples of the types of challenges faced by specific rights-holders, and how states can facilitate

their participation in NAPs processes, see section 3.5 “Engaging Specific Rights-Holders in a NAP

Process.”

BOX 7

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Germany developed two formats for public consultation to inform the creation of its NAP: multi-

stakeholder plenary conferences and hearings. In April 2014, the first conference was held to identify

core themes for a NAP. The second conference, held in May 2015, focused on the discussion of the

NBA. Between April and November 2015, a total of twelve hearings focused on the identified core

themes were conducted. Each of these hearings was championed by a representative from the Steering

Group. The third and final conference in December 2015 connected the results of the twelve hearings.

In the case of Mexico, a multi-stakeholder working group on human rights and business comprised

of state institutions, civil society, businesses, and academia was set up at the start of the NAP

process. This group met periodically through the NAP process to provide input and comment on the

development, as well as the content, of the NAP. These participants were able to share insights into

the process and its development with the broader range of actors within their respective shareholder

groups.

In June 2013, the Prime Minister of France established the “CSR Platform,” a multi-stakeholder forum

on corporate social responsibility that includes representatives from businesses, trade unions, CSOs,

the NHRI, academic institutions, and public institutions. This platform actively participated in the

NAP’s development.

The Danish NAP was developed pursuant to a recommendation of the Danish Council for CSR, a

multi-stakeholder body comprising business associations, CSOs, academics and trade unions. This

group was also consulted in the drafting of the NAP.

24 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.1.8 Provide Capacity-building for State Actors and Relevant External

Stakeholders

To ensure a more effective NAP process, it is important for stakeholders to share a common

understanding of the UNGPs, including the roles and responsibilities of different actors. In many

country contexts, the UNGPs, and business and human rights issues more widely, will be new to some

stakeholders, both inside and outside of the government. Where this is the case, stakeholders may

require information or capacity-building, such as training on the UNGPS, if they are to participate

effectively in dialogue and contribute meaningfully to the formulation of a NAP.

BOX 8

CAPACITY BUILDING OF STAKEHOLDERS

The Government of Chile used international experts to build the capacity of representatives from across

a range of stakeholder groups. Starting the process, trainings were delivered to the Inter-Ministerial

Committee tasked with developing the NAP, and later to key representatives within their respective

institutions to facilitate the design of NAP actions. While not part of the committee, the National Statistics

Institute also received training focused on human rights indicators, with the aim of helping them develop

indicators on the implementation of NAP commitments.

In the case of external stakeholders, capacity building workshops and awareness-raising activities were

carried out in a number of instances. For example, in the process of identifying issues and recommendations

for the NAP, dialogue workshops that included capacity building were hosted in the country’s three macro

zones, including in San Pedro de Atacama, Santiago and Temuco with indigenous people. Similarly, businesses

and trade unions participated in dialogue sessions in Antofagasta, Santiago, and Temuco.

2.2 NATIONAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT

2.2.1 Objectives of a National Baseline Assessment (NBA) on Business and

Human Rights

An NBA on business and human rights has the primary objective of assessing the current level of

implementation of the UNGPs in a given state. It brings together an analysis of the legal and policy

gaps in UNGP implementation with an overview of the adverse human rights impacts of business to

identify the most salient human rights issues in a given context. In this way, it serves to inform the

formulation and prioritisation of actions in a NAP. Conducting an NBA is also an opportunity to build

capacity on business and human rights topics among stakeholders involved in the research process,

and to contribute to transparency and accountability in relation to the specific actions adopted in

the NAP (for more on formulation of actions, see Chapter 2.3 on “Elaborating the NAP: Scope and

Content”). The NBA should subsequently be used to monitor and evaluate whether these adopted

actions had the desired effect.

25 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.2.2 NBA Methodology

NBAs, as a methodology of evaluation, are commonly conducted using a combination of quantitative

and qualitative methods.64 Quantitative methods include surveys to generate new data or, where

resources are scarce or reliable data already exists, to extract secondary data, ideally with support

from statisticians or specialists. Qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, can be used

to gather complementary information about values, opinions, behaviour, and context, such as social

and cultural factors.

Building on standard approaches to developing NBAs, Annex B (“NBA Template”) contains a

suggested methodology to evaluate the current level of implementation of the UNGPs and other

relevant business and human rights frameworks by state and business actors. Originally developed

by DIHR and ICAR in 2014, the NBA Template has been used in various national contexts (i.e. Chile,

Denmark, Mexico, Germany, Kenya, Serbia, and Zambia). Annex B is a revised template, which

incorporates user feedback and addresses all three pillars of the UNGPs. This is in contrast to the

original template published in the 2014 version of the Toolkit, which only discusses the Guiding

Principles under Pillars I and III that related specifically to state action.

The structure of the revised NBA Template consists of a set of tables that cover all of the UNGPs,

though not individually or in consecutive order. Guiding questions are suggested to capture the wide-

ranging nature of the UNGPs. In line with the indicator framework developed by the Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), these guiding questions seek to “assess the steps being

taken by states in addressing their obligations – from commitments and acceptance of international

human rights standards (structural indicators) to efforts being made to meet the obligations

that flow from the standards (process indicators) and on to the results of those efforts (outcome

indicators).”65

2.2.3 Analysing the Implementation of the UNGPs by the State and Business

In order to systematically analyse state and business implementation of the UNGPs, as well as

human rights enjoyment in practice, an NBA should be comprehensive and address the full range of

economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights. The NBA should include inputs from the most

marginalised and excluded groups in society by addressing issues pertaining to gender, indigenous

peoples’ rights, and minorities. It should also recognise individuals and communities potentially

affected by business activities as rights-holders, including those outside of the state’s territorial

jurisdiction, and focus on the ability of these stakeholders to claim their rights.

For all sections of the template which relate to the state duty to protect or provide access to effective

remedy, an NBA should clearly identify measures taken by the state that support compliance with

international and regional human rights standards, as well as any gaps where state measures

are lacking or inadequate. Completing an NBA will therefore require research into provisions of a

state’s constitution, domestic statutes, administrative regulations, policies, public programmes,

and other interventions of public bodies. An NBA should cite and collate relevant recommendations

of international bodies, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UN and regional

human rights bodies. Data sources to consider when completing an NBA include official statistics,

existing survey results, reports by the NHRI and intergovernmental organisations, CSOs, scholarly

journals, and newspaper articles.

26 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

With regard to business enterprises active or based in the state’s territory, their implementation

of the UNGPs under Pillar II and the UNGPs relevant to business responsibility in Pillar III should

be analysed in order to support the design of adequate measures within the NAP to address

implementation gaps. This includes assessing to what extent businesses have committed to respecting

human rights and carry out human rights due diligence and provide and/or collaborate in providing

effective remedy.

2.2.4 Mapping Adverse Human Rights Impacts

In the NBA Template, guiding questions are included to help researchers capture information on

adverse human rights impacts, or outcome indicators. In many contexts, this information will not

be readily available. In this case, NAP processes offer a unique opportunity to engage businesses,

industry associations, CSOs, and impacted individuals and communities in generating relevant data.

In practice, researchers will likely hit a data gap if referring only to publicly available information,

such as business websites, business-authored sustainability reports, or civil society and media

reports. Therefore, when completing the NBA sections on the current levels of UNGPs implementation

by businesses, researchers may utilise a variety of means for accessing information, including surveys

and short questionnaires, stakeholder consultations, and bilateral interviews with businesses, as well

as reviewing outcomes of court cases, grievance data, and reports of relevant enforcement agencies.

BOX 9

TOOLS TO MAP ADVERSE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

A NAP should address actual adverse business impacts on human rights. In conjunction with a

legal and policy analysis, mapping adverse human rights impacts will enable drafters to identify

salient human rights issues and prioritise actions in the NAP.

Complementary tools for evaluating human rights enjoyment include the Human Rights and

Business Country Guide methodology66 developed by DIHR to support stakeholders in identifying,

assessing, and addressing the human rights impacts of companies across a range of thematic

issues. This tool has been used to complement NAP processes and inform NAPs in a number of

states, including Chile, Colombia, and Kenya.

Another tool is the Checklist for Documenting Corporate Human Rights Impacts, developed by

ESCR-Net and the BHRRC67 aimed at supporting communities adversely impacted by business

activities. The Checklist helps to document corporate-related human rights abuses, including a

single human rights abuse, as well as systematic and/or ongoing human rights situations. Mexican

civil society organisations used the checklist to document over sixty cases of abuses involving

companies in the country, which served as an input to inform the content of Mexico’s NAP.

27 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.2.5 Transparency in the Methodology and Analysis of Information in the NBA

The NBA should be transparent in terms of the sources of information that have been used to develop

it (except where disclosure of sources would, for example, present risks of reprisals to rights-holders,

human rights defenders, whistleblowers, journalists, or others). If an NBA is incomplete, such as by

omitting analysis in relation to a particular issue or UNGP, the reasons for this should be clearly stated.

BOX 10

TRANSPARENCY IN THE NBA PROCESS

The Guatemalan NBA was conducted by La Unidad de Protección de Defensoras y Defensores de Guatemala

(UDEFEGUA), with technical support from La Asociación Centro de Análisis Forenses y Ciencias Aplicadas (CAFCA).

It outlines and explicitly states in its methodology section what sources of information were used in the creation

of the baseline assessment and the process used for methodologically obtaining such information. The researchers

relied on publicly available information, coupled with government consultations, to complete the NBA.

2.2.6. Recommendations for the NBA Process

Undertake an NBA at the beginning of NAP processes

Ideally, the NBA should be completed, or at least its preliminary results made available to

stakeholders, before any decision-making concerning the scope, content, and priorities of the NAP

takes place.

BOX 11

NBA AT THE BEGINNING OF NAP PROCESSES

A number of states have commissioned the creation of an NBA before drafting a NAP. For example:

• The Mexican government arranged for the Civil Society Focal Group on Business and Human

Rights to conduct an NBA prior to the creation of the Mexican NAP.

• The Norwegian government commissioned Mark Taylor, Senior Researcher at the Fafo Research

Foundation to conduct an NBA before drafting its NAP.

• In Scotland, the Better World Action Group, a multi-stakeholder group tasked with the development

of the NAP, commissioned experts at St. Andrews University to establish a robust evidence base to

underpin a NAP.

28 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Allocate the Task of Developing the NBA to an Appropriate Body

The task of developing an NBA should be allocated to an organisation or entity with relevant expertise

and competence. It should be independent from political affiliation and corporate interests, such as

the NHRI or an academic research institution. Relevant expertise in this context should include, at a

minimum, knowledge and experience of national, regional, and international standards and issues in

the areas of human rights, business and human rights, corporate social responsibility, and sustainable

development.

The organisation or entity should be responsible for developing an initial draft of the NBA based on

desktop research and stakeholder engagement for information gathering purposes.

BOX 12

NBA CONDUCTED BY AN NHRI

In Germany, the Foreign Ministry assigned the responsibility for elaborating a

National Baseline Assessment to the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR).

The Institute developed this baseline between May 2014 and April 2015. The

baseline offers a topical overview of the current status of implementation of the

UNGPs in Germany, highlighting possible implementation gaps or requests for

further elaboration in the form of questions to the state. The document went

through two consultation rounds and the findings were discussed at a multi-

stakeholder conference in May 2015. Germany’s NAP incorporated the baseline

information as context for each action area.

Involve Stakeholders in the Development of the NBA

An NBA should be informed by stakeholder input. To facilitate the participation of all relevant

stakeholders, the drafters of the NBA should conduct a stakeholder mapping exercise, as described

under Section 2.1.5 on “Establish a Structure for Stakeholder Participation.”

Stakeholders may be engaged through, inter alia, bilateral interviews, multi-stakeholder consultations,

training workshops, questionnaires, and access to information requests.

Different stakeholder groups may prefer different forms of engagement. For example, bilateral

interviews, closed workshops, or personalised questionnaires may be more effective with businesses

or civil society, whereas access to information requests, as well as review of publicly available state

documents and data may be appropriate in the case of state actors. As highlighted in Chapter 3, in

relation to engaging with indigenous peoples or other marginalised groups in the creation of an NBA,

additional efforts might be required, including facilitating transportation, translation, and culturally

appropriate means of dialogue.

29 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Beyond providing input into the draft NBA, stakeholders’ views should also be sought on a draft

version or versions of an NBA through an inclusive and timely dialogue process. Such a process

should take place prior to the NAP’s drafting in order to validate provisional findings.

BOX 13

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

IN NBA DEVELOPMENT

In the process of creating the Thailand NBA, organisers facilitated the

consultations of a range of at-risk or under-represented stakeholders

throughout the region, including elderly persons, members of the LGBTQI

community, and migrant workers. Similarly, during the creation of the Mexican

NBA, the organising civil society groups held three regional workshops to seek

the inputs of at-risk and impacted stakeholders.

BOX 14

STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON DRAFT NBA

As part of the Mexican NBA process, the civil society group in charge of

developing the NBA held an event prior to the publication of the NBA, in

November 2016, to discuss the research compiled and receive input regarding the

content of the document. The NBA researchers also conferred with a number of

CSOs throughout the drafting process to inform the content of the analysis.

During the process of elaborating the German NBA, the DIMR conducted two

rounds of consultations on the document, and the ultimate findings were

discussed at a multi-stakeholder conference in May 2015.

30 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Publication and Dissemination

The main purpose of an NBA is to inform the content of a NAP by helping identify the most salient

issues in relation to business and human rights, and prioritise future actions to address gaps

in UNGPs implementation. To make the link between the findings of the NBA and the content of

a NAP explicit, some states have chosen to include relevant NBA information as well as input

from stakeholder consultations in the final NAP text, or as an annex to the final report, to clearly

communicate why an action was elaborated.

BOX 15

LINKING THE NBA AND THE CONTENT OF THE NAP

The Italian NAP explicitly links the results of its NBA and the issues it chose

to focus on. The Italian Government commissioned a baseline study from the

University of Sant’Anna. Based on the findings of this report, the Italian NAP

focuses mainly on six priority areas identified as especially salient in the NBA.

NBAs can be lengthy and expansive. Therefore, the finalised NBA should be published and made

accessible to all stakeholders, using forms of communication appropriate to relevant stakeholder

categories, for example, by translating full or summarised findings into relevant languages, providing

hard copies to stakeholders without access to internet, adapting the publication for persons with

disabilities, and disseminating through government websites.

Many organisations that have already published NBAs have chosen to provide an executive summary,

highlighting some of the main adverse business impacts and linking them to the identified legal

and policy gaps. Another way to present information from the NBA in a digestible form is to create

different communication products, such as pamphlets or short publications on specific issues,

sectors, or regions; socialisation workshops targeting specific stakeholder group; or a user friendly

and interactive website on the NBA.

31 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 BOX 16

PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF THE NBA

The Mexican NBA provides an executive summary to highlight the overall findings of the NBA. The full text of the Mexican

NBA is over 350 pages long, however, the authors summarised the overall findings in a brief executive summary at the

beginning of the document. In addition, the civil society focal group in charge of the NBA process created a summary

document highlighting the major findings of the NBA to utilise in the socialisation of the document.

Another way to disseminate an NBA is to hold a public event after the NBA has been finalised to introduce the

document, its purpose, and key findings to interested stakeholders. This occurred in both the Mexican and Guatemalan

context. In Mexico, following the completion of the NBA, the Mexican government held an event in the capital city,

inviting government actors, business representatives, and civil society organisations to learn more about the different

documents created to inform the NAP process – including the NBA. Similarly, upon publication of the Guatemalan

NBA, the researchers organised an event in Guatemala City to bring together interested stakeholders to present the

methodology and key findings of the analysis.

Review and update the NBA

In order for an NBA to serve as a tool for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of a NAP, at a

minimum, the relevant indicators in the NBA should be periodically updated and revised to reflect

changes in the implementation of and gaps in implementing the UNGPs. In turn, a revision of the full

NBA should inform any updated versions of a NAP.

DIAGRAM 3: NBA PROCESS

EXPERT • Identify appropriate organisation with relevant expertise to develop NBA

• Conduct preliminary desk-based research

ENGAGE • Engage stakeholders from the state, businesses, and civil society

PUBLISH • Finalise and publish the NBA

• Make NBA information accessible to all stakeholders, including government

REVIEW • Update the NBA to evaluate implementation of the NAP and inform

subsequent NAP iterations

32 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3 ELABORATING THE NAP: SCOPE, CONTENT, AND PRIORITIES

The previous sections have focused on the process of developing an NBA and a NAP. The current

section addresses issues pertaining to the scope and content of a NAP on business and human rights.

2.3.1 Address the Full Scope of the UNGPs

A NAP on business and human rights should, in principle, address the major gaps in implementing all

three pillars of the UNGPs. Based on the NBA and stakeholder consultation, priority actions may be

identified in relation to specific UNGPs. A NAP should indicate how the actions identified in relation to

a given UNGP contribute to its realisation.

2.3.2 Address the Full Scope of the State’s Jurisdiction

In line with UNGP 2, a NAP should consider measures to regulate the actions of businesses based

in its territory to prevent, address, and remedy business-related human rights abuses when these

businesses are operating both at home and abroad.

2.3.3 Prioritise Actions to

Address Major Gaps and

Challenges BOX 17

A NAP should focus on relevant

thematic or sector-specific human ADDRESSING THE FULL SCOPE OF THE STATE’S JURISDICTION

rights issues. Such issues might

The 2016 version of the U.K. NAP addresses the full scope of the state’s

include, for instance, women’s rights,

jurisdiction. While the majority of the government’s commitments emphasise

children’s rights, indigenous and external human rights concerns, Section 3 (corporate responsibility to respect)

minorities’ rights, labour rights, anti- and Section 4 (access to remedy) also discuss domestic considerations.

trafficking and anti-slavery, security

Similarly, the Italian NAP addresses the full scope of the state’s jurisdiction by

and conflict, revenue transparency

focusing on promoting corporate responsibility and protecting human rights

and management, and information both domestically and abroad. The NAP has a number of domestically-focused

and communication technologies planned measures, specifically in relation to addressing illegal hiring, and tackling

(ICT). The identification of such discrimination and inequality, and also includes several internationally-focused

issues should emerge from the NBA, planned measures such as elaborating “the concept of a ‘human rights clause’ to

as well as from input received via be included as a requirement for competing enterprises…with particular focus

on i) enterprises operating abroad; ii) enterprises availing themselves of foreign

stakeholder consultations.

suppliers; [and] iii) foreign enterprises.” 68

Beyond the priorities identified in

the NBA, stakeholder input should be

systematically collected, analysed,

and published by the government in the process of identifying priorities for the NAP. Governments

may do this a number of ways, including by publishing minutes from consultations and written

submissions, and assigning responsibility for individual recommendations to the relevant state

institution for review and possible adoption. The methodology for evaluating stakeholder input in the

process of designing NAP actions should also be transparent.

33 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3.4 Include a Particular Focus on

Marginalised or At-Risk Groups

A NAP should include a particular focus on addressing BOX 18

the impacts of business on the most marginalised groups.

These can include children; women; racial, ethnic, religious, PRIORITISE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE

or other minorities; LGBTQI people; persons living with MOST SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

disabilities; indigenous peoples; elderly persons; migrant BY BUSINESS

workers and their families; persons affected by poverty,

including homeless persons; rural or geographically isolated The Colombian NAP prioritises the energy, mining,

agro-industry, and road infrastructure sectors as

communities; and persons employed in the informal

they are seen to “generate the most social conflict

economy.

in the state due to their impacts on human rights

and the environment.”

A NAP should clearly identify such individuals and

communities as rights-holders, and identify measures

to be taken by the state to enable these individuals and

communities to claim and enjoy their human rights.

For more information on this, see Chapter 3: A Human

Rights-based Approach to NAPs.

BOX 19

INCLUSION OF MARGINALISED GROUPS IN A NAP

The Italian NAP commits to “protect, promote universal respect for, and observance of, all

human rights fundamental freedom and non-discrimination principles, with special attention

to the rights of most marginalised groups, such as women, children, disabled, LGBTQI people,

migrants[,] asylum seekers[,] and persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities.”69

Under specific UNGPs, the NAP also includes dedicated measures to address risks to the

human rights of children, persons with disabilities, and trafficked and migrant workers.

34 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3.5 Comprise Action Points that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Relevant, and Time-specific (SMART)

A NAP should identify a set of concrete actions to be taken by the government; these actions should

be explicitly linked to the findings of the NBA. In particular, the NAP should respond to identified gaps

in implementation of the UNGPs and aim to address these directly or, at a minimum, to contribute

significantly to resolving them within a reasonable time period. Further, it should be ensured that

each action item is:

• SPECIFIC: The action item should address a specific gap or issue, and be tied to a relevant

government department;

• MEASURABLE: The action item should be concrete enough to ensure that progress on the

item can be measured and assessed;

• ACHIEVABLE: The action item should be realistic in terms of time and resources;

• RELEVANT: The action item should be linked to the UNGPs or other business and human

rights frameworks, and to the realisation of specific rights; and

• TIME-SPECIFIC: The action item should have an indication of the timeline for realisation.

BOX 20

SMART ACTIONS IN NAPs

The Finnish NAP includes action(s) for each section with a responsible Ministry(s) and scheduled

date explicitly identified. For example: “As a follow-up measure, the working group proposes that

alternatives for the development of the NCP [National Contact Point] be mapped out. In the meantime,

the procedures of the NCP shall be clarified and communications shall be made on them. Principal

responsible party: Ministry of Employment and the Economy, schedule before the end of 2015.”70

The U.S. NAP on Responsible Business Conduct adopts a tabular approach identifying specific

outcomes, within which it lists “new actions” and “ongoing commitments and initiatives,” all of which

explicitly identify an implementing department or agency.

