Building a Movement for Corporate Accountability

The First Annual International Corporate Accountability Roundtable Meeting

Washington D.C. September 8th-9th, 2011

foreword

What is the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable?

The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) is a coalition of leading human rights organizations including Amnesty International, EarthRights International, Global Witness, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch.

ICAR harnesses the power of the human rights community to identify and promote robust frameworks for corporate accountability, strengthen current measures and defend existing laws, policies and legal precedents.

For more information about our work and our campaigns, visit www.accountabilityroundtable.org, or email ICAR Coordinator Amol Mehra at [email protected].

2 foreword

Defining Compliance: Why Recent Developments in Law and Policy Should Matter to the Corporate Accountability Movement

By Mark B. Taylor

The corporate accountability movement has pioneered the attempt to apply existing

laws to crimes and harms caused by business entities. Attempts to establish corporate accountability through litigation have had both successes and set-backs. The Mark B. Taylor is a Senior Researcher at the Fafo push to end impunity through the courts Institute for Applied International Studies, Oslo. In addition, he is also a Senior Advisor to Global has spread, become a global phenomenon Witness' Ending Impunity campaign and Fafo’s and has gained momentum. Although there representative on the Just Jobs Network led by the are many obstacles to access to justice for Center for American Progress. Mark is Editor of the victims of business-related human rights legal analysis blog ‘Laws of Rule’ i (www.lawsofrule.net) and the 'Red Flags'initiative abuse, attempts to end impunity are (www.redlfags.info), as well as an occasional certain to continue. commentator for Al Jazeera English television on international law. A former Managing Director of In the past twelve months, there have been Fafo AIS, Mark works primarily on regulatory and developments in law and policy that are policy responses to violence and conflict, in particular the ways in which law is applied to non- relevant for those pursuing an state actors (armed groups, warlords, business). In accountability agenda. These developments addition, Mark has covered such issues as the have occurred both in the U.S. and globally sociology of armed groups, the reform of UN peace and are in part a result of the work of the operations and institutional protections for human rights. corporate accountability movement. Taken together they reflect an opportunity for improved corporate accountability and greater clarity and predictability of regulation.

Due Diligence

For years, the debate has rumbled on over

the nature of business human rights obligations. Many businesses, NGOs,

multilateral organizations and governments

made claims, but it had not been at all clear

3 foreword

what human rights obligations businesses had, neither in principle nor in practice. For The Commission has a significant and example, for many with a Corporate Social coherent body of international soft-law Responsibility (CSR) approach, respecting “legislation” to draw on. In 2009-2011, the human rights was part of everything that OECD shepherded the "Due Diligence was 'beyond compliance' with the law. This Guidance for Responsible Supply Chain view neglected the fact that the definition Management of Minerals for Conflict of compliance with human rights Affected and High Risk Areas," a detailed responsibilities, including under what description of due diligence for the mineral jurisdiction these were to be judged, was sector operating in DRC. This Guidance was precisely the problem. specific to the mineral sectors relevant to the DRC conflict and focused on the In the past twelve months, in a remarkable problem of conflict financing and grave but long-overdue spurt of inter- human rights abuses found in the eastern governmental consensus and coherence, part of that country, however its the question of what is required of significance lies in that it is perhaps the first businesses has been answered in the form soft-law description of what human rights of significant national and international due diligence would look like at the sector legislative initiatives. or industry level.

In the United States, years of campaigning The Guidance was endorsed by the on the commercial aspects of the wars in International Commission on the Great Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) led to Lakes Region (ICGLR) in early 2011 and the adoption in 2010 of the conflict signed off on by the OECD Council of minerals provision (1502) of the Dodd-Frank Ministers in the Spring. At the same Wall Street Reform Act. The Act requires meeting, the Council also approved the companies whose products rely on certain revised Guidelines for Multinational minerals – tantalum, tin, tungsten (the Enterprises, which for the first time three Ts) and gold – to file disclosures of the included a significant amount of human country of origin of such minerals in their rights content. These Guidelines, too, annual reporting to the Securities and centered on the concept of due diligence by Exchange Commission (Commission). business as the basis for ensuring respect Where the origin of those minerals is not for human rights. known, or where those minerals originate from the DRC or certain neighboring The drafters of the two OECD documents countries, the company would then be coordinated their work with the framework required to file an additional report – a developed by Special Representative of the “Conflict Minerals Report” – explaining UN Secretary-General (SRSG) on Business what due diligence it has exercised on its and Human Rights, Professor John Ruggie. supply chain. The Commission is expected Ruggie formulated the “Protect, Respect to promulgate regulations later in 2011 that and Remedy” Framework (2008) in which will make clear the standard against which he proposed that a business's responsibility business due diligence will have to be for human rights arises out of its activities conducted in order to be in compliance with and relationships (its impacts) and that its section 1502. ability to respect human rights depends

4 foreword

upon its implementation of due diligence. unacceptable behavior, the predictability of The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) binding law and the options available for welcomed the Framework and in June 2011, remedy. endorsed the Guiding Principles, which are intended as a soft-law instrument to There are a number of questions still to be implement the Framework. answered, but already there are several indications that there is value in a legislative The Guiding Principles describe a balance of approach to due diligence. duties in which States’ duties to protect human rights – the first “pillar” of the First, the concept of due diligence comes Framework – make them ultimately from commercial law, that is law applicable responsible for human rights, including to business entities and business activities. providing most forms of remedy (the latter The US Securities Act of 1933 is one key separated out as a the third “pillar” of the example, wherein due diligence on Framework). Business responsibilities were securities is a defense available to brokers nestled within this overarching state duty as should they face claims for compensation the second “pillar.” The Guiding Principles by purchasers of those securities. Similarly, established clearly that States’ duties implementation of the Foreign Corrupt include the need to create legally binding Practices Act (FCPA) also allows a due rules with respect to human rights and diligence defense for companies faced with business, where States see fit to do so allegations of acts of bribery. Because due within their jurisdiction.ii diligence comes from law, and from law directly applicable to business It is possible that Dodd-Frank's conflict activities/entities, its use in defining minerals provisions will be the first example responsibilities of business for human rights of a State creating binding rules with avoids the usual general challenge that respect to human rights due diligence. human rights law is only applicable to Much depends on whether the Commission States and is somehow not applicable to integrates the human rights standards business activities. It also implies that due suggested by the SRSG or the OECD diligence is a legal concept that has stood Guidance and Guidelines. But the fact the test of time and business practice and in remains that in 2011 an international that sense is not an "idiosyncratic"iii or consensus has emerged that due diligence unreasonable demand for citizens and their itself is a regulatory approach that governments to make of business. governments can live with. Second, due diligence reflects the theory of That being said, it remains to be seen attribution for human rights responsibilities whether governments will act to codify due now recognized in international soft-law. diligence in regulation. Legally mandatory Previously, a key problem with the human rights due diligence requirements at attribution to business of responsibilities for the national level would go a long way human rights had been in defining from toward clarifying expectations for both what these responsibilities arose. Notions victims of business-related human rights such as a business’s “sphere of influence” abuse and businesses themselves. Both simply did not work as a basis for culpability would gain in terms of the clarity as to or responsibility under the law. But

