Working Group introductory remarks at HRC26 side event on "how to effectively integrate a gender perspective in implementing the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”

13 June 2014

Introduction

Excellency, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen

I would like to join the chairperson of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women in Law and Practice (WGDAW) to thank you all for attending this important side event convened by our two mandates. For my introductory contribution, I will sketch out briefly and broadly the place and significance of gender in the Guiding Principle on Business and Human Rights, in the work of the Working Group, and especially in the proposal for States to adopt a national action plan.

What the Guiding Principles say about gender

Let me begin by explaining that the Guiding Principles, which were unanimously endorsed at the Human Rights Council in 2011, are the first global standard on business and human rights. They have broad consensus on the need to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy adverse human rights impacts by business enterprises. They reaffirm existing State international legal obligations on human rights including the provisions in treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The Guiding Principles make a number of references to gender, as a cross-cutting issue:

The introduction to the Guiding Principles ask for their implementation: “in a non-discriminatory manner, with particular attention to the rights and needs of, as well as the challenges faced by, individuals from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of becoming vulnerable or marginalized, and with due regard to the different risks that may be faced by women and men.”

This cross-cutting concern for the rights of women and men is also underlined in the commentary to Guiding Principle 3 (on State regulatory and policy functions). That provision asks for State “guidance to business enterprises on respecting human rights should … advise on … how to consider effectively issues of gender, vulnerability and/or marginalization, recognizing the specific challenges that may be faced by indigenous peoples, women, national or ethnic minorities, etc...”

Similarly, Guiding Principle 7 (concerning the need for States to support business respect for human rights in conflict affected areas) acknowledges that because of the heightened risk of gross human rights abuses in conflict affected areas, States should “providing adequate assistance to business enterprises to assess and address the heightened risks of abuses, paying special attention to both gender-based and sexual violence.” We note here a related UK-led initiative on “preventing sexual violence in war, in which it is pressing for a new international protocol that will provide a “manual” for governments to end the crime of sexual violence.

While there is an express reference to the International Bill of Rights and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work the Guiding Principles also state that “depending on circumstances, business enterprises may need to consider additional standards. In this regard, where the issues raise gender related concern, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and similar sources, such as the opinions of the WGDAW, will be legitimate and relevant sources of applicable law.

In addition, the commentary to Guiding Principle 18 (on the need for companies to undertake due diligence to gauge human rights risks) explains that business enterprises should: “bear in mind the different risks that may be faced by women and men.”

Finally, the commentary to Guiding Principle 20 (concerning effective tracking corporate human rights responses) proposes the employment of relevant tools and methodologies such as “performance contracts and reviews as well as surveys and audits, using gender-disaggregated data where relevant.”

National action plans and the Working Group’s guidance

The Working Group considers that a national action plan is a practical and effective vehicle for States to effectively implement the Guiding Principles. We recognise that implementation can take many forms and there is no one-size-fits-all approach, but national action plans can ensure greater coordination and coherence within government on the public policy areas that relate on business and human rights. They also facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues that can be complex and affect many groups.

The Working Group is developing guidance on the process, content and follow-up of a State national action plan to implement the Guiding Principles in response to States and other stakeholders to provide direction and support in this area. We will present the preliminary guidance in December this year.

The Working Group’s guidance will signal to users (who will include government civil servants and other non-State actors such as civil society and business) how to explore and implement the gender perspective throughout all stages of a national action plan, that is to say, the process, substantive content and review stages.
At the process stage for example, the Guidance will propose the composition of a leadership body often under the auspices of a government department. Such a body must also reflect a gender balance as well as cross departmental representation.

Similarly, at this process stage, States will be invited to undertake a general mapping of the legal and social landscape in order to determine any gaps and strengths. This exercise must pay attention to the gender implications of any evidence that is collected. Such information will include gender disaggregated data on all the relevant areas.

Multi-stakeholder consultations are a central part of the process to develop national action plans. We urge, in the Guidance, the importance of consulting all sections of the society but especially bearing in mind the central importance of consultation of women within the different stakeholder groups and taking into account cultural norms and practices.

The evidence from gap analyses will often reveal substantive areas of policy weakness and therefore define the subject of priority. Our Guidance seek to analyses the expectations for the Guiding Principles of selected substantive issues including:

• Procurement Policy;
• Investment Policy;
• Due Diligence and Licencing;
• Access to Remedy; and
• Corporate Reporting, to mention a few.

Each of these substantive topics will generate important concerns about gender equality and opportunity or indeed cultural stereotyping or other gender related shortcomings. The Guidance will expect that these will be redressed fully.

In the Guiding Principles, in the work of the Working Group and in the development of national action plans, the issue of gender is pervasive but it does not always spring into evidence automatically. We therefore urge stakeholder – States, businesses and civil society groups – in their implementation of the Guiding Principles to make an express and dedicated effort to look out for and extract the gender dimensions of their activities.

Further Working Group engagement on the issue of gender

Our report to the 68th session of UN General Assembly last year noted the gender inequality specifically facing indigenous peoples. In our exploration of the challenges faced in addressing the adverse impacts of business-related activities on the rights of indigenous peoples through the lens of the Guiding Principles, we found that indigenous women are described as third class citizens and often subjected to multiple forms of discrimination based on gender and ethnicity. In addition, while economic development may offer opportunities for indigenous women, it can deprive them of their existing livelihood, increase their vulnerability to abuse and violence and undermine their social status. Indigenous women also often suffer sexual violence.

We made a number of recommendations in our report, including that business enterprises should, through their policy commitment, seek to build a work environment that is culturally aware, gender-sensitive and insist that its employees and contractors respect the rights, cultures and customs of indigenous peoples within the communities in which the projects are located.

They should ensure that impact assessment processes provide for an evidence-based and gender-disaggregated review of socio-anthropological issues pertaining to any adverse impacts on indigenous peoples living in areas affected by a project. Guiding Principle 25 clarifies that States must take appropriate steps to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that, when business-related human rights abuses occur, those affected have access to effective remedy. This includes considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers, such as those based on gender. It is also important for grievance mechanisms to be constructed in a gender-sensitive manner.

Furthermore, in line with the requirement of accessibility in Guiding Principle 31, remedy mechanisms should be specifically accessible to indigenous peoples, including both men and women. Accessibility includes their physical accessibility. It also includes gender accessibility.

Some important points about the importance of focusing on gender dimensions

Evidence reveals that a gender-neutral approach to policy-making renders invisible important gender issues and marginalizes women’s experiences.
A gender perspective is not only about women. Adopting a gender perspective or integrating gender into work on business and human rights means that any analysis looks at the way in which a business entity may have a differential, disproportionate or unforeseen impact on women or men, boys or girls, as a result of their different social, cultural or legal roles, rights of responsibilities.

How business impacts on gender

The activities or business enterprises impact on gender is a number of ways. For example:

• Internally within companies: in recruitment, employment and labour. It is worth noting here that in many countries women make up a large swath of the informal employment sector and therefore have less protection and suffer discrimination. In addition, there are associated obstacles to their participation in formal employment.
• Externally: business activities can create or exacerbate gender inequality. For example, if a community is resettled for the purposes of a large-scale infrastructure project, States and corporations often takes a gender-neutral approach which does not consider the impact such resettlement may have on women and men. Women and men have different familial responsibilities, economic opportunities and child care responsibilities. Compensation when relocating communities is often paid only to male heads of families and not to female-headed households, single or widowed women.
• In addition, women’s property rights are often not recognised, they struggle to get access to credit and they may suffer discrimination when seeking access to remedy.