The Swiss NAP includes an appendix, in table form, detailing an overview of implementation that

provides a breakdown of which NAP commitments relate to which UNPG, the activities to be

undertaken in each commitment, and which party leads in the implementation of the activity.

35 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.3.6 Ensure that NAP Action Points are

Coherent with Other Relevant Frameworks

The UNGPs provide governments and businesses with a

RELEVANT FRAMEWORKS AND

roadmap aimed at improving the enjoyment of human rights of INITIATIVES TO CONSIDER

individuals, workers, consumers, and communities. For NAPs IN THE CREATION OF A NAP:

on business and human rights to be effective in improving

business conduct, they should consider how the successful • 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda

implementation of the UNGPs may help improve the national and Sustainable Development Goals

implementation and functioning of other relevant frameworks • Extractive Industries Transparency

and initiatives. NAP actions should therefore seek to adopt Initiative

or improve the implementation of other relevant frameworks • Kimberley Process

and initiatives. Likewise, state institutions responsible for • Open Government Partnership

other frameworks and initiatives should actively engage in • OECD Guidelines for Multinational

developing the NAP on business and human rights, and commit Enterprises

to incorporating the human rights and business framework • Paris Agreement on Climate Change

in their work. This not only contributes to strengthening the • Voluntary Principles on Security and

state’s overall efforts at promoting human rights, but it also Human Rights

increases policy coherence, and reduces duplication of efforts

and inefficient use of state funds..

2.4 IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REVIEW OF NAPs

Publishing a NAP is not the end of the process, but rather the beginning of the implementation

phase. Incorporating an implementation plan, monitoring and review mechanisms, and reporting

mechanisms into a NAP increases the likelihood that the commitments made in the NAP will be

implemented in practice. At the same time, monitoring, reviewing, and reporting on successes

and failures can help foster an

exchange of information and the

sharing of best practices within

and among states, as well as with

wider society. Furthermore,

BOX 21

incorporating a commitment to

update a NAP allows the lessons

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND NAPs

learnt to be put into practice and The implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its related goals and targets is gaining

demonstrates a commitment to traction in many countries, including via the development of national follow-up and

progressively realise the “protect, review mechanisms. Responsible business conduct has been highlighted as a critical

respect, remedy” framework of component of the 2030 Agenda. The UNGPs and the SDGs are both implemented

through national action plans, as such, the potential to integrate this work is vast.

the UNGPs.

This points to a means of effectively integrating the human rights responsibilities

of businesses, and national implementation of the SDGs through an integrated and

mutually reinforcing approach, in order to capitalise on the momentum established by

the 2030 Agenda, create synergies, and enhance impact.

36 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 DIAGRAM 4: MONITORING AND REVIEW OF A NAP

NATIONAL REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL

LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL

Government-led Regional human UN Treaty bodies and

progress review rights institution special procedures

monitoring

mechanisms

Multi-stakeholder Global peer reviews

mechanism

Regional peer

review Options under new

Independent instrument

mechanism

2.4.1 Include an Implementation Plan

In addition to ensuring that each individual action item specifies a state actor responsible for

implementing the measure and a timeline for completion, a NAP should include an overarching, yet

detailed, implementation plan.

The implementation of new actions outlined in a NAP varies in complexity depending on the nature of

the future action, the local context, and the uptake of the business and human rights agenda by state

institutions and business. For example, a lack of political will or financial resources and/or a change

of government may impact implementation efforts. NAP implementation processes have so far had

mixed levels of success.

2.4.2 Establish Monitoring and Review Mechanisms at the National Level

During a NAP lifecycle, it is important to periodically review and address what progress has been

made in the implementation of the NAP as identified by stakeholders, including state institutions,

businesses, and civil society. Reviews can help identify challenges and make recommendations to

improve implementation measures. Review processes should be explicitly detailed in the NAP, along

with who is to undertake reviews and when they will occur. There are a number of forms that reviews

can take, including reviews led by the government, multi-stakeholder groups, or independent national

monitoring mechanisms.

Establish Regular Progress Review Led by the Government

A government may itself lead a periodic review of progress in fulfilling the commitments made in a

NAP. Typically, the body that coordinated the development of the NAP would undertake a progress

review in conjunction with an inter-governmental working group and/or a multi-stakeholder steering

37 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

committee, where one is established. It is also

advisable to include the legislative and judicial

BOX 22

branches of government in the process of

reviewing the executive branch’s implementation IMPLEMENTATION PLANS IN NAPs

of the NAP. A mid-term progress-review and, if the

NAP is time-bound, a final review of the NAP, are Chile’s NAP states that to “ensure an effective implementation…

a supplementary document containing indicators has been

common approaches. In both instances, general

prepared detailing the institution responsible for enforcing

principles in Chapter 3 relating to a HRBA in

compliance of each measure, indicators, as well as the [timeline]

NAPs processes, should be applied, particularly defined for that purpose. The responsible institution shall report

with regard to stakeholder participation and to the Inter-Ministerial Working Group about the implementation

transparency. stage of their measures to facilitate the monitoring and follow

up process of the Plan.”71 It further states that, “at the national

During the review process, the state’s level, the Inter-Ministerial Working Group will be formalised

performance in meeting targets and benchmarks by Decree.”72 Among other things, this seeks to support the

established in the NAP should be assessed and NAPs optimal implementation. This Working Group will have an

Executive Secretariat responsible for coordinating its actions. The

reported on. On this basis, implementation

implementation plan will be made publicly available in due course.

measures contained in the NAP can be updated.

BOX 23

PROGRESS REVIEW BY GOVERNMENT

The Italian NAP provides for the establishment of a Working Group on Business and Human Rights (GLIDU) (sitting within the Inter-

Ministerial Committee for Human Rights) which, in 2018, “will conduct a mid-term review to assess the results achieved and identify the

gaps in the actions undertaken to ensure the effective protection and advancement of human rights with regard to economic activities.”

In Chile’s NAP, the government commits to formalising the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Human Rights and Business by decree in order

to implement, monitor, and follow up on the implementation of the NAP. This Committee will have an Executive Secretariat to coordinate

the preparation of the annual report and the relationship with the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group. The Inter-Ministerial Committee

will also prepare an annual report on compliance with NAP measures, according to established indicators. To prepare this report, a

pre-meeting will be held to assess progress and challenges in implementing the NAP. The report will be published on the NAP’s website

and sent to each of the institutions involved in its implementation. The NAP also establishes that the annual report will be sent to the

legislative and judicial branches of government.

The Colombian NAP includes a framework for evaluation and follow-up. According to this plan, before the first of March of every year,

each institution implicated in the NAP should report to the Presidential Advisory Office for Human Rights on the steps it has taken to

fulfil the actions committed to under the NAP. This information is then to be consolidated and published by the Presidential Advisory

Office. The Office is also tasked with co-convening two regional rounds of review to assess the on-the-ground implementation of the NAP.

Following through on this plan, in 2017, Colombia published its first Annual Report on implementation of the NAP.

The UK NAP states that “[w]e will report back each year on progress in the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy of the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office.” This commitment was also included in the 2016 NAP Update and the reports have been forthcoming.

In 2017 the UK Parliament´s Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an Inquiry entitled “Human Rights and Business 2017:

Promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability” which included a number of recommendations to improve future NAP updates.

38 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Consider Establishing a Multi-Stakeholder Monitoring and Review Mechanism

As highlighted throughout this Toolkit, NAP processes should be based on the continuous engagement

with, and participation of, stakeholders. Stakeholders can also be given responsibility, jointly or

independently, for monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the NAP process, from drafting, to

implementation, review, and the development of an updated NAP.

Periodic review meetings between stakeholders and those charged with the implementation of a NAP can

be an effective, participative, and transparent way of tracking progress and can provide an understanding

of where actions are not effectively implemented or have not had the intended effect.

BOX 24

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MECHANISMS FOR REVIEW

The Swiss NAP commits the government to create a Monitoring Group with representatives from businesses, civil society, and

academia to ensure effective implementation of the NAP. The NAP leaves it up to this group to define their exact role and function

upon creation, though with the guidance that it meets “regularly” to discuss progress on NAP implementation with the responsible

government agencies for implementation.

The Chilean NAP commits to creating a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group with representatives of civil society, trade unions,

the business sector, indigenous peoples, academia, and the National Institute of Human Rights, in order to evaluate the progress

contained in the Inter-ministerial Committee Progress Report, and provide comments and recommendations aimed at improving

the effective implementation of the NAP.

In relation to monitoring, the Italian NAP gives the task of supervising implementation progress to the Working Group on Business and

Human Rights (GLIDU), established within the NAP. Accordingly, and “with the aim of guaranteeing a multi-stakeholder approach, the

GLIDU will work jointly with a consultative body composed of all relevant non-institutional stakeholders (business community, trade

unions, civil society organizations, human rights defenders, individual experts[,] and representatives from academia).” 76

Consider Establishing or Mandating Independent National Monitoring Mechanisms to Review the NAP

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) requires the establishment by state

parties of a framework to promote and monitor the CRPD´s implementation, which must include one or

more “independent mechanisms.”77 Under the CRPD, an existing body such as an NHRI or another entity

set up for this purpose can be allocated this function.78 Such an oversight model could be adapted to

promote and monitor a NAP on business and human rights. Thus, an independent body, such as the NHRI,

could be given the role of monitoring implementation of the NAP.

39 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 BOX 25

NHRI-LED FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION

The French NAP provides that the follow-up and evaluation of the NAP will be conducted by the NHRI as an independent

administrative body, in line with the recommendation of the UNWG. Its mission will be to evaluate the implementation

of the plan periodically. The details of the follow-up and review are not included in the NAP.

2.4.3 Reporting to International and Human Rights Mechanisms on NAP Implementation

Reporting on NAP efforts to international human rights mechanisms provides governments and local

stakeholders with additional avenues for monitoring the state’s human rights obligations in relation to

business, thus helping to improve implementation of the UNGPs and ensuring accountability for state

duty-bearers. Reporting to such mechanisms can also support the identification of gaps and the need for

further normative developments at the regional79 and/or global level, including in relation to the extra-

territorial dimension of business and human rights issues.80

Report on Progress through the

Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Process by the UN Human Rights

BOX 26

Council (UNHRC)

States should report on business

REPORTING THROUGH THE UPR PROCESS

and human rights through the The Danish NAP notes, in relation to UNGP 3a on reviewing the adequacy of laws

UPR process. The UPR process requiring businesses to respect human rights, that: “Denmark actively takes part

is overseen by the UNHRC and in the Universal Period Review process [sic] of the United Nations. Denmark

examines the record of each of also takes part in the review by the UN Treaty Body Monitoring mechanisms

the UN Member States once every with regard to obligations arising under the United Nations core human rights

conventions, and by relevant ILO and Council of Europe bodies. These processes

four and a half years. The scope

provide a platform for systematic consideration of the compliance of Danish law,

of the review is in line with the policies[,] and administration with international human rights law. Denmark

human rights guaranteed by the duly takes account of findings and recommendations issued by such bodies.”81

Universal Declaration of Human

The Finnish NAP states that “[d]epending on the situation, Finland utilises

Rights (UDHR) and set out in the

the universal periodic review (UPR) of the human rights situation in the UN

UN Charter, other UN human rights

Human Rights Council states. In this review, questions may be asked and

instruments, ratified treaties, recommendations on the implementation of the guiding principles may be given

voluntary pledges, and applicable to the state examined.” 82

international humanitarian law.

The Swiss NAP highlights the importance of the UPR process and notes as an

The UPR is a peer review process activity “UPR reporting on business and human rights and formulation of UPR

based on: (1) information recommendations on business and human rights for other States.”83

provided by the state in a report;

40 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

(2) a report compiled by the OHCHR; and (3) information from other stakeholders, including civil society

and a state’s NHRI, compiled by the OHCHR as a summary of stakeholder information. The UPR process

proceeds via an interactive dialogue wherein UN Member States can pose questions and comments and

make recommendations to the state under review. An outcome report is adopted following the interactive

dialogue. The state under review can accept or note recommendations given by other states. The UN Human

Rights Council will later adopt a final Plenary Session Report. States are responsible for implementing

recommendations made by other states. States may voluntarily submit to a mid-term review, after around two

years, in which stakeholders can again participate. The cycle continues and another full examination will occur

four and half years after the last.

Accordingly, the UPR represents an opportunity to monitor progress towards the implementation of the

UNGPs through NAPs. The state under review may report on NAP progress, while civil society, NHRIs,

experts, other UN organs, as well as other governments, may highlight progress, or lack thereof, through a

recommendation.

Report on Progress to UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies and Special Procedures

A NAP may include a requirement to report on business and human rights through the UN human rights treaty

monitoring, special procedures, or other UN accountability mechanisms. There are nine core human rights

instruments which each establish a treaty body (Committee).84

The Committees oversee the requirement

for states which have acceded to a treaty

to undertake a periodic report roughly

BOX 27

every four years and based on constructive

dialogue, publishes its concerns and

NINE CORE HUMAN RIGHTS

recommendations, in the form of concluding

INSTRUMENTS WITH A TREATY BODY

observations. The UNGPs address all

internationally recognised human rights and, • Human Rights Committee (CCPR)

as a result, business and human rights can • Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

be raised in discussion in any treaty body • Committee Against Torture (CAT)

monitoring process, special procedures, or • Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

other UN accountability mechanisms. • Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

• Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)

The Committees also publish their

interpretation of the content of human • Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

rights provisions, known as general • Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

comments, on thematic issues or methods • Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)

of work. For example, in 2013 the Committee

on the Rights of the Child adopted General

Comment No. 16 (2013) on state obligations

regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights. Additionally, in 2017 the Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 24 (2017) on state obligations under the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities.

The UN Human Rights Council has established “Special Procedures” which are independent human rights

41 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.

The system of Special Procedures is a central element of the UN human rights machinery and covers all

human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political, and social. As of 1 August 2017, there are forty-four thematic

and twelve country mandates. Included as one of the thematic mandates is the UNWG, whose responsibilities

include the effective and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the UNGPs.

Special procedures undertake country visits; act

on individual cases and concerns of a broader,

structural nature by sending communications

BOX 28

to states and others in which they bring

alleged violations or abuses to attention;

THE UNWG REPOSITORY OF NAPs

conduct thematic studies and convene expert

consultations; contribute to the development of The UNWG launched a Repository of NAPs in February 2014, which

international human rights standards; engage collects all published NAPs in one location. In June 2014, the UN

in advocacy; raise public awareness; and Human Rights Council, in renewing the UNWG’s mandate, gave

it the new task of seeking information from states on their NAPs

provide advice for technical cooperation. Special

and encouraged states and other stakeholders to provide relevant

procedures report annually to the UNHRC; the

information to the UNWG. Specifically, the UNHRC “welcome[d]

majority of the mandates also reports to the UN the efforts of the Working Group to build a database of national

General Assembly. action plans” and “encourage[d] States to submit information on

their national action plans”85 by way of annual updates.

BOX 29

REPORTING TO INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS

The Swiss NAP states that “Switzerland will include business and human rights appropriately in its periodic reports on the

implementation of international conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination

of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.”86

The Finnish NAP states that “Finland shall report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the implementation of the

recommendation by the Committee on Business.”87 The NAP also commits to “continue the dialogue related to the human rights

impacts of business activities with the UN bodies for indigenous peoples.”88

Although the Swedish NAP does not make an explicit reference to reporting on business and human rights issues, it states that:

“Sweden has acceded to several of the inter-national organisations’ conventions on human rights, including UN, Council of Europe and

International Labour Organisation conventions. Sweden is therefore obliged to report, at regular intervals, on its implementation of the

provisions of the conventions. Sweden has been reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism on

two occasions (2010 and 2015).”89

42 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 BOX 30

OPTIONS FOR REVIEWING NAPs UNDER AN INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENT

In 2014, the UN Human Rights Council decided “to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working

group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, whose

mandate shall be to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international

human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.”90 While

the scope and focus of such an instrument is still being discussed, it has been suggested that a treaty on

business and human rights or component of it could focus on NAPs on business and human rights.91 It is an

established practice that human rights instruments make provision for scrutiny of state measures toward

compliance and implementation of substantive obligations they have undertaken. As such, if a new legal

instrument on business and human rights were realised, it will likely provide for a dedicated monitoring

and review process on business and human rights.92

There are a range of monitoring and review options that could be incorporated into such an international

agreement:

• Review by the new independent expert monitoring body in the UN, or the UNWG;

• Review by an existing or new national mechanism states would be obliged to establish under the

instrument; and

• Review via a new UN-based peer review mechanism.

2.4.4 Report to and Engage with Regional Human Rights Mechanisms

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)

The African Commission Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment, and Human Rights

violations was established in 2006. Its mandate includes, inter-alia, to “undertake research on the

violations of human and peoples’ rights by non-state actors in Africa,” and “formulate recommendations

and proposals on appropriate measures and activities for the prevention and reparation of violations of

human and peoples’ rights by extractive industries.”93 In carrying out its mandate, the Working Group

has the platform to drive the implementation of the UNGPs in Africa’s extractives sector. Additionally,

the Working Group is currently drafting State Reporting Guidelines and Principles on Articles 21 and 24

of the African Charter relating to extractive industries.

Council of Europe

The CoE has set up various mechanisms for the promotion and monitoring of human rights in Member

States. The Commissioner for Human Rights is an independent non-judicial institution established in

1999 by the CoE to promote awareness of and respect for human rights in the CoE Member States. The

Commissioner is mandated to, inter-alia, foster the effective observance of human rights, assist Member

States in the implementation of the human rights standards of the Council of Europe, and identify

43 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

possible shortcomings in law and practice concerning human rights.94 As a follow-up to the adoption of

a Recommendation on business and human rights, the Commissioner has begun integrating business

and human rights into the agenda of country visits.95

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)

The mandate of the IACHR provides opportunities for reviewing the progress of NAPs of OAS Member

States, including through country visit outcome reports, periodic public hearings where states may

be subject to a review on human rights and business, and in situations where states ask for IACHR

advisory support on their NAP processes. Such an advisory role is in line with the 2014 and 2016 OAS

Resolutions on business and human rights, which request increased IACHR engagement and support

in this area.

2.4.5 Engage in Peer Dialogue and Review on NAPs at Regional and Global Level

Peer exchanges on NAPs, in particular at the regional level can help enhance dialogue amongst

states that face similar business and human rights realities and challenges, and address regional

frameworks relevant to business and human rights, in addition to global standards. Business and

human rights is a relatively new area for many policy-makers, and the scope of business and human

rights is very broad. Addressing human rights adverse impacts requires a “smart mix”96 of measures

ranging from encouraging businesses to integrate human rights into their operations and adopting

policies and procedures within various government agencies, to revising existing legislation and

adopting targeted regulatory measures.

Peer review processes, which should also allow for stakeholder participation, can therefore provide

a platform to learn from experiences in developing and implementing NAPs and/or other policy

measures to implement the UNGPs. There are a number of examples of peer review processes in other

areas which could be further explored in relation to business and human rights. In relation to NAPs

on business and human rights, opportunities for peer reviews are emerging as highlighted below.

OECD

The OECD conducts Investment Policy Reviews of states on the basis of the OECD Policy Framework

for Investment. These reviews present an overview of investment trends and policies in the states

assessed. In addition to a review of the investment promotion and facilitation, competition, trade,

taxation, corporate governance, finance, and infrastructure policy, these reviews also consider

policies to promote responsible business conduct.97

The NCPs established by states adhering to the OECD Guidelines are also subject to a peer review.

The NCP peer review process provides an important opportunity for NCPs to take stock of their

achievements, acknowledge weaknesses, and implement strategies to strengthen their effectiveness

and performance. Given that a number of NAPs have made commitments to strengthen NCPs, such as

the NAPs of Sweden, Italy, and the United States, the peer review process can provide a platform to

track NCP-related commitments.

44 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

With regard to NAPs on business and human rights, since 2015, the OECD, in collaboration with the

UNWG, has organised peer dialogue sessions for policy-makers within the framework of the Global

Forum on Responsible Business Conduct.

African Union

Through the AU’s New Partnership for African Economic Development (NEPAD), the African Peer

Review Mechanism operates on a voluntary basis, which covers the broad areas of economic and

political governance. This could be an appropriate platform into which consideration of UNGPs could

be integrated in the future.98

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights completed a thematic study on CSR in

2014 that included a peer review exercise of national measures to promote CSR.99 A similar system

could be created to peer review the implementation of NAPs on business and human rights.

