Implementation of Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights - Essay Example

Voluntary Principles On Security And Human Rights An Assessment of Implementation Name of Student: Student No: Date: Name of Supervisor: Abstract The need for armed security guards to protect people, property and assets has unfortunately risen over the last couple of years as a result of an increased number of violent attacks on security staff by armed criminals. Due to the number of attacks, the risk of violating human rights by security companies or governmental force has increased, especially in conflict zones where many multinational companies are present. For this purpose, the Government of the United States and the United Kingdom, different companies in the extractive and energy sectors and non-governmental organizations, have created a set of voluntary principles to guide companies in maintaining the safety and security of their operations within an operating framework ensuring the human rights. This research has the aim to investigate the implementation process on voluntary principles on security and human rights and evaluating difficulties of different initiatives. Furthermore, in this paper the question will be clarified, how much a company must held responsible for, if private security personnel committed human rights violations. How can a company ensure that their security personnel do not violates human rights. What measures can be taken by operating companies and what legal provisions are in place in order to protect human rights violations. Acknowledgments Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgments 3 Contents 4 List of Figures 4 Introduction 5 Literature Review 7 Research Methodology 12 Research Results 14 Conclusions and Recommendations 22 List of Figures Figure 1: No. of respondents and their industries 16 Figure 2: various responses to survey questions 17 Introduction The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (Voluntary Principles or VPs) are guiding principles that are set by companies to help in providing clear guidelines of ensuring safety within their premises without violating the rights and freedoms of individuals as stipulated in the Human Rights Act. Voluntary principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs) are non-binding principles that are shaped to help extractive companies to poise the concerns of human rights in terms of security. The principles were launched in 2000 are said to be a tripartite multi-stakeholder scheme. Some of the participants include 9 NGOs, 18 companies, 3 organizations and 7 states. They were developed in order, to respond to the report of human rights abuses said to be committed by providers of security from the extractive trade. The Voluntary Principles apply to both private and public security services. In addition, they are voluntary, but some companies have decided to incorporate them to their management system and coming up with agreement as contracts. Some of the VP’s provisions includes; issuing of proportionality as well as using force. Additionally, it reviews the background of those industries which are private, in the intention of employing them. They conduct investigations, as well as monitor progress of supposed abuses. Moreover, they conduct regular consultations between host governments and other companies to come up with an agreement. This helps them to improve a company’s engagement to protect their human rights by them with security contracts (Mylonas, p. 15). The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights were for the first time adopted a decade ago and since then a number of companies and organisations across the globe have adopted them. So far companies and organisations that have embraced the use of Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights have made major strides in tackling issues related with human right violations. A number of multinational companies and organisations especially those in the mining industry have adopted and implemented Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights to help in addressing issues with human rights in relation to security and safety. This paper therefore aims to explore implementation of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights by various companies and organisations across the globe. It will examine how various countries, companies and organisations that have adopted these principles have succeeded in its implementation. Explore how they have particularly benefited from these principles and the challenges encountered. In addition it will give an overview of the experiences and learning in connection with the implementation of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (Hendry, K, & Klein, D., August 2010). Literature Review A major challenge that most companies face especially those in the extractive industry especially those that operate in developing countries that are characterised by political instability is to gain and maintain community support especially when they try to implement the VPs. Lack of community support may result in opposition from the local community and in turn affect the operations of the company. Organisations face tremendous difficulties when determining which best practices to practise in order to establish and maintain approval to operate in a specific region (Anna, 2010). Another difficult that is encountered in the implementation of the principles is inconsistent participation from companies and lack of commitment by members. Site operators tend to have the highest level of commitment and ability, while small companies and minority partners often feel ill-equipped to implement the Principles. There is some belief among working group participants that those involved in the process should work to standardize implementation of the Principles (McFetridge, July 2008) However, the Voluntary principles are said to lack transparency in their work because they are always confident when it comes to dialogues between companies involved and VPs. The actual implementation of the participation and principles is therefore, a major concern, because, according to (Dismore, pg 66) the