IBA_Practical_Guide_(June 2016)

IBA Practical Guide
on Business and
Human Rights for
Business Lawyers
Adopted by a resolution of the IBA Council
28 May 2016
International Bar Association

International Bar Association
4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street
London EC4A 4AD
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7842 0090
Fax: +44 (0)20 7842 0091
www.ibanet.org
ISBN: 978-0-948711-41-1
All Rights Reserved
© International Bar Association 2016
No part of the material protected by this copyright
notice may be reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage
and retrieval system, without written permission from the
copyright owner.

Foreword 7
Resolution 9
Introduction 13
1 Purpose of this Practical Guide 15
2 The UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights 16
2.1 What is the background of the UNGPs? 17
2.2 What are the United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business and Human
Rights (UNGPs)? 17
2.3 Understanding some key concepts used
in the UNGPs 19
2.3.1 What is a human rights policy
commitment? 19
2.3.2 What is human rights due diligence? 19
2.3.3 What are the different ways in which
business can be involved in an impact? 20
2.3.4 How should a business respond to
an impact? 21
2.4 What is the legal status of the UNGPs? 22
3 How are the UNGPs relevant to specific
legal practice areas? 23
4 What are the implications of the UNGPs for
law firms and for the independent
responsibilities of lawyers? 27
5 What opportunities do the UNGPs present
for business lawyers? 30
5.1 Internal counsel 30
5.2 External law firms 31
Contents

6 What particular issues do the UNGPs present
for law ﬁrms? 32
6.1 What should law ﬁrms and lawyers think
about when implementing or advising
on the UNGPs? 33
6.2 Liability insurance 38
7 Conclusion 38

7
Foreword
At its Annual Conference in Vienna in October 2015,
the IBA Council adopted its Business and Human
Rights Guidance for Bar Associations (‘Bar Association
Guide’).1
The IBA noted that its founding in 1947 had
been inspired by the vision of the United Nations, with
the aim of supporting the establishment of the rule
of law and the administration of justice worldwide.
It described the unanimous endorsement by the UN
Human Rights Council of the UN Guiding Principles
(UNGPs),2
drafted by the Special Representative of
the UN Secretary General on Business and Human
Rights (SRSG), Professor John Ruggie. It recalled the
IBA’s significant contributions to and support of the
SRSG’s UN mandate, and noted that governments
have evidenced strong support for the UNGPs as an
authoritative policy framework, including through the
development of national action plans to implement
them. It described the reflection of the UNGPs in
international and industry specific standards. And it
noted the growing recognition of a strong business
case for respecting human rights and the management
of risks, including legal risks, resulting in the need for
lawyers to take human rights into account in their
practice of law.
In order to help bar associations and lawyers better
understand these issues, the IBA committed to prepare
a Practical Guide for Business Lawyers on the Guiding
Principles (the ‘Practical Guide’) that would ‘set out
in detail the core content of the UNGPs, how they
can be relevant to the advice provided to clients by
individual lawyers subject to their unique professional
standards and rules (whether they are in-house or
external counsel acting in their individual capacity
or as members of a law firm) and their potential
implications for law firms as business enterprises with
a responsibility to respect human rights themselves.’
At the conference, the IBA Council also adopted
a resolution approving the Bar Association Guide,
looking forward to the Practical Guide’s presentation
for approval in May 2016, and stating that ‘in line with

8
the provisions of the UN Basic Principles on the Role
of Lawyers as resolved by the UN General Assembly
in its ‘Human rights in the administration of justice’
resolution of 18 December 1990 (Basic Principles),
nothing in the Guidance for Bar Associations or in
the IBA Practical Guide for Business Lawyers (once
approved) shall be interpreted as reducing respect
for the fundamental human right of effective access
to legal services provided by an independent legal
profession to all in need of such services, including
that all lawyers should always be able to fulﬁll their
duties and responsibilities and enjoy the guarantees
provided for by the Basic Principles, consistent with
their legal and professional responsibilities.’
This Practical Guide has been prepared to fulﬁll
these purposes.

9
International Bar
Association Council
Resolution on the
IBA Practical Guide
on Business And
Human Rights for
Business Lawyers
The Council of the International Bar Association
(IBA),
Recalling that the IBA is the ‘global voice of the legal
profession’, and that providing guidance for Bar
Associations (Associations), Law Societies (Societies)
and individual members of the legal profession
(Members) on United Nations instruments that may
impact on the legal profession, among others, is
critical to the IBA’s objectives, as stipulated in Articles
1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7 of the IBA Constitution.
Respecting the IBA’s collaborative relationship with
Associations, Societies and Members, and that those
Associations have primary responsibility as rule-
making and regulatory bodies for the profession in
their respective jurisdictions.
Noting that the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2011
unanimously endorsed the United Nations Guiding
Principles (UNGPs) after almost six years of research
and review of internationally accepted standards on
human rights, and global consultation.
Noting further that states, civil society organisations and
the private sector increasingly support the UNGPs as
the authoritative global standard for preventing and
addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human
rights by businesses.

