Human Rights Go Corporate

by Sarah Sloan

This summer, I am working in the human rights and business section of a human rights organization in Denmark. The department works directly with companies, providing them with tools to evaluate how well they adhere to human rights standards, research about the laws and practices of different countries where they may want to operate, and advice about how to uphold human rights in countries where violations are common. Beyond that, it is up to the companies to incorporate what they've learned, to change their practices, to follow through with our advice. We don't monitor companies. Instead, we give them the resources to monitor themselves.



My work this summer has made me think deeply about the role of businesses in human rights. Corporations now operate in countries around the world, from Nigeria to Vietnam, Iran to Guatemala. Oftentimes, the countries are plagued by unstable governments, corruption, and violence. It is common knowledge that the leaders of some of these countries consistently abuse the human rights of their people. The question, then, is what role companies should play- both legally and morally- in such situations. Does working in a country with an oppressive regime legitimize the government, even empower it? Or does the company's presence open the country up, provide jobs to its people, and allow the government to be somewhat monitored? Or, if the company itself is not violating any human rights standards, does its presence even have a significant effect- positive or negative- on the country?

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm not so sure that there's one clear answer that fits every context and situation. But the more I work here, the more I see the potential benefit of having responsible, human rights-upholding companies operating in troubled countries. A company can extend its influence throughout a particular region, perhaps even throughout a country, and its presence keeps the line of communication with the government, and with the people, open. After all, the practice of operating in countries with less than ideal human rights records is already so entrenched in the corporate world it would be difficult to completely eliminate it. I'm far from convinced by either side, but I strongly believe that the conversation
is one well worth having.

The Danish Touch

by Sarah Sloan

I’ve been in Copenhagen for a few weeks now, and the thing that strikes me most is that it's a city that makes sense. Everything about it is considered and planned, designed with its citizens' best interest in mind. It seems engineered to keep people healthy and safe and the environment clean. Beautiful and well-kept public parks encourage people to go outside, and a well-run public transportation system makes the whole city easily accessible. Not only is it physically convenient to bike- there are paths and lanes everywhere- but also financially convenient: cars here are taxed at nearly 200% of their value. Grocery stores here simply do not provide bags; you are forced to bring your own.

The longer I’m here, the more I think about what human rights means in developed countries. It’s easy to focus on blatant abuses in war-torn and destabilized countries, but what about the more subtle abuses in Europe or the United States?

In my opinion, Denmark has excelled at upholding some of the rights from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are often overlooked or deemed less important than others. The Declaration guarantees the right to rest and leisure, the right to an adequate standard of living, and to just and favorable conditions of work. In this vein, Danish law states that no employer can expect anyone to work more than 37 hours a week. Working more certainly happens, but there cannot be a base assumption that it will. The Danes clearly respect life outside of work; in fact, they are required to take 6 weeks vacation. What’s more, fathers get 2 weeks off immediately after their child is born, and mothers can get up to a year off for maternity leave, which they can divide with the father: 6 months and 6 months, 7 and 5, etc. Of course, taxes are extremely high here (sometimes over 60% of one's income) but as a result, the gap between rich and poor is much less obvious here than it is in the United States. I have yet to see a truly rundown part of Copenhagen.

While the Danish system is far from perfect, I can't help thinking that the United States could learn from its example.