plenary that was adopted helped amend the official participation criteria and a common understanding of the VP’s future direction. Some of the changes includes, a process in dispute resolution to help raise concerns of its participant, thus clearing the accountability methods. It also includes minimum requirements for participation in the security system, clear responsibility mechanisms and public reporting of Voluntary principles. It has also welcomed a great deal on local implementation of multi-stakeholder forums to help support the integration and implementation of the principles at a global level. Some of the countries include Nigeria, Indonesia and Colombia. Nevertheless, they are genuinely filling up a crucial void for some companies who seek guidance on how to manage some of the potential risks that are related to their human rights and security practices, especially, those countries which are associated with alleged abuses or conflicts. However, the principles guide the companies into identifying security risks and human rights, by collaborating and engaging with security private forces and other states. For it to be effective the compliance needs to be more practical, therefore, training is a major area of benefit for most of the companies, while other organizations is already conducting training programs specifically on security personnel, while some focusing the training efforts for the operations managers that are sensitive with to human and security issues. The issues of human and security issues are therefore, important to the training. They should be embedded towards a certain company culture, in terms of health and safety, since the risks associated with the risks are great, in terms of stock price, legal liability and reputation. This applies to both public and private provisions in terms of security, because appropriate risks assessment often leaves gaps in effectiveness towards responding to security issues every day. A good example is where both government and private forces have no effective steps into negotiating their terms of lethal forces, while dealing with security concerns (Sullivan, p. 67). Stationery office U.K (2009, p. 55-96),claims that, the Voluntary Principles on security and Human Rights is implementing a tool kit for significant major projects by outlining companies actions in terms of assessing the appropriate risks, and thus implementing private and public security measures in such a way it show respects human rights. The tool kit is therefore, a beginning point for projects and companies to come up with a level-site VPSHR, in its implementation plans that are adhered to specific needs and location. During its preparation, specialists from the mining industry as well as, World Bank and non- governmental organizations contribute to its preparation. Their participants adopt a specific vision that aims to strengthen the voluntary principles its human rights and security issues, as both a human right and business framework. It also aims at increasing their participant’s accountability, base and being actively involved in promoting human rights respect universally. In accordance with its vision statement, participants are focused on initiatives that intend to promote its future growth of its framework, which includes, drafting new entries criteria for companies, NGO’s and government. They also create documents that that help in facilitating outreach of prospective participants. The participation on the framework is therefore, voluntary. The Voluntary Principles was unveiled in December 2000 by United States Department and Commonwealth and foreign office, after long negotiations process from mining, oil and government officials. They help provide guidance to those companies which operate in conflicting zones or states that are fragile, by ensuring that both security private and security forces protect companies’ premises and facilities, but still respecting fundamental and respecting human rights freedoms. This is therefore, a necessary initiative that helps a widespread concern internationally over security forces concerned with mining and protecting installations in many parts of the world. The companies seek clear guidance to what voluntary principles mean and prepare a detailed guideline for their operations internally. Some of the corporations that are seen to support the voluntary principles are the international finance institution that is helping the VP’s secretariat develop its tool for guidance that will help in its implementation. Other pillars concerned with the process, which includes NGO’s and the government is seeking clear information of a company’s performance by implementing voluntary principles. Companies have therefore, reported high performance in the absences of credible reliable indicators, using different benchmarks and yard-sticks (Mylonas, p. 15). An international team is drafting some of the guidelines described to help the global efforts in bringing simplicity, clarity and uniformity, in terms of information that can be made accessible to help in making better decisions within a company, to help in evaluating, measuring its performance both externally and internally. This helps assist bring about accountability sort of climate in the process. Stationery office U.K (2009, p.55-96) claims that the guidelines are retrieved from the alerts got from the United Kingdom Government, concerned with prevention of global conflicts in 2007, as well as the Canadian Government of Security and Peace Fund in 2008. These are clear indicators of the initial Colombian context, where the alert is experiencing a long operating on the ground of Colombian context that was presented in the Annual principles plenary in Amsterdam in 2008. Moreover, the alert has received a positive feedback, and therefore, the need to disseminate widely in a global perspective. It also acknowledges the partnership with those ideas concerned in piloting those conflicts that are said to risk a business, as well as impact those methodologies with various Colombian members and other participants. The effort is a work-progress that anticipates other companies to test those indicators that are