10
Recognising that it is important for lawyers to
understand how the UNGPs may affect their clients’
activities and those of lawyers.
Recognising that the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms to which all persons are
entitled requires that all persons have effective access
to legal services provided by an independent legal
profession.
Recognising that according to Principle 18 of UN’s 1990
Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, ‘lawyers shall
not be identiﬁed with their clients’ or their clients’
causes as a result of discharging their functions’,
thereby stressing the need for lawyers to adhere to
their principal duty of providing independent legal
advice and supporting a robust legal defence even
for clients allegedly engaged in conduct that violates
human rights.
Recognising that professional associations of lawyers
have a vital role to play in upholding professional
standards and ethics, protecting their members from
improper restrictions, and providing legal services to
all in need of them.
Recognising that neither the UNGPs nor the Practical
Guide are intended to override the professional
standards of any jurisdiction or to prescribe any of
the factors that lawyers may or may not consider as
independent professionals.
Recognising that all persons are entitled to call upon
the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect
their rights and to defend them.
In this context the IBA, after consultation with various
representatives of Associations, Societies and Members
at the 2013 Annual Conference in Boston, formed
the IBA Business and Human Rights Working Group
(Working Group), and that the Working Group, with
the assistance of the then IBA Legal Projects Team
(LPT), presented draft versions of the IBA Business
and Human Rights Guidance for Bar Associations
(Guidance for Bar Associations) and the IBA Business
and Human Rights Practical Guide for Business Lawyers
(Practical Guide) (at that stage as one document), at
the IBA Annual Conference in Tokyo in October 2014.

11
Appreciating further that during 2015 the Working
Group and the IBA Legal Policy and Research Unit
(IBA LPRU) (the former LPT) sought and received
comments from various IBA committees, as well as
from Associations, Societies and Members among
others, including three in-country consultations with
the collaboration of the Associations of Spain, Costa
Rica and Namibia, and that based the consultations
and comments received have revised the document,
and finalised the Guidance for Bar Associations.
Noting the IBA Council approved the Guidance for
Bar Associations at the IBA’s Annual Conference
in Vienna on 8 October 2015 and reflecting on the
existing IBA guidance documents, such as the IBA
International Principles on Conduct for the Legal
Profession approved on 28 May 2011.
Noting further that in approving the Guidance for Bar
Associations, the IBA Council agreed to undertake
further work on the Practical Guide with a view to it
being presented to the Council for approval at its mid-
year meeting in Barcelona in May 2016.
Noting that since the IBA Council approved the
Guidance for Bar Associations, final rounds of
consultations were undertaken, and the IBA LPRU
held meetings and discussions with the BIC’s Closed
Policy Committee and the Working Group, the parties
then agreed the final language for the Practical Guide
for Business Lawyers.
Noting that the Working Group, in collaboration with
the IBA LPRU, is preparing a Reference Annex, which,
consistent with the principles of the Practical Guide,
will provide further detail and information on the
various provisions of the Practical Guide and which
will remain as a living document for future reference
and assistance for legal professionals. The Reference
Annex is not intended to become an IBA Policy; as
such, it was neither reviewed nor commented by the
Policy Committee and is therefore not submitted to
the Council for approval,

12
Now therefore resolves that:
1. The Council approves the Practical Guide for
Business Lawyers; and
2. The Council thanks the Working Group and the
IBA LPRU for their excellent collaboration with
the Closed Policy Committee on the production
of the Practical Guide for Business Lawyers.
3. The Council conﬁrms that, in line with the
provisions of the UN Basic Principles on the Role
of Lawyers as resolved by the UN General Assembly
in its ‘Human rights in the administration of
justice’ resolution of 18 December 1990 (Basic
Principles), nothing in the IBA Business and
Human Rights Guidance for Bar Associations or
in the IBA Practical Guide for Business Lawyers
shall be interpreted as reducing respect for the
fundamental human right of effective access
to legal services provided by an independent
legal profession to all in need of such services,
including that all lawyers should always be able to
fulﬁl their duties and responsibilities and enjoy the
guarantees provided for by the Basic Principles,
consistent with their legal and professional
responsibilities.
4. The Council understands that the Reference
Annex and any amendment thereof will be
published as a commentary to the Practical Guide
issued by the Working Group in collaboration
with the IBA LPRU (as its own position) and
shall be consistent with the general principles
contained in the Practical Guide, as approved on
28 May 2016 by the Council.

13
Introduction
In 2011, following six years of multi-stakeholder
consultations, research and pilot projects, the UN
Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the
UNGPs. As discussed in further detail in Section
2.4 below, the UNGPs do not have the force of
law and are not legally binding. But they have
enjoyed wide global uptake, and are regarded as
the global authoritative standard on business and
human rights. They are increasingly reﬂected in
public policy, in law and regulation, in commercial
agreements, in international standards that inﬂuence
business behaviour, in the advocacy of civil society
organisations, and in the policies and processes
of companies worldwide. There exist around the
world, at national and/or regional level, various
other human rights instruments, many of which
have the force of legally binding statutory or even
constitutional law. Compared to these the UNGPs do
not enjoy comparable binding force. There are also
other non-legally binding human rights instruments
that have a global reach. However, because the
UN Human Rights Council has unanimously
endorsed the UNGPs, it is therefore important and
appropriate for the IBA, as the global voice of the
legal profession, to draw attention to them and
explore their implications for lawyers.
The UNGPs are based on the three pillar ‘Protect,
Respect and Remedy’ Framework under which:
(1) States have a duty to protect against human
rights3
abuses by third parties, including business,
through appropriate policies, laws, regulation and
adjudication; (2) all business enterprises have a
responsibility to respect human rights, which means to
avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address
negative impacts with which they may be involved; and
(3) there is a need for access to effective remedy for
victims of business-related human rights abuses.
There is growing recognition that a strong
business case exists for respecting human rights
and that the management of risks, including