5 foreword

embedded in the Guiding Principles, the of States. The multilateral work to OECD Guidance and Guidelines, and Dodd- coordinate the basic policy elements has Frank is the idea that business responsibility been put in place in the form of the Guiding arises not from a business’s “sphere of Principles and it is up to States to adopt and influence,” but from its business activities adapt the Principles to their own economies and relationships. This is intuitive to most and law. One of the realities of how a people as the basis for ethical responsibility company actually conducts due diligence is (we are responsible for our actions), just as that, while the basic method is adaptable to it is under both civil and criminal law in all industries, one size does not fit all every jurisdiction. In short, there is a sound sectors. Due diligence will look slightly basis for law and policy coordination across different depending on the sector involved. borders, pre-empting the claim that In addition, different countries have domestic legislation will put firms at a different legal and regulatory traditions. disadvantage. Business can and should begin to conduct Third, due diligence shifts the legal burden due diligence to ensure they are respecting away from victims—where it presently rests human rights now. States can and should in most civil litigation, for example–and begin to consider what legislation may be onto the business entity. This is not an necessary now. And to get the processes unreasonable or onerous burden. It is not going, campaigners will need to focus on unreasonable because at issue are the the particularities of generating political will actions of businesses or their agents. No at the domestic level, while keeping their more, no less. It is not onerous because due demands coordinated internationally. diligence is by definition delimited by the range of activities and relationships in The Challenge of Disclosure which the business is involved and does not extend to the entire universe of potential Promoting the practice of due diligence, human rights abuse within a particular even campaigning to get it codified as a jurisdiction. Finally, it is entirely appropriate mandatory requirement, will be less than to the problem: it is these activities and useful if there is not significant legislative relationships that the business knows change with respect to business better than anyone outside the company. responsibilities for disclosure. Put another way, is it reasonable to place the largest burden of proof on those To date, this has occurred in the United outside the company who are less likely to States in the form of the Dodd-Frank know all actions taken by the company or to provisions on conflict minerals (1502) and have easy access to the relevant on payments by extractive industry entities information? to governments (1504). Both provisions are primarily about disclosure, that is, through Finally, some form of legally mandatory disclosure they aim to increase human rights due diligence requirement transparency of business behavior with would be best pursued at the national level. respect to mineral extraction and payments This is because the regulation of market- to government. The logic of this is simple based activity is a national function, and and not new: disclosure pulls back the because human rights protection is the duty curtain of commercial secrecy behind which

6 foreword

harmful behavior may take place and in so of the workers who manufacture their doing enables the regulatory influence on products. Significantly, the FLA was companies of both markets and civil originally convened under a government society. umbrella, providing a public policy gloss to an otherwise business and labor focused It is important to emphasize that disclosure initiative. The FLA has not been without to the SEC is not the same as CSR or controversy, but because the FLA was one sustainability reporting. Reporting of the first out of the blocks, the successes alternatives, such as the Global Reporting and failures of the FLA with respect to Initiative, or standards such as ISO 26000, disclosure and monitoring will have are designed to reassure markets that a important lessons for the design of due business is meeting a voluntary standard. diligence disclosure. This will respond to some extent to the demands of those investors and The existing incentive structure for business shareholders interested in seeing that means that few businesses will want to companies in which they invest have human publish information about the violating rights policies and due diligence procedures human rights. Most companies do not see in place. It will serve as a signal to the such information as a part of building a markets of lowered risks that a particular strong brand. The disclosure provisions in business is violating human rights. 1502 and 1504 (as well as in 1503 on mining) are a manifestation of the fact that But these forms of CSR reporting are a public policy solution in the form of unlikely to tell us much with regard to legislation is necessary to overcome the where rights are violated or, for that challenges that commercial secrecy, matter, where businesses have attempted materiality, and all the associated market- to prevent or mitigate those abuses. While based risks of transparency pose to the they are a step in the right direction, such need for oversight. These basic legal and reporting will not provide the level of commercial challenges mean that national transparency necessary for external legislation is needed, not only on conflict oversight or monitoring of compliance with minerals or extractive industry payments, human rights standards under a due and not only in the United States. On its diligence approach. Such reporting does own, the market will not deliver oversight little to respond to needs of victims of sufficient for the protection of human human rights abuse. Nor does it address the rights, just as it has not delivered sufficient risks faced by companies who will be oversight with respect to conflict minerals, increasingly under pressure to issue a mine safety, or extractive industry report that include the bad news as well as payments. the good, e.g. where violations were encountered and how they were dealt with. Finally, given the realities of commercial A few multi-stakeholder initiatives – for secrecy and market-based calculations of example, the Fair Labor Association (FLA) - risk, it is worth considering whether a have sought to create a space in which the statutory right of access to information bad news can be aired and dealt with. The about the business sector’s participation in objective has been to use transparency by specific human rights breaches - and/or the participating businesses for the benefit their due diligence with respect to human