Council of Europe

The CoE, in addition to its human rights monitoring mechanisms on issues such as corruption;100

human trafficking;101 and anti-money laundering and the financing of terrorism102 relies or has relied

on a peer reporting exercise, based on standard questionnaires to be completed by its Member States,

in order to promote follow-up and implementation of soft legal standards.103

In the recommendation adopted in March 2016, the Committee of Ministers of the CoE recommended

that Member States “share plans on the national implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on

Business and Human Rights (“National Action Plans”), including revised National Action Plans and

best practice concerning the development and review of National Action Plans in a shared information

system, to be established and maintained by the Council of Europe, which is to be accessible to the

public.”104 The recommendation also provided for the examination “within the Committee of Ministers

[of] the implementation of this recommendation no later than five years after its adoption [i.e. 2021],

with the participation of relevant stakeholders.”105 This provides opportunities to establish a strong

review mechanism. Stakeholders have recommended that such a review could build on existing

approaches for peer review at OECD, EU, or UN levels.106

European Union

In relation to a number of areas, ranging from employment and education policies to culture,

EU Member States participate in voluntary peer review processes under the “Open Method of

Coordination” (OMC). The OMC is principally based on jointly identifying and defining objectives

to be achieved (adopted by the Council); jointly established measuring instruments (statistics,

indicators, guidelines); and benchmarking, i.e. comparison of EU countries’ performance and the

exchange of best practices (monitored by the Commission). The EU requires that its Member States

produce national plans both on CSR and business and human rights. A one-time peer review exercise

was undertaken by the EU to evaluate Member States’ CSR NAPs in 2013, and all Member States

participated in several meetings organised in different Member States. Reports were published for

45 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

each peer review meeting, summarising the dialogue that the states engaged in, including a brief

description of any NAP progress made in each state. There is no mention, however, of any input

from or participation of other stakeholders in the final reports.107 This experience and the OMC are

opportunities for Member States to engage in peer learning regarding NAPs on business and human

rights.

The EU Council conclusions of 2016 call on “the Commission and the EEAS [European External Action

Service] to promote peer learning on business and human rights, including cross regional peer

learning.”108

Two informal peer exchange meetings have been held. The first was

organised as a meeting of policy makers under the Dutch Presidency of

BOX 31

the EU in May 2016. The second was organised in 2017 by the Belgian

government as a one-day “Peer Exchange on Implementing the UN PROMOTING PEER-REVIEW

Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights: National Action Plans

AT EU LEVEL

and Addressing the issue of Remedy Sharing Experience and Best

Practices.” Non-government stakeholders were invited to share their The Italian NAP states that Italy will

views during one session at the end of the meeting. “[e]ngage with other States for the

establishment of a mechanism of peer

review for the existing National Action

Organization of American States

Plans on Business and Human Rights

(in line with EU Council resolution

The OAS has adopted two resolutions expressing support for the

encouraging peer learning on BHR).”109

UNGPs and their implementation by states.110 In February 2018, the

Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs will host a regional peer

exchange session with OAS Member States on regional advances with

regards to the implementation of the UNGPs.

2.4.6 Report on Progress in the Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda and

High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)

As noted previously, the 2030 Agenda’s FUR architecture is comprised of national, regional, and

international levels. Nationally, states should conduct regular and inclusive progress reviews that

draw on input from stakeholders, and regionally, they should undertake voluntary reviews based on

national FUR processes for the purposes of peer learning and sharing of best practices. At the global

level, the 2030 Agenda establishes the HLPF as the hub for review of state efforts to implement the

SDGs.

States seeking to implement and voluntarily report on their efforts to implement the SDGs through the

HLPF can also report on measures within their NAP on business and human rights which implement,

or support the implementation of, the SDGs. States can also ensure coordination between the SDG

FUR mechanism and the mechanisms set up to monitor the implementation of their business and

human rights NAP. To further integrate these reporting processes, states could incorporate national

level indicators on the business and human rights NAP as part of the national FUR mechanism.

46 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

2.5 UPDATING THE NAP

In order to effectively realise the UNGPs, NAPs should not only be monitored, reviewed, and reported

on, but should also be periodically updated. Incorporating a commitment to update a NAP allows the

lessons learnt during creation, implementation, and review to be put into practice and demonstrates a

commitment to progressively realise the “protect, respect, remedy” framework of the UNGPs.

Once a NAP nears the end of its implementation period, planning should begin to develop a new or

updated NAP. Subsequent NAPs should build not only on evaluating the extent to which the NAP’s

own indicators were met, but also on input and recommendations from national, regional, and

international monitoring and review mechanisms, as well as on domestic stakeholder feedback.

Conditions on the ground are likely to have evolved over the implementation period of the NAP, so it

may be necessary for the new NAP process to reflect such change. Updating the NBA to assess the

current level of implementation of the UNGPs and the human rights impacts of business can provide a

tool for achieving this.

BOX 32

UPDATING NAPs

The UK NAP states that “[w]e commit to bring out an updated version of the

action plan by end 2015.”111 The UK began a consultation process to update the

NAP in 2015, and published the Updated NAP in 2016. The aims of the update

were to: “record the achievements the Government has made, and actions we

have taken, over the past two years; reflect the developments which have taken

place at the international level since the UK’s National Action Plan was first

published, including guidance on implementation and the experience of other

countries; set out the role Government can play in helping businesses to fulfil

its responsibility to respect human rights, and in creating a secure, predictable,

and fair environment for UK companies, wherever they operate; support the role

Government can play in supporting human rights defenders in this field and

the provision of remedy which is available to those who feel they are victims of

business-related human rights abuses.”112

In 2017 the UK Parliament´s Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an

Inquiry entitled “Human Rights and Business 2017: Promoting responsibility and

ensuring accountability,”113 which included a number of criticisms of the updated

NAP, as well as recommendations to improve future NAP updates.

The Swiss NAP states “[t]his NAP should be reviewed and updated every four

years,” noting that the Federal Council will “present the first updated version of

the National Action Plan in 2020.”114

47 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 III

A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO

NAPS: PARTICIPATION, NON-DISCRIMINATION,

TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

This Toolkit’s content and recommended processes are aligned with a human rights-based approach

(HRBA). According to the UN’s Statement of Common Understanding on HRBAs to Development

Cooperation and Programming, a HRBA is:115

• Normatively and operationally based on international human rights standards and principles;

• Applies human rights-based principles in processes – including participation, non-

discrimination, empowerment, transparency, and accountability; and

• Emphasises the importance of accountability by recognising entitlements of rights-holders and

the obligations of duty bearers.

3.1 EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

All human beings are considered equal and entitled to the same human rights without discrimination

on the grounds of race, colour, sex, ethnicity, age, language, religion, political or other opinion,

national or social origin, disability, property, birth, or other status.116

Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to equality and non-discrimination

include:

• Ensuring that consultation processes and the content of NAPs are gender sensitive, and that

women and men are given equal opportunities to participate in the NAP process;

• Identifying and recognising the most marginalised groups in society, and ensuring the inclusion

of those rights-holder groups who may be marginalised or discriminated against in the given

context, especially those individuals subject to multiple forms of discrimination; and

• Ensuring that the NAP addresses issues of discrimination against women and other groups in

society in the context of business activities.

48 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

3.2 PARTICIPATION

Participation enables all stakeholder groups to be involved in each phase of the process, and

governments should take special measures to engage marginalised individuals and groups throughout

a NAP process, particularly where indigenous peoples are present (see Section 3.1.2 on “Indigenous

Peoples”). The goal of participation is to create ownership by right-holders over their development,

which in turn requires access to information to ensure effective participation.

Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to participation include:

• Enabling stakeholder participation through, for example, the establishment of a permanent

multi-stakeholder structure tasked with providing input at all stages of the process;

• Facilitating consultation meetings throughout the NAP process from its inception, to the

development of an NBA, drafting of the NAP, implementation, and review;

• Ensuring that consultations take place in a manner appropriate to the stakeholder(s) in

question, with attention paid to levels of knowledge and expertise in the subject matter and any

potential language or social, cultural, financial, or other barriers to participation; and

• Undertaking capacity-building of stakeholders as necessary to enable meaningful participation

for those rights-holders who are marginalised or discriminated against.

3.3 TRANSPARENCY

Access to information is necessary for ensuring effective stakeholder participation in NAP processes.

Transparency requires governments to make available all information relevant to its decision-making

processes. It is important that people know and understand how major decisions affecting their

rights are made and how public institutions that are established for the protection of these rights are

managed. However, the mere availability of information is not enough; this information must also be

accessible and available in languages and formats that suit the needs and literacy levels of all.

Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to transparency include:

• Publishing and regularly updating the plan for developing the NAP, including the timeframe for

the different phases;

• Publicising key documents relevant to the NAP process, including the NBA, minutes of meetings,

contributions from stakeholders, any drafts of the NAP, and reviews of implementation, in an

accessible and timely manner; and

• Ensuring that the information published is adequate and accessible enough to ensure

meaningful participation by rights-holders and other stakeholders in the NAP process.

49 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

3.4 ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability in the HRBA framework entails recognising the entitlements of rights-holders and the

obligations of duty-bearers, thereby enabling rights-holders to hold duty-bearers in government and

businesses accountable for their actions.

Implications for a NAP on business and human rights in relation to accountability include:

• Clearly defining responsibilities within the government for the development of the NAP;

• Focusing on and clearly identifying responsibilities for the NAP’s implementation, follow-up,

and review

• Ensuring that the NAP addresses the most serious impacts of business activities and the access

to remedy for rights-holders adversely affected by business.

Taken together, the different elements of a HRBA also help governments command the confidence

of all stakeholders, which is a prerequisite to the legitimacy and credibility of NAPs on business and

human rights.

3.5 ENGAGING SPECIFIC RIGHTS-HOLDERS IN A NAP PROCESS

To be rights-compatible, a NAP process needs to be open and inclusive for all relevant stakeholders.

As discussed above in Section 2.1.7, rights-holders from affected groups and communities, especially

those from vulnerable or marginalised groups, may often face challenges in participating fully and

effectively in NAPs processes. The following is a discussion of the types of challenges faced by a non-

exhaustive list of particular rights-holders.

3.5.1 Children

Children interact with businesses every day, whether as consumers of goods and services, members

of communities in which they operate, family members of their employees, or as workers themselves.

At the same time, childhood is characterised by progressive stages of development that leave

children far more susceptible to negative business impacts than adults. Yet despite this vulnerability,

businesses and governments rarely involve or seek the input of the children they affect, and children

face many legal, practical, and cultural barriers to having their voices heard.

According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children capable of forming their own

views should be able to freely express themselves and have their views taken into account in line

with their age and maturity.117 Additionally, there are a number of children’s rights stakeholders

within and outside of government that are also able to help express the needs and desires of children.

These stakeholders might include children’s ombudspersons or individuals within ministries for

youth, family, social affairs, health or education. Other children’s rights stakeholders include youth

organisations, civil society groups, parents and/or caregivers, and community leaders.

50 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

It is essential that states specifically consider children’s rights when developing and implementing

a NAP, and that they involve children and children’s rights stakeholders in this process, in order to

effectively address issues of concern relevant to children’s rights within the business and human

rights context.

BOX 33

SPECIAL FOCUS ON CHILDREN IN NAPS

In Mexico, UNICEF led the creation of a thematic supplement to the NBA in relation specifically to children’s

rights and NAPs. UNICEF utilised a thematic baseline supplement authored by their own organisation in

collaboration with DIHR and ICAR.

In Colombia’s NAP, the Ministry of Labour commits to strengthening actions to prevent the sexual and

commercial exploitation of children and adolescents, and to generating strategies linking the private sector to

the actions for the prevention of violations of the rights of children and adolescents.

As part of the process of creating a NAP in Indonesia, the NHRI worked with UNICEF to conduct online and in-

person consultations with children to understand what business impacts children experience and what roles

and responsibilities they believe businesses and the government have to protect and respect their rights.

3.5.2 Indigenous Peoples

NAP processes need to ensure the effective participation and respect of indigenous peoples and their

specific rights, in accordance with ILO Convention No.169 on the rights of indigenous peoples, the

UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and region-specific standards and

jurisprudence.

Lack of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples often results in their rights, priorities, needs,

and aspirations not being reflected in government initiatives, as well as to negative development

outcomes for indigenous peoples. The obligation to consult indigenous peoples is a general

requirement in situations where legislative, administrative, and/or developmental initiatives may

affect them,118 including in the context of the creations of NAPs on business and human rights. This

is a broad understanding of the obligation to consult which not only refers to the development of

national laws, policies, and programmes, but also to regional and local administrative regulations,

programmes, and projects. In the context of international law, the obligation to consult is read in line

with the right of indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities for the process of development,119

the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their distinct and representative

institutions,120 and the right of indigenous peoples to participate at all levels of decision-making which

concern them.121

According to international law, consultation should be undertaken with the objective of achieving

agreement or consent.122 Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is recognised in the UN

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.123 Consultation should also be undertaken in

51 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

good faith with the representative institutions of indigenous peoples, through procedures that are

appropriate for them. This implies that the nature and scope of the consultation process should be

agreed on with indigenous peoples in advance of consultation procedures taking place. Consultations

should also be initiated prior to any form of government decision-making, providing indigenous

peoples with a real possibility of influencing decisions throughout the cycle of conception, planning,

monitoring, and evaluation of a process, such as the context of a NAP. Consent in this context is not

understood to be a discrete one-time action, but an ongoing process throughout the life-cycle of any

action that is likely to have an impact on indigenous peoples, in accordance with the steps in the

process agreed upon with indigenous peoples. Adequate consultation processes can be extremely

valuable in ensuring that appropriate actions are developed that can respond to indigenous peoples’

specific needs and concerns.

In practice, conducting appropriate consultation with indigenous peoples in NAP processes has been

a challenge thus far for governments given diverging interpretations by civil society, indigenous

representatives and state actors with respect to the right to consultation and what this implies for

each step of the process.

Challenges notwithstanding, governments developing

NAPs should observe the relevant human rights

standards regarding indigenous peoples throughout the

BOX 34

entire NAP process and within the content of the NAP

itself. In some contexts, it may be advisable to pursue HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

a consultation track specifically for indigenous peoples

CONTENT IN NBA IN THAILAND

to effectively achieve this. Once a draft NAP has been

developed, governments should engage indigenous The Manushya Foundation, an NGO who is heavily involved

peoples in consultation along with other stakeholders in the Thai NAP process, and leading the creation of an

to evaluate and provide feedback on the NAP, in NBA to input into the official NAP process, has utilised the

thematic supplement to the DIHR-ICAR Toolkit on human

accordance with the international standards described

rights defenders, published by ICAR and the International

above.

Service for Human Rights (ISHR) to create a thematic NBA

on implementation of the UNGPs in relation to HRDs.

Additionally, a few NAPs have specifically addressed HRDs

in the content of their plans. For example, in both versions

of the UK NAP, the government commits to supporting

human rights defenders. The 2016 iteration commits

the government to “continue to work through [their]

embassies and high commissions to support human rights

defenders.”126

52 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

 BOX 35

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ PARTICIPATION IN NAP PROCESSES

In July 2016, the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with support from international experts on indigenous rights and business

and human rights, hosted three dialogues with indigenous peoples in San Pedro de Atacama, Santiago, and Temuco to collect

information on business and human rights impacts, challenges, and recommendations for consideration in its NAP.

Example impacts identified by indigenous peoples in the dialogues include:124

• The profound impacts on territory of mining, water systems and other projects initiated by the state or private

businesses that have led to cultural, social and economic changes;

• The lack of clarity around whether to negotiate with the state or with businesses;

• The lack of respect by businesses for sacred sites of indigenous peoples and the destruction of local ecosystems;

• The negative impact of the differences between the Chilean calendar and the Mapuche calendar on the lives of

indigenous workers;

• The existence of multiple types of discrimination in the labour market based on gender and on indigenous identity; and

• The systematic discrimination against indigenous peoples right to work based on indigenous names in job applications.

Example recommendations made by indigenous peoples during the dialogues include for the state to:

• Conduct human rights impact assessments with a particular focus on indigenous peoples’ rights;

• Conduct consultations for business operations already started. These consultations should be undertaken as a

continuous process, and not only for business entry

• Conduct community training for effective dialogue with the state and businesses;

• Create a corporate transparency law in line with the UNGPs;

• Organise seminars and periodic training sessions with state officials and businesses on the rights of indigenous peoples;

• Recognise customary law of indigenous peoples, including as mechanisms for mediation and conflict resolution; and

• Ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in the negotiations of free trade agreements and investment decision-making.

3.5.3 Human Rights Defenders

Human rights defenders (HRDs) play a critical role in the area of business and human rights, by

monitoring state and business conduct, identifying human rights concerns, and advocating for redress

and accountability of government and business actors involved in human rights abuses. However,

in practice, HRDs may be subject to persecution and harassment, arbitrary arrest, or detention,

especially in states lacking effective rule of law for their legitimate work in promoting human rights

and seeking to protect against corporate-related human rights abuses. The UNGPs acknowledge the

risks faced by HRDs, by requiring states to ensure that “the legitimate and peaceful activities of

human rights defenders are not obstructed.”125

53 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

Given the important role of HRDs in identifying, preventing, mitigating, and ensuring accountability

for corporate human rights abuses, it is critical for governments to consult with HRDs in the process

of creating a NAP. It is of equal, if not greater, importance, that governments ensure the effective

protection of defenders throughout NAPs processes, and address the dangers faced by defenders in

their legitimate work in the content of the NAP.

3.5.4 Women

Recognising the “different risks that may be faced by BOX 36

women and men,” the UNGPs also call for explicit attention

to gender.127 Women’s rights to non-discrimination ADDRESSING WOMEN’S RIGHTS

and equality are protected by the Convention on the IN NAPs

Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women Recognising that “there remains a substantial pay gap

(CEDAW) and ILO conventions.128 Integrating a gender between women and men” in Germany, the NAP recalls

approach means analysing how business may have that the Federal Government has initiated a dialogue

different, disproportionate, or unanticipated impacts on between employers’ and employees’ organisations

women or men, as a result of their different gender-based on this issue and has introduced numerous non-

legislative measures such as the Equal Pay Day and a

social, legal, and cultural roles and rights.

new computer-assisted assessment procedure for the

NAPs processes provide an opportunity to understand and identification of corporate pay discrimination.

address the ways in which corporate activities perpetuate With regard to human rights in conflict areas, the

widespread discrimination against women in workplaces, Norwegian NAP states that it will intensify the dialogue

contribute to unstable and vulnerable working conditions, dialogue on the risk of gender-based and sexual abuses

and give rise to gender-specific human rights impacts. where appropriate.

The Polish NAP also includes measures to promote

Women and men often experience business-related human

gender equality in the workplace.

rights impacts in different ways. Frequently, women bear

a disproportionate burden of negative social, economic,

and environmental impacts while having less access to

the benefits, such as job creation, supply contracts, or

compensation, which may be generated by private sector development. For example, in the garment

sector, where women represent the vast majority of workers, they may be more vulnerable to negative

human rights impacts. While all workers may be affected by certain abuses (such as fire and building

safety risks, low wages etc.), women face additional risks of abuses, such as sexual harassment,

assault, and rape; pregnancy-based discrimination.

Similarly, in the context of mineral development, community governance processes often de facto

exclude women from participating effectively in consultations and engagement in decision-making.

Women’s property rights may be adversely affected as they are less likely to be compensated for loss

of, or damages to, property and assets.

In all actions relating to women, human rights, and business, it is fundamental to recognise and take

appropriate measures to address the particular impacts experienced by marginalised women and

women affected by multiple or intersectional forms of discrimination.

54 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

3.6 CONFLICT AFFECTED-CONTEXTS

In conflict-affected areas, extreme polarisation among actors requires a highly participatory approach

based on trust-building and, in some cases, peace-building. The traditional models of multi-stakeholder

engagement that work in non-conflict contexts may not be useful, or instead be counterproductive.

Where possible, professional conflict mediators should be involved in the process, design, and

implementation of multi-stakeholder engagement. Where situations do not allow for such engagement,

engagement with separate stakeholder groups can be an option.

In conflict-affected areas, states may be unable to protect human rights adequately due to a lack of

effective control in these areas. The UNGPs highlight that home states of multinational enterprises

operating in conflict-affected areas have a role to play in assisting both these corporations and

host states in ensuring that businesses are not involved in human rights abuses.129 In the context

of the development of NAPs, this implies that both home and host states bear responsibility for

ensuring companies domiciled in the territory respect human rights by including specific actions

targeting businesses in these areas. Among other efforts, home states have a role in supporting host

state efforts to develop NAPs, including through technical and financial support. NAP processes in

countries with conflict-affected areas have seen some home state governments and local embassies

contributing to host government NAP efforts, in line with the standards established by UNGP 7.