14
legal risks, increasingly means that lawyers, and
particularly business lawyers, need to take human
rights into account in their advice and services. The
UNGPs are relevant to many areas of business legal
practice, including but not limited to corporate
governance, reporting and disclosure, litigation
and dispute resolution, contracts and agreements,
land acquisition, development and use, resource
exploration and extraction, labour and employment,
tax, intellectual property, lobbying, bilateral treaty
negotiation, and arbitration. Indeed, the relevance
of the UNGPs to such broad areas of legal practice
has led a number of prominent law firms to establish
business and human rights practice groups.
As a result, lawyers, both as in-house counsel and
as members of law firms, are increasingly asked to
help businesses understand what the responsibility
to respect human rights implies. In addition, the
UNGPs also have implications for the management of
law firms as business enterprises and which operate
within a business environment, with their own supply
chains and employment practices, which will vary
according to the size, complexity and organisation
of the firm.

15
1 Purpose of this
Practical Guide
The Practical Guide is intended to provide an
accessible summary of a complex and nuanced
subject by assisting internal and external lawyers who
are involved in advising businesses globally through:
• Explaining the background and core content of
the UNGPs, which are also incorporated into other
relevant human rights and responsible business
practice standards and approaches, such as the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,
the IFC Performance Standards, ISO 26000 and
supports the UN Global Compact responsible
business principles (Section 2, infra);
• Exploring how the UNGPs may be relevant to the
advice and other services they – both in-house
and external lawyers – provide to business clients
(Section 3, infra);
• Explaining the implications of the UNGPs for the
clients’ right of access to, and representation by,
independent legal counsel (Section 4, infra);
• Exploring the opportunities and challenges
that the UNGPs present for lawyers who advise
businesses, including both internal and external
legal counsel (Sections 5 and 6, infra).

16
2 The UN Guiding
Principles on
Business and Human
Rights
This section explains the background of the UNGPs,
some of their key concepts, and their legal status.
2.1 What is the background of the UNGPs?
When human rights were first formally articulated in
international declarations and conventions, they were
primarily addressed to States. Business, however, also
has an important role in ensuring human rights are
respected. For example, a range of high-profile cases
in recent decades show that the negative impacts of
business can extend far beyond labour rights and non-
discrimination to encompass for example abuses of
local communities by security contractors at mining
sites, performing construction and maintenance on a
detention camp where inmates were allegedly subject
to inhumane treatment, and the sometimes severe
mistreatment of migrant workers in global supply
chains spanning multiple sectors.
In 2005, Harvard Kennedy School Professor John
Ruggie was appointed as Special Representative
to the Secretary General on Business and Human
Rights (SRSG) to break a deadlock at the UN over
the respective roles and responsibilities of States
and businesses with respect to business impacts
on human rights. The UN Human Rights Council
unanimously endorsed his Guiding Principles in 2011,
which marked the first time that the Council or its
predecessor had addressed the subject of business and
human rights and the first time that a UN body had
adopted normative language that States themselves
did not negotiate.
The UNGPs resulted from a highly inclusive,
incremental consultative process, which included six
years of nearly 50 multi-stakeholder consultations,

17
research and pilot projects, culminating in a
remarkable consensus of States, businesses and civil
society. As a result of this consensus, the uptake of the
UNGPs has been swift and widespread, compared to
other complex and contested areas, such as climate
change. Examples of this uptake include: the 2013
revisions to the UK Companies Act requiring listed
companies to report on human rights issues where
necessary to understand the company’s business,
the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act, and the European
Parliament’s 2014 directive requiring 6,000 large
public enterprises to report on their human rights
performance); government policy developments
(including the Recommendations of the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe on human
rights and business in 2016, the issuance of National
Action Plans on business and human rights, and
endorsementoftheUNGPsbytheG7Leadersin2015),
international standard setting bodies (such as the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and
the International Organization for Standardization’s
corporate social responsibility standard (ISO 26000);
public commitments by businesses to abide by the
UNGPs and their increasing appearance as a standard
in commercial and ﬁnancial transactions; and
increasing judicial and public advocacy by civil society.
2.1 What are the United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights
(UNGPs)?
The UNGPs rest on three interdependent pillars and
consist of 31 principles and commentary. They have
been translated into all ofﬁcial UN languages.

18
I. State Duty to
Protect Human
Rights
II. Corporate
Responsibility to
Respect Human
Rights
III. Need for
Greater Access
to Remedy
• State duty to
protect against
business related
human rights
abuse
• Through
laws, policy,
regulation, and
adjudication
• Based on
existing legal
obligations
under
international law
• Business should
avoid negative
human rights
impacts and
address those
with which they
are involved
• Recognises that
that a business
may be involved
with impacts
where:
– It causes or
contribute to
them, or
– Its operations,
products,
or services
are directly
linked to
them through
a business
relationship
• Expects that
business will:
– Adopt a high
level human
rights policy
commitment
– Develop and
implement
human rights
due diligence
– Have processes
in place to
remediate
harm that
business
causes or
contributes to
• States should
take appropriate
steps to provide
access to
effective
remedy for
human rights
abuse
• Businesses
should use
effective
operational-
level grievance
mechanisms
– To identify
and address
grievances
early
– To act as a
feedback loop
• Businesses
should provide
for and/or
cooperate in
legitimate
processes
to remedy
adverse
impacts that
they identify
that they have
caused or
contributed to