7 foreword

rights – is an important and necessary social and market forces. Without effective supplement to the standardized CSR campaigning, the opportunity afforded by reporting many businesses are now starting the present convergence of normative to introduce. Just as legislation permits consensus around due diligence will be lost. citizens to demand information from their More specifically, a campaign that creates governments on a case-by-case basis, such and mobilizes constituencies behind the legislation would permit victims of human need for business accountability for human rights violations to seek disclosure from a rights abuse should aim not only to reform business about the due diligence and the law, but at the same time should remedial steps taken in relation to a harm organize to ensure the sustainability of the they have suffered. This is not to impute the reforms and their desired outcome. Such a duties of governments to business. It is campaign will have to build support for the simply to recognize the very real principle objective, both in the United imbalances in power and resources on States and in support of allies abroad, and these questions and to suggest one build into that objective the organization of mechanism which might help level the the longer-term base or constituency which playing field between corporations and will create the space/will for courts and citizens. prosecutors to act on the laws passed in their respective jurisdictions: for laws to be Conclusion passed is one thing, to be enforced is another, and to repel attempts at repeal There is an emerging normative consensus something else. To do all of this against around due diligence as the focus of a powerful multi-national corporations business' responsibility to respect human demands a simple and clear demand, rights and disclosure requirements to fronted by well-organized and strategic ensure accountability. This is finding campaigns. purchase in domestic legislation in the United States, the world's largest economy. For all of these reasons, if ICAR did not already exist it would have to be invented. At its core is the notion that for a business A mandatory obligation to respect human to respect human rights requires it to take rights, and to conduct due diligence in action to ensure it is not infringing on the implementing that obligation, would seem a rights of others, in other words that it sensible place to start. should do no harm. But due diligence by companies is more likely to take place i Fafo, Amnesty International, Noref: (2010) “Overcoming Obstacles within a legislative framework provided by to Justice. Improving Access to Judicial Remedies for Business governments. Involvement in Grave Human Rights Abuses” Taylor, Mark B., Robert C. Thompson and Anita Ramasastry. Fafo-report 2010:21 ii Taylor, Mark B. (2011) “The Ruggie Framework: Polycentric Business, in short, should do no harm and regulation and the implications for corporate social responsibility” Etikk i praksis. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 5 (1), pp. 9–30. governments need to step up with iii Steinhardt, R. (2005) Corporate Responsibility and the legislation to ensure that happens. But new International Law of Human Rights: The New Lex Mercatoria. In Non- State Actors and Human Rights, ed. Philip Alston, pp. 178–226. laws do not emerge from a vacuum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Business compliance with a rule, and State enforcement of that rule, are functions of a larger regulatory dynamic that is driven by

8 discussions

The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable First Annual Meeting Agenda

9/8/2011 Meeting 8:30 am – 5:30 pm Gewirz Student Center 12th Floor 9/8/2011 Reception 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm Sports and Fitness Lobby 9/9/2011 Meeting 9:00 am – 5:00 pm McDonough Hall, Room 200

9/8/2011 8:30 am – 10: 00 am Breakfast Introductory Remarks

10:15 am – 12:00 Discussion 1: Corporate Accountability – Litigation Perspectives pm Overview of challenges for international corporate accountability litigation in U.S. courts: Corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute following Kiobel Other challenges to corporate accountability cases under the Alien Tort Statute (standards for secondary liability, immunities, etc.)

Discussion of other existing litigation opportunities and potential policy options: Avenues for international corporate accountability litigation other than the Alien Tort Statute (state law, other federal statutes) Need for and risks of legislative action to address challenges under the Alien Tort Statute or other existing avenues Potential additional policy options for corporate accountability litigation, such as new enabling statutes Models that have facilitated international corporate accountability litigation in other countries, and lessons learned

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:15 pm – 2:45 pm Discussion 2: Global Coordinators Genesis of respective coalitions Successes and roadblocks Current and planned coalition priorities

9 discussions

Linking up global coalitions

3:00 pm – 5:45 pm Discussion 3: Corporate Accountability – Domestic and International Efforts International Efforts: The Post-Ruggie landscape: opportunities and challenges at global and EU levels – UN Working Group appointments and resolution on business and human rights; implementation strategies; improving remedy access- Standard setting and norm building – how can ICAR move this forward in current climate? Current legislative developments around Business and Human rights in the EU OECD Guidelines and national NCP reform - reviewing progress and remaining challenges

Anti-corruption and revenue transparency efforts: European and American debate over anti-corruption legislation; European, North American, Asian revenue transparency initiatives, including Publish What You Pay laws.

World Bank and IFC reforms: Safeguards and performance review updates and implications for advocacy

Domestic Efforts: Conflict minerals: European and American efforts to promote greater corporate accountability for sourcing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Dodd-Frank Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA) TVPRA: reauthorization bill and proposed anti-trafficking policy reporting USDA Consultative Group - status of guidelines re. addressing labor conditions of foreign agricultural production

Short and medium term opportunities

10 discussions

9/9/2011 9:00 am – 10: 00 am Breakfast Introductory Remarks

10:15 am – 12:00 pm Discussion 4: State Department, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Michael H. Posner General Remarks Question and Answer

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:15 pm – 4:15 pm Roundtable Session: Setting the Strategy and Building a Coordinated Movement Introduction: Summary of discussion Expected and hoped outcomes of the meeting

Overview of current landscape: Presented by Mark Taylor Current state of corporate liability for human rights abuses in national and international contexts Mapping of trends, loopholes, obstacles and opportunities

Discussion: US work and supporting proliferation of national level corporate accountability laws Supporting international efforts, including the steps that can be taken to get to an international agreement Opportunities for increased collaboration through common elements uniting our work Specific campaign discussion: o A criminal ATS / Human Rights FCPA? o Other policy campaigns?

4:15 pm Closing Remarks Moving forward and working together Getting involved with ICAR Planning ahead for next year’s meeting – what worked this time and what should be modified

11 discussions

Discussion I: Litigation Perspectives

Scope of Discussion a court can decline to take jurisdiction over a case when another forum would be more The first discussion, moderated by Marco appropriate—this is often used as a stalling Simons of EarthRights International and tactic, but poses more serious problems in Katie Gallagher of the Center for cases brought under state law), political Constitutional Rights, began with a short question doctrine, choice of law, corporate presentation about the current context of structure issues, and claims of immunity, Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA/ATS) litigation particularly in the context of private in the United States. The ATS is a U.S. government contractors. statute that gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil claims brought by non-U.S. Some benefits of litigating under the ATS citizens abroad for torts committed “in rather than state law are the longer statute violation of the law of nations.” It is central of limitations and the ability to use to human rights litigation in the United international law frameworks. The ATS is States, because foreign citizens can sue U.S. also a means of bringing claims that are corporations for abuses committed abroad. otherwise unavailable under U.S. law. For Liability for corporations under the ATS was example, under international law, victims affected by a 2010 case out of the 2d can allege torture or crimes against Circuit, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., humanity (rather than battery and assault). where the court found that corporate There is some power to using those labels liability in international law is not a for the truth-telling function of litigation. sufficiently specific norm to find liability under the ATS. Question and Answer

