Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 78

DECLARATION

I, Mutale Mukuka, do hereby declare that this report is my own unaided work. All citations,
references and borrowed ideas have been duly acknowledged. This report has not been presented
for a degree at this or any other university.

Signature of Student:..
Date:.

Supervisors Name:..
Signature:.
Date:.

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my entire family.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would, first and foremost, like to thank God the Almighty for seeing me through four years of
university for it is my unwavering belief that this would not have been possible without Him.
May His goodness and mercy continue to follow me all the days of my life.
My humble gratitude is also extended to my supervisor, Mr Simson Mwale, for his patience in
reading through the paper, constructive criticism, and guidance throughout the whole process.
Also, I would like to thank all the lecturers who took me in a course at one point or another for
their invaluable contribution to my intellectual growth and development for at the end of the day,
I am the sum of their collective efforts. Thank you to all my classmates and friends as well for
making my learning experience an interesting one and for their cooperation in various ways.
I thank my family for their love and support in every way, shape, and form. I thank my Mother,
particularly, for her prayers, her encouragement, her guidance and for believing in me even when
I was ready to write myself off.
Last but not least, I would like to thank Management at Chibuluma Mines for granting me
permission to conduct research at the mine.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Due diligence - This concept describes the steps a company must take to identify, prevent,
mitigate and address adverse human rights impacts. The process should include assessing actual
and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon findings, tracking responses, and
communicating how impacts are addressed. The due diligence process should cover adverse
human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own
activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business
relationships.
Grievance mechanism - A grievance mechanism is non-judicial and addresses disputes or
grievances that arise between individuals or groups and an enterprise about a human rights
impact that the enterprise has on them. It can be used to seek remediation. According to the UN,
a minimum grievance mechanism must be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, rightscompatible and transparent in order to be effective.
Human rights impact - An adverse human rights impact occurs when an action of an enterprise
removes or reduces the ability of an individual to enjoy his or her human rights. An actual
human rights impact is an adverse impact that has already occurred or is occurring, whereas a
potential human rights impact is an adverse impact that may occur but has not yet done so.
Human rights policy commitment - A policy commitment is a high-level and public statement
by an enterprise to set out its dedication to meet its responsibility to respect human rights. It
translates this commitment into a clear, overarching policy that determines particular actions.
Such a policy forms the first essential step towards embedding respect for human rights into the
values of an enterprise.
Mitigation - Mitigation of human rights impacts refers to actions taken to prevent or reduce its
extent, in which case remaining impact requires remediation.

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises - Principles and standards for responsible
business conduct for multinational corporations on topics such as human rights, employment,
environment and taxation set by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Remediation - Process or act of providing remedy to victims of an adverse human rights impact
to counteract, or make good, a specific adverse impact. This remediation can consist of
apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial and non-financial compensation and punitive
sanctions (whether criminal or administrative, such as fines) as well as the prevention of harm
through, for example, guarantees of non-repetition or injunctions.
United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - The UNGPs
are also referred to as Ruggie Principles, after Special Representative John Ruggie who designed
the principles. The UNGPs are the first framework on corporate human rights responsibility
endorsed by the UN after unanimous approval of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The
framework contains three pillars: the state duty to protect, the corporate social responsibility to
respect human rights, and access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
DECLARATION.............................................................................................................................1
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................3
DEFINITION OF TERMS..............................................................................................................4
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................5
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................8
ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................................9
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 1..................................................................................................................................11
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.....................................................11
1.0. Introduction.............................................................................................................................11
1.1. Historical Background on Business and Human Rights.........................................................12
1.2. Statement of the Problem........................................................................................................19
1.3. Research Objectives................................................................................................................19
1.4. Research Questions.................................................................................................................20
1.5. Scope of the Study..................................................................................................................20
1.6. Significance of the Study........................................................................................................20
1.7. Organization of the Paper.......................................................................................................21
CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................................22
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK..............................................22
2.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................22
2.1 Contextualization of Human Rights........................................................................................22
2.2 The Corporate Responsibility to Promote and Protect Human Rights....................................23
2.3 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Sub-Saharan
Africa.............................................................................................................................................38
2.4 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Zambia.........43
2.5 A Focus on some of the Rights Business Enterprises are expected to Respect.......................44
2.6 Theoretical Framework............................................................................................................47