robust, and hopes to develop a standard industry. This exercise will help other companies in their initial stages and shared widely at later stages. Similarly, its main obligation is to protect, fulfill and respect the human rights according to the state. This is because; companies have an obligation to respect human rights as well as protecting their rights in specific circumstances. They make sure that, they do not contribute, cause and benefit from alleged abuses from human rights. In those states that are fragile, it is the responsibility of the de facto increases because of the government institutions absence and the concerned company obliged to report any incidences as they occur. However, they Voluntary Principles Securities are divides into three categories, which include interactions with private and public securities and risk assessment. The private sector also plays a critical role in addressing transparency and corruption issues, like human and security rights, resource revenues and good local governance (Salil, 2010, p. 34-56). The VPSHR being the guiding principles for extractive industries, help promote human rights respect in avoidance of human rights abuse in security operations. They are not only beneficial to businesses but to communities as well. Those companies choose to sign up the VSPHR in order to, genuinely improve implementation of security. It also learns to how best to avoid report, resolve and detect human rights abuses, thus improving the relationships between stakeholders and community. Once companies sign up, they are said to face some of the challenges to help determine the best way in implementing the principles on Security and human rights. The pact therefore, assists effective, measurable implementation and pragmatic of VPSHR. It supports the integration by specializing in training of company staffs, stakeholders and security providers. It comes up with developed formats to help meet guidelines for the VPSHR officials. It also identifies and builds key community structures that respond to identified issues concerning security that helps improves the general environment of the security and offers human rights protection in the whole community (Gallagher, 2008, p. 56-98). Research Methodology This chapter presents the methods and techniques that will be used in conducting the study. It discusses the research design, target population, sample design, data collection and data analysis techniques that will be used in the study. 3.1 Research Method The research method adopted for this study was the survey method, whose approach suits gathering of descriptive data. (Dawson, 2002) A structured survey was formulated due to the formal list of questions contained therein that could be put to all respondents in the same manner (Kothari, 1985). The Cultivation Theory and many other researches of this nature have been done using the Survey Method as a tool of data collection Dawson (2002). This seems to have produced sufficiently satisfactory results for the researcher that they were able to formulate theories around it. Data is normally gathered by means of questionnaires, although direct interviewing of participants can also be done. The nature of questions determine whether the survey is qualitative (open-ended questions for example) or quantitative (such as multiple choice). The survey carried out contained a mix of the two (Bobbie, 1973) executed by personally distributing the questionnaires to sixty potential candidates and being present as they filled them in. This made it easier to clarify any queries they had on the spot so that accuracy and validity would be increased. It would also enable me to inform them of the complete anonymity of the study and the ultimate aim of it, so that their mind was at ease in answering the more personal questions on the form. The selection of the research method was important because it influenced the conclusion that could be drawn about a phenomenon (Kothari, 1985). The research method is also influenced by the limitations under which the researcher is working. The factors that influence choice of method include time, money, feasibility, ethics and the instruments of measurement available to interpret the results correctly. The questionnaire is the most widely utilised information gathering tool because it is the simplest of the four methods used for data collection. These are the use of paperwork, accounts or active data; observation; interviews and questionnaires. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. These factors influenced my choice of the questionnaire as the appropriate tool in my research. 3.3.1 Advantages: Questionnaires are cheaper than other means of research, especially when distance is involved. The method is expedient depending on mode of distribution and therefore data analysis can begin at once. The questionnaire also helps to alleviate bias from an interviewer, any guiding or cues that may affect the integrity of results. The anonymity of the method also ensures the greater veracity of responses as well as giving the respondent adequate opportunity to give well-thought out answers. Especially when dealing with such sensitive areas as sexuality, the anonymity of the questionnaire may be the best method to obtain accurate information (Robinson, 2010). 