However, other Circuits have split on this The question and answer session explored issue; notably, the D.C. Circuit, 7th Circuit, litigation issues related to corporate and 11th Circuit have found that accountability both within and outside of corporations can be sued under the ATS. the United States. The issue has been raised but is not resolved in the 9th and 4th Circuits, and in the rest of the country, the issue has not One discussant detailed a case against been considered at all. Kiobel is on petition Barrick Gold, a Canadian mining company, for review to the U.S. Supreme Court, which which has been brought in Nevada under will likely decide whether it will take the state law both because Barrick has case, or delay decision to take the case, in significant operations in Nevada and in an early October 2011. attempt to keep the case out of the Canadian judiciary, which is perceived as

being closely aligned with the mining The discussion touched on several other industry. There is, however, a recent flurry obstacles to successful ATS cases, including of cases inside of Canada, perhaps linked to forum non conveniens (a doctrine by which

12 discussions

the OECD's accusation that Canada is failing To that end, early ATS cases may not have to pursue corruption cases. significantly changed practices, but they have changed corporate policies. As laws are strengthened in other parts of the One commenter indicated that there is a world, victims will hopefully be less reliant diversity of approaches within Europe in on U.S.-based ATS cases. dealing with litigation. Forum non conveniens is not a problem if the defendant is based anywhere in Europe. Another question raised the issue of Whether foreign subsidiaries can be added keeping plaintiffs involved when litigation to these cases is being discussed in the lasts several years. Plaintiffs usually do not European Parliament. One challenge is that want to settle unless they get a result that most courts have to apply the law of the will be perceived as just. A commenter place where the harmful effect was stated that it is not difficult to keep litigants materialized. Application of the law to the together if they know the reason they are activity is less problematic than the low involved in the litigation. Thus, the way you damage levels determined by foreign law, frame the issues to the litigants is very however. This makes these cases financially important: they must understand that the not viable for commercial lawyers, and case does not belong to the lawyers, it creates less of a deterrent for companies. belongs to the litigants. They should understand when the case is moving quickly, what is slowing it down, what is This is not a problem in the United States: working and what is not. The litigant should choice of law statutes do not require that be at the center of the litigation and damages also be assessed according to the everything should revolve around them. law where the harm occurred. On the positive side, EU laws allow the parent company and the subsidiary to be sued Participants also discussed the idea of jointly. multi-national litigation strategies. This would involve litigating against a single corporation in multiple countries. The issue of resource allocation was raised, questioning the efficacy of highly resource- intensive strategies like litigation. Concluding Themes

At the end of the session, discussants It was emphasized that litigation is not an considered a number of options in the end in itself—it is a part of a package of policy sphere, which, from a litigation tools. The goal is to litigate the worst cases perspective, would be beneficial. These in order to send a message to corporations included: and thereby eliminate the need to litigate other cases. There is an argument that the significance of litigation is less reparations Clarifying parent company liability: A for the victims and more of a deterrent for legislative fix for the corporate structure corporate wrongdoing. problem, which makes parent corporations generally liable for the torts of their wholly-owned subsidiaries.

13 discussions

Forum non conveniens: Policy change on private actors for slap suits and the way the doctrine is applied in the defamation lawsuits was also apparent. United States, perhaps creating something One participant suggested the creation of closer to the European model. a Working Group within ICAR to further develop this idea, including the potential of ATS litigators expressed concern over linking NGOs with resources, including allowing the legislature to reform the ATS counsel who could help advise on such as a general matter, stating that in fixing matters. one problem, we may be creating another.

Finally, the need to provide support services to NGOs that are targeted by

14 discussions

Discussion II: Global Coordinating Efforts

Scope of Discussion liability of subsidiaries. Proposals are generally framed within civil law, which enjoys greater political support. There was The second discussion, moderated by Amol discussion during the question session that Mehra of ICAR, focused on the initiatives while criminal law is generally and strategies employed by civil society in underdeveloped in this area, strategies Europe, Canada and Australia, and the could be reexamined to address particular attendant successes and challenges in issues such as child labor and conflict pursuing corporate accountability in minerals. different national and multinational contexts. Further work is needed to remove barriers to the justice system. While there are some Europe advantageous provisions in the European system, such as an inability to assert forum The discussion began with a presentation non conveniens as a defense against suit by Filip Gregor, Board Member of the and the ability to join a foreign subsidiary to European Coalition of Corporate Justice proceedings, financial and evidentiary (ECCJ) outlining efforts to target European burdens on plaintiffs must be addressed. institutions to improve legal and political mechanisms. Three target areas for The discussion emphasized that any efforts advancement were identified: at reform in the EU must build support transparency, parent company liability and within the European Council and engage access to justice through reducing burdens civil society to increase awareness and bring the concept of corporate accountability into on victims. the mainstream. Creating public pressure Transparency initiatives focused on the could provide needed incentives for the need to improve impact reporting and European Commission to take action. enhance scrutiny of internal due diligence Progressive member country initiatives, procedures to identify and mitigate abuses. such as reporting requirements In 2012, the European Commission will be implemented by the French and Danish proposing legislation to Parliament that governments, can be harnessed to help expands reporting obligations for drive an EU-wide strategy. There was also companies to include both human rights discussion of building ties with Chinese and environmental impacts. activists, particularly to address the oft- cited objection from the business There are also efforts at redefining parent community that regional competitiveness company liability underway in Europe. will be harmed by human rights protection These may include setting standards for mechanisms. human rights due diligence or clarifying