2.7. Summary.................................................................................................................................48
CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................49
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................49
3.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................49
3.1 Research Design......................................................................................................................49
3.2. Target Population....................................................................................................................49
3.3. Sample Selection....................................................................................................................50
3.4 Sampling Design......................................................................................................................50
3.5 Ethical Considerations.............................................................................................................51
3.6 Data Collection Methods.........................................................................................................51
3.7 Research Instruments...............................................................................................................52
3.8 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................52
3.9 Reliability and Validity of Data...............................................................................................53
3.10 Limitations of the study.........................................................................................................53
3.11. Summary...............................................................................................................................53
CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................54
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS...................................................54
4.0. Introduction.............................................................................................................................54
4.1. Presentation of Findings.........................................................................................................54
4.2.

Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................................60

4.6. Summary.................................................................................................................................62
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................64
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................65
5.0. Introduction.............................................................................................................................65
5.1. The Research Problem............................................................................................................65
5.3. Main Findings.........................................................................................................................66
5.4. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................66
5.5. Recommendations...................................................................................................................67
5.6. Areas For Future Research......................................................................................................68
5.7. Summary.................................................................................................................................68
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................69

APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................72

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.0

Salary Scales of Junior Staff at Chibuluma Mines

Page Number
59

ABBREVIATIONS
CSR

: Corporate Social Responsibility

HRIA : Human Rights Impact Assessments


IFC

: International Finance Corporation

ILO

: International Labour Organization

NGOs

: Non-governmental Organizations

UN

: United Nations

OHCHR : Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNHRC : United Nations Human Rights Council
UNGPs

: United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

OECD

: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

MCM

: Mopani Copper Mines

ABSTRACT
This paper is based on an assessment of the impact of the business activities of Chibuluma Mines
Plc on the rights of its employees. The assessment was conducted in Chibuluma the town where
the mine site is located. Contemporary society requires that business enterprises conduct their
business activities with respect for the human rights of all stakeholders and most especially their
employees. This assessment, in view of this, was preoccupied with establishing how the mining
firm as a business enterprise impacts the rights of its employees either positively or negatively by
establishing, first and foremost, if the mining firm espouses its corporate responsibility to
promote and protect the rights of the employees, the nature of the human rights impacts (whether
positive or negative, or both), and what processes exist to enable remediation when a human
rights impact has occurred. The study further suggested ways through which potential and actual
adverse human rights impacts can be identified, prevented, or mitigated.
The study employed a qualitative research design and was thus largely descriptive. Data was
mainly collected through in-depth interviews with Management, permanent and contractual
employees, and members of the Trade Union. Non-probability sampling techniques which
included purposive, snowball and convenience sampling were used to determine the sample size
of the respondents. Thematic analysis was utilized as a method for data analysis.
The study found that the mining firm has in place processes to enable remediation when an
adverse human rights impact has occurred but found the question of whether the mining firm
espouses its corporate responsibility to respect the rights of its employees to be inconclusive.
This is because while there was no evidence of human rights violations on the rights of the
permanent employees, the findings were indicative of a clear violation of the rights of the
contractual employees. However, one would argue that these violations are not the responsibility
of the mine itself but rather the responsibility of the contractors engaged by the mine as they are
ideally responsible for the contractual employees. In a strict sense, the mining firm should be
held responsible for these violations by virtue of its business relationships with the contractors.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.0. Introduction
This chapter introduces the study by briefly exploring the relationship that exists between
business and human rights as well as gives a historical background on the topic of business and
human rights. The chapter also highlights the problem statement, research questions and
objectives, scope and significance of the study, and outlines the organization of the paper.
In Zambia and indeed many other countries, businesses play a significant role in the
national economy (Business and Human Rights Initiative, 2012). At the same time however,
many stakeholders have expressed concern about the potential negative impacts from these
business activities on local communities and particularly the rights of employees given the
exploitative nature of the capitalist regime. In the last several years, there has been a growing
global consensus around business responsibilities with respect to human rights impacts embodied
by the global convergence around the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
(UNGPs) also known as the Ruggie Framework. The UNGPs create a clear set of expectations
on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The responsibility to respect human
rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate.
It exists independently of States abilities or willingness to fulfill their own human rights
obligations, and does not diminish those obligations (Business and Human Rights Initiative,
2012). Further, this responsibility exists over and above compliance with national laws and
regulations protecting human rights. Addressing adverse human rights impacts requires taking
adequate measures for their prevention, mitigation, and where appropriate remediation. Business
enterprises may undertake other commitments or activities to support and promote human rights,
which may contribute to the enjoyment of rights. Suffice to say this does not automatically offset
a failure to respect human rights throughout their operations (Business and Human Rights
Initiative, 2012).
The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally
recognized human rights understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill
of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International