3.3.2 Disadvantages: Expansion of questionnaire utilisation into commercial ventures in addition to authentic research has resulted in a gradual drop in response rates. Currently should between 25-33% of respondents send in their replies this is considered good. Motivation is key in acquiring responses, and the participant should comprehend what is required of them. Due to the distance between participant and researcher, there may be no chance for rapport to develop between them, and clarifications or further probing may be impossible. Therefore, misapprehensions about the questionnaire in terms of purpose, privacy or any queries may not be attended to (Robinson, 2010). Research Results The sample that we used was a onetime only exercise conducted within limits of our resources, which means that results obtained may only broadly represent the population and may not necessarily be broken down into smaller units in any meaningful way. The major determinant for the size of the sample is of course practical limitations as outlined earlier although statistically, a sample size of 50-100 is considered sufficient to be reliable for most purposes Wiley (2003). My sample size was fifty two responses. Calculating for precision and proportion was done using the following formula. Sample size n=Z2(p)(1-p) E2 Where z is the z score associated with the confidence level required, E is the required precision and p is the occurrence rate within the population. The sample was obtained from various organisations that fall under extractive companies that are concerned with human rights abuses and working in parts of the world that are reputed to tolerate such violations. The survey covered various issues and the results obtained tabulated for analysis. The distribution of organisations interviewed is shown in figure 1: Figure 1: No. of respondents and their industries When asked what type of priority was given to security matters as it pertains to human rights, 28.6% cited it as a top priority, 26.8% categorised it as medium priority while 21.4% said it was of low priority. Below is a summary of the survey questionnaire as pertains to answers where respondents were required to answer yes or no. Figure 2: various responses to survey questions The type of security utilised by a majority of companies is private security guards, with almost 78% citing this option in the survey. Other companies use military force (4.4%) or in house security (17.8%). The training these forces receive varies, with 67.9% receiving the human rights standards that are required of them, while 75% are educated on the legal consequences of infringements to both the company and the security guard provider. Another 75% are acquainted with common scenarios in which human rights abuses might take place while 85.7% are told about what procedures to follow in order to avoid such violations. 35.7% of companies provide the security guards with in-house training, while an equivalent percentage leave it to the security firms to carry out.17.9% retain external consultants to provide the training while10.7% leave it to public officials. Others leave it to the military service, or utilise all the available options. Still others must conduct these trainings in order to be licensed. There are also some security outfits that receive no training at all in VPSHR. Compliance meetings are held periodically to measure and review. These are held monthly by 19% of organisations, quarterly by another 28.6%, semi-annually by 9.5% of firms and annually by a similar percentage. 33.3% of respondents do not hold these compliance meetings. The weight that companies put on the importance of VPSHR ranges from none at all, to window dressing to the mandatory implementation in order to comply with certification requirements or comply with laws on sexual harassment or the Geneva Convention. Trainings are also designed to comply with governing laws, with the minimum amount that can be gotten away with being done. The rules governing administration of VPSHR vary from adherence to LOAC rules to common sense regulations such as do not fight. Other companies restrict the publishing of their rules and regulations while others are not concerned with this area at all. Only one organisation has a whistleblower mechanism. Only two companies have human rights explicitly stated in their contract, one of which is the LOAC; this situation is also true for any situation where a business partner violates human rights. Only three firms have a mechanism where complaints can be made should a violation occur, one of which is under LOAC. 38.8% of respondents were not sufficiently conversant with the framework to give an opinion, but of those who were, they identified the gaps in VPSHR as: Lack of definition. Non-adherence to policies and strategies The relevance, clarity and legitimacy was absent. Credibility is lacking especially among African or Arab cultures. There seems to be no actual performance measurement mechanism and independent audit structure. It is a foreign concept to many. It implies additional costs for training new staff. The framework is underexposed. From the data obtained above, it is obvious that VPSHR is regarded at best as a nuisance which has to be dealt with due to regulations. Accountability is one aspect that had come up in the plenary that helped set up the participation criteria. According to comments from respondents, it is still an issue even after mechanisms were put in place to deal with it. The range of responses gathered from responses indicates a lack of uniformity in implementation of VPSHR and a lack of information between companies in order to understand why they are encouraged to implement these guidelines. Many leave the training of personnel to the outsourced security firm without even stipulating in their contracts that it is an obligation to carry it out. This implies that the importance of this framework is lost on many organisations with some having the attitude that it simply means additional costs when it comes to training new workers, while others consider that their own internal rules and regulations are sufficient to cater for any human rights issue that may arise. This is without having specific knowledge of any particular in-house regulation that they are aware of, which would cover the area of VPSHR. Some companies are suspicious of the terms of VPSHR, imagining that it gives their competition some sort of edge in that since compliance is voluntary they have no information on what their competition is doing and how intensively they have implemented the framework. This comes down to the issue of additional costs to the company. Many respondents were not aware of the VPSHR or how they are implemented or whether their firms have implemented the same. This can also be seen by the levels of response with 28.6% stating that VPSHR has a high priority with their firms but only 5.5% stating that they are members of the framework. This implies that they may have misunderstood the first question or are not completely familiar with the