19
2.3 Understanding some key concepts used in
the UNGPs
2.3.1 What is a human rights policy commitment?
A human rights policy commitment is a high-level,
public statement that the business will respect human
rights. The commitment should serve as a critical
source of the business’s leverage – that is, its ability to
influence others to respect human rights – because it
sets a clear expectation for its business relationships,
including entities in its supply chain, contractors, and
customers. In order to be effective, a policy statement
should be based on engagement with key stakeholders
and embedded throughout the business through
appropriate governance, internal controls, processes,
incentives and training.
2.3.2 What is human rights due diligence?
Under the UNGPs, it is not sufficient for a business
simply to declare that it respects human rights, either
by promulgating a commitment to do so or agreeing
to do so in a contractual undertaking. The business is
instead expected to take active steps to follow through
on this commitment. Human rights due diligence is
therefore an ongoing process to enable businesses to
‘know and show’ that they are addressing their human
rights impacts through assessing impacts, taking
integrated action in response to identified impacts,
and tracking and monitoring, and communicating
the company’s efforts to address its human rights
impacts. As a result, the process enables business to
avoid being ‘named and shamed’ for not knowing
their human rights impacts and not taking steps to
avoid or mitigate them.
Human rights due diligence should take full
account of the perspective of the affected stakeholder
in assessing risks. However, there is increasing
evidence that in the mid- to long-term, the risks to the
company and to the stakeholder will tend to converge.

20
2.3.3 What are the different ways in which business
can be involved in an impact?
A business may cause, contribute, or be linked to a
human rights impact, as seen below:
Cause Contribute Linkage
Business actions
lead directly to an
impact; eg,
• A factory
exposes workers
to hazardous
chemicals
without
adequate
personal
protective
equipment
• A company
manufactures
and sells
inherently
dangerous
products that
are likely to
cause death or
serious personal
injury, without
providing
adequate
warning to users
about the risks
or appropriate
instructions on
how to use them
• A restaurant
practices routine
discrimination in
its treatment of
customers
Business
incentivises,
facilitates, or
enables third party
impact; eg,
• An internet
company
provides data
about users
of its services
to a repressive
government
that enables
the government
to track and
harass political
dissidents,
contrary to
international
human rights
standards
• An electronics
retail brand
changes product
requirements
for suppliers
repeatedly
and at the last
minute, without
adjusting
production
deadlines or
prices, pushing
suppliers to
breach labour
standards to
ensure that the
order is delivered
A business’s
operations,
products or
services are
directly linked
to an impact
even though
the business did
not cause or
contribute to that
impact; eg,
• Human rights
impacts occur
deep in a
company’s
supply chain,
notwithstanding
the business’s
robust efforts to
prevent them
• The use of
portable
ultrasound
machines by
doctors to
screen for
female foetuses,
facilitating
their abortion
in favour of
male children,
notwithstanding
prohibitions
by the
manufacturer on
such use

21
Cause Contribute Linkage
• A factory’s
wastewater
discharge is
the sole or
main source of
pollution of a
community’s
drinking water
• A food company
deliberately
targeting high-
sugar foods
and drinks at
children, with an
impact on levels
of child obesity
• One factory’s
wastewater
discharges, in
combination
with the
discharges
of other
companies,
cumulatively
pollute the
drinking water in
a community
• A bank providing
ﬁnancial loans
to an enterprise
for business
activities that, in
breach of agreed
standards, result
in the eviction of
communities
• A business
enters into a
joint venture
with another
company that
uses labor for
the joint venture
that is tainted
with human
trafﬁcking,
despite its
agreement and
commitment not
to do so
2.3.4 How should a business respond to an impact?
The proper response depends on the mode of
involvement; ie, whether the business caused,
contributed to, or is merely linked to the adverse
human rights impact, as set forth below:
If the
business…
Then the business should…
Caused the
harm
• Cease the action causing harm
• Remediate the harm
Contributed
to the harm
• Cease the action contributing to the harm
• Use or build leverage to mitigate the risk of
future harm
• Contribute to remediation of the harm
Is merely
linked to
the harm
• Use or build leverage to seek to mitigate
the risk of future harm
Note that the UNGPs do not expect businesses to
contribute to remedy when they are merely linked to
the harm (although they may do so for other reasons).

22
2.4 What is the legal status of the UNGPs?
The responsibility to respect human rights has its
roots in the universal expectation that business
enterprises should not harm the dignity of people.
However, they are not legally binding. ‘The Guiding
Principles do not constitute an international
instrument that can be ratified by States, nor do they
create new legal obligations. Instead, they clarify and
elaborate on the implications of relevant provisions of
existing international human rights standards, some
of which are legally binding on States, and provide
guidance on how to put them into operation. The
Guiding Principles refer to and derive from States’
existing obligations under international law. National
legislation will often exist or may be required to ensure
that these obligations are effectively implemented and
enforced. This, in turn, means that elements of the
Guiding Principles may be reflected in domestic law
regulating business activities.’4
Compliance by business with national law is a
bedrock requirement of the UNGPs. The UNGPs do
not override national law. However, where national law
does not adequately protect internationally recognised
human rights (for whatever reason), the UNGPs
stress that business should respect internationally
recognised human rights. Where national law is in
tension with internationally recognised human rights,
the UNGPs expect that a business should strive to
honour the principles of internationally recognised
human rights ‘to the greatest extent possible’ without
violating applicable laws. UNGP 23(b).
Although UNGPs were not intended to, and do not,
impose legal responsibilities on or create liabilities for
business by themselves, the responsibility to respect
does not exist in a law free zone. Much of its content
was already legally required before the UNGPs were
endorsed; that is, the domestic law of many States had
already required business to respect human rights in
numerous areas, such as antidiscrimination, workers’
rights, workplace and public health and safety, and
privacy. And as noted above, the content of the
UNGPs have in fact become increasingly reflected
in legislation and regulation, in commercial and
financial transactions and agreements, and in the
advocacy of civil society.

