UNGC Human Rights Working Group Webinar Meeting 1

1. UNGC Human Rights Working GroupWebinar Meeting1 Chaired by Mary Robinson 24 March 2010 10:00am to 12:00pm (NYC time) 1The main purpose of this webinar meeting is for the HRWG to provide feedback on three guidance documents currently being developed. Future HRWG webinar meetings will be focused on different HRWG workstreams.

2. Instructions during the webinar • If you haven’t already done so, please mute your line (To mute/unmute your line, press *6) • Muting your line when you are not speaking will help keep background noise to a minimum. • PLEASE BE SURE TO MUTE YOUR LINE BEFORE PUTTING THE CALL ON HOLD SO THAT THE WEBINAR IS NOT INTERRUPTED BY BACKGROUND MUSIC! • Click “raise hand” to indicate that you want to speak • During discussion periods, click “Raise Hand” on the top left hand side of your screen. The moderator will then call on participants in the order in which they raised their hand.

3. AGENDA 10:00 to 10:05 WELCOME Welcome by Mary Robinson, Chair, UNGC Human Rights Working Group 10:05 to 10:55 OPERATIONALIZING HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE Obtaining input for two cumulative human rights due diligence projects from the Global Compact Network Netherlands (how to-guide) and Institute for Human Rights and Business (state of play-review) 10:55 to 11:25 PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE TOOL – DEVELOPING A HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY Presentation of the Human Rights Policy Guidance Tool by UNGC Office on behalf of Lucy Amis, followed by discussion 11:25 to 11:55 GUIDE TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPONENT OF THE GLOBAL COMPACT COMMUNICATION ON PROGRESS Introduction by Laura Nielsen of the UNGC Office, followed by discussion of the proposed reporting elements. 11:55 to 12:00 WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS

4. Human Rights Due Diligence Presentation and discussion GC Human Rights Working Group Webinar, 24 March 2010 Initiatives by:

5. Complementary Initiatives

6. Complementary Initiatives

7. Business & Human Rights Initiative Testing the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework and what it takes to become “Ruggie Proof”

8. Participating Companies Rabobank Randstad (Flex work) Shell (Oil & Gas) TNT (Express & Log.) Unilever (Food & Care) AkzoNobel (Chemicals) Essent (Utilities) Fortis Bank Nederland KLM (Airline) PHILIPS (Electronics)

9. Process • Phase 1: Individual company assessments • Phase 2: Workshops & Seminars • Phase 3: Good practice manual

10. Methodology • Fully confidential • Research protocol based on Ruggie reports • Review company documents • Interview wide range of functions (incl. countries and business units)

11. Overall Picture • Companies do much on human rights (eg. diversity & inclusion, health & safety, supply chain management) • However, usually not called “human rights”: • May be missing some human rights risks? • Cannot always engage comfortable in a discussion on human rights with stakeholders • Fortunately, opportunity to piggyback and great willingness to do so • Much work on front-end (scoping, risk assessment, etc.)

12. Lessons Learned • Ruggie framework works well, because: • Focus on materiality • Risk approach • Standard of ‘do no harm’ (even though not framed that way) • Clarifies distinction between states and business • Tough issues: • All human rights? • How to assess and determine scope? • When have you done enough, especially in supply chain?

13. Business & Human Rights Initiative Final publication: Good Practices Guide

14. Goal • Make human rights (and human rights due diligence): • Understandable • Practical, and • Actionable

15. 1. Understandable • Why take up a commitment to human rights? • What are human righs • GC and human rights • Business case for human rights • Sources: • Global Compact sources • Ruggie reports • Experience with companies • Human Rights Translated

16. 2. Practical • What business can do wrt human rights: the Ruggie framework and (HRDD) • The Framework • Role of state and business • HRDD explained • GMs • Sources: • Ruggie reports • Own experiences

17. 3. Actionable • 3a. Human Rights Policy • 3b. Assessing Impact • 3c. Integration • 3d. Tracking Performance • 3e. Grievance Mechanisms • Sources in general: • GC web site • B&HR resource center • DIHR tools

18. I. Human Rights Policy • Strategy (scope/approach) • Intern. Bill of Human Rights/ ILO Declaration (all rights) • Expression of Commitment • Functional Guidance • II. Impact Assessments • Risk Management • Context Analysis • Desk Research • Engagament w/ Affected Parties • Refinement Planned Activities • IV. Tracking Performance • Monitoring & Auditing • Grievance Mechanisms/ Confidential Means • Reporting & Verification • Improvement Plan & Follow-Up • III. Integration • Human Rights Lens • Link to Top Management • Training & Development • Incentives & Disincentives • Unforeseen Circumstances

19. 3a Human Rights Policy • Business Learnings: • Combine public statement with internal manuals • No conflict between Ruggie and GC • Hard to develop policy without risk mapping • Other Sources: • Guide Lucy (coordination) • Human Rights Translated

20. 3b. Assessing Impact • Business Learning: • Much more than just HRIAs: • Country assessments (UN sanctions) • Client relation managers (eg. financials) • Human rights in M&A and risk management • Has a strong link with scoping • Other Sources: • HRIAs: IBLF guide, Nomogaia, Aim for HR • DIHR Quick Check, Arc, and country reports • Links to sources (IA, AI, GC, Maplecroft, etc.)

