Business and Human Rights: Survey of DAX 100 CEOs
Human rights protection as a ‘licence to operate’: responses from a survey of DAX 100 companies
Transnational companies are – as no board member would publicly dispute – bound to uphold human rights, which in practice can result in a number of conflicting priorities between humanitarian or political demands and economic requirements placed on the company in question. This dilemma may explain the cautious approach taken by German DAX companies when communicating on this issue: of the 30 board members approached, only the Chairman of the Executive Board of Fraport AG, Professor Dr Wilhelm Bender, was willing to give an interview to the zfmr.
A similar picture emerges from the response of DAX 100 companies to a survey initiated by the Hamburger Stiftung für Wirtschaftsethik, to which only 10 per cent of the companies (Allianz, Commerzbank, Metro, MAN, RWE, MLP, Daimler, Tognum, BASF, Deutsche Bank, Telekom). Apart from the strikingly low response rate – even by the standards of business ethics issues – the patterns in the responses are also interesting:
when answering questions on human rights, the companies base their responses on the area of corporate social responsibility and related activities, without specifically addressing human rights issues.
“For us, adherence to human rights standards is an integral part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), by which we mean the implementation of sustainability at a corporate level.” (BASF).
Individual aspects such as freedom of association, social standards, sustainability or diversity are regarded by the companies surveyed as a commitment to human rights. However, no company places the universal claim of human rights at the centre of its activities as an overarching guiding principle; rather, individual CSR measures are reinterpreted in the light of human rights issues, so that even “meal allowances […] and the provision of childcare” are regarded as concrete measures for upholding human rights.
What all the responses have in common is that the companies do not engage in a reflective or even problem-sensitive examination of the issue; instead, they draw on terminology from other fields, creating the effect that, whilst questions are asked about human rights, the answers relate to sustainability and CSR.
None of the companies surveyed addresses their direct or indirect responsibility to prevent human rights violations within their own business processes. The dilemma mentioned at the outset is not addressed by the companies; on the contrary, respect for human rights is interpreted as a natural foundation for economic success.
For example, Deutsche Bank sees its “most important social responsibility […] [as] being internationally competitive, generating profits and growing as a company…. Against this backdrop, respect for human rights goes without saying”. ‘In the long term, companies can only do good business in stable societies.’ (Telekom)
This pattern of argument – presenting a society that guarantees human rights as a positive factor for business location, the empirical plausibility of which would certainly need to be scrutinised in detail – is found in all the companies’ statements. The idea of a universal legal entitlement to human rights, grounded in principles that extend beyond the logic of the economic system, is not, however, reflected in the companies’ statements.
Although pressure from civil society on companies has increased noticeably in recent years, the majority do not appear to regard concrete support from state or civil society actors as necessary, even though NGOs are seen as important sources of information in regions where human rights are a sensitive issue. Daimler alone specifically aims to ‘involve other stakeholders on the issue of human rights’ in future.
Overall, not only the low level of participation but also the sometimes very detailed responses received underscore the findings of Rieth and Henrichs (Rieth and Henrichs, 2008: German Companies in the Global Compact, COP Project II, TU Darmstadt) that companies have some catching up to do when it comes to reporting on specific measures regarding how human rights are integrated into corporate practice.
It is also evident, however, that those companies which have signed specific codes organise internal measures, reporting and responsibilities for compliance, and are, on the whole, significantly more focused and specific in their presentations. The thesis of ‘soft law’ as a learning system – a view frequently expressed, particularly in relation to the Global Compact – appears entirely plausible in the light of the responses provided.
For this reason, despite this relative lack of detail regarding both specific measures and the acceptance of the universalist claim, one should be wary of an overly critical assessment of the results. Naturally, for the responding companies, ‘positive effects on reputation, rankings and social acceptance’ (Daimler) – in other words, ultimately utilitarian reasons rooted in economic system logic – are at the heart of their commitment to human rights. If, within this systemic logic, a company regards adherence to human rights standards as the basis of its own ‘licence to operate’ (Daimler) – and if civil society can indeed revoke this licence in the event of violations – companies cannot evade this discourse in the long term.