By Alys Samson Estapé
NOVACT

On 16 November 2017 Novact, Servei Civil Internacional de Catalunya and Nexes launched the “Guide for the protection and promotion of Human Rights in Public procurement”. The Guide aims to be a tool to support local councils and public administrations in Catalonia to avoid contracting with suppliers that commit or are linked to human rights abuses.

The new Guide focuses on the whole process of public procurement and addresses in turn: eligibility criteria; binding supplier responsibility statements (to be signed by the highest responsible manager of the supplier); evaluation criteria; contract execution and management; and monitoring and follow-up of public contracts.

The Guide was developed during the passage of a new Public Procurement Law in Spain in 2017. The organisations responsible for the Guide and others working for human rights advocated for amendments to this procurement law. Our principal aim was that it should become illegal for state bodies to enter into supply contracts with companies that do not respect human rights. As we did not succeed in integrating this norm into the Spanish legislation, the Guide is more necessary than ever. The new Spanish procurement law does establish a wider range of possibilities and includes more social aspects compared to its predecessor, but what social organisations sought is still missing: the ability to exclude entirely those companies responsible for human rights abuses from public procurement procedures. Continue reading. “Catalonia: New Guide on Human Rights in Public Procurement”

By Linda Piirto
Senior Advisor, Responsible Business Conduct, Ministry for Economic Affairs and Employment, Finland

Some years ago I was sitting in a small conference room in Brussels with a bunch of European colleagues – public procurement specialists and responsible business conduct enthusiasts – to hear how social aspects could be taken into account in public procurement. Unfortunately the message we heard wasn’t that encouraging: I got the impression that procurement units (and us representing the awareness-raising wing) weren’t encouraged to explore the topic since it was deemed too difficult.

I left that non-workshop feeling baffled, but not discouraged. For us Finns the option of not doing anything wasn’t really an option: there were already social expectations that public procurement should be responsible, both environmentally and socially. Once a strong expectation exists, we tend to think it’s better to explore how it could be executed in practice and provide guidance, rather than wait for “innovative” ways to interpret the procurement legislation to emerge in bulk. Continue reading. “Finland: New guidance on socially responsible public procurement spotlights practical solutions”

By Daniel Morris
Adviser, Human Rights and Development, Danish Institute for Human Rights

On the 6th October 2017 the Inter-American Network on Government Procurement (INGP) held a workshop on public procurement and human rights for its members in Santiago, Chile. This workshop was facilitated by Centro Vincular of the Catholic University of Valparaiso, the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), and members of the International Learning Lab on Public Procurement and Human Rights.

The objectives of the workshop were to:

• Explore human rights law and public procurement;
• Look beyond the law to examine the economic and commercial benefits of integrating human rights into public procurement exercises;
• Share experiences on inserting social, human rights, and environmental protections into public procurement exercises; and
• Discuss how the INGP could support further integration of human rights in public procurement.

Presentations were made by Dante Pesce, Catholic University of Valparaíso, Member of the UNWG on Business and Human Rights; Nicole Vander Meulen, ICAR; Professor Geo Quinot, Stellenbosch University; Daniel Morris, DIHR; Natalie Evans, City of London; Pauline Gothberg, Swedish County Councils and Regions; and by members of the INGP. Continue reading. “Workshop on Public Procurement and Human Rights with the Inter-American Network on Government Procurement”

By The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF)

The use of private military and security companies (PMSCs) worldwide is increasing. Since the early 1990s, the global private security industry has been expanding significantly in response to increasingly complex security environments, ranging from conflict or post-conflict situations to growing terrorism threats and humanitarian crises.

In the Latin America and Caribbean region for instance, at least 16,174 private security companies have been identified, with more than 2,450,000 legal employees working as security guards. Today it is not rare to have states with a higher ratio of private security personnel to police. PMSCs have adapted their services and operations to this context; nevertheless, some PMSCs have also attracted increasing international attention due to misconduct, human rights abuses, and violations of international humanitarian law.

For example, PMSCs provide operational support to a number of asylum seeker and immigration detention centers. Human rights organisations are concerned about the numerous reports of serious human rights violations and relative lack of monitoring and oversight of private security personnel managing and operating these centres. Abuse of detainees has raised serious ethical and legal questions and facilities with armed guards lead to concerns over the use of force. Furthermore, the transparency of contracts between private security companies and governments has also been questioned. Continue reading. “Public procurement of private security services: new contract guidance tool promotes greater respect for human rights and accountability”

By Jovana Stopic
Jovana Stopic is a human rights expert, she has been working with Belgrade Centre for Human Rights on establishing human rights and business footprint in Serbia since 2013

As a candidate country for EU membership, Serbia has been in the process of accession negotiations since 2014. Negotiations were initiated on a number of chapters including Chapter 5 on public procurement and Chapter 23 covering fundamental rights. To enter into EU membership, amongst other requirements, Serbia is expected to ensure that EU legislation has been transposed across the board into Serbian law and that it is effectively implemented. This means that the accession process is currently the main reform engine in the country in all spheres of political and economic life. It also entails that the success of any advocacy activity is conditioned on its proximity to the priorities set for the EU integration agenda.