meaning of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. A further 28.6% gave it medium priority which implies that 57.2% regarded these principles as a priority in their firms, yet when asked what rules they impose upon their security firms, none mentioned VPSHR as featuring therein. This means that the firms may claim to subscribe to the Voluntary Principle on Security and Human Rights in theory for political or other reasons not covered within this research but for the reasons given as to the gaps found within the framework, or others, the firms have not actually implemented the framework on the ground. This could be due to their risk assessment of local conditions which they do not find conducive to implementation of VPSHR perhaps because they feel it would be bad for business, or the local conditions do not demand that these principles be implemented for business to go on and therefore they do not feel the need to implement them, with the attendant additional costs that would entail. The respondents cited India, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Trinidad, Bolivia, Egypt, Mauritania, Ghana, Netherlands and Georgia as countries where they have implemented VPSHR. Apart from Netherlands, the Human Rights reputations of the other countries cited are indifferent at best. This may be a contributing factor in how intensively the VPSHR framework is implemented. If the local governments are not insistent that human rights violations be avoided and dealt with decisively where they do occur, there may be a lack of urgency for firms working in that local environment to do so. The perceived benefits of implementation may not be immediately obvious to these firms and they may look at the cons as ascendant to the pros. The rate of response to questions was generally very low with only one question being answered by all respondents. This may imply a lack of understanding of the question or reluctance to reveal the situation within the firm. It could also imply a disengagement with the process due to lack of interest or low priority despite the answers given to the priority question. Conclusions and Recommendations Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights are designed as protection for individuals working in extractive companies who are in places in the world where they may vulnerable to human rights violations. This framework is implemented in conjunction with local governments, ideally when the firm is just starting up. It may be incorporated in the management structure or be completely independent from it, as part of the security guard training, who may be outsourced. Almost 78% of those interviewed utilise outside security guards to secure their premises and the people within. The VPSHR in principle is a noble idea, conducted on voluntary basis and designed to benefit the users. However, looking at the results of the survey, many companies are not conversant with these benefits or do not consider them sufficient as to give them impetus to implement the framework. The bottlenecks that beset implementation seem to hold them back. These bottlenecks include a lack of definition or clarity to the voluntary principles, and a failure to adhere to policies and strategies by the firm. They are also failing in terms of proving their relevance to participating companies and their legitimacy has been called into question. This has led to problems with credibility and the African and Arab settings have been specifically cited by respondents as not putting any credibility on this framework. Others have complained that the actual performance measurement is in doubt as is any mechanism for independent audit. Many companies operating in these countries regard it as a foreign concept probably imposed upon them from the outside, while others are not too enthusiastic about the additional training cost it would entail. Especially as every time there is new staff appointments, training has to be re-done. The fact is that the VPSHR suffers from lack of exposure and many companies are simply not conversant with the ins and outs of what it would entail to implement. It therefore behoves the implementation committee to come up with ways to educate companies and governments on the benefits of adopting VPSHR within their regions. They also need to smoothen the process of implementation in order to enable better compliance across companies. The clarity and definition of the voluntary principles need to be strengthened and articulated so that there is greater understanding of what they are about and how they can be implemented. Mechanisms of reporting abuses and the consequences thereof also require more attention as many firms seem not to have addressed this issue comprehensively. Works Cited Dawson, C. Practical Research Methods, New Delhi, UBS Publishers ‘Distributors, 2002 Dismore, A. Any of our business?: human rights and the UK private sector: first report of session 2009-10, vol.2, p. 66. Oral and written evidence. London: Stationery Office, 2009. Print London, L. Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights: Implementation Process Feasibility Study in Peru, 2010 Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology- Methods and Techniques, New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited, 1985 McFetridge, D. The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights: An Implementation Toolkit for Major Project Sites, 2008 Mylonas, C. “Implementing the Voluntary Principles: A case study of Security and Human Rights in Shell’s Worldwide Operational.” Journal of International Peace Operations, 2008 Robinson, W. C. Research Methods- Questionnaires, 2010. Retrieved from www.540_lec_qaire_files/gen_styles.com Sullivan, R. Business and human rights: dilemmas and solutions. New York: Green Leaf, 2003. Print Salil, T. Institute for Human Rights and Business: Have the Voluntary Principles realized their Full potential, 2010. Stationery office U.K. Any of Our Business? Human Rights and the UK Private Sector First Report of Session 2009-10: Vol. 1 Report and Formal Minutes: House of Lords Paper 5-i Session 2009-10. United Kingdom: Stationery office, p. 55-96, 2009. Read More