BOX 37

ADDRESSING THE ROLE OF BUSINESS IN

CONFLICT-AFFECTED CONTEXTS

One of the overall objectives of Colombia’s NAP on business and human rights is to

contribute to the country’s post-conflict peacebuilding efforts, particularly in relation to

social conflict stemming from business activities that could be exacerbated in the post-

conflict context. While Colombia’s NAP process did not include sufficient consultation with

people impacted by the conflict, the NAP does contain specific actions aimed at addressing

the role of business in the country’s armed conflict and encourages companies to participate

in the transitional justice process. Action 6.3 states: “The Integral Care and Reparation for

Victims Unit, as coordinator of the National System of Comprehensive Care and Reparation

to Victims (SNARIV), together with the Post-Conflict Directorate, will develop strategies for

companies to contribute to the recovery of memory for peacebuilding, reconciliation[,] and

the promotion of human rights and reconstruction of the social fabric, for which they can

develop initiatives of memory and construction of a culture of peace.”130

55 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

ANNEX A: NAPs CHECKLIST

1. GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

a. Leadership and Ownership • Commit to the NAP process

of NAP Process • Ensure responsibility for the NAP process is clearly established and

communicated

• Ensure coordination and coherence across government actors

b. Transparency at All Stages • Devise and publish terms of reference and a timeline for the NAP process

of the NAP Process • Publish the NBA, stakeholder submissions, and any other significant

analyses informing the NAP

• Publish and consult on a draft NAP

c. Adequate Resourcing • Allocate appropriate financial resources to the NAP process

2. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

a. Effective Participation by • Conduct a stakeholder mapping

All Relevant Stakeholders • Provide adequate information and capacity-building where needed

• Facilitate participation by marginalised or at-risk groups

• Consider establishing a stakeholder steering group or advisory committee

3. NATIONAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT

a. The NBA as a Foundation • Undertake an NBA as the first step in the NAP process

for the NAP • Allocate the task of developing the NBA to an appropriate body

• Fully involve stakeholders in the development of the NBA

• Publish and disseminate the NBA

• Review and update the NBA periodically

4. SCOPE, CONTENT, AND PRIORITIES

a. Scope of NAPs • Address the full scope of the UNGPs

• Address the full scope of the state’s jurisdiction

b. Content of NAPs • Include action points that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and

time-specific

• Ensure coherency with other relevant frameworks

c. Priorities for NAPs • Prioritise for action the most serious business-related human rights abuses

• Include a particular focus on marginalised or at-risk groups

5. ACCOUNTABILITY AND FOLLOW-UP

a. Holding Duty-Bearers • Identify who is responsible for implementation of individual action points

and overall follow-up

Accountable for Implementation

• Lay out a framework for monitoring of and reporting on implementation

b. Updating the NAP • Identify a period for implementation and include a commitment to updating the NAP

56 N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N S O N B U S I N E S S A N D H U M A N R I G H T S T O O L K I T

ENDNOTES

¹ Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other

Business Enterprises, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect

and Remedy” Framework, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (Mar. 21, 2011) (by John Ruggie) [hereinafter Guiding Principles].

² Human Rights Council Res. 26/22, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/26/22, at 2 (15 July 2014).

³ See, e.g., A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2011) 681 final (Oct. 25, 2011),

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF [hereinafter EU CSR Strategy 2011];

Resolution on the Review of the EU’s Human Rights Strategy, EUR. PARL. DOC. 2062 (INI) (2012), http://www.europarl.

europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2012-0378&language=EN; Council of Europe, Declaration of the

Committee of Ministers on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Apr. 16, 2014), https://search.coe.int/cm/

Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c6ee3.

⁴ Organization of American States, Resolution Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, OAS AG/RES. 2887 (June 14, 2016)

(XLVI-O/16).

⁵ See, Validation Workshop of the African Union Policy on Business and Human Rights, AFRICAN UNION (Mar. 21, 2017),

https://au.int/web/en/pressreleases/20170321/validation-workshop-african-union-policy-business-and-human-rights (last visited

Nov. 6, 2017).

⁶ State National Action Plans, OFF. OF THE U.N. HIGH COMM. FOR HUM. RTS. [hereinafter UNWG NAPs Webpage], http://

www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/NationalActionPlans.aspx.

⁷ G20, Leaders’ Declaration: Shaping an Interconnected World (July 2017) [hereinafter G20 Leaders’

Declaration 2017], https://www.g20.org/Content/EN/_Anlagen/G20/G20-leaders-declaration.

pdf;jsessionid=71191DF7C90A31FB537C3D42D3AC249B.s4t1?__blob=publicationFile&v=11.

⁸ Human Rights Council Res. A/HRC/26/22, supra note 2.

⁹ Sara Blackwell & Nicole Vander Meulen, Two Roads Converged: The Mutual Complementarity of a Binding Business and

Human Rights Treaty and National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, 6 NOTRE DAME J. OF INT’L & COMP. L. 52–53

(2016).

10

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, G.A. Res. 70/1, ¶67 (Sept. 25, 2015).

11

Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, ¶37 (2015), https://

sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2051AAAA_Outcome.pdf.

12

Launch of the National Action Plans (NAPs) Project, INT. CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE (August 26, 2014),

https://www.icar.ngo/news/2013/8/26/launch-of-the-national-action-plans-naps-project (last visited Nov. 1, 2017); National

Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, DANISH INST. FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, http://www.humanrights.dk/projects/national-

action-plans-business-human-rights (last visited Nov. 1, 2017).

13

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE,

NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: A TOOLKIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION,

AND REVIEW OF STATE COMMITMENTS TO BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORKS 4–6 (June 2014), https://

static1.squarespace.com/static/583f3fca725e25fcd45aa446/t/5865d59fe6f2e17f4f0cb629/1483068841826/DIHR-ICAR-

National-Action-Plans-NAPs-Report3.pdf.

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE, &

14

UNICEF, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS IN NATIONAL ACTION PLANS (NAPS) ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2015).

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE,

15

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN NATIONAL ACTION PLANS (NAPS) ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2016).

16

Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on human

rights and business, ¶26, https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1ad4.

17

UN WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, GUIDANCE ON NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS

AND HUMAN RIGHTS 7 (2014) [hereinafter UNWG NAP Guidance], http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/

UNWG_%20NAPGuidance.pdf.

18

The Paris Principles, G.A. Res. 48/134, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/134 (Dec. 20, 1993), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/

ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfNationalInstitutions.aspx.

19

U.N., Econ. & Soc. Council, Comm. on Hum. Rts., Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action, U.N. Doc. RiE/CN.4/AC.45/1993/3

(1993), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Vienna.aspx.

20

U.N., Off. of the U.N. High Comm’n for Hum. Rts., National Plans of Action for the Promotion and Protection of Human

Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/PlansActions/Pages/PlansofActionIndex.aspx.

21

“The Commission invites Member States to develop or update … their own plans or national lists of priority actions to

promote CSR … [and] [i]nvites EU Member States to develop … national plans for the implementation of the UN Guiding

Principles.” EU CSR Strategy 2011, supra note 3, at 13-14.

22

In 2014, 24 out of 28 EU members states had adopted or were developing CSR plans. European Commission, DG Enterprise

& Industry, The Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy of the European Commission: Results of the Public Consultation

Carried out between 30 April and 15 August 2014, November 2014. ANDRÉ MARTINUZZI, BARBARA KRUMAY & UMBERTO

PISANO, FOCUS CSR: THE NEW COMMUNICATION OF THE EU COMMISSION ON CSR AND NATIONAL CSR STRATEGIES

AND ACTION PLANS 38 (2012), http://www.sd-network.eu/quarterly%20reports/report%20files/pdf/2011-December-The_

New_Communication_of_the_EU_Commission_on_CSR_and_National_CSR_strategies.pdf.

23

The Danish Government, Action Plan for Corporate Social Responsibility (Mar. 2014), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/

Issues/Business/NationalPlans/Denmark_NationalPlanBHR.pdf [hereinafter Denmark CSR NAP]; Planning Bureau – Republic of

Cyprus, National Action Plan for Corporate Social Responsibility (2012) [on file with ICAR] [hereinafter Cyprus CSR NAP].

24

Agenda 21 formalised nine sectors of society as the main channels through which broad participation would be facilitated in

UN activities related to sustainable development. These are officially called “Major Groups.”

25

For further information, see THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE FOLLOW-UP AND

REVIEW OF THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (2016), https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.

dk/files/may_17_follow-up_and_review_sdg_docx.pdf.

26

Id. at 21.

27

UN WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, THE BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSION OF

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMBEDDING “PROTECT, RESPECT AND REMEDY” IN SDGS IMPLEMENTATION (June 30,

2017), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/Session18/InfoNoteWGBHR_SDGRecommendations.pdf.

28

Id. at 2.

29

The European Union & The African Union, Joint Statement on Business and Human Rights (2014), http://www.africa-eu-

partnership.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/joint_statementdpa_0.pdf.

30

Press Release, European Union, Workshop on AU policy on business and human rights set to take place in Addis Ababa (Mar.

20, 2017), https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/23017/workshop-au-policy-business-and-human-

rights-set-take-place-addis-ababa_en.

31

See Press Release, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Workshop on CSR and Human Rights in ASEAN:

Outcomes of the AICHR Thematic Study (June 17, 2014), http://aichr.org/press-release/workshop-on-csr-and-human-rights-

in-asean-outcomes-of-the-aichr-thematic-study/ (last visited Nov. 1, 2017) [hereinafter ASEAN Workshop on CSR Thematic

Study).

32

EU CSR Strategy 2011, supra note 3, at 14.

33

Council of the European Union, EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (25 June 2012).

34

Press Release, European Council, Council Conclusions on Business and Human Rights (June 20, 2016), http://www.consilium.

europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/20-fac-business-human-rights-conclusions/.

35

States with published NAPs on business and human rights include: the United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Italy,

Germany, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Belgium, Spain and the Czech Republic.

36

EU CSR Strategy 2011, supra note 3, at 14.

37

See European Council, Council Conclusions on Business and Human Rights, COHOM 78, ¶6 (June 20, 2016) https://

ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/council_conclusions_on_business_and_human_rights_foreign_affairs_

council.pdf; European Council, The EU and Responsible Global Value Chains - Council Conclusions, 8577/16, ¶15 (May 12,

2016), http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8833-2016-INIT/en/pdf.

A staff working document laying the foundation for such a strategy was published in 2015. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, STAFF

38

WORKING DOCUMENT ON IMPLEMENTING THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS - STATE OF

PLAY, https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/swd_2015_144_f1_staff_working_paper_en_v2_p1_818385.

pdf.

39

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, EU ACTION PLAN ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY 29 (2015), https://eeas.

europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_democracy_en_2.pdf.

40

European Parliament, Corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries, 2015/2315(INI) (25 October

2016), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1461117&t=d&l=en

41

European Parliament Directorate General for External Policies, Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles for Business

and Human Rights 63 (2017), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/578031/EXPO_STU(2017)578031_

EN.pdf.

42

See Council of Europe, Draft Feasibility Study on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Field of Human Rights, CDDH (2012)

017, ¶ 1 (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cddh/CDDH-DOCUMENTS/CDDH(2012)17_EN.pdf.

43

Press Release, Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers Adopted Recommendation on Human Rights and Business (Mar.

7, 2016), https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/human-rights-and-busine-1?desktop=false; Council of Europe,

Recommendation on Human Rights and Business, CM/Rec(2016)3, at 7 (Mar. 2016), https://edoc.coe.int/en/fundamental-

freedoms/7302-human-rights-and-business-recommendation-cmrec20163-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member-states.

html [hereinafter CoE Committee of Ministers March 2016 Recommendations].

44

G7, Leaders’ Declaration 5 (June 2015), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7320LEADERS%20

STATEMENT_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf.

45

G20 Leaders’ Declaration 2017, supra note 7, ¶ 8.

46

G.A. Res. 17/4, ¶ 6, U.N. Doc. A/RES/17/4 (July 6, 2011); H.R.C. Res. 26/22, supra note 2.

47

UNWG NAPs Webpage, supra note 6.

48

Id.

49

GUIDANCE ON NATIONAL ACTION PLANS, supra note 17.

50

Id.

51

OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES 31–34 (2011), http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf.

52

OECD, Workshop on Developing National Action Plans on Responsible Business Conduct Including National Action Plans on

Business and Human Rights (June 17, 2015), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/Agenda_OECD_UN_NAP_

Workshop.pdf; OECD Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct, High-Level Roundtable for Policy-Makers (June 7,

2016), https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/News/Documents/Roundtable%20for%20Policy%20Makers%20-%20Agenda%20-%207%20

June%202016%20-%20for%20distribution.pdf; OECD, National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights to Enable Policy

Coherence for Responsible Business Conduct (June 2017), http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/NAP-to-enable-policy-coherence-

for-RBC.pdf.

53

Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct, Roundtable for Policy Makers (June 28, 2017), http://mneguidelines.oecd.

org/global-forum/2017-RBC-Roundtable-for-Policy-Makers-Agenda.pdf.

54

Organization of American States, Resolution: Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Business, OAS AG/doc.5452/14

rev. 1 (May 27, 2014) [hereinafter OAS Resolution].

55

OAS AG/RES. 2887, supra note 4.

56

International Organization of Employers, Input to the Open Consultation on Substantive Elements to be Included in Guidance

on National Action Plans (NAPs) to Implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Aug. 27, 2014),

http://www.ioe-emp.org/fileadmin/ioe_documents/publications/Policy%20Areas/business_and_human_rights/EN/_2014-08-

28__G-608_IOE_Input_to_NAPs_Consultation_Process__final_.pdf.

57

UN Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights, Statement on National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights (Nov.

16, 2016), http://www.global-business-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NAPs-Statement-Nov-2016.pdf.

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY ROUNDTABLE, ECCJ, DEJUSTICIA, ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING

58

NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2017)[hereinafter ICAR-ECCJ-Dejusticia NAPs

Assessments].

59

Id.

60

Id. at 42–43.

61

See, e.g., GOVERNMENT OF ITALY, THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ITALIAN ACTION PLAN ON THE UNITED NATIONS

“GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS” (2014), http://business-humanrights.org/media/documents/

foundations-ungps-nap-italy.pdf [hereinafter ITALY DRAFT NAP]; GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN, DRAFT OF NATIONAL ACTION

PLAN ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2013), http://www.business-humanrights.org/UNGuidingPrinciplesPortal/

ToolsHub/Governments/TypeInitiative/natlactionplans; see also ANDREAS GRAF, SWISSPEACE, DEVELOPING NATIONAL

ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2013), http://www.swisspeace.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Media/

Publications/Essentials/Essential_4_2013.pdf.

62

National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, https://globalnaps.org/.

63

ICAR-ECCJ-Dejusticia NAPs Assessments, supra note 58.

64

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION INVESTMENT LEARNING PLATFORM, OVERVIEW OF METHODS FOR BASELINE

ASSESSMENTS, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/tc/spfs/pdf/Methods_Baseline_Assessments.pdf.

Human Rights Indicators - Main Features of OHCHR Conceptual and Methodological Framework, OFF. OF THE U.N. HIGH

65

COMM. FOR HUM. RTS., http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/framework.aspx.

66

Human Rights and Business Country Guide, DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, www.hrbcountryguide.org (last

visited Nov. 6, 2017).

67

Checklist: Documenting Corporate Human Rights Impacts, BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE, https://

business-humanrights.org/en/checklist-documenting-corporate-human-rights-impacts (last visited Nov. 6, 2017).

ITALIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, ITALIAN NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON

68

BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: 2016-2021 (English Version) 22 (2016), http://www.cidu.esteri.it/resource/2016/12/49117_f_

NAPBHRENGFINALEDEC152017.pdf [hereinafter ITALIAN NAP].

69

Id. at 5.

70

MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY, NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN

GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2014), http://www.tem.fi/files/41214/TEMjul_46_2014_web_

EN_21102014.pdf [hereinafter FINNISH NAP].

71

PLAN DE ACCIÓN NACIONAL DE DERECHOS HUMANOS Y EMPRESAS DE CHILE (2017)[hereinafter CHILEAN NAP],

https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/plan_de_accio__n_nacional_de_derechos_humanos_y_

empresas.pdf.

72

Id.

76

ITALIAN NAP, supra note 68.

77

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, supra note 73, at art. 33, ¶ 2.

78

For example, the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR) houses the National Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities (CRPD) Monitoring Body. National CRPD Monitoring Body, DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FÜR MENSCHENRECHTE, http://

www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/en/national-crpd-monitoring-mechanism/ (last visited Nov. 3, 2017). This body is tasked

with reviewing and providing recommendations about political, judicial, and administrative decisions that impact aspects of the

CRPD. It also participates in experience and information exchanges with other NHRIs and monitoring bodies that oversee the

CRPD in other states.

79

Press Release, Organization of American States, IAHCR Presents Report on Extractive Industries and Human Rights (Apr. 6,

2016)(http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/048.asp); Daniel Cerqueira, IACHR Takes Important Step

in the Debate on Extraterritorial Responsibility and States’ Obligations Regarding Extractive Companies, DPLF BLOG (May 11,

2016 ),https://dplfblog.com/2016/05/11/iachr-takes-important-step-in-the-debate-on-extraterritorial-responsibility-and-states-

obligations-regarding-extractive-companies/.

80

Binding Treaty, BUS. AND HUM. RTS. RESOURCE CTR., https://business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty.

81

GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK, DANISH NATIONAL ACTION PLAN—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES

ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2014), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/Denmark_

NationalPlanBHR.pdf [hereinafter DANISH NAP].

82

FINNISH NAP, supra note 70.

 REPORT ON THE SWISS STRATEGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND

83

HUMAN RIGHTS 4 (Dec. 9, 2016) [hereinafter SWISS NAP].

Human Rights Bodies – Complaints Procedures, OFF. OF THE U.N. HIGH COMM. FOR HUM. RTS., http://www.ohchr.org/EN/

84

HRBodies/TBPetitions/Pages/HRTBPetitions.aspx.

85

H.R.C. Res. 26/22, supra note 2.

86

SWISS NAP, supra note 83.

87

FINNISH NAP, supra note 70.

88

Id.

89

GOVERNMENT OFFICES OF SWEDEN, ACTION PLAN FOR BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2015), http://www.

government.se/contentassets/822dc47952124734b60daf1865e39343/action-plan-for-business-and-human-rights.pdf

[hereinafter SWEDISH NAP].

90

H.R.C. Res. 26/22, supra note 2.

91

Douglass Cassell & Anita Ramasastry, White Paper: Options for a Treaty on Business and Human Rights, 6 NOTRE DAME J. OF INT’L

& COMP. L. 1 (2016); Blackwell & Meulen, supra note 9.

92

For some suggestions proposed for the monitoring of a future treaty provided in elements for a treaty, see Elements for

the Draft Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human

Rights, Chairmanship of the OEIGWG, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/

LegallyBindingInstrumentTNCs_OBEs.pdf.

93

Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment and Human Rights Violations, AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN

AND PEOPLE’S RIGHTS, http://www.achpr.org/mechanisms/extractive-industries/ (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

94

Commissioner for Human Rights, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, https://www.coe.int/en/web/tbilisi/commissionerforhumanrights

(last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

95

Human Rights Comment from Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for Human Rights, Business Enterprises Begin to Recognize

Their Human Rights Responsibilities (Apr. 4, 2016), https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/business-enterprises-begin-to-

recognise-their-human-rights-responsibilities.

96

Guiding Principles, supra note 1, at 8.

97

The Policy Framework for Investment (PFI), OECD, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/pfi.htm.

98

African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), AFRICAN UNION, https://au.int/en/organs/aprm (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

99

See Thomas Thomas & Alexander Chandra, Thematic Study on CSR and Human Rights in ASEAN 3, https://business-

humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/AICHRs_Thematic_Study_on_CSR_and_Human_Rights_in_ASEAN.pdf.

The Fight Against Corruption: A Priority for the Council of Europe, COUNCIL OF EUROPE: GROUP OF STATES AGAINST

100

CORRUPTION, https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

101

COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN RIGHTS, C.E.T.S. No. 197 Art. 38.2.

102

Mutual Evaluations, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, https://www.coe.int/en/web/moneyval/evaluations (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).

GRECO: Group of States against Corruption, The Council of Europe Anti-Corruption Body, COUNCIL OF EUROPE 5, https://

103

rm.coe.int/16806fd621.

104

CoE Committee of Ministers March 2016 Recommendations, supra note 43.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUSINESS—RECOMMENDATION CM/REC(2016)3 OF THE COMMITTEE

105

OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES (Mar. 2, 2016), https://edoc.coe.int/en/fundamental-freedoms/7302-human-rights-and-

business-recommendation-cmrec20163-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member-states.html.

THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN EUROPE: NEXT STEPS IN

106

STRENGTHENING IMPLEMENTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Dec. 2, 2016), https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.

dk/files/media/dokumenter/projects_docs/coe_hrb_workshop_copenhagen_021216_report_final.pdf.

107

See, e.g., EUROPEAN COMMISSION, PEER REVIEW REPORT: PEER REVIEW ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY—

ROME (ITALY) (June 5, 2013), http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=22 (search “CSR report” in keyword

search bar). There is no mention of any input from or participation of other stakeholders in the final reports currently available.

108

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, (June 20, 2016), https://

ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/publications/council-conclusions-business-and-human-rights-foreign-affairs-council_en.

109

ITALIAN NAP, supra note 68.

110

OAS Resolution, supra note 54.

111

UK NAP 2013, supra note 75.

FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, GOOD BUSINESS: IMPLEMENTING THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS

112

AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2016), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522805/Good_

Business_Implementing_the_UN_Guiding_Principles_on_Business_and_Human_Rights_updated_May_2016.pdf [hereinafter UK

NAP 2016].

HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOUSE OF COMMONS: JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND

113

BUSINESS 2017: PROMOTING RESPONSIBILITY AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY (Apr. 5, 2017), https://publications.

parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/443.pdf

114

SWISS NAP, supra note 83.

115

See Statement from the United Nations on Common Understanding of Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development

Cooperation and Programming (2003); See also, The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards

a Common Understanding Among UN Agencies, HUM. RTS. BASED APPROACH PORTAL, http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-

rights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies (last visited Nov.

3, 2017).

116

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 2(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/

117

ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx.

118

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, art. 6, June, 27, 1969, ILO C169; United Nations Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples, art. 19, G.A. Res. 61/295 (Sep. 13, 2007) [hereinafter UNDRIP].

119

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 7.1; UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 23.

120

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 4.1, 6.1; UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 5, 18–20.

121

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 6.1(b).

122

ILO C169, supra note 118, at art. 6; UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 19.

123

UNDRIP, supra note 118, at art. 10, 19, 28–9.

CONSEJERÍA DDHH, PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA, PLAN NACIONAL DE ACCIÓN DE DERECHOS HUMANOS Y

124

EMPRESAS (2015), http://www.derechoshumanos.gov.co/Prensa/2015/Documents/Plan%20Nacional%20de%20Accion%20

DDHH%20Empresa.pdf [hereinafter COLOMBIAN NAP].