21. 3c. Integration • Business Learnings: • Lots of infrastructure to build on (piggyback) • Recruitment, Training, Performance Appraisal • Ethics and CR Committees, HR focal point • Procurement, CRM, Quality management • Top management and company culture • When is a truly separate Int. process needed? • Other Sources: • Guide Integrating HR (BLIHR, GC, etc.) • GC Website

22. 3d. Tracking Performance • Business Learnings: • Supplier support can make a big difference • Piggyback on processes like NF Letter of Rep. • KPIs crucial for success • Potential for audit on human rights? • Other Sources: • GRI new HR guidelines • Supply chain initiatives (FLA, SA8000, SEDEX)

23. 3e. Grievance Mechanisms • Business Learnings: • How applicable are principles for other grievances than company-community? • Different types of mechanisms and processes • Applying GMs to suppliers and other Bus, part. • Very different attitudes to GMs across the world • Other Sources: • Principles for effective grievance mechanisms • Rights-compatible grievance mechanisms • ...

24. Remaining topics • Stakeholder Engagement • Dilemmas: Working hours, FoA, legal discrimination of women • Various standards (GC, OECD, ISO, etc.) • All human rights? • When human rights conflict • Supply chain responsibility • …

25. QUESTIONS • What other sources to include? • Who would be willing to provide feedback on specific sections? (5/6 pages) • Who would be willing to look at suggestions for SMEs? • Do people have suggestions for distribution?

26. Tracking Performance Grievance Mechanism Impact Assessments Human Rights Policy Integration INDEX CARDS Review of business experiences of applying human rights due diligence

27. Participants • Businesses: ABB Philips Cairn Energy Nestle HP The Coca-Cola Company Shell Anglo-American Total Syngenta ENI Gap Inc. Novo Nordisk Levi Strauss Novartis Merck Unilever ExxonMobil Newmont General Electric Essent Cerrijón • Others: Danish Institute for Human Rights Aim for Human Rights International Business Leaders Forum John Ruggie’s team International Organization of Employers (IOE) Swiss Government Dutch Government

28. Process • Step 1: Invitation + interviews • Step 2: Roundtable Copenhagen/Atlanta • Step 3: Draft reports and telecons • Step 4: Drafting and refining the report • Step 5: Launch at GC Leaders Summit

29. Human Rights Due Diligence

30. Propositions

31. Questions • What is your reaction to the propositions? Which should be added or left out? Which should be changed? • How do you think these propositions will be different in 5 years from now if a similar human rights due diligence state of play review would be carried out? • What is the road to get there? What is needed to foster congruence of methodologies of human rights due diligence?

32. Foundations/ Cross-cutting • Propositions • An explicit public commitment may be needed, but the best human rights policy is integrated into other policies (and not stand-alone); • Endorsement of a policy statement should ultimately be approved by senior management, but this does not always have to be the start of the process; it can also be the end; • Most companies combine a public statement on human rights, with internal guidance to its business and supporting functions; • An important goal of the public statement may be to provide a starting point for discussion with stakeholders. • Propositions • Increasingly strategic–not just incidents; • mainly risk-based, but also opportunity-based and value-based; • In long term, HR might best sit within core functions such as Business Ethics, Human Resources, or the Legal function; • Need for HRDD quick “quick check” for SMEs; • All human rights? Fine, but focus is needed; • Without some level of transparency, obtaining trust from stakeholders is impossible.

33. Tracking Performance Assessing Risk & Impact Integration Policy • Propositions • Best human rights policy is integrated into other policies; • Buy in from senior management is not always the start; it can also be the end; • Combine a public statement with internal guidance; • Public statement provides a starting point for discussion.

34. Tracking Performance Strategy & Policy Integration Assessments • Propositions • Congruency is needed in methodologies of country and other risks assessments; • Human Rights in Merger & Acquisition processes is good business; • Methodologies for assessing risk and impact need transparency to be legitimate; • Effective stakeholder relations are foundational to HRIAs; however, some stakeholder inputs might work detrimentally; • Impact assessments need to be ongoing; in many instances, this means having “someone on the ground.”

35. Tracking Performance Assessing Risk & Impact Integration Policy • Propositions • No business has yet fully integrated human rights into its systems; • Not explicitly label ‘human rights’ might facilitate integration; important that it is done “conscious; • Ultimately, all corporate entities need to own human rights; • Incentives and tools are crucial parts of integration; • Integration needs constant reinforcers (what are they?); • Grievance mechanisms can be a powerful tool for effective integration; • A focus on quick results is a business reality; what does it do for human rights?

36. Tracking Performance Assessing Risk & Impact Integration Policy • Propositions • Current indicators are mainly process indicators; this is good but not enough; • A gap remains between HRDD and GRI and ISO 26,000; • Without KPIs, business and human rights will never be taken seriously; • TP is as much about awareness-raising as it is about keeping score; • Reporting on incidents and impacts is ultimately necessary for a credible report on human rights; • Company’s HRDD will not be “bought” without some independent verification; • Performance cannot be tracked without engagement with stakeholders; • Effective grievance mechanisms can help achieve better performance

37. Questions • What is your reaction to the propositions? Which should be added or left out? Which should be changed? • How do you think these propositions will be different in 5 years from now if a similar human rights due diligence state of play review would be carried out? • What is the road to get there? What is needed to foster congruence of methodologies of human rights due diligence?

38. Launch of both publications • Global Compact Leaders Summit • June 23: Annual Local Networks Meeting • June 24: Main event: Business & Human Rights breakfast (w/ Mary Robinson, John Ruggie, CEOs, Government) • June 25: substantive session to discuss contents of publication