The Role of Business to Support the Work of Human Rights Defenders

THE ROLE OF BUSINESS TO SUPPORT THE WORK OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

– A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE

ANDY HALL

Andy Hall is a migrant worker rights consultant who currently lives in Nepal and is focusing on promoting ethical recruitment of migrant workers in Asia. Andy tweets @atomicalandy

Cheap Has a High Price, a report published by NGO Finnwatch in 2013, investigated risks of forced labour, human trafficking, child labour, low wages and other human rights violations in labour intensive export sectors in Thailand. I worked as the research coordinator on this project which exposed, amongst other things, serious human and labour rights violation allegations against a predominately migrant workforce at a pineapple processing factory in Prachuap Khiri Khan province in southern Thailand.

In response to the report, Natural Fruit Company, which owned the factory, filed multiple criminal defamation and other civil and criminal charges against me alleging an intention of harming the company and causing financial loss. The Office of the Attorney General later joined as co-prosecutor with Natural Fruit in the criminal proceedings.

I decided at the time that I would not pursue bail against these unjust charges. I thought spending years in a Thai jail to await a verdict that would eventually vindicate me was the only principled way to protest this abusive and intimidating treatment. I felt I was relatively privileged, because so many activists in Thailand disappear or are assassinated for similar work. Researching alleged human rights abuses should never be a crime. I felt I had to take a firm and public stand in order to highlight the risks that human rights defenders face.

But as the months passed I realised that there were other ways to draw attention to, and help put an end to, the abuse of the domestic legal system to harass and silence human rights defenders. I did not need to be a martyr to protest this injustice.

Instead, I could engage the business sector to take their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights seriously by responding to these strategic lawsuits against public participation (or ‘SLAPP’ cases). This could help distinguish companies who are willing to support the work of human rights defenders at risk from the ones who are not. I therefore approached the Thai Tuna Industry Association, Thai Frozen Foods Association and Thai Union Group, who agreed to cover the bail surety for my release from detention pending trial.

In the years that followed, global media attention helped to galvanise change to combat the systematic exploitation of migrant workers in Thailand that our research uncovered. But this publicity also led to an increase in SLAPP cases filed against me, colleagues at the Migrant Worker Rights Network (MWRN) and 14 migrant workers who filed a complaint with the national human rights commission about labour conditions at the Thammakaset poultry farm.

As a result of this deteriorating situation, a number of organisations such as Human Rights Watch called upon the Thai government to respect its obligations under international law to prevent businesses intimidating human rights advocates and suppressing freedom of expression. Although the government promised to enact anti-SLAPP legislation and enhance protection for human rights defenders in the future, it nonetheless insisted that these prosecutions were private disputes that independent courts should adjudicate on alone.

Andy Hall pictured outside Bangkok South Criminal Court after the verdict on September 20, 2016.

Photo: Supplied

Andy Hall pictured with members of S Group, a Finnish grocery retail chain who gave testimony in favour of Hall during his criminal trial.

Photo: Supplied

Importantly, a number of companies and business associations issued statements, including Nordic companies and business associations such as Amfori and the Ethical Trading Initiative. Some private sector actors went further by drawing upon the respect and remedy obligations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Finnish retailer S-Group flew to Bangkok to testify at my trial. S-Group also provided, through Freedom Fund, the €12,000 (AU$ 19,000) deposit required to appeal the decision by a Thai Court, which ordered me to pay € 270,000 (AU$ 430,000) in civil defamation damages to Natural Fruit. The Thai Tuna Industry, and Thai Union Group, together with Finnwatch, pooled funds to pay a fine to ensure my release from detention following my conviction in 2016, prior to it being overturned in May 2018.

When the 14 former Thammakaset workers were charged for defamation several Nordic companies and a Thai poultry firm pooled funds to pay for bail, fines if convicted (they were eventually acquitted) and some of their burgeoning legal costs. Alongside Amfori and ETI, these Nordic companies also advocated for the workers to be compensated 1.7million (AU$75,500) by government as per the compensation order issued in 2016 (it remains unpaid). Importantly, these companies assumed wider supply chain responsibility for all exploited workers in their sector, as well as the human rights defenders who advocate for them.

Companies are often risk averse and avoid public engagement for fear of assuming liability. Hence, I have reasons to assume that additional private sector support for us has happened behind closed doors. It is clear that some private sector actors indeed respect and appreciate the work we do.

In contrast to these positive developments, some European private sector actors did not engage because the companies Thammakaset and Natural Fruit were not in their direct supply chains. Assistance from US, Japanese and Australian companies was also sought to no avail. Concerningly, Lidl, Aldi and Rewe simply suspended sourcing poultry from Thailand once the Thammakaset case went public, rather than engaging with the issues.

Today private sector actors are taking steps to develop systemic corporate responsibility principles and due diligence standards to prevent labour abuses in their supply chains. It seems like it is the right moment to also develop standards for business support for human rights defenders, as the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights is already doing.

There are some important first steps that companies can take. First, like the Nordic companies who publicly and financially supported human rights defenders in my case, global brands and businesses should oppose unjustified and abusive use of courts to intimidate human rights defenders even where those workers or defenders are not directly in their supply chains.

Second, in the face of daily reports of attacks, killings, and SLAPP prosecutions against human rights defenders, it is crucial more companies develop and systematically apply explicit corporate policies to address risks to human rights defenders. Apart from Adidas, Coca Cola and FIFA, few companies I am aware of have developed such policies. Supporting the work of human rights defenders should be done alongside audits and multi-stakeholder initiatives to demonstrate that companies take supply chain due diligence obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights seriously.

Third, human rights defenders need to be supported to work constructively with leading companies to address the systematic exploitation in global supply chains before conflict becomes public, acrimonious and aggressive. The basis for this challenge is a continuing lack of supply chain traceability and transparency. Positive examples exist where companies such as Marks & Spencer and H&M publish information allowing anyone to link workplaces in at-risk countries to their companies. However, in most situations, linking rights violations on the ground to major brands with leverage to resolve these abuses remains challenging, if not impossible, in practice.

It has been a source of great encouragement that my own personal fight against worker exploitation has received so much private sector support, alongside support from traditional allies like trade unions, NGOs and parliamentarians. The harassment myself and my colleagues continue to face in Thailand is however minor compared to that faced by many other human rights defenders globally who continue to be killed and attacked.

I hope that some of these positive steps taken by private sector actors in support of human rights defenders outlined here can contribute to systematic and sustainable engagement on these issues by more companies in the future. Direct support by global businesses and brands for human rights defenders, coupled with increased traceability and transparency in supply chains, can make working on business and human rights issues less risky, more constructive and more meaningful.

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER | VOLUME 28: ISSUE 1 – MAY 2019