23
3 How are the UNGPs
relevant to specific
legal practice areas?
Lawyers have an important role to play in this context.
They are frequently asked to advise their business
clients to the extent that the UNGPs are incorporated
or reflected in public, commercial, and financial legal
requirements, or the client’s own internal policy and
governance framework. Where the UNGPs are not so
reflected or incorporated, lawyers can nevertheless act
as wise professional counsellors and enhance the value
of their services by providing appropriate human
rights context for their legal advice and services. The
law is not static, but is dynamic and evolving; what
is considered unethical and a reputation risk today
may well be unlawful tomorrow. Lawyers are uniquely
positioned to advise clients on this potential.
As noted earlier, there are numerous legal practice
areas in which legal advice and services can shape a
business client’s ability to respect human rights. Some
of them are as follows:
Practice Area Where legal advice and services are
relevant
1. Corporate
Governance and
Enterprise Risk
Management
Lawyers are typically asked to advise
companies on proper corporate
governance and risk management, which
increasingly includes human rights issues.
Such lawyers should understand the
implications of the UNGPs, and be
prepared to advise companies on
the design and implementation of
internal compliance related controls
and compliance and risk management
systems to manage their human rights
risks.

24
relevant
2. Reporting and
disclosure
Public disclosure laws and regulations
are increasingly and specifically requiring
disclosure of a company’s human rights
policies, processes and performance,
as a result consumers and civil society
organisations for accurate information
on companies’ social and environmental
impacts.
This can be seen in regulatory and
stock exchange developments requiring
enhanced sustainability reporting more
generally (eg, in Brazil, Indonesia,
Singapore, South Africa and Thailand)
and in developments requiring attention
to human rights specifically (notably in
the European Union, the UK, France,
Denmark, India, and the US).
Beyond the specific legal obligations,
the expectations of stakeholders for
increased company transparency
concerning their approach to and
management of human rights related
issues are increasing.
Therefore, lawyers who advise companies
on reporting and disclosure should be
aware of and understand the evolving
law requiring greater transparency on
human rights performance, and the
trends on human rights reporting that
are developing worldwide.

25
relevant
3. Disputes Lawyers who advise and represent
companies in the management and
resolution of disputes should be aware
of the likelihood of increased litigation
worldwide arising from business
involvement in human rights issues, and
the availability of non-judicial grievance
mechanisms to assist with remedying
them.
For example, Government enforcement
action and victim claims against
companies for alleged involvement in
human rights abuses are increasingly
occurring in different jurisdictions.
And the Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe, in its 2016
recommendations on business and
human rights, has elaborated on the
need for member countries to address
gaps in providing access to remedy for
human rights violations by business
enterprises.
The UNGPs are also inﬂuencing the
development of non-judicial dispute
resolution processes. For example,
National Contact Points (NCPs) under
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises are used increasingly to
resolve human rights complaints against
multinational companies.
Finally, lawyers can play a key role in
developing and shaping, and counseling
clients on the use of, operational level
grievance mechanisms, and other non-
judicial dispute resolution processes, in
order to resolve human rights disputes
without the expense, uncertainty, and
polarising characteristics of judicial
litigation.

26
relevant
4. Contracts and
agreements
Lawyers who advise companies on a
wide variety of corporate and commercial
contracts – such as, host state investment
agreements, joint venture agreements,
merger and acquisition agreements,
supply chain agreements – should be
aware of and understand how those
contracts can be structured to help
prevent and mitigate human rights harm.
The right contractual terms can create
strong incentives for other parties to
respect human rights, where the other
party has the capacity to do so.
Conversely, contract terms that increase
human rights risks or constrain the
ability of the other party to address
such risks, jeopardise the business’s own
responsibility to respect human rights.
However, the insertion of boilerplate
human rights provisions into contracts,
which the parties do not understand and
regard as formality, will likely not lead by
themselves to improved human rights
performance.
5. Development
of and
participation in
human rights
standards
Lawyers who advise companies on
the development, participation, and
implementation of global, industry
and issue speciﬁc standards should be
aware of how such standards may be
relevant to and can enhance a company‘s
human rights due diligence and should
encourage clients to participate in their
development.
Such standards have been and will
continue to be a critical way to drive
forwards meaningful implementation
of the responsibility to respect human
rights, particularly for a company’s most
pressing human rights risks.

