BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

As is the ILO document states, the current context calls for the development of a new model of social security, based on human rights, flexible and compatible with resources available in each country, which is in perfect harmony with the guidelines of the ICESCR. These minimum levels must therefore result from a democratic agreement involving at least workers, employers and the State. Therefore, the recommendation is not to imitate or replicate models of foreign regimes. On the contrary, it is to use foreign experience to implement the most efficient model possible in each state. More recently, in the framework of the United Nations, and due to the meeting of the Summit for the Sustainable Development that took place in September of 2015, another extremely relevant document appeared, with an Agreement nature, which contemplates 17 Objectives for Sustainable Development – ODS, and 169 more goals. The objectives 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8, which specifically address social security issues, namely: (1) eradication of poverty, (2) eradication of hunger, (3) health protection, (6) water management and basic sanitation, and (8) decent work. What is particularly significant within the case of this new agreement is the connection between social security human rights and resilience. Taking such normative system as a whole, it is notable that since the Atlantic Charter, ILO Conventions and Recommendations, together with the UDHR and the ICESCR, along with more recent documents as R202 and the SDG, it is remarkable that presently social security is defined only as a human right: in addition, it is understood as an indispensable via to the economic development and community resilience. In fact, numerous Conventions and Recommendations, as well as recent documents on sustainable development take it as fundamental human right. Nonetheless, the scope of protection is the under some controversies. In times of great disruptions as the present time, such large normative panorama also brings several uncertainties. This is not a reason, however, not to admit its minimum content formed by the rights related to decent work, income security, health protection and social assistance to those who have no economic means or health reasons to exercise autonomously individual, civil, economic and cultural policies. These rights form the minimum content of the scope of protection of the human right of social security are strongly interrelated each other. What remains open is what exactly might business enterprises meet to be diligent with this human right. 3. Adverse impacts of business on human rights of social security Adverse impacts of business activities on the human right of social security are not a mere scholarly hypothesis. In March 2017, the Governing Body of the ILO – International Labour Organization stated that … advances made by multinational enterprises in organizing their operations beyond the national framework may lead to abuse of concentrations of economic power and to conflicts with national policy objectives and with the interest of the workers. In addition, the complexity of multinational enterprises and the difficulty

108