15 discussions

Canada it attracted heavy industry opposition and was defeated by six votes. The second presentation, by Ian Thompson of the Canadian Network on Corporate The Canadian government has introduced Accountability (CNCA), focused on Canadian its own CSR initiative entitled “Building the advocacy at the federal level to promote Canadian Advantage,” which focuses legislation and policy change. While the heavily on trade and frames mining as national discourse regarding human rights development work. The program and corporate accountability has changed establishes a Counselor with a mandate to dramatically, the law has remained largely conduct non-binding mediation and advise unaltered. The mining sector, which the industry on implementation. Thus far, accounts for about half of the Canadian the Counselor had heard only two stock exchange and is deeply entrenched in complaints, and there is concern that the economic and political structure of the allowing industry to introduce complaints country, is a particular focus for activists. will allow mining companies to entangle critics. There is a vital role for civil society to The discussion examined government play in monitoring the development of the resistance to several initiatives, and the mediation procedure and the Counselor’s need to alter not only official policy, but advisory role. Moreover, activists must also the mentalities embedded in some combat the narrative that mining government agencies. Civil society and automatically results in positive economic business came together in a series of development for host communities. Roundtables to develop a CSR proposal, but despite joint lobbying from NGOs and The discussion outlined a lack of regulatory industry, the government declined to centralization, which presents a particular implement any of the recommendations. challenge. Both securities and mining are Participants noted that even when managed at the provincial level, which can consensus exists between business and civil complicate policy work on supply chain society, government inertia or opposition accounting and other measures to increase often stymies efforts. More progressive transparency. During questions, it was attitudes have begun to seed in some noted that decentralized regulation, along contemporary business leaders, but state with fiduciary responsibility, has created officials often came into their positions difficulties for shareholder action initiatives. after decades in industry with antiquated While there has been progress with the outlooks on CSR issues. defense and tobacco industries, there has been limited success with the extractive Civil society must tackle both government sector. resistance and industry opposition to other initiatives, including Canada’s reticence to The discussion concluded by stressing the join the Extractive Industries Transparency need to explore and engage with other Initiative (EITI) or incorporate human rights mechanisms, including the United Nations concerns into trade agreements. After the and the Inter-American system, and to build CSR Roundtables, legislation was introduced public campaigns, including new media to implement key recommendations. strategies, to “shame” Canada into taking Despite including only voluntary measures, action. These efforts could be enhanced by identifying new sources of funding, given

16 discussions

the limited role of philanthropy in Canada, one particular structural challenge and government funding cuts. identified is the current housing of the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) inside Australia the Treasury Department. Removing this conflict of interest and assuring that the The last presentation, by Dominic Renfrey NCP devotes more time and resources to of the Australian Corporate Accountability the complaint procedure (which the former Network (ACAN), focused on Australian Australian NCP admitted only occupied efforts to increase institutional about 1% of his workload) were identified development and create an overarching as potential avenues for reform. The national framework to address corporate Australian government has recently accountability. Reform of Australia’s OECD consulted with civil society and expressed National Contact Point, Export Credit tepid interest in becoming involved the EITI, Agency and labor supply chain management although again the Government shows little are all potential elements for consideration interest in taking concrete action to in the national framework. progress this further.

Together with its partners in Geneva, ACAN This sector of Australian civil society, ACAN lobbied UN Member States to push foremost among them, is concentrating Australia during their Universal Periodic their efforts on developing a Review in 2011 actively implement the comprehensive call for action for the International Criminal Court (Consequential Australian government to respond to the Amendments) Act of 2002, which release of the UN Guiding Principles and incorporated the Rome Statute into the other international developments. Some nation’s Criminal Code. This provision key areas of potential growth in corporate presents a unique opportunity to develop accountability in Australia that may make human rights law and direct applicability to up the elements of this call on the corporations, but there is currently a government include looking into what political limitation that blocks progress, Australia’s overseas development aid body, which requires that any prosecution under AusAID, could do to align itself with the the amendments must first be approved by Guiding Principles, particularly in the area the Federal Attorney General. of provision of remedy mechanisms. Similarly, the possible expansion in the While the Australian government has mandates of the Commonwealth shown some willingness to dialogue on Ombudsman and the Australian National some human rights and business issues, it Human Rights Commission could both be has generally been reticent to adopt additional key areas that ACAN targets in concrete measures. Members of ACAN’s the National Framework on Corporate Mining Working Group have been pushing Accountability. for greater transparency surrounding the use of public money by the country’s Export During the question session, discussion Credit Agency, particularly for loans and acknowledged major barriers to bringing insurance issued for the mining sector. With litigation in Australia, and stressed that a regard to other ACAN member calls for long-term goal of civil society in Australia reform of available grievance mechanisms, and beyond should be to increase casework

17 discussions

and assist affected communities in bringing existence of a strong extractive industry claims against Australian corporations. One presented opportunities for Canadian and proposed avenue for expanding access to Australian collaboration. The discussion justice was modeling a mechanism for concluded by emphasizing the need to addressing human rights violations on the mobilize public support beyond civil society former Mining Ombudsman’s office, movements to pressure government previously run by Oxfam Australia until reform. 2009. Participants observed that the mutual

18 discussions

Discussion III: Domestic and International Perspectives

Scope of Discussion Some of the major players in getting the legislation passed were present at the This discussion, moderated by Seema Joshi meeting and shared their strategy. The bill of Amnesty International and Meg came at an opportune time; the Securities Roggensack of Human Rights First, covered and Exchange Commission Reform Act was domestic and international efforts aimed at under way, enabling groups to push for increasing global corporate accountability. natural resources governance, and the tragic BP oil spill made legislators reluctant to stand up for the concerns of big oil. The discussion began with an overview of Passage of both provisions was really made U.S. efforts, including sections 1502 and possible, however, by the relentless work of 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Reform and a broad network for faith based groups, Consumer Protection Act, defending the human rights groups, groups with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and passing grassroots bases, and especially in the case the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. of section 1504, investors. The discussion concluded with the role of international institutions and principles, Investor involvement was an important including the new UN Working Group on lesson to take from this victory. By working Business and Human Rights, Ruggie’s together and thinking analytically to Guiding Principles, and international construct an investor argument for financial institutions. disclosure, there was great success. Moving forward, it will be important to bring in Dodd-Frank Section 1502 and mainstream investors who are interested in Section 1504 transparency but who may not share missions or agenda with some of the more progressive investment firms. The bulk of the discussion covered sections 1502 and 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Reform With the Securities and Exchange and Consumer Protection Act. The two Commission’s rulemaking that would provisions, which require companies to implement 1502 and 1504 pending at the disclose whether they source minerals from time of the meeting, the discussion also conflict-ridden mines in the Democratic touched on the all-out attack industry has Republic of Congo and surrounding brought against the proposed regulations, countries (as well as describe their due including a threat to sue. One commenter diligence mechanisms) and to make noted that although industry argues that revenue disclosures on a project-by-project compliance with the bill is too costly, the basis, are key to corporate transparency supply chains are too complicated, and and global human rights. there is too much uncertainty surrounding minerals sourcing, NGOs have engaged in