Labour Organizations Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work. More


comprehensively and for the purpose of this study, these rights could be itemized as follows;

Everyone, without discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his

interests.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring
for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and

supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.


Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective

bargaining.
Elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour.
Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection
against unemployment.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

1.1. Historical Background on Business and Human Rights


The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the Universal Declaration) was an
aspirational document directed at Member States of the United Nations (Goldstone, 2013). The
Universal Declaration was not binding on any state as a matter of international law. However, its
prescient provisions were instrumental in forging later international conventions that provide the
basis upon which governments have become obliged to respect and protect the fundamental
human rights of their citizens (Goldstone, 2013). Together with international humanitarian law,
international human rights law has become a permanent feature on the radar screens of
governments and international organizations. Domestic and international non-governmental
human rights organizations have played a major role in naming and shaming those regimes that
unfortunately still fail to protect the fundamental rights of their own citizens (Goldstone, 2013).
This role has now been appropriately extended to commercial enterprises. The activities of
transnational corporations have grown exponentially in recent years. The budgets of some of
them exceed those of some members of the United Nations. They employ millions of people in
many countries. It is hardly surprising that the conditions of those employees, and the impact of

corporate activities on local communities and other stakeholders, have attracted the attention of
both governmental and non-governmental actors (Goldstone, 2013). The United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Guiding Principles), adopted by consensus by the
United Nations Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, acknowledges the growing significance
of corporations on the global economy by encouraging businesses to respect human rights and
provide access to remedies for human rights impacts (Goldstone, 2013).
The modern international human rights framework was created by governments, for
governments. Its foundational document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was
created in the wake of World War II to articulate a set of rights and freedoms that states would
commit to protecting and fulfilling (Kiobel, 2013). But business has grown in scale and scope
since the Universal Declaration was created in 1948. While companies have delivered
innovations and efficiencies that have dramatically raised standards of living and lifted millions
of people out of poverty, they have also caused and contributed to human rights abuses around
the world. Consequently, there have been a number of initiatives to develop codes of conduct for
business: by multilateral agencies like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), which issued the first version of its Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises in 1976; or for particular sectors: The Fair Labor Association to improve working
conditions in factories was incorporated in 1999; the Voluntary Principles on Security and
Human Rights for extractive companies were announced in 2000 (Goldstone, 2013). But efforts
to establish an authoritative and universal set of principles at the United Nations failed: The U.N.
Commission on Transnational Corporations was established in 1973 to draft a corporate code of
conduct, but after many drafts was dissolved in 1994 (Alito, 2011).
1.1.0