125

Guiding Principles, supra note 1, at 26.

126

UK NAP 2016, supra note 112, at 11.

127

In exercising the duty to protect, States are called on to pay attention to gender in guidance to business, as well as paying

special attention to gender-based and sexual violence when supporting business respect for human rights in conflict-affected

areas (Principles 3 and 7); and Corporate responsibility to respect: In exercising human rights due diligence and showing

respect for human rights, businesses are expected to bear in mind the different risks that may be faced by women and men,

including through collection and use of sex-disaggregated data (Principles 18 and 20). Guiding Principles, supra note 1.

The Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, June 15, 1960, ILO C111; The Equal Remuneration

128

Convention, May 23, 1953, ILO C100; The Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, Aug. 11, 1983, ILO C156; The

Maternity Protection Convention, Feb. 7, 2002, ILO C183.

129

Guiding Principles, principle 7, supra note 1.

130

COLOMBIAN NAP, supra note 124 at 18.

來源 PDF: 7374-工商業與人權國家行動計畫工具包.pdf

工商業與人權國家

行動計畫工具包

2017年版本

1 N A T I O N A L A CT I O N PLA N S ON B USI N E S S AND H UMA N R I GH T S T O O L K I T

 工商業與人權國家

行動計畫工具包

2017年版本

2 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

丹麥人權研究所(DIHR)是丹麥的國家人權機構(NHRI)，其任務是在丹麥國內外促進和保護人權與平等待

遇。人權發展部門著重於同時涉及經濟與人權的問題，特別是企業在人權方面扮演的角色。

國際企業責任圓桌會議(ICAR) 是一個民間社會組織，其相信一個經濟體需要尊重所有人的權利，而非僅需

要強大的企業。ICAR 利用組織的集體力量，促使政府制定並對企業實行人權方面的法規、同時減少不平

等的規則。

作者

《工商業與人權國家行動計畫：制定、執行和審查國家對工商業與人權框架承諾的工具包》 (2014年6

月) 由丹麥人權研究所的 Claire Methven o ' Brien 和 Catherine Bloch Poulsen-Hansen，與國際企業責任

圓桌會議的 Amol mehmra 和 Sara Blackwell所編寫。

此2017年版本的工具包由 Paloma Muoz quick 和 Elin Wrzoncki 撰寫；丹麥人權研究所的Nora Götzmann、

Dirk Hoffmann 和 Daniel Morris與國際企業責任圓桌會議的Cindy Woods及 Sarah McGrath提供資料。

致謝

DIHR 和 ICAR 要感謝所有使用工包組並提供反饋的個人和組織，特別是2016年9月參與在華盛頓特區舉行的全

球國家行動計畫研討會的出席者。我們還要感謝Marion Cadie，他為制定國家基線評估範本提供了策略性意見。

3 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

內容

名詞縮寫對照 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

圖表 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

1 介紹 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 8

1.1 關於工具包 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 目的與目標對象 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.3 什麼是國家行動計畫？. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.4 關於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫：全球發展. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.5 關於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫：國家發展 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 15

1.6 工商業與人權國家行動計畫 的好處及挑戰 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 16

1.7 國家行動計畫(NAPS)工具包的結構 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 17

2 國家行動計畫(NAP)生命週期：

NAP流程與內容的逐步指南. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . …….18

2.1 建立國家行動計畫的治理框架. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 19

2.2 執行國家基線評估. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . 25

2.3 闡述國家行動計畫：範圍、內容和優先事項. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.4 國家行動計畫的執行、監測和審查. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.5 更新國家行動計畫. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 47

基於人權的國家行動計畫方法：

3 參與、無歧視、透明和當責制…………………………………. …48

3.1 平等和不歧視 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.2 參與. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.3 透明化 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.4 當責制 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.5 致力於國家行動計畫的特定權利持有人 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 50

3.6 受衝突影響的環境 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4 N A T I O N A L A CT I O N PLA N S ON B USI N E S S AND H UMA N R I GH T S T O O L K I T

縮寫

ASEAN 東南亞國家協會

AU 非洲聯盟

CoE 歐洲理事會

CPRD 聯合國身心障礙者權利公約

CSO 民間社會組織

CSR 企業社會責任

CEDAW 消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約

DIHR 丹麥人權研究所

EIDHR 歐洲民主和人權倡議

EU 歐盟

FUR 後續追蹤與審查

FPIC 自由、事先與知情同意

LGBTQI 女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀、變性者、酷兒和雙性人

HLPF 高級別政治論壇

HRBA 基於人權的方法

HRDs 人權捍衛者

IACHR 美洲人權委員會

ICAR 國際企業責任圓桌會議

ICMM 國際採礦和金屬理事會

ICT 資訊通信技術

ILO 國際勞工組織

ISHR 國際人權協會

IOE 國際雇主組織

NBA 國家基線評估

NHRI 國家人權機構

OAS 美洲國家組織

OECD 經濟合作暨發展組織

OHCHR 聯合國人權事務高級專員辦事處

SDGs 永續發展目標

SMEs 中小企業

UN 聯合國

5 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

UNDRIP 聯合國原住民權利宣言

UNGPs 聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則

UNHRC 聯合國人權理事會

UNWG 聯合國工商業與人權組織工作小組

UPR 聯合國人權事務委員會的普遍定期審議進程

VNR 自願國家審查

6 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

圖表

圖表1：NAP工具包的結構 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

圖表2：NAP生命週期概述 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

圖表3： NBA 流程 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

圖表4： 對NAP的監測和審查 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

方框

方框1：工商業與人權 與 2030年可持續發展議程 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

方框2：採用工商業與人權國家行動計畫的國家（截至2017年11月） . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 16

方框3：正式承諾NAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

方框4：國家機構的協調 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

方框5：通過國家行動計畫確保透明度 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

方框6：國家行動計畫的預算和重要支助. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .22

方框7：多方利益攸關方參與 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..…. . . .. 24

方框8：利益相關者的能力建設 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

方框9：識別負面人權影響的工具 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 27

方框10：國家基線評估過程的透明度 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

方框11：在國家行動計畫(NAP)起始時的國家基線評估(NBA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 28

方框12：由國家人權機構主持國家基線評估 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 29

方框13：利益攸關方參與 NBA 制定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

方框14：NBA 草案中利益攸關方的意見. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 30

方框15：連結 NBA 與 NAP 的內容. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

方框16：NBA 的出版和傳播 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32

方框17：論國家司法管轄權的完整範圍 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 33

方框18：解決工商業上最嚴重人權問題的優先行動 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

方框19：將邊緣化群體納入國家行動計畫 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

方框20：國家行動計畫的SMART行動 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

方框21：永續發展目標和國家行動計畫 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

方框22：國家行動計畫的執行計畫 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

方框23：政府審查進展情況. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

方框24：審查用多方利益攸關方機制. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 39

方框25：國家人權委員會的後續追蹤與評價 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 40

6 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

方框26：通過普遍定期審議進程提交報告 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

方框27：九個核心人權工具的條約機構 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 41

方框28：聯合國工作小組於國家行動計畫的資料庫 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

方框29：向國際機制提交報告. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

方框30：用以審查國家行動計畫之國際工商業和人權工具方案. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

方框31：在歐盟層級推動對同儕之審查. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 46

方框32：更新國家行動計畫. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

方框33：國家行動計畫中對兒童特別關注的部分 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

方框34：泰國國家基線評估中的人權捍衛者 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

方框35：原住民參與國家行動計畫進程 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

方框36：在國家行動計畫中處理女性的權利 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 54

方框 37：企業在受衝突影響下扮演的作用 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 55

7 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

緒論

2011年6月聯合國人權理事會（UNHRC）通過的「聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則」

（UNGPs）1，是發展責任制與當責制之準則規範的重要里程碑。

聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則通過三年後，聯合國人權理事會呼籲所有會員國制定國家行動計畫，

以支持聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的實施（此有關工商企業與人權的國家行動計畫）2。此一呼

3

籲緊隨在 歐洲層面 之後。此外，美洲國家組織（OAS）亦鼓勵其成員國實施聯合國企業與人權指導

4

原則 ，而非洲聯盟（AU）目前正在起草關於工商企業與人權的政策框架⁵。聯合國工商企業與人權組

織工作小組（UNWG，成立於2011年），強烈地鼓勵各個國家研究、制定與更新有關工商企業與人權

的國家行動計畫⁶。G20的領導人們亦紛紛明確地表達其支持國家行動計畫。

2014年6月，聯合國人權理事會通過一項決議：設立政府間工作小組以探討制定具有約束力的國際法

8

律文書，以便在國際人權法中規範跨國公司的活動 。目前各國與和全球公民社會正在進行辯論，有關

國家工商企業與人權行動計畫與條約進程之間的關係。 在實務上，國家行動計畫的制定是對條約進程

的補充，因為它們為各國在履行保護人權義務上提供了必要的工具，使其免於受聯合國企業與人權指

9

導原則所闡明的不利影響，從而在全球的水平上推動規範發展 。

2015年9月通過的「2030年可持續發展議程」確認了企業是經濟增長與基礎設施的主要推手，亦是實

現「永續發展目標（SDGs）」的必要成分，該議程同時明確地要求企業遵守聯合國工商企業與人權

10

指導原則 。「阿迪斯阿貝巴行動議程」(此議程視資金籌措與政治經濟、社會、環境永續發展議題

同等重要，並提供全球性框架以籌措落實《2030年可持續發展議程》的資金)亦以UNGPs作為關鍵框

１１

架來實現此一願景 。

8 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

1.1 關於工具包

2013年8月，丹麥人權研究所（DIHR）和國際工商業責任圓桌會議（ICAR）啟動了一個聯合項目，

制定國家行動計畫指南的工具包，予政府機關及其他利益攸關方使用12。 DIHR和ICAR承諾與政

府、民間社會、企業、投資者、學術界、國家人權機構以及區域和國際組織的代表進行全球的磋商

計畫13，其中包含本工具包第一版的內容(2014年出版)。

工具包出版後，在DIHR和/或ICAR的支持下，各種利益攸關方包括政府、國家人權機構、學術界和民

間社會組織（CSO）使用工具包來提供信息予其在工商業與人權方面的國家行動計畫工作、分析已公

布的國家行動計畫。DIHR和/或ICAR制定了工商業與人權國家行動計畫，其領域涉及兒童基金會14的

兒童權利以及國際人權協會（ISHR）的人權維護者方面15。由國際企業責任圓桌會議(ICAR)和正當法

律程序基金會（DPLF）所制定的國家行動計畫專題指南及其精華章節，將於2017年12月出版。

鼓勵制定國家行動計畫的政府間組織亦提及本工具包，包括歐洲委員會（CoE）和UNWG17。

作為工具包修訂過程的一部分，2016年9月，DIHR和ICAR匯集了來自14個國家的工商業業和人權實

踐者，他們使用工具包收集的用戶體驗，並收集反饋和改進建議。

2017年工具包的更新試圖反映這一反饋；其亦參考聯合國工商業與人權組織工作小組的國家行動計畫

指南，並尋求擷取所長使其臻於完善。

1.2 目標與目標對象

本工具包的目標是欲促進各國及企業實施UNGP和其他相關的工商業與人權框架。

本工具包提供了如何：

• 對國家和企業責任承擔者如何滿足UNGP的第一、第二和第三支柱要求進行國家基線評估（NBA）

（見附件B）；

• 規劃一個包容性和參與性的國家行動計畫進程 (見2.3.4 節)；

• 基於事實分析，以決定國家行動計畫需優先處理的事項和行動 (見第2.2 節)；

• 為監測、報告和評估國家行動計畫的執行情況而制定有效的追蹤措施 (見2.4.6 節) ；

• 在國家、區域和國際的層級上加強對國家行動計畫的監測與報告；並

• 衡量執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則所取得的進展 (見2.4.6 節)。

9 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

多方參與者可能在工具包中獲得特定的價值：

• 政府官員和民意代表可利用此一工具包，例如：指導國內(包括地方和國家以下各級的)決策；

提供資訊予國際機構或標準制定進程；支援國家行動計畫與其他國家計畫之間的協調；並為各

級政府的建設工作提供相關能力資訊。

• 國家人權機構(NHRIs)可利用此工具包展開工商業與人權的國家基線評估。

此工具包亦將有助於國家人權機構，使其成為國家行動計畫制定進程的召集者，包括通過國家

行動計畫利益攸關方委員會。國家人權機構可根據其聯合國《巴黎原則》的任務規定，進一步

利用工具包所載的原則和指標，為與工商業與人權議題相關的監測、調查、教育和報告活動提

供資訊。

• 民間社會組織可利用此工具包為國家行動計畫進程的規範提供相關資訊，或建立影子國家基

線評估以監測與評價各國在執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的進展情況，從而支援與各

州的宣傳和對話和企業。在編寫有關國家、區域或國際監督機構的工商業與人權專題時，它

們還可以使用工具包作為報告素材。

• 企業可利用本工具包瞭解各國在執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則時可以採取的措施，

從而為參與國家行動計畫制定進程做好準備。企業在探討企業責任時，亦可參考工具包

中提供的國家基線評估(NBA)範本，以獲取資訊及設立實施的基準。

• 多邊和雙邊發展機構在分析國家情況以及設計和監測方案時，或會認為此工具包可派上用場。

• 媒體、研究人員和學術界可使用此工具包調查、分析、研究和報告：政府對聯合國工商企業

與人權指導原則(UNGPs)、企業當責制和永續發展的反應。

10 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

1.3 什麼是國家行動計畫？

國家行動計畫是一份政策文件，其中闡明了國家應採取的優先事項與行動，以支援履行與特定政

策領域或專題有關的國際、區域或國家義務和承諾。

受到越來越多利用國家行動計畫支援一系列其他政策領域的啟發(這些領域包括人口販運、氣候變

化、能源效率、衛生知識普及、預防兒童事故和水質)，現亦出現了以國家行動計畫支援執行聯合國

工商企業與人權指導原則的呼聲。1993年6月通過的《維也納宣言和行動綱領》19中，世界人權會議

建議各國起草一項促進和保護人權的國家行動計畫。相似地，國家行動計畫也越來越常被用於執行

《2030年可持續發展議程》 (見下文方框 1)。

在其2011年企業社會責任(CSR)戰略中，歐盟委員會呼籲歐盟成員國制定國家行動計畫以落實聯合

21

國工商企業與人權指導原則(UNGPs)、與關於 CSR 的國家計畫 。在本工具包出版時，28個歐盟成

22

員國中有13個國家制定了關於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫 。儘管 歐盟關於CSR的資訊通報要求

成員國分別編制關於CSR和UNGPs的國家行動計畫，但一些企業社會責任國家行動計畫涉及UNGPs

第2支柱的執行情況23。

一個有關各國制定工商業與人權國家行動計畫的挑戰，是如何將這些計畫整合、或與其他問題的國家

行動計畫保持一致，特別是在主題可能重疊的情況下。通過實例，工具包將展示關於工商業與人權的

國家行動計畫如何借鑒並參考其他(例如關於企業社會責任、永續發展或人權等)行動計畫。

11 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 方框 1

工商業與人權 與 2030年可持續發展議程

在2015年，聯合國大會一致通過了《2030年可持續發展議程》，該議程確立了17個可持續發展目標，其中

包含全球目標和指標以及後續追蹤及審查機制。「2030年議程」力求在人、地球、繁榮、和平與夥伴關係

方面實現變革。與永續發展目標(SDGs)前身─《千年發展目標》不同的是，永續發展目標要求社會所有行

為者承擔完成此議程的責任。特別是，永續發展目標呼籲企業扮演包容和永續世界的催化劑與推動者。

丹麥人權研究所制定了《永續發展目標人權指南》以展示在永續發展目標在人權方面的基礎。本指南強

調，在2030年議程的169項目標中，有 90% 以上與國際人權文書和勞工標準中的規定相聯繫。因此，在與

永續發展目標接觸時，企業應考慮其對基本人權的實際和潛在影響。正如《2030年議程》第67段指出的，

24

《聯合國企業與人權指導原則》提供了這樣的工具，並呼籲企業按此行事。工商界是9個主要集團 之

一，亦是聯合國永續發展進程的主要利益攸關方。

除盡可能減少企業核心業務對永續發展目標中人權的不利影響外，企業還可以在落實永續發展目標上發揮更多作用，例

如提供衛生和教育等基本服務、參與公私夥伴關係與納稅。在任何情況下，工商業行為都應尊重人權。最後，《2030年

議程》鼓勵企業採取具體措施，遵守可持續發展目標，包括目標 12.6 (其呼籲各國鼓勵企業採取永續性做法，並將永續性

資訊納入其永續發展的基礎報告。)

《2030年議程》、人權和企業作用之間的聯繫意味著各國應確保其實施《2030年議程》的努力符合聯合國全球合作夥伴關

係制定的標準。這可以透過多種方式實現，包括通過有關工商業與人權的國家行動計畫，促進企業對執行永續發展目標

時尊重人權。

在2030年議程的追蹤行動與審查（FUR）25中，鼓勵各國對國家、區域和國際層面的進展進行定期和包

容性的審查。在這種情況下，鼓勵各國利用各利益相關方團體的貢獻。在國際層面，FUR的體制框架圍

繞著高級別政治論壇（HLPF），該論壇包括主題辯論和自願國家審查。這些自願性國家審查（VNR）旨

在促進經驗與教訓分享，加速實施「2030年議程」，加強政府政策和機構，並動員多方利益相關者參與

實施永續發展目標。在2016年，有22個國家自願接受審查，在2017年時來到了31個。執行進程將因國家

26

的層級而有所不同，但各國的人權義務可以做為制定基於人權之國家執行方法的一個起點 。因為國家

行動促進了聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則(UNGPs)和永續發展目標(SDGs)的實施，這些計畫有相當大的

空間可以相互加強、協調一致，以顯示負責任的企業可以為SDGs做出的貢獻。

27

在關於「2030年議程」的工商業與人權方面的聲明 中，聯合國工作組呼籲會員國在國家層級上制定永續

發展目標實施計畫，以確保「指導原則」的執行與國家行動計畫保持一致。相反地，側重於工商業和人

28

權的國家行動計畫應闡明如何將「指導原則」納入永續發展目標中。

12 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

1.4 關於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫：全球發展

在聯合國人權理事會於2011年通過後，聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則得到了廣泛而有力的採納。自那時

起，一些區域和國際組織及其他利益攸關方開始呼籲並贊同制定國家行動計畫，以執行聯合國工商企業與

人權指導原則29。以下是這方面全球發展的總結 30。

1.4.1 非洲聯盟

2014年，非洲聯盟和歐盟舉行了關於聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則執行情況的聯合研討會，兩個組織都

重申將致力於促進和實施聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則31。此外，2017年，非洲聯盟在歐盟的支持下制

定了工商業與人權政策框架草案。

1.4.2 東南亞國家協會(ASEAN)

東盟政府間人權委員會（AICHR）開展了一項關於企業社會責任和人權的專題研究，該研究審查了國家措

施，並參考聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則。東南亞國家協會分別於2016年11月(新加坡)和2017年6月(曼

谷)舉辦兩次會議，以推動聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的實施，尤其著重該地區的工商業與人權國家行

動計畫。

1.4.3 歐盟

2011年，歐盟委員會發布了一份通訊文件，邀請所有歐盟成員國在2012年底之前制定聯合國指導原則的國家計

畫32。2012年，歐盟層面的工商業與人權國家行動計畫被允諾得到加強；歐洲理事會亦呼籲所有歐盟成員國制

定執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的國家行動計畫，且期限延長至2013年底33。2016年6月，歐盟理事會通

34

過了「工商業與人權結論」並重申此一承諾 。在編寫本報告時，已有13個歐盟成員國公布了有關工商業與人權

35

的國家行動計畫 。

36

2011年歐盟CSR戰略承諾制定歐盟層級的UNGPs實施計畫 。歐盟委員會進一步致力於2016年制定「歐盟責任

37 38

工商業行為行動計畫」 。然而此承諾尚未兌現 。

2015年歐盟人權與民主行動計畫39承諾促進夥伴國家在工商業與人權方面採用國家行動計畫3。 歐洲議會也呼籲

歐洲委員會加強對此類國家行動計畫的著力40。歐洲議會人權小組委員會於2017年2月發表的關於聯合國工商企

4

業與人權指導原則執行情況的報告，建議「建立同儕相互審查國家行動計畫機制，旨在協助各國持續改進 1」。

2016年在荷蘭擔任主席期間，成員國之間舉行了一次同儕審查會議，討論該領域的進展情況。 隨後，比利時政

府於2017年5月舉辦了同儕評審會議。

13 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

1.4.4 歐洲理事會 (CoE)

2011年，CoE的部長理事會要求人權指導委員會（CDDH）制定關於企業責任和人權的新標準 42。遵循

2013年部長理事會宣言，主張歐洲理事會成員國通過 關於執行UNGPs的國家行動計畫，2016年3月，部長

理事會通過了一項關於人權和工商業的建議書。該建議呼籲成員國「在歐洲理事會建立的共享信息系統

中，分享國家實施聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則（國家行動計畫）的經驗43」。該建議亦規定了部長理

事會內部審查執行情況的程序。

1.4.5 G7/G20

2015年，G7的參與國承諾在領導人公報中制定有關工商業和人權的國家行動計畫44。2017年，G20緊隨

其後，同意「努力建立適當的政策框架，例如關於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫45」。

1.4.6 聯合國(UN)