19 discussions

independent evaluations of the regulations official”—amendments that would go right and have been able to do fairly significant to the heart of the statute, gutting the minerals tracing on a limited budget. This provisions that make the law effective. suggests that tracing would not be an Defending the Act against the Chamber’s onerous task for companies. One attacks is a major campaign of ICAR as well participant noted that the passage of the as of many of the organizations that were legislation alone has already led to represented at the meeting. significant improvements in the region. A senior Minister from Rwanda has reached The consensus from this discussion was that out to one of the organizations represented the FCPA can be improved, but in the at the meeting for guidance on minerals current political climate, opening the Act up certification, and several mines in the DRC for changes would be ill advised. The Open are now demilitarized. Society Policy Center has recently released a report that counters the Chamber’s Advocates said that they remain involved in proposed amendments entitled “Busting the regulatory process, recognizing the Bribery: Sustaining the Global Momentum need to not only get strong regulations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. passed, but in the long term to defend the rules in litigation. A European participant noted that the United States led the way on corruption One thing that participants noted would issues by passing the FCPA; even China has likely encourage the SEC to promulgate adopted an anti-bribery statute, and more strong rules is similar legislation in other countries are beginning to prosecute under countries. Incidentally, legislation that is similar legislation. To ramp back the similar to and broader than section 1504 is provisions of the statute now would send a moving forward in the EU. When this is politically loaded message to the rest of the passed, most of the globe will be covered. world. Hong Kong has a similar law, although it does not require annual project-by-project Civilian Extraterritorial reporting. It would be exceedingly helpful Jurisdiction Act to have similar legislation passed in Canada and Australia as well. The final domestic focus area of ICAR discussed was the passage of the Civilian Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA), which would clarify and expand U.S. courts’ In addition to the challenges industry has criminal jurisdiction over non-defense mounted on the SEC regulatory process for contractors and employees. Currently, Dodd-Frank, discussants also covered jurisdiction applies to defense contractors, looming attacks on the Foreign Corrupt but whether it extends beyond that to Practices Act (FCPA). companies contracted by non-Defense agencies is ambiguous. The bill would close Specifically, the Chamber of Commerce has that gap and create legislative task forces advocated for limiting corporations’ liability within DOJ for investigations and for the actions of their acquired companies prosecution. It has been introduced in both and subsidiaries, adding a willingness chambers of Congress and is supported by requirement, and defining “foreign the State Department, Department of

20 discussions

Defense, and the Independent Commission expectations of companies in high-risk of Wartime Contracting. industries to use the principles. The principles have substantive merit and Parties involved said that with such broad campaigning utility, however, which was support, the controversy lies over how far lacking before. jurisdiction would extend over the intelligence community. There will likely be Ruggie recognized that companies should some exception for intelligence, but it is be held responsible based on what they do, unclear at this point how far that carve out not on their sphere of influence—in light of will go. this, he set the standard as due diligence. One concern is that this standard may not Participants noted that in light of the translate into recognition of human rights, impending shift of control in Iraq from the but it will translate into domestic regulatory Department of Defense to the Department systems. The due diligence standard is also of State and the expansion of the use of a difficult standard to enforce and it is not contractors across the world, now is the completely clear what it requires. This time to pass CEJA. allows actors to interpret the standard for themselves and announce that they are in International Efforts compliance.

The discussion then shifted to international International Financial Institutions can play efforts for promoting corporate an important role in promoting human accountability. This June, a resolution was rights as well. The OECD and IFC have passed for the United Nations Working recently revised their standards, but each Group on transnational corporations and institution could have gone farther. The other business enterprises (Working revised IFC performance standards, while Group). The composition of the group is improved, could have been more rigorous. now under consideration and will dictate Human Rights due diligence can now be the direction the Working Group to considered in social and environmental due implement the resolution. diligence, however, which is a positive step and may provide a better opportunity for The general tone of this part of the holding companies accountable. China, discussion was that the Working Group is a India, and Brazil pushed back against this. step forward, but that there are major Likewise, the OECD guidelines, while deficiencies with the resolution as a whole. broadened, do not effectively provide for For instance, the internal rules will make it enforcement of the guidelines. Complaints difficult for the Working Group to function, have to go through a dispute resolution there is an odd silence on indigenous rights, mechanism via a national contact point and the Working Group will likely be half (NCP), but there is no requirement that the composed of people with an industry focus. NCP make a final determination. Some One participant emphasized that Ruggie’s NCPs are making final determinations, Guiding Principles will likely be the template which have been used as a basis for for an international human rights sanctions. framework for the next decade. There is a need for more discussion on these Concluding Themes principles and for debate regarding the

21 discussions

The major themes that emerged from the The emergence of due diligence as the discussion included: international standard for compliance.

The fruits of working together in coalition Recognition that while the Ruggie Guiding with a variety of groups including Principles and OECD Guidelines could be grassroots and investors. stronger, they do have significant merit and deserve to be explored and A concern over industry opposition to any challenged. and every rule or policy implemented in this area.

22 discussions

Final Roundtable Session

Scope of Discussion The need to protect and build upon This session, moderated by Corinna Gilfillan existing legal standards and ensure of Global Witness and Paul Donowitz of their effective implementation globally. EarthRights International, and including Special attention was given to learning presentations by Mark Taylor of FAFO and from the success of the Publish What Amol Mehra of ICAR, featured a wide- You Pay coalition in winning ranging discussion concerning priorities for transparency standards for payments to ICAR and for the global corporate governments by oil, gas and mining accountability movement generally. industries in multiple jurisdictions.