27
4 What are the
implications of
the UNGPs for
law firms and for
the independent
responsibilities of
lawyers?
Under Guiding Principle 14, the responsibility to
respecthumanrightsappliestoallbusinessenterprises,
‘regardless of their size, sector, operational context,
ownership, and structure. Nevertheless, the scale and
complexity of the means through which enterprises
meet that responsibility may vary according to these
factors and with the severity of the enterprise’s adverse
human rights impacts.’ However, since law firms are
unique professional organisations whose lawyers
render legal services, care must be taken not to inhibit
the exercise of their professional responsibilities.
Whether they work in law firms, corporate law
departments, or elsewhere, lawyers have specific
and legally binding professional responsibilities and
obligations, including the duty of independence.
The UNGPs do not abridge this duty, which includes
the duty to decide, within the limits of the law, how
to act in their client’s best interests, independently
of expectations and pressures that are external to
the lawyer–client relationship, subject of course to
adherence by the lawyers with their professional and
legal responsibilities.
Compliance with the law, including the right of
access to such independent legal counsel, are critical
to ensure the attainment of broader public interest
objectives of the rule of law and the administration
of justice, and to enable companies to respect human
rights. The UNGPs were not intended to override or

28
supplement legal professional codes of conduct, given
the critical role that lawyers play in upholding the rule
oflawandsupportingtheadministrationofjustice.Nor
were they intended to create extrinsic expectations for
a lawyer’s conduct, which are grounded in the scope
of services for which the lawyer has retained the client,
the relevant laws, and professional standards that
govern a lawyer’s conduct.
A universal dimension of independence is, in
particular, freedom from interference by the State.
This is reflected in Principle 18 of UN’s 1990 Basic
Principles on the Role of Lawyers (‘Basic Principles’),
which provides that ‘Lawyers shall not be identified
with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result
of discharging their function.’ The UN adopted
the Basic Principles in its Eighth Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders,
whose enumerated purposes included ensuring that
all persons have effective access to legal services
provided by an independent legal profession in order
to protect to their human rights, and that lawyers be
protected from persecution and improper restrictions
in providing such services. UN Basic Principle 18 helps
to fulfil this purpose by providing that lawyers should
not be identified with their clients or their clients’
causes. This is echoed in the IBA’s 2011 International
Principles on Conduct for the legal profession (‘IBA
International Principles’), in the Commentary at
section 1.2.
Accordingly, the UNGPs do not impinge upon a
client’s right to assert a robust legal defence to claims
that it has engaged in conduct that violates human
rights, to seek judicial determination of human
rights issues, and to seek legal advice on them. This
right cannot be abridged even if the client is highly
unpopular.
The IBA International Principles also note that while
‘the principles of independence of the lawyer and of
the legal profession are undisputed in all jurisdictions
adhering to, and striving for, the improvement
of the Rule of Law, the respective regulatory and
organisational frameworks vary significantly from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction’ (Commentary, Section
1.3). This variation applies to the factors that lawyers
may be permitted or encouraged to consider in

29
providing independent advice, including non-legal
contextual factors such as the human rights impacts of
the client’s activities as relevant to the legal services. In
any event, neither the UNGPs nor the Practical Guide
are intended to override or add to the professional
standards of any jurisdiction or to prescribe any
of the factors that they may or may not consider as
independent professionals. However, the UNGPs
may nevertheless be highly relevant to the advice or
services to be rendered the client: ie, where they are
within the agreed scope of services (or mandate) to
be provided (which may include a range of services,
from very specific to highly general); where they are
reflected or incorporated in relevant laws, or where
they are permitted or encouraged to be considered
by lawyers in their independent judgement under
applicable professional standards of conduct.
Therefore, subject to a lawyer’s professional and
legal responsibilities, nothing in the UNGPs or in
this Practical Guide should be read: (1) to restrict
the right of effective access by clients to legal services
provided by independent lawyers; (2) to restrict the
obligation of lawyers to provide independent services
to their clients (without being identified with their
client or client’s causes, or deemed complicit in
their clients’ activities, as contemplated by UN Basic
Principle 18); (3) to restrict the representation of
clients who may be highly unpopular (including
those who have been accused of engaging in human
rights harm), (4) to restrict the rights of clients to
secure a robust defence to such claims or to seek
judicial determination of human rights related
issues; (5) to restrict the rights of clients to seek, and
lawyers to provide, independent legal advice with
respect to human rights issues or matters that have
potential impacts on human rights; or (6) to define
the factors that lawyers must, should, or are expected
to, consider in their independent judgement, when
providing advice or services to a client.

30
5 What opportunities
do the UNGPs
present for business
lawyers?
Familiarity with the UNGPs presents significant
opportunities for all lawyers who advise business, both
for internal and external counsel.
5.1 Internal counsel
Internal General Counsels have become the go-to
counselors for the CEO and the board on responsible
business practices and principles, including global
soft law standards such as the UNGPs, and the
laws, regulations, transactions and contracts that
incorporate or reflect them. Questions about human
rights land on the desks of company counsel with
increasing frequency in conjunction with other
colleagues in other functions. In a number of
companies, the General Counsel’s office leads on
human rights. And even where they do not lead,
they play a critical role in helping to manage the
client’s strategic and reputation risks, which include
human rights risks. In order to serve their clients’
interests, General Counsel and other internal counsel
should become familiar with the UNGPs and their
implications for their client’s business and the legal
advice and services that their client’s business receives
from its lawyers.

31
5.2 External law firms
As noted above, businesses are increasingly expecting
their preferred external counsel to act as partners in
the identification or management of human rights
risks, and broader reputation-based risks. Moreover,
many businesses are increasingly expecting that
those who participate in their supply chain, including
law firms, are able to show that they respect human
rights. Therefore, awareness of the implications of
UNGPs for legal practice will enable external law
firms to respond more effectively to the demands of
their business and government clients and in a way
that is aligned with and supports their obligations and
interests concerning respecting human rights.