2011年6月，聯合國人權理事會成立了聯合國工商業與人權組織工作小組(UNWG)，並負責促進全球宣導

和執行聯合國企業與人權指導原則46。根據這項任務，UNWG「強烈鼓勵所有國家發展、制定並更新國家

47

行動計畫，以作為國家宣揚和實施工商企業與人權指導原則 責任的一部分」。為了促進各國實現此目

標，UNWG編纂了一部所有已發布工商業與人權的國家行動計畫48合集。UNWG還在2014年發布了關於國

家行動計畫的國家指南49，並於2016年11月更新50。

1.4.7 經濟合作暨發展組織 (OECD)

「經濟合作暨發展組織準則」是OECD參與國所支持的建議，適用於相關國家的跨國企業的責任工商業行

為。本指南於2011年進行了修訂，作為本次更新的一部分，現在新增了與UNGPs一致的人權章節51。自2015年以

來，OECD與UNWG合作，籌辦了關於工商業與人權國家行動計畫的年度會議52。本會議於2016年升級為為期一

天的「政策制定者高峰圓桌會議」，旨在促進對話和政策實行的經驗交流，以實現負責任的工商業行為53。

14 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

1.4.8 美洲國家組織

美洲國家組織大會於2014年6月通過了一項決議，支持聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則，此決議促使各

國交換信息和分享最佳做法54。在2016年的一項決議中，美洲國家組織呼籲成員國執行聯合國工商企業

與人權指導原則，並承認「人權和工商業的國家行動計畫是實施指導原則的一種方式55」。

1.4.9 工商業協會

全球工商業與產業協會(包括國際雇主組織IOE) 表示支持工商業與人權國家行動計畫56。 2016年11

月，工商業協會( 包括IOE、國際商會（ICC）國際礦業與金屬理事會（ICMM）、世界企業永續發

展委員會（WBCSD）和美國國際工商理事會（USCIB）)發布了一項聯合聲明，支持國家行動計畫

作為實施UNGPs的手段 57。

1.4.10 民間社會組織

許多公民社會組織表示支持有關工商業與人權的國家行動計畫的宣傳。 一些民間社會團體發布了「影子」國

家基線評估，作為倡導在國家層級上加強解決企業對人權的影響的工具，包括倡導未來制定國家行動計畫的工

具；這包括南非、坦桑尼亞、莫桑比克、瓜地馬拉和緬甸的公民社會組織。 公民社會組織對國家行動計畫的

支持亦可透過參與國家行動計畫、參與磋商、提供相關草案的評論和/或評估已公布的國家行動計畫的內容和

應用來體現。例如，超過四十個公民社會組織或個人向美國的國家行動計畫進程提供了書面意見。在墨西哥，

七個公民社會組織成立了墨西哥工商業與人權問題小組，倡導在墨西哥建立國家行動計畫。該小組撰寫了墨西

哥國家基線評估，並成為指導NAP進程的多利益相關方委員會的一部分。

1.5 關於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫：國家發展

自2011年以來，一些國家已著手制定有關工商業與人權的國家行動計畫。 截至2017年11月，已有19個國家

通過了國家行動計畫，仍有更多國家正在如火如荼地進行中。

大多數進程都包括許多政府機構在起草國家行動計畫內容方面，可以通過設立政府間工作小組或進行臨時

58

磋商 。大多數國家行動計畫進程還在起草過程之前，期間和/或之後為各種利益攸關方的參與做出了貢獻

60

59

。然而，相對較少的國家行動計畫進程試圖促進有風險或邊緣化的利益攸關方的參與 。現在有越來越多

的進程由專家、政府部門、學術機構或其組合進行，以便為其國家行動計畫的內容提供信息。但是這個數

字仍然有限。

有關全球NAP發展的更多信息，請造訪DIHR的網站62；若欲評估現有NAPs概要，請造訪ICAR、歐洲公司司法聯盟（ECCJ）

和Dejusticia 63。

16 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

1.6 工商業與人權國家行動計畫的益處及挑戰

在制定和實施工商業與人權國家行動計畫時，既有益處亦有挑戰。 益

處包括：

• 促進全國對話、動員和實施聯合國工商企業與人權指導原

則；

• 提高對工商業與人權問題及聯合國工商企業與人權指導原

則的認識和理解；

方框 2

• 調動額外資源，促進整個社會實施聯合國工商企

業與人權指導原則； 採用工商業與人權國家行動計畫

• 扮演讓政府對利益相關者負責的機制；

的國家（截至2017年11月）

• 加強尊重人權和履行國際承諾的文化；

1.比利時 11.立陶宛

• 支持區域和國際人權監督機構與其他機構的國家報告要求； 2.智利 12. 荷蘭

3.哥倫比亞 13. 挪威

• 在發生濫用時，有助於預防和減少與業務有關的侵犯人權行 4.捷克共和國 14. 波蘭

為並改善補救措施； 5. 丹麥 15. 西班牙

6. 法國

• 為利益攸關方提供機會來共同參與對話、建立信任並改善利 16. 瑞典

7. 芬蘭

益攸關方之間在工商業和人權問題上的溝通； 17. 瑞士

8. 德國

18. 英國

9. 愛爾蘭

• 減少與業務相關的社交問題； 10.義大利 19. 美國

• 在企業對人權的影響上，賦予邊緣化權利持有者權力，

亦保護人權維護者；

• 幫助協調和改善國家工商業與人權政策和其他主題；並

• 促進以人權為基礎的永續發展。

17 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

與國家行動計畫的制定和實施有關的挑戰包括：

• 考慮如何將現有的國家行動計畫納入其他問題，以及如何整合或協調有關工商業與人權的國家行動

計畫，特別是在主題重疊可能導致混淆和資源過度擴張的情況下；

• 確保國家行動計畫進程具有包容性和參與性；

• 確保國家行動計畫得到廣泛支持，並在利益攸關方群體中獲得持久的支持和參與；

• 在高風險和/或衝突的議題上，不會加劇利益攸關方之間的衝突；

• 當遇到企業對於該國政府甚有影響，且可能會抑制施政者的能力或政治意願時，

確保政府仍採用和實施強而有力的國家行動計畫；

• 由於政府行政、立法和司法部門之間的權力分立，而採取立法或司法措施。

1.7 國家行動計畫(NAPS)工具包的結構

第2章 第3章 附錄

專題指導

NAP生命週期的 以人權為基礎的 NAP清單

逐步指南： 工商業與人權國 NBA模板 兒童權利人權

NAP流程與內容 家行動計畫 維護者的精華

部 分 （ 將 於

2017年 12 月出

版）

17 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 II

國家行動計畫(NAP)生命週期

NAP流程與內容的逐步指南

國家行動計畫(NAP)生命週期通常由五個階段組成，但每個階段的具體情況會有所不同。本節概述了NAP

生命週期的主要階段。

根據第3章討論的基於人權的方法（HRBA），國家行動計畫生命週期的每個階段，如下圖2所示，應基於

平等和不歧視、參與、透明度和當責制。

18 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.1 治理與資源

2.1.1 對國家行動計畫的承諾 與 分配責任

制定國家行動計畫的第一步、也是最核心的步驟為：使政府對國家行動計畫的制定和實施，作出堅定

與長期的承諾。此承諾將有助於確保制定國家行動計畫的過程在政府內部得到充分優先考慮。

國家行動計畫的進行中有許多種領導力的例子。 在一些國家，外交部與其他部門合作，共同制定關於工商業

與人權的國家行動計畫。 這通常是由於外交部的任務性質，其中包括代表國家在國際人權機構中，與其他國

家機構協調以確保履行國際承諾，並向人權機構報告國家的人權遵守情況。儘管存在這些因素，外交部強而

有力地領導國家行動計畫進程的能力有限，因為與內政部、經濟部和財政部等內部任務較強的機構相比，其

在國內運作的任務通常很少。 在某些情況下，總統辦公室會透過總統的人權顧問來領導國家行動計畫，例如

哥倫比亞。

政府在制定國家行動計畫方面應有明確的領

導，以達到政策制定過程、效率和當責制的

要求。 國家行動計畫進程的責任應明確地

分配給政府內的一個或多個實體（例如，特

定的政府部門、辦公室或機構），並且應通

過官方公告或公布決定，來公開傳達這種責

任分配。負責的實體應具備制定國家行動計

畫所需的組織能力、政治權力和資源。

2.1.2 確保政府行為者之間的協調和一致性

幾乎所有政府部門、辦事處和機構都有與執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則相關的職責。為了全面且長遠

的成功，有關工商業與人權的國家行動計畫應該反映政府各部門和辦公室的意見，並得到其全面支持。

19 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

因此，應建立一個跨部門諮詢小

組或指導委員會等協調機制，以

便在整個國家行動計畫進程中定

期開會。負責貿易、經濟、能源

和國有企業等部門的工作應從國

家行動計畫進程開始做起，以確

保政府的整體承諾和政策一致

性。

關於工商業與人權的國家行

動計畫也應建立在其他國家

行動計畫之上，並在其中加

以闡述，例如關於人權和/

或永續發展的國家行動計

畫。 亦應邀請州和/或地方

政府參與該過程。

2.1.3 確保國家行動計畫(NAP) 每一生命週期階段的透明度

國家行動計畫進程的合法性至關重要，應根據《以人權為基礎的發展工作方法》以確保國家行動計畫進程所

有階段的透明度；這包括啟動、協商、起草期和實現階段。

在國家行動計畫進程開始時，必須公布職權範圍、目標、工作計畫和時程表，使所有政府和外部利益攸關

方能夠規劃和參與其管理。因此，這些資訊應及時透過適當的媒體來源出版和傳播，以便向所有利益攸關

方提供充分的通知。

為促進所有利益攸關方有效參與國家行動計畫的制定，各國必須確保整個規劃進程的透明度。這就需要利

益攸關方被充分地通知有關國家行動計畫中的關鍵里程碑、對話、研討會、磋商活動和參與評論等機會。

20 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

在整個過程中定期更新，並透過適當管道傳

播的協商計畫和時程表可在這方面提供協

助。規劃的時程表必須基於利益攸關方的資

源和能力，此時程亦必須是務實、可實現

的。

除了利益攸關方向該進程提交的書面材料外，

各國亦應確保盡可能公布對話、研討會和諮詢

活動的摘要。各國應注意不要洩露利益攸關方

的敏感資訊。

此外，各國必須力求在最終版本前，發布與

諮詢國家行動計畫的草案。國家行動計畫草

案的磋商可使利益攸關方更投入，並對計畫

的內容提出意見，包括釐清利益攸關方的建

議如何納入或反映在案文草案中。 磋商草案

也允許國家有更多機會，在最終版本發布前

對利益攸關方的意見進行反思，並採取必要

的變更。透過發布國家行動計畫的草案，國

家為最終計畫的制定提供了額外的透明度。

2.1.4 為國家行動計畫進程配置適當的財政資源

各國應為負責制定整個國家行動計畫的執行者，配置充足的人力和財政資源，包括開發和完成國家基線評

估 (NBA)，以及監測和審查國家行動計畫的執行情況。

21 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 方框 6

國家行動計畫的預算和重要支助

在編寫本報告時，沒有已制定好工商業與人權國家行動計畫的政府，已經公布分配給制定與執行國家行動計畫的預算。

一些國家中的民間社會和/或國家人權機構，透過自己的資源為國家行動計畫進程作出貢獻，主要是透過制定國家基線評估和

組織利益攸關方協商。例如，民間社會組織和/或國家人權機構在肯亞、墨西哥和泰國領導了國家基線評估的發展，以作為支

援國家行動計畫進程的一部分。在墨西哥，兒童基金會在工商業工作的背景下制定了兒童權利的基線評估，以納入國家行動計

畫的制定。國際企業責任圓桌會議(ICAR)和丹麥人權研究所(DIHR)都參與了提供許多專業知識和財政資源的工作。

包括瑞典和英國在內的一些國家，在協助其他國家制定工商業與人權國家行動計畫時，建議與鼓勵其納入自己國家的版本，並

透過發展合作機構或區域合作機構取得資金。由西班牙、英國和瑞典的組成的發展合作機構，為哥倫比亞在制定國家行動計畫

上提供了財政和戰略支援。同樣地，挪威政府正在為肯亞國家行動計畫進程提供財政援助。

此外，歐盟委員會在其2015年《民主和人權行動計畫》中承諾在同盟國家中推廣工商業與人權國家行動計畫；此後，歐洲民主和人權倡議組

織(EIDHR)呼籲：支援制定歐盟以外地區的工商業與人權國家行動計畫。

2.1.5 識別利益攸關方

所有利益攸關方都應有機會，在平等的基礎上參與制定國家行動計畫的進程以及參與其執行。許多國家的

利益攸關方可能為相關政府部門所熟知；然而，其他攸關方卻不盡如此。因此，一個國家最好在國家行動

計畫進程的早期階段進行利益攸關方識別。以下是應考慮的利益攸關方類別：

• 執行政府，包括所有相關的政府部門、機構、辦公室和國有企業，以及員警和其他執法機構；

• 司法和行政法庭、替代性爭端解決機制和非正式司法行為者；

• 議會，包括相關的委員會；

• 企業，包括重要的工業部門、工商業協會、中小型企業、自僱人士、獨立貿易商、合作社、非

營利組織和非正規部門行為者；

• 工會以及其他工人代表協會；

22 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 • 在國土內外受影響的群體或權利持有和人權維護者的代表，他們可能受到由國家控制的公司行為的

影響；

• 國家人權機構、監察員機構、法定平等機構和其他負有人權任務的國家當責機制；

• 負責處理相關議題的民間社會組織；

• 媒體，包括一般新聞和專業來源；

• 學術界，包括研究機構、專家和相關教育機構，如商學院；和

• 國際和區域行為體，包括相關的聯合國機構和國家工作組織、世界銀行、區域開發銀行和經濟合作

暨發展組織。

2.1.6 評估設立一個多方利益攸關方的工作小組或諮詢委員會

鑒於與國家行動計畫進程相關的利益攸關方數目往往相當多，最好設立一個由來自不同利益攸關方之代

表所組成的「多方利益攸關方」工作小組或諮詢委員會。參與這些多方利益攸關方團體是確保採有採取

代表各利益攸關方觀點的有效方式。為了符合法令，多方利益攸關方團體至少應包括民間社會組織、工

會、企業與國家人權機構(如果有的話)。讓多方利益攸關方小組在國家行動計畫進程中發揮正式功能，

可以使此進程進一步合法化。多方利益攸關方群體可協助制定國家行動計畫進程，與協助解決實質性問

題。此類小組亦可在國家行動計畫的後續追蹤和審查中發揮重要功能，因為它們可能形成一個熟悉工商

業與人權問題的多方利益攸關方平臺，並能夠定期審查國家行動計畫的執行情況。

若利益攸關方參與的太少，則會存在風險。企業可能不願支援國家行動；而若缺乏民間社會和權利持有

者的參與可能破壞國家行動計畫進程和內容的合法性。因此，最好採取「由下而上」的參與，以確保工商

業與人權國家行動計畫在公共、私人和民間社會行為者中爭取到基礎而廣泛的支持，以實現在該國的權利

兼容及永續發展。

關於與權利持有人接觸的進一步資訊，請見第3章：基於人權的國家行動計畫方案。

23 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.1.7 促進邊緣化群體或風險群體的參與

來自受影響群體和社區的權利持有人（特別是來自邊緣化群體、人權維護者、記者和民間社會成員的權利持有

人） 往往擁有相關的資訊與經驗，可為國家行動計畫進程作出貢獻。然而，由於缺乏資源和能力、且又籠罩在

政府監督、恐嚇、害怕報復、社會等級、恥辱或阻礙平等接觸的禁忌等因素下，這些利益攸關方可能厭倦或無法

在公共對話中有效地交流意見。根據國家的保護義務，國家有責任確保邊緣化的利益攸關方能夠有效參與。促使

有效溝通的措施可包括：以機密或匿名方式提交意見；為差旅和其他諮詢出席費用提供財務支援；將素材和相關

程序翻譯成少數民族語言；降低參與的負面影響；安排地方或利益攸關方的對話活動，例如男女分開、以及專為

兒童和其他群體接觸的活動

關於特定權利持有人面臨的各類挑戰的例子，以及各國如何促使他們參與國家行動計畫進程，請見第3.5 節 「使特定權

力持有人參與國家行動計畫進程」。

方框 7

多方利益攸關方參與

德國發展了兩種公共協商形式，以為制定國家行動計畫提供資訊：多方利益攸關方全體會議和聽證會。在2014

年4月，舉行了第一次會議以確定國家行動計畫的核心主題。第二次會議於2015年5月舉行，討論了國家基線評

估的議題。2015年4月至11月期間，共舉行了12次聽證會，重點在討論已確定的核心主題。每次聽證會都由一

名指導小組的代表支援。2015年12月舉行的第三次（也是最後一次）會議將12次聽證會的結果串連整併起來。

墨西哥在國家行動計畫進程開始時，便成立了一個由國家機構、民間社會、企業和學術界組成的工商業與人權

多方利益攸關方工作小組。該小組通過國家行動計畫進程定期舉行會議，就國家行動計畫的制定和內容提供意

見。這些參與者能夠與其所屬的利益攸關方群組分享對此進程發展的見解。

2013年6月，法國總理設立了「企業社會責任平臺」，這是一個關於企業社會責任的多方利益攸關方論壇，參與成員

包括來自企業、工會、民間社會組織、國家人權機構、學術機構和公眾的代表機構。該平臺積極參與國家行動計畫

的制定。

丹麥國家行動計畫是根據丹麥企業社會責任理事會的建議制定的，該理事會是一個由工商業協會、民間社

會組織、學術界和工會組成的多方利益攸關方機構；在草擬國家行動計畫時亦徵求該小組的意見。

24 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.1.8 為國家行為者和相關外部利益攸關方培力

為確保國家行動計畫進程更有效率，利益攸關方必須對聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則，包括不同行為者的

角色作用與責任，達成共識。在許多國家，《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》以及更廣泛的工商業與人權

問題對一些政府內外的利益攸關方來說是全新的。在這種情況下，利益攸關方若要有效參與對話、並為制定

國家行動計畫作出有意義的貢獻，就可能需要資訊或培力，例如關於聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的培

訓。

2.2 國家基線評估

2.2.1 工商業與人權的國家基線評估(NBA)之目標

工商業與人權的國家基線評估(NBA)之主要目標，是欲評估現行在一國家執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則

的程度。報告綜合分析了聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則中的法律和政策差距，並概述企業對人權的不利影

響，以識別出在特定背景下最突出的人權問題。如此一來，該報告有助於提供制定國家行動計畫所需的資訊。

舉辦國家基線評估還提供了一個機會，建設有參與評估的利益攸關方其工商業與人權議題的能力，並促進在執

行國家行動計畫時保持其資訊透明和當責制 (更多關於行動的制定，請見第2.3 章 「擬訂國家行動計畫：範圍和

內容」)。隨後，國家基線評估應用於監測和評估所採取的行動是否產生了預期的效果。

25 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.2.2 國家基線評估(NBA)的方法

國家基線評估作為一種評價方式，通常採用定量和定性相結合的方法64。定量方法包括進行調查以產生新資料，

或在資源稀缺或可靠數據已存在的情況下，在統計人員或專家的支援下萃取次級資料。定性方法(例如訪談或焦

點小組)可用於收集有關價值觀、意見、行為和背景的補充資訊，如社會和文化因素。

在制定國家基線評估的標準方法上，附件 B (「NBA 範本」) 載有一項方法，可用以評價國家和企業行為者目

前執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則和其他工商業與人權議題的程度。國家基線評估範本最初由丹麥人權

研究所(DIHR)和國際企業責任圓桌會議(ICAR) 在2014年開發，現已在不同的國家中使用 (例如：智利、丹

麥、墨西哥、德國、肯亞、塞爾維亞和尚比亞)。附件 B 是一個經修訂的範本，其納入了使用者回饋並涉及聯

合國工商企業與人權指導原則的三大支柱。這與工具包2014年版本中所公布的原始範本形成鮮明對比，該範

本僅討論第一和第三支柱下與國家行動有關的《指導原則》。

修訂後國家基線評估範本的結構由一組表構成，這些表格涵蓋了所有的聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則(但並非

按順序排列)。指南問題反映出聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的廣泛特性。根據聯合國人權事務高級專員辦

公室 (OHCHR)制定的指標，這些指導問題力求「評估各國在履行承諾和接受義務方採取的步驟─從國際人權標

準 （結構指標)、履行時所承擔的義務（進程指標）、到這些努力的成果（成果指標） 65。

2.2.3 依國家與企業分析《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》之執行情況

為了有系統地分析國家與企業執行《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》以及實際享有人權的情況，國家基線

評估（NBA）應全面處理有關經濟、社會、文化、公民和政治權利問題。國家基線評估應通過處理與性別、

原住民權利和少數群體等相關問題，來納入社會中最被邊緣化和受排斥的群體。其亦應認識到有可能受工商

業活動影響的個人和社區為權利持有人（這些人亦有部分在國土管轄範圍之外），並注重這些利益攸關方主

張其權利的能力。

對於範本中與國家提供保護或提供有效補救管道義務有關之章節，國家基線評估應明定國家採取遵守國際和區域

人權標準，所採取的支援方式，以及任何國家措施不足或不適的部分。因此，要完成國家基線評估，就需要對一

個國家的憲法、國內法規、行政法規、政策、公共方案和公共機構的其他干預措施進行研究。國家基線評估應引

用和整理國際勞工組織(ILO)、聯合國和區域人權機構等國際機構的相關建議。完成國家基線評估所需考慮的資

料來源包括官方統計資料、現有調查結果、國家人權機構和政府間組織的報告、民間社會組織、學術期刊和報紙

文章。

26 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

關於在國家領土的企業活動，應分析企業其執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則第二支柱與第三支柱中有