During the discussions, it was suggested 2. Litigation that while there are now myriad opportunities for NGOs to engage directly Developing effective approaches for with multinational companies through parent company liability; improving the various multi-stakeholder forums (and an capacity of lawyers in the United States attendant need to evaluate the pros and and abroad to bring suits; the prospect cons of participation in each forum), the of multi-jurisdictional suits targeting the most important audiences at this juncture same corporation; and the need to for the corporate accountability movement respond effectively to the growing are governments. Given the movement’s problem of corporations seeking to limited resources, it makes strategic sense silence human rights advocates through to let the growing industry of business the use of defamation claims. consultants counsel companies on their own internal practices; advocates should 3. Corporate Campaigning focus on pressing governments to hold companies legally accountable for their Discussion focused on challenging the conduct. efforts of the Chamber of Commerce to weaken existing corporate Key Themes accountability standards through grassroots pressure, media campaigns, In this discussion, key themes and areas for and legal tools aimed at the Chamber future work that emerged from the itself and its corporate members. conference were considered. These included: 4. Post-Ruggie Landscape

Effectively taking advantage of and

building upon the “Guiding Principles” announced by U.N. Special 1. The harmonization of Representative on Business and Human standards Rights, John Ruggie, and the creation of

23 discussions

a new U.N. Human Rights Council Working Group to promote their The concept of due diligence will likely be implementation. central to international corporate accountability processes over the next 5. Other International decade, both internationally and in the Mechanisms context of domestic legislation. Yet “due diligence” presently lacks a well or Effectively utilizing the forums and universally understood meaning in the mechanisms for corporate context of human rights. There is thus an accountability of the Organization for opportunity for the corporate Economic Cooperation and accountability movement to take the Development, the international initiative and frame the development of the financial institutions, G20, G8, and concept. This may take the form of putting other bodies. forward proposed language for the Working Group to adopt or advocating the use of existing interpretations such as the Ultimately, the open discussion centered on relatively strong standard included in the two areas of work, one short-term and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational other long-term, as foci of collaboration Corporations. There was broad consensus going forward. that short-term work in this area is critically important. In the short-term, there was broad agreement that ICAR and corporate In the long-term, there was broad accountability organizations generally agreement that ICAR should pursue the should work to elaborate and influence the development of ambitious legislation to understanding of the concept of “due hold multinational corporations diligence,” which is at the core of the accountable for human rights violations. Guiding Principles. The principles state: The suggestion is to propose legislation modeled after the FCPA, which provides for In order to identify, prevent, mitigate the criminal prosecution of companies that and account for how they address their have engaged in bribery or other corrupt adverse human rights impacts, practices oversees. One reason to focus on business enterprises should carry out a new regulatory framework is that for the human rights due diligence. The most part, existing tort law allows for the process should include assessing actual kinds of claims the corporate accountability and potential human rights impacts, movement would like to see brought; only integrating and acting upon the relatively small changes to the law are findings, tracking responses, and required to facilitate existing legal efforts communicating how impacts are (such as addressing the problem posed by addressed.1 forum non conveniens objections in non- Alien Tort Statute claims).

1 Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Guiding and Remedy” Framework, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/3 Principles on Business and Human Rights: (March 21, 2011) at 16. Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect

24 discussions

Human rights legislation modeled after the One participant noted that the FCPA was FCPA, by contrast, would represent a new itself passed at the aftermath of Watergate and promising tool for holding companies in the heyday of legislative reform in this accountable, and one with very broad area and that broad coalitions will be reach. Such legislation could include a necessary to achieve the goal. Several criminal enforcement action, as well as a participants noted that a big long-term civil enforcement action and could also demand could easily be incorporated into include a private right of action. existing campaigning around particular corporations, such that each campaign The group discussed potential challenges could reinforce the common demand. for winning a campaign for ambitious legislation along these lines – in particular There was broad consensus that the idea at the need to build a broader human rights least merits substantial discussion. constituency concerned about these issues.

25 remarks

Remarks of Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Mike Posner

Closed session moderated by Arvind Ganesan, Human Rights Watch

26 remarks

Remarks of Barr. Chima Williams

“Collaboration – the Key to Holding Corporations Accountable”

Barr. Chima Williams, Head of Legal Resources/Democracy Outreach Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Dear colleagues, it is with great sense of and international rules and best practices honor and responsibility that I stand before coupled with companies with intimidating you on this August event of the First Annual status, it is to be accountable! Examples International Corporate Accountability abound in the Nigerian situation where Roundtable meeting. none of the corporations operating there are open to the Nigerian people to know the quantum of crude they extract, the My sincere appreciation goes to the exact amount paid for it and are engaged in organizers of this event, Amol Mehra of bribery and tax evasion cases—including ICAR, Rachel S. Taylor of the Human Rights corporations of United States origin. Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, our reception host Ellen Dorsey, Executive Director of the Wallace Global To top this is the practice of placing Fund and their team and of course my corporate profit far above the welfare and colleagues at the EarthRights International well being of the citizens. Citizen rights are for not only inviting me but ensuring that I violated with impunity and reckless am here. This event is very timely and abandon. The environment is brutally auspicious for me because of the issues we destroyed through oil spillages, gas flaring have been looking at and will conclude with and other forms of archaic operational today – corporate accountability! methodologies of the corporations. The attendant consequence of the above is loss of livelihood sources by local citizens whose There is no gainsaying that if there is voices have been muzzled into silence anything the corporations especially those through lack of unfettered access to judicial operating in third world and developing remedies. countries where there are plethora of weak legislations, corrupt officials at various levels, weak governance institutions and The destruction of the Niger Delta governments that lack both moral and environment as has been clearly shown by political will to enforce and ensure the Ogoni Environmental Assessment compliance with laws, regulations—both Report released by UNEP recently. The national enactments, regional mechanisms beauty of the report is that it is not an

27 remarks

independent report. It was commissioned corrupt or otherwise the laws and and paid for by Shell who thought they the regulators and enforcers are. could use it to escape responsibility! Citizen Rights Accountability: So Lack of respect for judicial processes and long as corporations operates decisions as typified by the stop gas flaring without adherence to the principles cases and compromising of judicial of prior, free, informed and decisions and officers are rife. Corporate obtained consent, where accountability for me must be looked at in corporations chose the use of brute four key categorizations: financial force and intimidation rather than accountability, environmental dialogue and negotiations, citizens accountability, judicial accountability and rights will continue to be worse off citizen rights accountability. as victims.

