BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

Although violations to human rights is supposed to be primarily avoided instead of remedied, a due diligent business program might also provide information on how the company address conflicts in case of harming human rights. General statements set forth in a applicable policy or procedure, such as respecting due process, human rights or democracy do not properly meet a business due diligence policy toward respecting human rights. Details upon means to be adopted are crucial, particularly in adverse political, geographical or technological circumstances. Remedying harms in adverse circumstances are harder and clearly aggravate disadvantages of vulnerable people. 4. Conclusions According to the UN Guiding Principles, business enterprises should respect human rights. To do so, it is expected they avoid infringing, as well as address adverse impacts they are involved. To do so, they have to create corporate process and policies. This is the essential feature of enterprises’ Due Diligence. Without processes grounded on appropriate data, approved by the highest level of decision making, with the aim to identify, prevent, explains expectations, mitigate, remediate and communicate to all stakeholders upon actions which are assumed to harm human rights, no business enterprises might be recognized as having due commitment with human rights. All actions must count with consultations with potentially affected groups. UN Guiding Principles do not touch particularly to social security. Nonetheless, it is of huge relevance insofar it states how enterprises might operate to stablish decision making process in harmony with all human rights. According to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy of ILO, Multinational Enterprises’ Due Diligence process might also provide positive actions to overcome unemployment and underemployment so as to achieve standards of decent work (elimination of forced labour, child labour, unhealthy or unsafety conditions of work, minimum wage, income protection, stable employment). Particular concerns related to this point are expressed with their operations in poor and underdeveloped societies, where not only unionism usually is not strong enough to resist against practices which negatively affect human rights, but also where technological backwardness associated with the lack of a legal social protection tend to create enormous disadvantages for employees meanwhile rent seeking rationality tend to take root by the part of enterprises. Still under the terms of ILO Declaration, multinational enterprises might play a crucial role as States’ social partners to the implementation and sustainability of social security schemes, including via their own employer-programs. Here we meet a very significant connection with social security principles. In fact, whenever multinational enterprises decide not to apply to foreigners the same benefits they offer to domestic (or elsewhere) employees, they carry out discriminatory operations. That is to say, they breach one of the cardinal and fundamental value of democratic societies. Whereas the above-mentioned documents attach human rights to business due diligence processes, as well as they set forth detailed standards, particularly addressed to multinational enterprises, to fulfill social security gaps within host societies facing social vulnerabilities, the recent General Comment n. 24 adopted by the Committee

113