關企業責任的情況，以協助制定適當的措施，來縮小國家行動計畫在內容與執行面的落差。這包括評估企

業承諾尊重人權到何種程度、展開人權盡職調查，以及提供有效修補措施。

2.2.4 識別負面人權影響

在國家基線評估(NBA)範本中，指導問題亦被納入以協助研究人員獲取有關負面人權影響的資訊或成果指標。

在許多情況下，這些資訊並不容易獲得。在這種情況下，國家行動計畫進程提供了一個獨特的機會，使企業、

行業協會、民間社會組織以及受影響的個人和社區參與生成相關資料。實際上，若只使用工商業網站、工商業

撰寫的永續報告或民間社會和媒體報導等公開資訊，研究人員很可能會出現資料缺口。因此，在完成 NBA中

有關企業目前實施《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》水準的章節時，研究人員可以利用各種方式來獲取資

訊，包括透過調查和簡易問卷、利益攸關方諮詢、與企業進行雙邊面談、並查詢法院判決的結果、申訴資料和

相關執法機構的報告。

27 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.2.5 國家基線評估資訊方法與分析的透明度

國家基線評估(NBA)在資訊來源方面應透明揭露 (除了某些公開後會導致其暴露在風險下者，例如權利持有人、人

權維護者、舉報人、記者等)。如果 NBA 不完整，例如省略對《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》某一問題的分

析，則應明確說明原因。

2.2.6. 對國家基線評估進程的建議

在國家行動計畫(NAP)進程開始時進行國家基線評估(NBA)

理想的情況是，在作出國家行動計畫的範圍、內容和優先事項等決策之前，應先完成國家基線評估

(NBA)，或至少向利益攸關方提供其初步結果。

28 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

將發展國家基線評估(NBA)的任務分配給合適的組織

發展國家基線評估(NBA) 的任務應分配給具有相關專門知識和能力的組織或實體。它應獨立於政治黨派和公司

利益，如國家人權機構或學術研究機構。這方面的相關專業知識應至少包括：國家、區域和國際標準層級，有關

人權、工商業與人權、企業社會責任和永續發展領域議題。

組織或實體應負責根據研究和利益攸關方的參與資訊，訂定國家基線評估的初稿。

讓利益攸關方參與NBA的發展

應將利益攸關方的意見納入NBA。為了促進所有利益攸關方的參與，NBA的起草者應識別利益攸關方，如第

2.1.5節「為利益攸關方的參與建立結構」所述。

利益攸關方可通過雙邊訪談、多方利益攸關方磋商、培訓工作坊、問卷調查和獲取信息等方式參與。

不同的利益攸關方群體可能更喜歡不同的參與形式。例如，雙邊訪談、私人工作坊或客製化問卷可能對企業或

民間社會更有效；而獲取信息以及檢視公開的國家文件和數據，可能較適合國家行為者。正如第3章所強調，在

創建NBA時與原住民或其他邊緣化群體接觸時，可能需要做出更多努力；包括促進交通、翻譯和用對方習慣的

文化語言等。

29 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

除了提供NBA 草案素材外，亦應透過廣泛與即時的對話，以取得利益攸關方對 NBA 草案的意見。這一進

程應在國家行動計畫起草前進行，以利驗證相關結果及結論。

30 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

出版與宣傳

國家基線評估(NBA)的主要目的是識別和工商業與人權相關的問題，並考量優先行動以解決聯合國工商企業

與人權指導原則在執行面的落差。為了明確 NBA 的調查結果與國家行動計畫(NAP)之間的關係，一些國家

在NAP最後文案中列入 NBA 的相關資訊以及利益攸關方的意見，或將其作為報告的附件，以清楚地傳達為

何要制定本項行動。

NBA的內容可以很長和很廣泛。因此，最終版的 NBA 應出版並提供給所有利益攸關方，並使用適合相關利益

攸關方的溝通形式。例如，將全部或總結的調查結果翻譯成相關語言；向沒有網路的利益攸關方提供書面版

本；為身障人士改編出版物並透過政府網站傳播。

許多已經公布 NBA 的組織提供執行摘要，主要著重在一些負面的工商業影響，並將其與對應法律和政策落差距聯繫起

來。另一種呈現易吸收 NBA 資訊的方法為製作不同的傳播產品，例如針對特定議題、部門或區域來出版摺頁冊；針對

特定利益攸關方群體開設講習班；或創建一個友善使用者及易於互動的網站。

31 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

檢視與更新 NBA

為使 NBA 成追蹤和評價國家行動計畫有效性的工具，至少應定期更新和修訂 NBA 的相關指標，以反映在執

行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的變化和差距。反過來說，對整體 NBA 的修訂亦應更新於 NAP 的版本中。

專業

投入

出版

檢視

32 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.3 闡述國家行動計畫(NAP)：範圍、內容和優先事項

前幾章節的重點是制定國家基線評估(NBA)和國家行動計畫(NAP)的進程。本節討論和工商業與人權國家行動計

畫之範圍和內容有關的問題。

2.3.1 處理 聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則

一個工商業與人權國家行動計畫應能處理執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則三大支柱方面的主要落差。根

據 NBA 和利益攸關方的協商，可識別出與聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則有關的優先行動。國家行動計畫

應說明識別聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則如何有助於實現該方案。

2.3.2 處理國家管轄權的問題

根據《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則2》，國家行動計畫應考慮採取措施，規範設在其領土上的企業

在國內外經營時防止、處理和糾正侵犯人權行為的行動。

2.3.3 優先採取行動以應

對重大差距與挑戰

國家行動計畫應側重於相關專題或具

體部門的人權問題。例如，這些問題

可包括婦女權利、兒童權利、原住民

和少數群體的權利、勞工權利、反販

運和反奴役、安全和衝突、收入透明

度和管理以及資訊和通信技術 (ICT)。

應確定這些問題，並從透過利益攸關

方協商收到的意見納入國家基線評

估。

除了 NBA 確定的優先事項外，還應系

統地收集、分析利益攸關方的意見，並

由政府在識別國家行動計畫優先事項的

過程中公布。各國政府可透過多種方式

以達到此目的，包括公布協商和書面意

見的會議紀錄，並將個別建議的責任分

配給有關國家機構審查和酌情通過。評

價利益攸關方在制定國家行動計畫過程

中提出的意見之方法也應透明化。

33 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.3.4 特別關注邊緣化或風險群體

國家行動計畫應特別注重企業對邊緣化群體的影響。

這些群體包括兒童、婦女、異種族、族裔、宗教或其他少數群體、

LGBT社群、身心障礙人士、原住民、老年人、移工人及其家屬、受貧

困影響的人如無家可歸者、偏僻的社區居民、和在非正規經濟環境中

就業者。

國家行動計畫應明確指出這些個人和社區為權利持有人，並

確定國家應採取的措施，使這些個人和社區能夠主張和享有

其人權。

關於這方面的更多資訊，請見第3章：基於人權的國家行動

計畫。

34 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.3.5 包括具體（Speciftc）、可衡量（Measurable）、可達成

（Achievable）、相關（Relevant）和時間具象（Time-speciftc）

（SMART）的行動要點

國家行動計畫應確定政府採取一套具體行動；這些行動應該與 NBA 的調查結果掛鉤。特別是，國家行動計畫應

對在執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則時識別出差距，並力求直接解決這些差距，或在合理的時間內解決這些

差距。此外，應確保每個行動專案是：

• 具體的 (SPECIFIC）：行動專案應涉及具體的差距或問題，並與相關政府部門掛鉤；

• 可衡量 (MEASURABLE)：行動專案應夠具體，以確保能夠衡量和評估該專案的進展情況；

• 可達成 (ACHIEVABLE)： 行動專案在時間和資源方面應務實可達成；

• 相關的 (RELEVANT)：行動專案應與聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則或其他工商業與人權框架

以及具體權利的實現掛鉤；和

• 時間具象 (TIME-SPECIFIC)：應有實現的時程表。

35 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.3.6 確保國家行動計畫行動要點與其 在創建 NAP 時考慮的相關框架與舉措：

他相關框架一致

聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則為政府和企業提供了旨在改善個 • 2030年永續發展議程和永續發展目標

人、工人、消費者和社區享有人權的指南。為了使關於工商業與

• 採掘業透明度倡議

人權的國家行動計畫能夠有效地改善工商業行為，應考慮成功執

行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則如何有助於改善其他相關框架 • 金伯利 (Kimberley)進程

的執行和運作。因此，國家行動計畫應力求通過或改進其他相關

框架和倡議的執行。同樣的，負責其他框架和舉措的國家機構應

• 開放的政府夥伴關係

積極參與制定工商業與人權國家行動計畫，並承諾將納入人權和

• 經濟合作暨發展組織給多國企業的指南

工商業框架。這不僅有助於國家促進人權，而且還增加政策的一

致性，減少事倍功半和國家資金使用效率低下的現象。 • 巴黎氣候協定

• 關於安全與人權的自願原則

2.4 國家行動計畫的執行、監測和審查

公布國家行動計畫不是進程的終點，而是執行階段的開始。將執行計畫、監測和審查機制以及報告機制納

入國家行動計畫，提高了國家行動計畫中的承諾其被履行的機會。同時，監測、審查和報告成功和失敗有

助於促進國家內部、國與國之間、以及與社會上的資訊交流和做法分享。此外，納入更新國家行動計畫的

承諾，可以吸取先前的經驗與教訓，並逐步實現聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的「保護、尊重、補救」

框架。

36 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.4.1 納入一個執行計畫

除了確保每個行動專案皆具體說明負責執行的國家行為者和完成時程表外，國家行動計畫還應包括一個整體

且詳細的執行計畫。

國家行動計畫中概述的新行動之執行複雜性，會因未來行動的性質、當地情況以及國家機構和企業對工商業

與人權議程的採用而異。例如，缺乏政治意願或財政資源以及政府更迭可能影響執行工作。迄今為止，國家

行動計畫的執行進程取得的成功程度有好有壞。

2.4.2 在國家層級上建立監測和審查機制

在國家行動計畫生命週期中，必須定期審查包括國家機構、企業和民間社會在內的利益攸關方在執行國家行動計

畫方面的進展。審查有助於識別出面臨的挑戰，並進而激勵提出改進執行的建議。審查進程應在國家行動計畫中

詳細說明，以及由誰進行審查和何時進行。審查可以採取多種形式，包括由政府、多方利益攸關方團體或獨立的

國家監測機制帶領的審查。

建立由政府領導的定期進度檢討

政府本身可帶頭定期審查執行國家行動計畫的進展。通常當初協調制定國家行動計畫的機構，會負責與政府工

作小組和/或多方利益攸關方一起進行審查。

37 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

建議讓立法和司法部門參與審查行政部門執行國家行動

計畫的情況。如果國家行動計畫有時限，中期進展審查

對最後的國家行動計畫審查是有益的。在這兩種情況

下，都應適用第3章中關於國家行動計畫進程中的

HRBA 的一般原則，特別是在利益攸關方的參與和透明

度方面。

在審評過程中，應評估和報告國家在實現國家行動計

畫確定的目標和基準方面的業績。在此基礎上，可以

更新國家行動計畫所載的執行措施。

方框 23

政府審查進展情況

義大利國家行動計畫規定設立一個工商業與人權工作組 (理事會設在部際人權委員會內)，該工作組將於2018年進行中期審查，以評估取得的成果，並

識別在經濟活動方面確保有效保護和促進人權的落差。

在智利的國家行動計畫中，政府承諾通過法令使人權和工商業委員會正規化，以便執行、監測和追蹤國家行動計畫的執行情況。該委員會將有一個執行秘書

處，負責協調年度報告的編寫以及與多利益攸關方諮詢小組的關係。該委員會亦將根據既定指標來編寫關於國家行動計畫遵守情況的年度報告。為編寫本報

告，將舉行一次會前會，評估在執行國家行動計畫方面取得的進展和面臨的挑戰。該報告將在國家行動計畫網站上公布，並送交每個參與執行的機構。《國

家行動計畫》亦規定，年度報告應送交政府立法和司法部門。

哥倫比亞國家行動計畫包括一個評價和後續追蹤框架。根據該計畫，在每年3月1日之前，參與國家行動計畫的每個機構都應向總統人權諮詢辦公室報

告，其為履行國家行動計畫承諾的而採取的行動。接下來，總統諮詢辦公室將合併並公布這些資訊。辦事處亦負責召開兩輪區域審查，以評估國家行

動計畫的實地執行情況。繼這一計畫之後，哥倫比亞於2017年發表了第一份關於國家行動計畫執行情況的年度報告。

英國國家行動計畫指出，「我們將會每年向外交和聯邦事務部報告《人權與民主年度報告》的執行情況」。此一承諾也被納入在2016年國家行動計畫

更新版中。2017年，英國議會開展了一項主題為「2017年人權與工商業： 促進責任和確保當責制」的調查，其中包括一些改進今後國家行動計畫更新

的建議。

38 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

考慮建立多方利益攸關方監測和審查機制

正如在整個工具包中所強調的，國家行動計畫進程應以利益攸關方的持續參與為基礎。利益攸關方還可以共同或獨立地

負責監測和審查國家行動計畫進程的執行情況，從起草、執行、審評和制定更新的國家行動計畫。

利益攸關方與負責執行國家行動計畫的利益攸關方之間的定期審查會議可以是追蹤進展情況的有效、參與性和透明的方

式，並可以使人們瞭解行動在哪些方面沒有得到有效執行，或執行後未達到預期的效果。

方框 24

用於審查的多方利益攸關方機制

瑞士國家行動計畫要求政府設立一個由企業、民間和學術界代表組成的監測小組，以確保有效執行國家行動計畫。國家行動計畫讓這一群體在

創建時確定其確切的作用和職能，並定期開會與負責執行的機構討論執行情況。

智利國家行動計畫承諾設立一個由民間、工會、工商部門、原住民、學術界和國家人權研究所代表組成的多方利益攸關方諮詢小組，以評估

進展情況，並提出旨在改進國家行動計畫的意見和建議。

在監測方面，義大利國家行動計畫將監督的任務交給工商業與人權工作組。因此，為了確保納入多方利益攸關方的建議，工商業與人權工作

組將與一個由非機構利益攸關方 (企業界、工會、民間組織、人權維護者、專家和學術界代表) 組成的主體共同合作76。

考慮建立或授權獨立的國家監測機制，以審查國家行動計畫

聯合國身心障礙者權利公約 (CRPD) 要求締約國建立一個促進和監測其公約的框架，其中必須包括一個或多個「獨立

機制」77。根據《身心障礙者權利公約》，可授權予國家人權機構、或為此目的而設立的實體，以實現此一職能。因

此，可賦予國家人權機構等獨立機構，監測國家行動計畫執行情況的權力。

39 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.4.3 向國際與人權機制報告國家行動計畫的執行情況

向國際人權機制報告執行國家行動計畫的狀況，為政府和地方利益攸關方提供更多途徑以監測工商業面的國家人權

義務，從而助於改進《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則》的執行情況、和確保國家責任承擔者的當責性。向這些機

79

制報告也有助於查明在區域和全球層級上 進一步制定規範的落差(包括領外土的工商業與人權問題) 80。

關於聯合國人權理事會(UNHRC)

透過《普遍定期審議進程》(UPR)

進程取得的報告

各國應透過《普遍定期審議進程》報

告工商業與人權問題。普遍定期審議

進程由聯合國人權事務委員會監督，

每四年半審查一次聯合國會員國的紀

錄。審查範圍符合《世界人權宣言》

所保障的人權，並載於《聯合國憲

章》、其他聯合國人權文書、已批准

的條約、自願承諾和適用的國際人道

主義條律。

《普遍定期審議進程》是一個基於以

下面向的同儕審議進程：

(1) 國家在報告中提供的資訊；

40 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

(2) 聯合國人權事務高級專員編寫的報告 (3) 聯合國人權事務高級專員彙編的包括民間和國家人權機構在內

的其他利益攸關方的資訊，作為利益攸關方資訊的摘要。普遍定期審議進程透過互動對話進行，聯合國會

員國可向受審議國提出問題和建議。互動對話之後提出成果報告。被審查的國家可以接受或註解其他國所

提出的建議。聯合國人權理事會稍後將提出最後的全體會議報告。國家有責任執行其他國家提出的建議。

各國可在大約兩年後自願接受中期審查，利益攸關方可以再次參加。這一循環仍持續進行中，最後一次全

面檢查將在一年半後進行。

因此，普遍定期審議提供了一個機會，透過國家行動計畫監測聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的進展情況。受審議國

可報告國家行動計畫的進展情況，而民間、國家人權機構、專家、其他聯合國機構以及其他國家政府可透過建議強調

擁有進展或缺乏進展。

向聯合國人權條約監測機構 和 特別程序提交進度報告

國家行動計畫可包括要求通過聯合國人權條約監測、特別程序或其他聯合國當責機制報告工商業與人權情況。共有9項核

心人權工具，每個都有附設一個條約機構 (委員會) 84。

各委員會監督並要求已加入條約的國家，約每四年須提

交一次定期報告，並在具建設性對話的基礎上表達其意見，

以結論性意見的形式提出的建議。《聯合國工商企業與人

權指導原則》涉及所有國際公認的人權，因此，在任何條約

機構監測進程、特別程式或其他聯合國當責機制的討論中

都可以提出工商業與人權問題。

各委員會亦公布其對關於專題或執行方法上人

權條款的解釋(即一般性意見)。例如，2013

年，兒童權利委員會通過了關於國家在工商部

門對兒童權利的影響方面的義務的第16號一般

性意見 (2013年)。此外，2017年，經濟、社

會、文化權利委員會通過了關於《經濟、社

會、文化權利國際公約》在商務方面的國家義

務的第24號一般性意見 (2017年)。

41 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

聯合國人權理事會設立了「特別程序」，其為獨立的人權專家，任務是從專題或國家的角度具體就人權問題提出報告和

諮詢意見。特別程序制度是聯合國人權機制的核心要素，涵蓋所有人權：公民、文化、經濟、政治和社會權利。截至

2017年8月1日，共有44個專題任務和12個國別任務。作為一項專題任務，包括聯合國工作小組，其職責包括有效和全面

地傳播和執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則。

特別程序進行國別訪問；就個別案件和廣泛的結構性問題

採取行動，向各國發送信函，提請注意所描述的侵犯或虐

待行為；進行專題研究和召開專家磋商；促進國際人權標

準的制定；參與宣傳；提高公眾認識；並為技術合作提供

建議。特別程序每年向聯合國人權事務委員會報告；大多

數任務也向聯合國大會報告。

方框 29

向國際機制提交報告

瑞士國家行動計畫指出，「瑞士將在其關於《兒童權利公約》和《消除一切形式歧視公約》等國際公約執行情況的定期報告中，適當列入

工商業與人權問題以及對婦女的歧視形式」86。

芬蘭國家行動計畫規定，「芬蘭應向聯合國兒童權利委員會報告企業委員會建議的執行情況」87。國家行動計畫亦承諾「繼續與聯合國原住民機構就

工商業活動對人權的影響進行對話」88。

雖然瑞典國家行動計畫沒有明確提到關於工商業與人權問題的報告，但它指出： 「瑞典加入了若干國際組織的人權公約，包括聯合國、歐洲委員會

和聯合國、國際勞工組織公約。因此，瑞典有義務定期報告其執行公約各項規定的情況。瑞典已兩次接受聯合國人權理事會普遍定期審議機制的審查

(2010年和 2015年) 」89。

42 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 方框 30

用以審查國家行動計畫之國際工商業和人權工具方案

2014年，聯合國人權理事會決定「設立一個跨國公司和其他企業有關人權議題的政府間工作小組，其任務是制定一項國際

90

法律，其規範跨國公司和其他企業的活動受國際人權法規約束」 。雖然仍在討論這一工具的範圍和重點，但有人建議，

91

其中一部分的條約可以側重於工商業與人權的國家行動計畫 。規定對國家為遵守和履行其承擔的實質性義務而採取的措

施進行審查。因此，若達成一項關於工商業與人權的新法律文書，其很可能會提供一個專門的工商業與人權監測和審查工

具92。

可將一系列監測和審查工具納入這項國際協定：

• 由聯合國新的獨立專門監測機構或聯合國工作小組進行審查；

• 現有或新的國家機制有義務根據該工具進行審查；和

• 透過新的聯合國同儕審查機制進行審查。

2.4.4 向區域人權機制提交並報告

非洲人民與人權委員會(ACHPR)

關於採掘業、環境和侵犯人權行為的非洲委員會工作組於2006年成立。其任務包括「對在非洲的非國家行為者侵

犯人權行為進行研究」，並就「針對預防和賠償採掘業侵犯人權的行為，提出相關措施與建議」93。在執行其任務

時，工作小組有一個平臺來推動非洲採掘部門執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則。此外，工作小組目前正在起

草《非洲憲章》中關於採掘業的第二十一及第二十四條的國家報告準則與原則。

歐洲理事會(CoE)