32
6 What particular
issues do the UNGPs
present for law
firms?
The corporate responsibility to respect human rights
‘applies to all enterprises, regardless of their size,
sector, operational context, ownership and context’
(UNGP 14). However, ‘when it comes to means
for implementation’ of this responsibility, ‘one
size does not fit all’ (UNGP Introduction, para 15).
Application of the responsibility to respect to law
firms is straightforward with respect to aspects of its
business other than the provision of legal services;
eg, a firm’s employment practices and its supply chain.
However, its application to the firm’s provision of legal
services by licensed legal professionals must respect
their obligation to provide independent services for
all of the reasons discussed in Section 4 above. Those
professional obligations do not change by virtue of
who employs them.
Nevertheless, firms may be increasingly asked by
business clients to demonstrate that they respect human
rights and provide advice or be aware of human rights
issues that may be implicated by their legal services.
A law firm can demonstrate its respect for human
rights in the provision of legal services by providing
legal services in accordance with its professional and
legal obligations. However, if it does not know, or has
not considered, the human rights implications of those
services, this may be problematic for the client, and
may not serve its best interests. As a result, law firms
should be prepared to advise their clients in a way that
does not restrict the professional obligations of their
lawyers, or the unique requirements of the jurisdictions
in which they practise.

33
In addition to the challenges described above that
all business lawyers face, both inside and outside, law
firms face unique challenges, including the following:
• Law firms may be generally more insulated
from the human rights concerns of their clients
compared to their in-house colleagues, and
therefore may be less familiar with human rights
issues.
• The flat organisational structure of most law
firms, where lawyers practice as independent
professionals, may make it more difficult for
the firm to embed human rights policies and
processes, and share learning across different
practice areas (or the firm more generally) and
client experience.
These challenges are capable of being progressively
addressed, and can be addressed through appropriate
policies, training, education, incentives, policies, and
management processes and governance, as discussed
below.
6.1 What should law firms and lawyers think
about when implementing or advising on the
UNGPs?
Here is a summary of some of the things to think
about in implementing the UNGPs for law firms and
lawyers, bearing in mind Section 4 above:

34
UNGP
Expectation
Things to think about
1. Human
Rights Policy
Commitment
• If backed by evidence, such a policy
commitment should help the firm to
demonstrate that it is functionally in
alignment with client supplier codes
on human rights.
• Consider explaining how this
commitment aligns with the
responsibility of the lawyer to act
as wise professional counsellor, and
advise on the bigger picture.
• Engage in a consultative process
with key stakeholders, both internal
and external, to determine the firm’s
potential human rights impacts.
• Test the commitment’s language
internally in order to ensure adequate
understanding and buy in, before
making it public.
• Provide sufficient resources and
incentives to enable lawyers to share
experiences across practice groups,
in order to identify best practices
and address potential conflicts and
dilemmas.
• Consider using pro bono
opportunities to build business and
human rights capacity.

35
UNGP
Expectation
2. Assessing
human rights
impacts
• Focus on all potential human
rights impacts, including the firm’s
employment practices, supply chain,
and the legal advice and services it
renders.
• Focus on the risks that the subject
of the specific legal advice or service
poses to human rights, not on the
company’s overall human rights track
record.
• Consider the stakeholders who
may be affected, the severity of the
impact, and the likelihood of the
impact.
• Where the client is unable or
unwilling to provide sufficient
information, make reasonable
assumptions based on what the firm
knows, what it can learn from trusted
and knowledgeable third parties
and experts, and what is publicly
available.
• Monitor potential risk throughout
the life of the retention, in order to
address changing circumstances.
• For larger firms, consider integrating
impact assessment into existing pre-
engagement screening processes.
• Smaller firms will likely require
much less elaborate risk assessment
processes than larger ones.
3. Integrating
and acting upon
involvement in
human rights
impacts, actual
and potential
• The UNGPs themselves impose no
legal liability on business enterprises
for their involvement in human rights
impacts. Whether a law firm has
legal or professional liability for any
of its activities is a matter for the
courts, legislatures and bar regulatory
agencies to decide.
• Businesses enterprises, including
law firms, have no responsibility to
address human rights impacts that
they did not cause, contribute to, or
are directly linked to by their services.

36
UNGP
Expectation
4. Increasing a
firm’s ability to
influence the
client to avoid or
mitigate human
rights impacts.
A law firm’s main ability to influence
a client to avoid or mitigate human
rights impacts not explicitly addressed
by hard law may depend largely on
whether the client sees the lawyer
as a wise professional counselor or
trusted advisor, a status which is not
automatically granted. Listed below
are a number of steps that can be
considered to increase the firm’s ability
to be seen as such a counselor on
business and human rights issues:
• Develop internal firm capacity on
business and human rights.
• Identify problems that other
companies have faced when they
ignored human rights issues in similar
situations.
• Offer to provide capacity building to
clients.
• Provide advice on business and
human rights to clients on a pro bono
basis,
• Issue client briefings and alerts.
• Participate in multi-stakeholder
dialogues or forums, including the
development of issue and industry
specific standards.
• Support the efforts of bar associations
to provide training and guidance.
5. Withdrawing
from the client
relationship if the
client persists in
infringing upon
human rights,
notwithstanding
the firm’s advice
• Withdrawal is a last resort, and may
not be legally permitted in any event
• Staying in the relationship and
continuing to try to persuade the
client to prevent and mitigate human
rights impacts may serve the purposes
of the UNGPs better than withdrawal.