In its 2016 Progress Report, the European Commission assessed that Serbia was “moderately prepared” for EU accession in the area of public procurement, but in order to close the negotiations under Chapter 5 on Public Procurement Serbia is expected to reach three major benchmarks. Continue reading. “Raising Awareness on Public Procurement Impact on Human Rights in Serbia”

By Alison Elliott
Senior Policy Adviser, UNICEF Australia

The business and human rights agenda has gathered pace over the last year in Australia.

Now, three on-going processes represent significant opportunities to strengthen Australian policy and legislation, including in the area of public procurement.

If seized, they offer a chance to better protect individuals and communities against adverse human rights impacts of business activity, reward leading companies and further support corporations to meet their responsibility to respect human rights.

First, in January 2016 the Australian Government undertook to conduct a national consultation on implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This was a voluntary commitment made as a result of Australia’s participation in the UN Universal Periodic Review process, where states review each other’s fulfilment of their human rights obligations. Continue reading. “Policy Coherence on Business and Human Rights – A Trifecta of Opportunity in Australia”

By Olga Martin-Ortega, Business, Human Rights and the Environment Research Group; Claire Methven O’Brien, Danish Institute for Human Rights; and Andy Davies, London Universities Purchasing Consortium

In April 2017 we submitted written evidence on behalf of the Learning Lab to the Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia.

In particular, we recommended the inclusion of a “Transparency in Supply Chains” provision to apply to public bodies, as well as corporations, and to build upon experience, practice and research concerning the first year of implementation of Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) by UK public buyers.

This recommendation followed from an analysis undertaken during 2017 by the Business, Human Rights and the Environment Research (BHRE) Group of over 80 Slavery and Human Trafficking statements produced by UK public buyers, mostly universities.   Continue reading. “Australia Should Extend Modern Slavery Obligations to Public Buyers”

The booming field of public procurement studies is increasingly open to investigating human rights issues within supply chains. However, little attention has so far been paid to the economic and political impacts of public procurement regulations and practices on gender equality. Gender and sexuality cannot be separated from workers’ rights, fair pay, modern slavery – issues that are of interest to public procurement and human rights scholars and advocates. Gender and sexuality have widely been shown to reinforce occupational segregation of socio-economic classes in the workplace. Continue reading. “Why does Gender Equality Matter to Public Procurement? An African perspective”

By Daniel Morris
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has produced a draft general comment on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the Context of Business Activities.

The ICESCR is one of the two main human rights treaties worldwide. The Committee is made up of 18 independent experts who monitor implementation of the ICESCR by States parties.  In its general comments, the Committee provides guidance on how states’ obligations under the ICESCR should be interpreted.

The Committee’s draft general comment on business and human rights expands on a range of business and human rights issues, drawing on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as well as the ICESCR.

Notably, however, public procurement is not addressed by the current draft, even though it is clearly identified as an aspect of the state duty to protect under the UN’s “Three Pillar” Framework on Business and Human Rights. Continue reading. “Human rights body calls for public procurement to be addressed in new UN guidance on economic and social rights”

By Dr. Olga Martin-Ortega
Reader in Public International Law and leader of the Business, Human Rights and the Environment Research Group, University of Greenwich

On 29 October 2015 the Transparency in Supply Chains provision (section 54) of the UK Modern Slavery Act (“section 54”) entered into force. Section 54 requires commercial entities to report annually on their efforts to identify and prevent modern slavery in their supply chain. It aims to engage commercial organisations in the fight against slavery, human trafficking and forced labour.

The Modern Slavery Act (“MSA”) defines “commercial entities” as suppliers of goods or services with a total annual turnover of £36 million or more. This includes certain public bodies subject to the UK’s Public Contracts Regulations (2015).  Amongst these are over one hundred Universities and Higher Education providers, which receive public funding from the Government at the same time as they act as commercial entities, by charging fees for the services they deliver.

While many companies were expecting the enactment of section 54, and had participated in Government consultation, it came to a surprise to universities, which have had to wake up to an important reality: they, too, are players in fighting modern slavery, human trafficking, forced labour and more generally human rights abuses in their supply chains. Continue reading. “Ready or not: Universities and reporting requirements under the UK Modern Slavery Act”