The key question will be: in Nigeria do It is on the premise of the above scenario corporations uphold these categories of that this gathering becomes very useful for accountable mechanisms? The answer will me and my organization. The need for be in the negative: collaborative and concerted efforts at this time to deal with the issue of corporate accountability cannot be over emphasized. Financial Accountability: Corporations are becoming stronger and Corporations evade taxes, are stronger by the day as they create linkages involved in corrupt practices, fail to with each other for greater profit margins give accurate reports of their and reduced citizen capacities to act! extraction capacities – financial Consequent on this, we must devise means accountability will never be upheld and strategies to in unison to combat these where these are present. terrors of the local people and bring them to be responsible and accountable to the Environmental Accountability: people. Where the environment is polluted and destroyed with impunity The groups here gathered under the without correlating environmental auspices of the International Corporate audit, remedial and restitution Accountability Roundtable are well mechanisms put in place, positioned to champion the cause. In this, environmental accountability will all we need to do is to look at the local definitely be lacking. actions that has or can create global consequences! The world is now more than Judicial Accountability: will remain a ever, a global village! No country or state is mirage until corporations begin to immune from direct or indirect see themselves as within the consequences of the actions of others confines and ambits of their host hence the need for collaboration. country laws and regulations irrespective of how weak or strong,

28 remarks

The global north can provide support for Exchanges in terms of trainings, the global south in this regard. International information sharing and research Corporate Accountability Roundtable support. member groups can identify burning global Technical support – ambient air issues to support, for example supporting quality analysis, medical health the Nigerian stop gas flaring campaign will analysis, legal support for litigable not be out of place as gas flaring in Nigeria cases both at host and home is the single greatest contributor to country levels. greenhouse gas emission in Africa. Greenhouse gases contribute to global Financial support or joint fund climatic conditions and the impacts of raising activities. The list can be climate change has no boundaries and inexhaustive. barriers and as recent events have shown, no amount of technological prowess or I will conclude by reminding us that the financial muscle has been able to contain actions we take today will determine the the fury of mother earth when unleashed. kind of world we will be leaving behind for our children and children’s children. Our today is lost because our fathers failed to Support can come by way of: act yesterday and our children’s tomorrow Provision of platforms for the use of will be lost with debts in addition if we fail either or both legal and policy to act today! frameworks to seek redress against

defaulting corporations. Thank you all for this opportunity!

29 participants

Meeting Participants

Amazon Watch: Han Shan, Clean Up Ecuador Campaign Organizer Andrew Miller, DC Advocacy Coordinator Amnesty International: Seema Joshi, Head of Business and Human Rights Australian Corporate Accountability Network: Dom Renfrey, Coordinator Business and Human Rights Resource Center: Annabel Short, Program Director Sif Thorgeirsson, Manager, Corporate Legal Accountability Project Calvert Group: Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President for Social Research and Policy Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability: Ian Thomson, Program Coordinator Center for Constitutional Rights: Katie Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney Dietel Partners: Betsy Dietel, Senior Partner Tory Dietel Hopps, Senior Partner EarthRights International: Paul Donowitz, Campaigns Director Jonathan Kaufman, Staff Attorney Marco Simons, Legal Director Katie Redford, Co-Founder and U.S. Office Director EarthWorks: Nick Magel, International Campaigns Coordinator Enough Project: Jenny Russell, Advocacy Director Darren Fenwick, Senior Governmental Affairs Manager Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria: Prince Chima Williams, Director of Legal Resources Department ESCR-Net: Rebecca Brown, Program Officer European Coalition of Corporate Justice: Filip Gregor, Board Member Fafo: Mark Taylor, Senior Researcher Free the Slaves: Karen Stauss, Policy Director Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute: Rachel Taylor, Director and Adjunct Professor of Law Kayleen Hartman, Human Rights Institute Fellow Global Financial Integrity: Heather Lowe, Legal Counsel and Director of Government Affairs Global Witness:

30 participants

Corinna Gilfillan, Head of US Office Greenpeace: Charlie Cray, Senior Researcher Human Rights First: Meg Roggensack, Senior Advisor Melina Milazzo, Pennoyer Fellow Human Rights USA: Theresa Harris, Executive Director Lynsay Gott, Program Director Human Rights Watch: Arvind Ganesan, Director of Business and Human Rights International Commission of Jurists: Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Advisor Megan Chapman International Corporate Accountability Roundtable: Amol Mehra, Coordinator Katie Shay, Legal and Policy Intern MiningWatch Canada: Catherine Coumans, Research Coordinator Oxfam America: Keith Slack, Senior Policy Advisor Chris Jochnick, Director of Private Sector Department Jon Jacoby, Private Sector Department Publish What You Pay US: Isabel Munilla, Director Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting: Jon Sawyer, Director Nathalie Applewhite, Managing Director Revenue Watch: Karin Lissakers, Director SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Enterprises): Joseph Wilde-Ramsing, Senior Researcher Joris Oldenziel, Senior Researcher Sum of Us: Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman United Auto Workers: Suzanne Adely, Legal Fellow, Global Organizing Institute Ginny Diamond, Advisor to the President US Chamber Watch: Lauren Levenstein, Research & Communications Associate Michael Edwards Wallace Global Fund: Ellen Dorsey, Executive Director Tina Kroll-Guerch, Administrative Director

COORDINATOR MISSION Amol Mehra is an international human rights lawyer ICAR harnesses the power of the human rights focusing on corporate accountability for human rights community to identify and promote robust violations and corporate social responsibility. He has frameworks for corporate accountability, strengthen developed an extensive background on business and current measures and defend existing laws, policies human rights issues, including at the United Nations and legal precedents. where he has worked to build accountability over private security companies and offered submissions to the mandate of the Special Representative on Transnational Corporations. Amol received his Juris Doctorate Degree with an Honors Certificate in STEERING COMMITTEE International and Comparative Law from the Amnesty International University of San Francisco School of Law, and also EarthRights International holds a Bachelor of Commerce with a concentration Global Witness in Global Strategic Management and the Social Human Rights First Context of Business from McGill University. In Human Rights Watch addition to his work at ICAR, Amol is a Board Member of Human Rights Advocates, a Coordinating Member and Thematic Specialist for Amnesty International USA, an Advisory Board Member for Lawyers for Better Business (L4BB) and writes for Forbes.com CSR site. He is fluent in French and conversant in Hindi. CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Sara Blackwell Jeremy Blasi LEGAL AND POLICY INTERN Sarah Plastino Katie Shay is a third year law student at Georgetown Charity Ryerson University Law Center. She focuses her studies on Katie Shay human rights and environmental law and has served as the president of the Law Center’s Amnesty International chapter. She has also served as co-chair of the Law Center’s Human Rights Fact-Finding Committee, in which she worked with fellow students to identify human rights issues for on-the- SPECIAL THANKS TO ground study and later traveled to Jamaica to study Wallace Global Foundation the effects of U.S. deportation policy on the Dietel Partners realization of human rights of people with mental Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute disabilities. The team’s findings were published in a report titled Sent “Home” with Nothing: The Deportation of Jamaicans with Mental Disabilities. This past summer, Katie interned with EarthRights International, a member of the ICAR Steering Committee. She hails from the midwest and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Marquette University.