From Norms to Guiding Principles


In 2003, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights received from one of its subsidiary

bodies a proposed code of conduct for transnational corporations for its approval: Norms on the
Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to
Human Rights (the Norms) (Akpan, 2013). The 2003 Norms asserted that business has the
obligation to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of, and protect human
rights recognized in international as well as national law. The Norms provoked a strong negative
reaction from the International Organization of Employers and the International Chamber of
Commerce, who asserted that the Norms were a counterproductive attempt to shift

responsibilities to companies for what are and should remain government responsibilities and
functions (Goldstone, 2013). In part because of that opposition, a number of States lined up to
oppose the Norms. The fact that the Sub-Commission that drafted the Norms involved few states
or companies in the process may have also contributed to the lack of support. Some NGOs such
as Amnesty International supported the Norms (Goldstone, 2013). But such support was not
enough for the Commission on Human Rights, which declined to consider the Norms, saying
they had some helpful elements but no legal standing (Goldstone, 2013). In 2005, the
Commission requested that the Secretary-General appoint a Special Representative to identify
and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and accountability for transnational corporations
and other business enterprises with regard to human rights (Goldstone, 2013). Then-SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan appointed Harvard Kennedy School professor John Ruggie. In 2008, Ruggie
presented to the Human Rights Council (which replaced the Commission in 2006) the Protect,
Respect and Remedy framework, which he described as the conceptual and policy framework to
anchor the business and human rights debate, and to help guide all relevant actors. The Council
passed a resolution welcoming the framework and gave Ruggie a new three-year mandate to
develop more practical guidance (Goldstone, 2013).

Ruggie followed that instruction by

developing a set of Guiding Principles. In presenting the Guiding Principles to the Council in
June 2011, Ruggie stated that The Guiding Principles normative contribution lies not in the
creation of new international law obligations but in elaborating the implications of existing
standards and practices for States and businesses; integrating them within a single, logically
coherent and comprehensive template; and identifying where the current regime falls short and
how it should be improved (Akpan, 2013).
Two weeks after Ruggies presentation, the Council passed without a vote a resolution endorsing
the Guiding Principles. It is highly unusual for an intergovernmental body to endorse a text they
did not themselves negotiate, a testament to the engagement of states by Ruggie throughout his
mandate (Akpan, 2013). The Council also established a Working Group to promote the effective
and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles (Goldstone,
2013). The Council gives limited support to Special Procedures, but throughout his mandate,
Ruggie raised money from governments to hire staff, visit stakeholders and sites, and hold
meetings around the world, many of which were organized in partnership with civil society
organizations. He held large regional multi-stakeholder consultations in Bangkok, Bogota,

Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Moscow, and New Delhi; separate business and NGO
consultations; small expert gatherings on subjects including corporate law and investment;
numerous meetings with government representatives in Geneva and in their home capitals; and
an online forum that attracted hundreds of comments and thousands of viewers (Goldstone,
2013).
1.1.1. An Emerging Consensus
After years of lively and sometimes contentious debate, involving everyone from
indigenous peoples representatives to Wall Street lawyers, uptake of Ruggies recommendations
was widespread, as the many stakeholders who participated in the mandates consultations felt
ownership over its outcomes. Ruggie also collaborated with other standard-setting bodies, such
as the International Finance Corporation, the International Standards Organisation (ISO), and the
OECD to embed his work into their own (Goldstone, 2013). To understand the success of the
Special Representatives mandate, it is also worth considering the Guiding Principles in the
context of the historical moment in which they were created: the financial crisis bringing scrutiny
to corporate practices and state failures; growing economic power from non-Western countries,
with companies serving as their de-facto ambassadors; heightened transparency through
technology and social media; debates over global governance within institutions like the United
Nations and the G20, and over transnational issues like climate change and financial regulation.
Among those involved in the mandate over its six years, there was a palpable sense of relief at
the Councils endorsement of the Guiding Principles, affirmation that consensus has been
achieved from a truly global set of stakeholders representing all sectors of society. Yet there is
acknowledgment that the Guiding Principles will not solve the worlds problems; that there is
fragility around this newborn set of standards, whose formal custody was transferred shortly after
its birth with the new guardian yet to begin its work; and that the Special Representatives
mandate was one phase, albeit a significant one, in a much longer journey (Goldstone, 2013)..