37
UNGP
Expectation
6. Tracking • Review how the firm has identified
and responded to human rights issues
related to its core business, as part of
a broader review process.
• Consider key moments in a client
relationship where additional review
would be necessary.
6. Communicating • Due to attorney client confidentiality
concerns, the purposes of the UNGPs
are better served if the firm focuses
on whether the client is prepared
to communicate its approach on
human rights where appropriate and
necessary.
• Although a firm may not disclose
the specifics of its legal services, it
should be able to provide anonymised
and aggregated information in
order to explain generally how it is
implementing its commitment to
respect human rights.
7. Remediation • With respect to the legal services and
advice it renders, the provision of
remedy by a law firm for an adverse
human rights impact by a client that
the firm contributed to is highly
problematic.
• Other than in cases of illegal or
unprofessional conduct by the firm
resulting in a human rights violation
arising from its legal services and
advice, the purposes of the UNGPs
are better served by making the
business case to the client to provide
or cooperate in legitimate processes
to remedy human rights impacts that
the client caused or contributed to.
• In any event, a business enterprise
has no responsibility to provide
remedy with respect to a human
rights impact that it neither caused
nor contributed to.

38
6.2 Liability insurance
Lawyers may ﬁnd themselves providing advice or being
asked to advise on UNGPs as they may be relevant to
legal services, including the interrelationships with
other legal instruments. As noted above, neither the
UNGPs nor this Practical Guide are intended to alter
the legal obligations or liabilities of companies or
of the lawyers who advise them. However, providing
incorrect legal advice or services to clients may result
in claims by clients against their lawyers. This could
encompass claims arising from advice or services
regarding UNGPs or their implementation. In certain
insurance markets, claims arising from advice on
such matters may not be covered. Therefore, before
advising on the UNGPs, the lawyer should ascertain
whether such legal advice – because of their nature
as soft law – is covered by the ﬁrm’s professional
liability insurance. In some countries, or under some
polices, third party liability insurance coverage may be
restricted to legal work relating to hard law.

39
7 Conclusion
The UNGPs although not legally binding, are an
authoritative global standard on business and human
rights that is increasingly relevant to legal practice.
There is a growing case for law firms and lawyers to
take human rights into account in their activities.
Compliance with the law is a bedrock requirement
of the corporate responsibility to respect human
rights under the UNGPs, but it applies even where
the law is absent, unenforced, or in tension with
internationally recognised human rights. Even
though the UNGPs themselves do not and cannot
impose legal responsibilities on business, the UNGPs
are relevant to many legal practice areas. The UNGPs
stress that business should respect internationally
recognised human rights even when national laws do
not adequately protect them.
The UNGPs have implications for the management
of law firms as business organisations. As regards to
the legal services rendered by the lawyers in their
firms, the UNGPs were not intended to override
legal professional codes of conduct, given the critical
role that lawyers play in upholding the rule of law
and supporting the administration of justice, which
serves as a foundation for the corporate responsibility
to respect human rights. Access to the law and the
provision of legal services by independent counsel are
of paramount importance to promote the rule of law
and the administration of justice, which are central to
the UNGPs.
Thus, the UNGPs require neither lawyers nor law
firms to implement them in a manner that restricts
the right of access to legal counsel for independent
advice and services. They do not infringe upon the
right of businesses to undertake, and the obligation
of legal counsel to provide, a robust defence to
allegations that the business engaged in conduct that
violates human rights, to seek judicial determination
of human rights issues, and to provide legal advice,
even where the issue is highly controversial.

40
Nevertheless, the UNGPs do have a role to play
in supporting the role of lawyers to provide their
independent legal advice and services in a manner
that takes account of specific human rights impacts
and the client’s best interests.
The UNGPs present significant opportunities
for lawyers who advise business, both internal and
external counsel, based on the increasing demand for
such advise by clients. They also present challenges,
including for law firms in their capacity as business
enterprises with their own responsibility to respect
human rights both in the management of the firm as
a business and in the legal services provided to clients.
The Practical Guide has analysed these
opportunities and challenges, and suggested ways
to move forward, consistent with the independence
of the legal profession as well as the professional
responsibilities of lawyers to uphold the rule of law;
this includes human rights in general and specifically,
the human right of access to legal services provided by
an independent legal profession.

41
Notes
1 IBA Business and Human Rights Guidance for Bar Associations,
www.ibanet.org/Legal_Projects_Team/Business_and_Hu-
man_Rights_for_the_Legal_Profession.aspx.
2 The UNGPs can be downloaded in all official UN languages
at www.ohchr.org/EN/PublicationsResources/Pages/Refer-
enceMaterial.aspx. There are 31 Guiding Principles, each of
which is followed by an official commentary, which clarifies its
meaning and implications.
3 The UNGPs refer to ‘internationally recognized human
rights’, an authoritative list of which is contained in the
International Bill of Human Rights (consisting of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the main instru-
ments through which it has been codified: the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), together
with the principles concerning fundamental rights in the
eight ILO core conventions as set out in the Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
4 Frequently Asked Questions about the Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights, (2014), UN Office of the High Commis-
sioner of on Human Rights, p 8.

IBA_Practical_Guide_(June 2016)

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to IBA_Practical_Guide_(June 2016) (20)

IBA_Practical_Guide_(June 2016)