The evaluation report on the National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights confirms civil society: effective rules are needed that oblige companies to respect human rights.
The National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights (NAP) describes how Switzerland wants to implement the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights adopted in 2011, i.e. how strongly it is committed to corporate responsibility. In recent years it has relied primarily on voluntary action: there was information and education for large corporations and small businesses, but hardly any legal regulations.
That seems to be changing. At least this is what the evaluation report on the NAP for the years 2020-2023 and the statement from the Foreign Department EDA and the Economic Department WBF, which were published at the end of November, suggest. According to the evaluation, most companies are of the opinion that “that changes are primarily driven by regulatory requirements, investors, public pressure and media reporting”.
The report, which was prepared by the Human Rights Center at the University of Zurich, the law firm “Good Rechtsanwälte” and the consulting firm “engageability”, and the authorities’ statement recognizes what civil society has been saying for a long time: that laws are needed to ensure that companies based in Switzerland respect human rights in their business. This was recently called for by the Corporate Responsibility Initiative (Kovi), which was accepted by the people in autumn 2020 but rejected by a majority of the cantons. She wanted to ensure that Swiss companies could be held liable for human rights violations by subsidiaries abroad. The law, which the Federal Council finally passed instead, only looks for the areas of child labor and conflict minerals and – added later – forced labor NGOs criticize a duty of care – which also contains many exceptions and is therefore not very effective.
The EU supply chain law as an incentive
Access to redress is in addition to the state protection of human rights and the Obligation of companies to respect human rights themselves, one of three pillars of the UN Guiding Principles. “The evaluation explicitly mentions that this has not yet been sufficiently implemented by companies or the state and that a greater focus is needed here,” says Anina Dalbert from the organization Public Eye.
The fact that something is now moving in Swiss politics is mainly due to the changed legal situation in neighboring European countries. In mid-December, the European Parliament and the EU states agreed on a supply chain law. This provides for a due diligence obligation and the creation of a supervisory authority to monitor compliance. “This means that the EU law goes a little further than the former corporate responsibility initiative,” says Dalbert.
Because the EU law is also intended to apply to certain companies based abroad, it could have consequences for many Swiss companies. This could even lead to Swiss companies now demanding stricter rules from the federal government because it is easier for them if Swiss legislation corresponds to that of the EU, says Laurent Matile from Alliance Sud, the network of Swiss aid organizations. “We demand and assume that Switzerland will adapt its legislation,” says Matile.
Questionable methodology, questionable results
Matile criticizes the second report on corporate responsibility by the consulting firm Ecofact and the Sociological Institute at the University of Zurich, which was published at the same time as the evaluation of the NAP. This should check whether and to what extent Swiss companies comply with the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies. However, the report’s methodology is questionable, says Matile. He comes to the conclusion that 70 percent of large companies and 40 percent of SMEs adhere to the guidelines. In fact, it is probably only around 30 percent of large companies and less than five percent of SMEs.
Meanwhile, the Coalition for Corporate Responsibility, which also includes Public Eye and Alliance Sud, has announced a new initiative for corporate responsibility to want to launch. The aim is to ensure that a possible new law is not watered down or delayed forever in the political process, says Dalbert from Public Eye.
Politicians could, for example, shy away from creating a supervisory authority – arguing that they do not want to monitor companies unnecessarily. However, it is an important addition to the liability mechanism, says Dalbert. It could issue fines for violations, and civil society organizations could file preventive complaints instead of just those affected in the event of damage. “The court is dealing with human rights violations that have already happened. A supervisory authority can intervene earlier,” says Dalbert.