1.1.2. The Guiding Principles


The Guiding Principles are organized by the three pillars of the Protect, Respect and
Remedy framework that preceded them: (Goldstone, 2013).
The State Duty to Protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business
enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication;
The Corporate Responsibility to Respect human rights, which means that business
enterprises should act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to
address adverse impacts with which they are involved;
The need for greater Access to Remedy by victims of corporate-related abuse, both judicial and
non-judicial. The three-pillar framework emphasizes the multi-stakeholder nature of the issue
and avoids the failed attempt of the Norms to impose an expansive array of state responsibilities
onto business (Goldstone, 2013). This approach was welcomed by business, which felt that the
Norms and the corporate social responsibility field more generally absolved governments of their
responsibilities; by human rights advocates, who saw both governments and companies as
equally important players; and by states, some of whom had questioned the implied suggestion
of the Norms that companies assume some of their responsibilities.
1.1.3. The State Duty to Protect
The State Duty to Protect section of the Guiding Principles affirms states existing
obligations under international human rights law to protect people within their territory and/or
jurisdiction from human rights abuses, including by non-state actors; recommends that states
enforce relevant laws, provide guidance to companies, and address the common lack of policy
coherence across government agencies; and emphasizes the necessity of proactive measures by
states where a business receives some form of government support, and in conflict-affected
areas. Extraterritorial jurisdiction, what powers and duties governments have when companies
domiciled in their countries commit or contribute to human rights abuses abroad, was the most
complex and controversial issue within the State Duty to Protect pillar, as it cuts to the heart of
issues of national sovereignty and the very nature of multinational business. After much
engagement with governments, legal experts, and other stakeholders, Ruggie chose to focus on
the fact that states can take a number of steps with extraterritorial effect that clearly fall within
the current permissible scope of their jurisdiction. In taking such an approach of clarification,
Ruggie managed to avoid controversy that could have threatened overall support of his mandate,

while helpfully dispelling misperceptions about the concept that had come from many corners
(Goldstone, 2013).
1.1.4. The Corporate Responsibility to Respect
Ruggie defined the Corporate Responsibility to Respect as the responsibility for business
not to infringe on the rights of others and address negative impacts with which they are involved.
This second pillar of the Guiding Principles outlines a process for companies to know and
show that they are meeting their responsibility to respect human rights: Companies should have
a human rights policy; conduct human rights due diligence, which includes assessing actual and
potential impacts, integrating human rights throughout their operations, and tracking and
reporting outcomes; and remediate any adverse impacts that they have caused or contributed to.
According to the Guiding Principles, the human rights that companies must respect at a
minimum are those outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights and ILO core conventions
(as opposed to the limited subset of rights that the Norms named). Ruggie was careful to point
out that international human rights law generally does not currently impose direct legal
obligations on business enterprises (which some stakeholders disputed), although it is enshrined
in domestic jurisdictions in numerous ways, such as legislation on labour standards, privacy, or
land use (Goldstone, 2013). Rather, the responsibility to respect human rights is a global
standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate, (Ruggie, 2011.
Pg. 33). While grounding a foundational principle in social norms might seem unstable, it was as
clever as it was irrefutable: What company would stand up and say it does not have a
responsibility not to hurt people? On the other hand, some argued that respect is too low a bar,
that companies should have so-called positive obligations as well including to fulfill or realize
rights. Ruggie responded that the responsibility to respect is indeed not merely a passive
responsibility for firms; and that There may be situations in which companies have additional
responsibilities. But the responsibility to respect is the baseline norm for all companies in all
situations (Goldstone, 2013. Pg. 67). The commentary for the first Guiding Principle under this
pillar states, Addressing adverse human rights impacts requires taking adequate measures for
their prevention, mitigation and, where appropriate, remediation. Other issues debated during
the development of the Corporate Responsibility to Respect principles and addressed to varying
extents in the final product included the applicability of the Guiding Principles to small- and

