The China Corporate Governance News keeps you on top of business, economic and political events in the China.
Blawg | Newsletter Archiv | |

In the News

John Ruggie's Just Business: Multinationals and Human Rights

John Ruggie has a new book out. It's called, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (Norton, March 2013).

The book is a history of Ruggie’s work with the United Nations to come up with a road map for “responsible corporate practices that takes a pragmatic yet rights-based approach” to controlling multinational corporate crime, violence and misbehavior.

Ruggie developed what he calls a “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework and “Guiding Principles” to implement it.

(Governments protect, corporations respect, and courts remedy.)

The United Nations bought into Ruggie’s principles, but few independent observers have done so.
The book is a welcome and detailed history of Ruggie’s efforts to put in place his guiding principles.

But Ruggie’s book will not convince major human rights groups and anti-sweatshop activists who see Ruggie as carrying water for the multinationals.

In 2011, the two largest human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International — attacked the United Nations Human Rights Council when it endorsed Ruggie’s framework.

Human Rights Watch said that the UN Human Rights Council “squandered an opportunity to take meaningful action to curtail business-related human rights abuses.”

“In effect, the council endorsed the status quo, a world where companies are encouraged, but not obliged, to respect human rights,” said Arvind Ganesan, business and human rights director at Human Rights Watch. “Guidance isn’t enough, we need a mechanism to scrutinize how companies and governments apply these principles.”

Ganesan said that the council also decided it would create a new Forum on Business and Human Rights for governments, businesses, and others to meet annually to take a broad look at how the guiding principles were being carried out. This was in line with the view of business organizations, which opposed more scrutiny and strongly argued for a tepid forum. It is unclear how this forum differs from the UN Global Compact, a modest effort to address corporate responsibility that began in 1999, Ganesan said.

“People suffering from abusive business practices need more than another talk shop about what companies should be doing,” Ganesan said. “If the commitment to these principles is real, why should companies and governments be afraid to review their implementation in a meaningful way?”

Anti-sweatshop activist Jeffrey Ballinger says that Ruggie’s framework won’t work.

“The problem is that it doesn’t work,” Ballinger told Corporate Crime Reporter. “We’ve seen corporations join the UN model and go on operating the same way through contractors they cannot and will not control. It’s a public relations exercise, and Ruggie is a big part of the team that has put this together.”

Others, like corporate criminologist John Braithwaite of the Australian National University, are willing to give Ruggie’s principles a chance.

When we asked Braithwaite about Ruggie’s work, he told us a Nixon going to China story.

“On Richard Nixon’s first visit to China in 1972, Henry Kissinger sought to break the ice with Premier Chou En-Lai by asking him what he thought of the impact of the French Revolution on western civilization. He replied to Nixon: ‘The impact of the French Revolution on western civilization? Too early to tell.’”

“I’m a strong supporter of progressive UN framework agreements that seem pretty wishy-washy at first,” Braithwaite told Corporate Crime Reporter. “As we have seen with steps like the 1987 “Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances”, in the long run they can make a huge contribution from limited beginnings. It is too early to tell whether the Global Compact has had an impact on business civilization. It all depends on whether more specificity, teeth, commitment and tough auditing gets injected into the agreement over the long run, or whether the Global Compact goes the way of ritualism and green wash. This means Global Compact audits could go the same way as financial audits on Wall Street, becoming rituals of comfort that tell us little about underlying corporate substance.”

Ballinger, on the other hand, distrusts the international regulatory framework.  If not that, what? “Consumers,” Ballinger said. “Ralph Nader proved fifty years ago that this is the movement that can get national laws changed or enforced.”

“Our trade laws, the General Systems of Preferences. We can threaten other countries that unless they treat their workers well, we will impose sanctions. We threatened Indonesia. It’s a stick that unions and others can use.”

“We can say to Indonesia and other countries we don’t like the way you treat trade unions in your country. You can start losing some trade benefits to this huge market unless you change your policies.” “Use the trade laws as a tool for consumers and workers,  not just for multinationals.
Even that kind of threat pales in comparison to what ordinary consumers can do in any industry.”

Source: Corporate Crime Reporter



Edward Lehman 雷曼法学博士
Managing Director 董事长

LEHMAN, LEE & XU China Lawyers
Founder of LehmanBrown

Edward Lehman comments on China National People's Congress CCTV

Lehman, Lee & Xu is a top-tier Chinese law firm specializing in corporate, commercial and intellectual property matters. For further information on any issue discussed in this edition of China corporate governance News , or for all other enquiries, please e-mail us at or visit our website at

© Lehman, Lee & Xu 2013.
You may share this document with your friends or colleagues, either by forwarding this message to them (provided that the contents of this message, including all notices, are preserved in their entirety), or by directing them to the online edition at here. You may use short excerpts from this document in your own work (provided that each such excerpt shall not exceed three sentences in length; no more than twenty percent of this document, by word length, may be excerpted; no more than twenty percent of your work, by word length, may consist of such excerpts; each such excerpt shall be attributed to Lehman, Lee & Xu, with such attribution to include the Internet address of this document’s online edition; and your work shall not disparage Lehman, Lee & Xu). All other rights reserved.
This document has been created for educational purposes for clients, potential clients and referrers of legal services to Lehman, Lee & Xu, and to alert readers to the services provided by Lehman, Lee & Xu. It is not intended to serve as definitive legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. Lehman, Lee & Xu does not endorse any personal opinions which may be contained herein.
We hope that you enjoy China Business Crime in the News . If you would like us to send you new issues by e-mail each month, please click here to subscribe. There is no charge for this service. If not, please click here to unsubscribe.