歐洲理事會建立了各種機制使會員國促進和監測人權。人權委員會是歐洲理事會在1999年，為促進其成員國對人

權的認識和尊重而設立的一個獨立的非司法機構。該委員會的任務是有效尊重人權、協助會員國落實歐洲理事會

94

的人權標準，並查明在法律和實踐面可能存在的落差 。作為《工商業與人權建議》的後續追蹤，委員會已將工商

業與人權問題納入國家議程。

44 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

美洲人權委員會 (IACHR)

美洲人權委員會的任務為審查其成員國的國家行動計畫的進展情況，具體作為包括透過國別訪問結果報告、定

期公開聽證會 (在這些聽證會上，各國可能需要審查人權和工商業問題，並要求美洲人權委員會就其國家行動計

畫進程提供諮詢及支援)。這種諮詢作用符合2014年和2016年美洲國家組織關於工商業與人權的決議 (該決議要求

美洲人權委員會加強參與和支援)。

2.4.5 在區域和全球層級上參與同儕對話和檢視國家行動計畫

關於國家行動計畫的同儕交流，可有助於加強面臨類似工商業與人權的挑戰，並處理與之相關的區域及全球範

圍問題。工商業與人權對許多決策者來說，是一個相對較新的領域，且其範圍非常廣泛。要解決對人權的負面

影響，需要 "聰明地混搭"96 措施，措施種類從鼓勵企業將人權納入其業務、在各政府機構內採取政策和程序、

到修訂現有的法律和採取有針對性的監管措施。

同儕審評進程提供了一個平臺，使各國可學習在制定和執行國家行動計畫、聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則、或其

他政策的經驗，並亦應允許利益攸關方參與。在其他領域有一些同儕審議程序的例子，值得在工商業與人權方面進

一步探討。關於工商業與人權國家行動計畫，如下文所強調的，亦正出現同儕審查的機會。

經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)

經濟合作暨發展組織根據其投資政策框架，對各國進行相關政策審查。這些審查概述了各國的投資趨勢和政策。除

了審查投資是否促進和便利競爭、貿易、稅收、公司治理、金融和基礎設施政策外，這些審查亦考慮了促進負責的

工商業行為政策97。

遵守經合組織準則的國家，其建立的國家聯絡點也要接受同儕審查。全國同儕審查進程替國家協調中心評估其成

就、承認弱點和實施加強其有效性的戰略提供了一個重要機會。鑒於一些國家行動計畫已承諾加強國家聯絡點，如

瑞典、義大利和美國的國家行動計畫，同儕審查進程可以提供一個平臺，追蹤與國家聯絡點有關的承諾。

45 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

自2015年起經合組織與聯合國工作小組即開始合作，在有關工商業與人權國家行動計畫面，籌組為《全球責

任工商業行為論壇》政策制定者而辦的同儕對話會議。

非洲聯盟

透過非洲聯盟的《非洲發展新夥伴計畫》(NEPAD)，非洲同儕審查機制在自願的基礎上運作，且涵蓋經濟和政

治治理的廣泛領域。這今後可成為納入聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的適當平臺98。

東南亞國家聯盟 (ASEAN)

東盟政府間人權委員會於2014年完成了一項關於企業社會責任的專題研究，其中包括對推動 CSR99 的國家措施進

行同儕審查。可以建立一個類似的制度，對工商業與人權國家行動計畫的執行情況進行同儕審查。

歐洲理事會(CoE)

歐洲理事會除了關於貪汙100 、人口販賣101和反洗錢以及資助恐怖主義102等問題使用人權監測機制，其餘議題乃

基於同儕報告或成員國填的標準調查表，以促進軟性法律的後續行動和執行 103。

在2016年3月通過的建議中，隸屬歐洲理事會的部長委員會建議會員國 「在由歐洲理事會建立的共用資訊系統

中，分享關於國家執行《聯合國指導原則》 (國家行動計畫 ) 的計畫，包括修訂《聯合國工商企業與人權指導原

則》與制定和審查國家行動計畫的最佳做法，以供公眾使用104」。該建議還規定，「本建議在部長委員會通過

105

後，需於 2021年之前在相關利益攸關方的參與下，審查該建議的執行情況」」 。這為建立強有力的審查機制提

供了機會。利益攸關方建議，這種審查可以經合組織、歐盟或聯合國層級的現有同儕審查辦法為基礎。

歐盟

從就業和教育政策到文化等若干領域，歐盟成員國參加了「開放協調方法(OMC)」 下的自願同儕審查

進程。OMC 主要基於共同欲實現的目標 (由理事會通過)；一齊建立的測量工具 (統計、指標、指南)；

和基準，例如：比較歐盟國家與最佳做法的表現 (由委員會監測)。歐盟要求其成員國制定關於企業社

會責任以及工商業與人權的國家計畫。歐盟開展了一次性同儕審查活動，以評估成員國2013年的企業

社會責任國家責任；所有成員國都參加了於不同國家舉行的幾次會議。

45 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

報告在每次同儕審查會議後發表，並總結各國間的對談，其包括簡要說明了各國在國家行動計畫中取得的進

展。107。 此經驗和 OMC 是成員國學習同儕工商業與人權國家行動計畫的機會。

歐盟理事會2016年的結論呼籲「歐盟理事會和歐洲對外行動局應推動工商業與人權面的同儕學習，包括跨區

域同儕學習108」。

現已舉行了兩次非正式同儕交流會議。第一次會議於2016年5月，在荷蘭擔任

歐盟輪值主席國期間舉辦；第二次會議由比利時政府於2017年舉辦，為期一天

的 「關於執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的同儕交流：國家行動計畫和

解補救措施的經驗分享和最佳做法」。會議快結束時，非政府的利益攸關方受

邀參與交流意見。

美洲國家組織(OAS)

美洲國家組織通過了兩項決議，表示支持各國執行聯合國工商企業與人權指

110

導原則 。2008年2月，司法和政治事務委員會將主辦一次與美洲國家組織成

員國間的同儕交流會議，以討論執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的問

題。

2.4.6 2030年議程和高級政治論壇(HLPF)的後續追蹤和審查進展報告

如前所述，《2030年議程》的 FUR 架構由國家、區域和國際層面組成。在國家層級，各國應利用利益攸關方

的投入進行定期和包容性的進展審查，在區域層級，各國應根據國家評價結果報告進行自發性審查，以便進行

同儕學習和分享最佳做法；在全球層級，《2030年議程》設立了 HLPF，作為審查國家落實永續發展目標的中

心。

國家通過HLPF報告其執行永續發展目標的過程，國家亦可報告他們實行工商業與人權國家行動計畫的方法、或支援落

實永續發展目標的措施。各國亦可確認 永續發展目標機制 與 監測工商業與人權國家行動計畫執行情況 之間的協調。

為了進一步整合這些報告進程，各國可將工商業與人權國家行動計畫的國家層級指標納入，作為國家報告和人權行動

計畫機制的一部分。

46 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

2.5 更新國家行動計畫

為了有效地實現聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則，不僅應監測、審查和報告國家行動計畫，還應定期更新。納入

更新國家行動計畫的承諾，可以在制定、執行和審查過程中吸取經驗，並將教訓付諸實施；另應表明對逐步實現

聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則「保護、尊重、補救」框架的承諾。

一旦國家行動計畫的執行接近尾聲，就應開始制定新的或更新國家行動計畫。隨後的國家行動計畫不僅應基

於評估國家行動計畫本身指標的實現程度，還應基於國家、區域和國際監測和審查機制以及國內利益攸關方

的意見和回饋。

在國家行動計畫的執行期間，實地的條件可能已經發生變化，因此新的國家行動計畫可能需重新適應這種變

化。更新 NBA 以評估目前執行聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的水準和企業對人權的影響，可為實現這一目標

提供一個工具。

47 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 III

基於人權的國家行動計畫方法：

參與、無歧視、透明和當責制

本工具包的內容和建議與基於人權方法(HRBA)相一致。根據聯合國關於HRBA發展及合作方案的共同聲明， HRBA

是115：

• 以國際人權標準為規範和操作原則；

• 在參與、不歧視、賦權、透明度和當責制等過程中適用基於人權的原則；和

• 強調當責的重要性，承認權利持有人的權利和責任承擔者的義務。

3.1 平等和不歧視

人人平等，並有權享有同樣的人權，不因種族、膚色、性別、族裔、年齡、語言、宗教、政治或其他見解、國

籍或社會出身、身心障礙、財產、出生或其他原因而受到歧視。

與平等和不歧視有關的工商業與人權國家行動計畫之影響包括：

• 確保協商進程和國家行動計畫的內容是性別敏感的，並確保女性和男性皆有平等機會參與國家行動計畫進

程；

• 識別社會中最被邊緣化的群體，並確保將 在特定情況下可能被邊緣化或歧視的權利持有群體納入其中，特

別是受到多種歧視的個體；和

• 確保國家行動計畫在工商業活動中處理對女性和其他社會群體受歧視的問題。

48 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

3.2 參與

參與可以使所有利益攸關方群體都能投入這一進程的每個階段，各國政府應採取特別措施，以使邊緣化個

人和群體參與整個國家行動計畫進程，特別是在原住民存在的情況下 (見3.1.2 節「原住民」)。參與的目標

是使權利持有人對其發展擁有自主權(而這又需要資訊以確保有效參與)

對於參與工商業與人權國家行動計畫的影響包括：

• 通過建立永久性多方利益攸關方結構，使利益攸關方能夠參與；

• 在整個國家行動計畫進程中舉行協商會議，從其開始到發展、起草、執行和審查；

• 確保以適合利益攸關方的方式進行協商，並注意在該主題方面的專業知識水準，以及妨礙協商的任何潛

在語言或社會、文化、財政或其他障礙；和

• 開展必要的利益攸關方培力，使那些被邊緣化或受到歧視的權利持有人能夠有意義地參與。

3.3 透明化

對於確保利益攸關方有效參與國家行動計畫進程，獲得資訊是必要的。透明化要求各國政府提供與其決策進程有關的

所有資訊。重要的是，人們要瞭解和理解如何作出影響其權利的重大決定，以及如何管理為保護這些權利而建立的公

共機構。然而，僅僅提供資訊是不夠的；這些資訊還必須是具可近性的，並以適合所有人的識字水準和格式提供。

應確認透明度對工商業與人權國家行動計畫的影響，包括：

• 公布與定期更新國家行動計畫，包括不同階段的時間框架；

• 以無障礙和即時的方式公布與國家行動計畫進程有關的重要文件，包括國家基線評

估、會議紀錄、利益攸關方的貢獻、國家行動計畫的任何草案以及執行情況審查；和

• 確保公布的資訊足夠充分和易取得，以確保權利持有人和其他利益攸關方有意義地參

與國家行動計畫進程。

49 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

3.4 當責制

HRBA 框架中的當責制要求承認權利持有人的權利和義務承擔者的義務，從而使權利持有人能夠要求政府和企業的

義務承擔者對其行為負責。

與當責制有關的工商業和人權國家行動計畫的影響包括：

• 明確界定政府內部制定國家行動計畫的責任；

• 著重並識別國家行動計畫執行、後續追蹤和審評的責任

• 認識國家行動計畫處理工商業活動的最嚴重影響，並確保受其負面影響的權利持有人得到補償。

總之，HRBA的不同要素亦有助各國政府贏得所有利益攸關方的信任，此乃工商業與人權國家行動計畫合法

性和公信力的先決條件。

3.5 致力於國家行動計畫的特定權利持有人

為了與權利相容，國家行動計畫進程需要對所有利益攸關方保持開放和包容。如先前第2.1.7 節所述，受影響群體

和社區的權利持有人，特別是弱勢或邊緣化群體的權利持有人，在參與國家行動計畫進程方面往往面臨挑戰。以

下是對一部分特定權利持有人所面臨挑戰類型的討論。

3.5.1 兒童

兒童每天都與企業接觸，無論是作為商品和服務的消費者、其所經營的社區的成員、其雇員的家庭成

員，還是作為受雇者本身。同時，兒童的特點是身處發展階段，讓他們比成人更容易受到負面的工商業

影響。然而，儘管存在這種脆弱性，企業和政府很少讓他們所影響的兒童來參與或尋求協助，兒童常被

許多法律、現實和文化障礙阻礙，難以為自己發聲。

根據《兒童權利公約》，所有能夠形成自己意見的兒童都應能夠根據自己的年齡和生活水準，自由地表

達意見並使該意見得到考慮。政府內外的兒童權利利益攸關方，也能夠表達兒童的需要和願望。這些利

益攸關方可包括兒童監察員或青年、家庭、社會事務、衛生或教育部的個人。其他兒童權利利益攸關方

包括青年組織、民間社會團體、父母和/或照料者以及社區領袖。

各國在制定和執行國家行動計畫時必須具體考慮到兒童權利，並讓兒童和兒童權利利益攸關方參與此進

程，以便有效地解決與下列有關的問題：在工商業與人權背景下的兒童權利。

50 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

3.5.2 原住民

國家行動計畫進程需要根據勞工組織中關於原住民權利的第169號公約、聯合國原住民權利宣言和具體區域標準和判例。

因與原住民缺乏充分協商，故往往導致他們的權利、優先事項、需要和期望在政府中得不到反映，也導致原住民的發

展成果消極。在立法、行政和發展舉措可能影響到原住民的情況下118，包括在制定工商業與人權國家行動計畫時，應

與原住民進行協商。此乃對協商義務的廣泛理解，不僅涉及制定國家法律、政策和方案，而且涉及區域和地方行政條

例、方案和專案。在國際法的範圍內，協商的義務是根據原住民決定自己在發展進程中的優先事項119來理解的，代表

機構120和原住有參與與其相關的各級決策的權利121。

根據國際法，應進行磋商以達成協議或同意 122 。自由、事先和知情同意在《聯合國原住民權利宣言》(FPIC) 123得

到承認。

51 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

應透過適合原住民的程序，本著誠意與原住民代表機構進行協商。這意味著，協商進程的性質和範圍應事前

與原住民商討。亦應在政府決策之前開始協商，使原住民在整個構想、規劃、監測和評價過程的週期中確實

有機會作出影響性的決定。在這裡，「同意」不被理解為是單獨的一次性行動，而是根據與原住民商定的

進程，在可能對原住民產生影響的整個行動週期中的一個持續過程。適當的協商進程對於制定符合原住民具

體需求的行動極為寶貴。

迄今，在國家行動計畫進程中與原住民進行協商是很大的的挑戰，對在進程每一步驟都有不同解釋的民間、原住民代

表和國家行為者及政府來說，更是如此。

儘管存在挑戰，但制定國家行動計畫的政府應在整個進程中遵守

有關原住民的人權標準。在某些情況下，不妨專門為原住民開展

一次協商軌道，以有效實現這一目標。一旦制定了國家行動計畫

草案，各國政府應與其他利益攸關方即會根據上述國際標準，評

價國家行動計畫並提供回饋意見。

52 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 方框 35

原住民參與國家行動計畫進程

2016年7月，智利外交部在原住民權利和工商業與人權議題的國際專家支援下，在聖地牙哥聖佩德羅-德阿塔卡馬和特木科主辦了三次與原住

民的對談，以收集資訊對工商業和人權的影響、挑戰以及供國家行動計畫審議的建議。

原住民在對話中指認的影響實例，包括： 124

• 國家或私營企業發起導致文化、社會和經濟變革的採礦、供水系統和其他專案對領土的深遠影響；

• 與國家談判或與企業談判上不明確；

• 企業不尊重原住民的聖地和破壞當地生態系統；

• 智利曆法和馬普切曆表的差異對原住民生活的負面影響；

• 勞動市場上存在著基於性別和原住民身分的多種歧視；和

• 在工作上會面臨歧視使用原住民名字的申請者

原住民在對談時提出的建議實例包括：

• 進行人權影響評估，尤應特別注重原住民的權利；

• 為業務運營進行協商。這些協商應是持續進行的、而非企業在為了進入市場時才做

• 開展社區培訓，以便與國家和企業進行有效對話；

• 制定符合聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則的公司透明制度；

• 為國家官員和企業舉辦關於原住民權利的研討會和定期培訓班；

• 承認原住民的習慣法，包括作為調解和解決衝突的機制；和

• 確保原住民參與自由貿易協定的談判和投資決策。

3.5.3 人權捍衛者

人權捍衛者(HRDs)透過監測國家和工商業行為、識別人權問題、以及宣導對參與侵犯人權的政府和企業行

為者進行補救和追究責任，在工商業與人權領域扮演關鍵角色。侵犯人權的行為。然而，在實務上，人權

捍衛者可能會受到迫害和騷擾、任意逮捕或拘留，特別是在那些缺乏有效法治的國家。權利的侵犯。聯合

國工商企業與人權指導原則承認人權捍衛者面臨的風險，要求各國確保 「人權捍衛者的合法與和平活動不

受干擾」125。

53 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

鑒於人權捍衛者在查明、預防、減輕和確保追究公司侵犯人權行為的責任方面的重要，各國政府在制定國家行動計

畫的過程中與人權捍衛者的協商至關重要。更重要的是，各國政府應確保在整個國家行動計畫進程中有效保護人權

捍衛者，並解決其在工作中所面臨的危險。

3.5.4 女性

聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則認識到「女性與男性可能面臨

127

的不同風險」故其呼籲要明確關注性別問題 。《消除對婦女

一切形式歧視公約》(CEDAW)和勞工組織公約128保護婦女不受

歧視、受平等待遇的權利。納入性別觀點意味著因性別在社

會、法律、文化角色和權利的不同，企業可能對女性或男性產

生不同、非等比例或意外的影響。

國家行動計畫進程提供了一個機會，以瞭解和企業對婦女的歧視

是如何長期存在、助長不穩定和脆弱的工作環境，並導致對性別

的人權影響。

女性和男性通常有著不同的經歷及企業相關的人權影響。女性往往承

受著不成比例的社會、經濟和環境負面影響負擔，較少獲得由私營部

門提供的福利 (如就業機會、供應合同或賠償等)。例如，在服裝部

門，女性占工人的絕大多數，但她們可能更容易受到負面的人權影

響。雖然所有工人都可能受到某些虐待 (如火災和建築安全風險、低

工資等) 的影響，但婦女面臨著性騷擾、攻擊和強暴等額外的虐待風

險與懷孕的歧視。

同樣，在礦產開發方面，社區治理進程往往將女性排除在有效參與協商和決策之外。婦女的財產權可能受到負

面影響，因為她們不太可能因財產和資產的損失而得到賠償。

在與女性、人權和企業有關的所有行動中，必須並採取適當措施，以解決邊緣化和受多種歧視形式的婦女所經

歷的影響。

54 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

3.6 受衝突影響的環境

在受衝突影響的地區，行為體間的兩極化高度參與性的辦法，需要在建立信任和建設和平的基礎上。這時若採多方利

益攸關方參與模式不但可能沒有用處，更可能會適得其反。

在可能的情況下，專業的衝突調解人應參與多方利益攸關方的進程、設計和實施。在情況不允許下，分別與不同的利

益攸關方群體接觸亦是一種選擇。

在受衝突影響的地區，由於在這些地區缺乏有效控制，各國可能無法充分保護人權。《聯合國工商企業與人

權指導原則》強調，在受衝突影響地區經營的多國企業的母國可發揮作用，協助這些公司和東道國確保不參

129

與侵犯人權行為 。制定國家行動計畫，這意味著母國和東道國都有責任確保設在領土上的公司尊重人權，

包括針對這些領域企業的具體行動。另外母國可發揮作用，協助東道國制定國家行動計畫，包括提供技術和

資金支援。在受衝突影響地區的國家，一些母國政府和地方大使館按照聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則7制

定的標準，為東道國政府的國家行動計畫作出了貢獻。

方框 37

55 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT

 附件 A： 國家行動計畫檢查清單

1. 治理和資源

致力於國家行動計畫進程

a. 國家行動計畫進程的領

• 確保國家行動計畫進程的責任被清楚地確立和宣傳

導和自主權

• 確保政府行為體間的協調和一致性

b. 國家行動計畫進程所有階 • 制定和公布國家行動計畫進程的職權範圍和時程表

• 公布國家基線評估、利益攸關方提交的材料以及任何對國家行動計畫提供資訊

段的透明度 的重要分析

• 公布和協商國家行動計畫草案

• c.充足的資源 • 為國家行動計畫進程分配適當的財政資源

2. 利益攸關方的參與

a. 所有相關利益相關方的有 • 識別利益攸關方

效參與 • 在必要時提供充分的資訊和能力建設

• 促進邊緣化或風險群體的參與

• 考慮設立利益攸關方指導小組或諮詢委員會

3. 國家基線評估

a. 國家基線評估作為國家 • 將國家基線評估作為國家行動計畫進程的第一步

行動計畫的基礎 • 將國家基線評估發展的任務分配給一個合適的機構

• 讓利益相關者充分參與國家基線評估的發展

• 發布和傳播國家基線評估

• 定期審查和更新國家基線評估

4. 範圍、內容與優先事項

a. 國家基線評估的範圍 • 處理所有的聯合國工商企業與人權指導原則

• 處理國家管轄範圍內的所有問題

• 包括具體、可測量、可實現、相關和特定時間的行動要點

b. 國家基線評估的內容

• 確保與其他相關框架的一致性

• 對最嚴重之企業侵犯人權行為優先採取行動

c. 國家基線評估的優先

• 特別關注邊緣化或風險群體

事項

5. 當責制與後續追蹤

a. 義務承擔者的執行責任 • 確定誰負責執行個別行動要點和整體後續行動

• 制定監測和報告執行情況的框架

b. 更新國家行動計畫 • 確定執行期限，並承諾更新國家行動計畫

56 NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT