Evaluation of the Dutch Responsible Business Conduct Agreements

The Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) has evaluated the 11 current Dutch Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) Agreements on behalf of Minister Kaag of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

>> see the link to the report

The evaluation concludes that RBC agreements provide better knowledge and understanding of companies about human rights and the environment, but that they do not yet yield any benefits for victims of human rights violations and environmental damage. In order to achieve more impact in the area of ​​RBC by companies, the evaluation advocates for legislation based on the OECD Guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles. The evaluation also mentions a major flaw in the design of the agreements: the Dutch government has not defined clear requirements about the quality of the agreements, leading to on certain aspects and differences in expectations between companies and CSOs. The report also mentions the importance of public pressure (from NGOs, government, media and parliament) as a critical success factor for RBC agreements.

Work: No Child’s Business carefully read the study as a number of the WNCB partners actively participate in these RBC agreements. Some of the main findings of the study include:

• RBCs work to raise awareness and support learning both for companies as well as NGOs and unions involved in these agreements, but this is not enough for impact on the ground.
• Legislation that obliges companies to perform due diligence and will ensure a clear standard for all companies in addition to voluntary agreements will be needed.
• The role of the Dutch government is weak in all agreements. The government should ensure and monitor minimum standards.
• Involve more countries  to increase leverage and ensure local stakeholders are involved better.
• Two RBC agreements, Sustainable Clothing and Textiles (with UNICEF, Arisa and Stop Child Labour) and TruStone (with Arisa) come out of the evaluation as relatively good. Transparency as well as the possibility to complain about participating companies to an independent committee are included in these covenants.
• Joint projects, with business unions and civil society organizations, as well as transparency and monitoring are an important way to achieve results.

 

See also some official reactions on this evaluation: from WNCB partner Arisa and the MVO Platform (both in Dutch)

Not Fit-for-Purpose

Another very thorough report examining multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and certification schemes and labels over the past ten years, Not Fit-For-Purpose, comes to similar conclusions:

• MSIs offer platforms for dialogue and they are good for learning and trust building, but are not adequate human rights or environmental tools capable of closing governance gaps.
• They do not fulfill their promise of advancing rights holder protection, nor have fundamentally changed power imbalances that drive rights abuses.
• Existing MSIs grievance have not reliably provided access to effective remedy and there is no indication that they will in the future.
• MSIs cannot substitute public regulation.
• Rights holders should be at the center of decision making.
• Alternative models for a vibrant economy in respect of rights are needed.

 

The Guardian also covered this report recently.