medium-sized enterprises and the extent of a companys responsibility for impacts occurring in
its value chain.
1.1.5. Access to Remedy
The Access to Remedy pillar of the framework addressed both state responsibilities to
provide access to effective judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, and the corporate responsibility
to prevent and remediate any negative impacts that they cause or contribute to. One subtopic
within this pillar that captured broad attention for breaking new ground was the criteria for
effective company-based grievance mechanisms. Such criteria were piloted by companies in
different sectors and regions, and made the subject of a separate online resource (Goldstone,
2013). One of the most debated topics was the status and enforcement of the principles
themselves. Business and NGO concerns alike wondered whether the Guiding Principles would
be yet another voluntary code of conduct, or whether they would be enforced. Ruggie tried to
move the debate beyond this voluntary-versus-mandatory dichotomy: Saying that no single
silver bullet can resolve the business and human rights challenge became a common refrain, as
he tried to avoid the ill-fated Norms debate that focused on one international instrument
(Goldstone, 2013. Pg. 71). In his 2007 report that mapped the spectrum of ways in which
corporations are held accountable for human rights abuses, he emphasized that many voluntary
initiatives have accountability mechanisms. He worked to embed the Guiding Principles into
other standards that have their own enforcement mechanisms, like the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises. And he emphasized that his role was not to create international law,
but to provide policy recommendations to the Council, whose member states would then be
responsible for implementing his recommendations should they be adopted. But some NGOs
continued to lament the lack of an overarching accountability mechanism in the Guiding
Principles themselves. At the same time, some business concerns fretted that nonbinding U.N.
guidelines could inform binding common law. Or a non-binding U.N. report could inspire
binding statutory law, which is after all one of the reports goals (Goldstone, 2013). The Guiding
Principles had to be general enough to apply to all kinds of companies in all industrial sectors
and win the support of a broad range of Human Rights Council member states. As such, they are
hardly an operational manual to be downloaded and implemented (Goldstone, 2013). As Ruggie
said in his final presentation to the Human Rights Council in June 2011, invoking Winston
Churchill, I am under no illusion that the conclusion of my mandate will bring all business and

human rights challenges to an end. But Council endorsement of the Guiding Principles will mark
the end of the beginning. (Akpan, 2013. Pg. 17)

1.2. Statement of the Problem


The worldwide expansion of the private sector during the last three decades has been
accompanied by a dramatic increase in the societal impacts of this sector, both in positive and
negative terms. Multinational enterprises may contribute to economic welfare and employment
and thereby contribute to the enjoyment of human rights. At the same time, however, enterprises
can also have a negative impact on human rights worldwide, for instance when they displace
indigenous peoples from their lands, when they pollute the environment on which communities
are dependent, when they breach labour rights, or when they are closely tied to a regime that
violates the rights of its citizens. Such adverse human rights impacts are abundant in the present
globalised economy, as profound power imbalances often allow the rights of the most weak and
vulnerable (such as employees) to be sacrificed for the interests of powerful enterprises and their
shareholders and herein lies the problem.

1.3. Research Objectives


1.3.0. Overall Objective
The core objective of this research is to assess the impact, whether positive or negative,
that business enterprises have on the rights of employees.
1.3.1. Specific Objectives
1. To establish if business enterprises espouse their corporate responsibility to respect the
rights of employees.
2. To establish how business enterprises impact on the rights of employees.
3. To establish if business enterprises have in place processes to enable remediation when an
adverse human right impact has occurred.
4. To suggest ways through which potential and actual adverse human rights impacts can be
identified, prevented, and mitigated.

1.4. Research Questions


1. Do business enterprises espouse their corporate responsibility to respect the rights of
employees?

2. How do business enterprises impact on the rights of employees?


3. Do business enterprises have in place processes to enable remediation when an adverse
human right impact has occurred?
4. In what ways can potential and actual adverse human rights impacts be identified,
prevented and mitigated?

1.5. Scope of the Study


The data to be collected will be gathered from Chibuluma Mines Plc. Having purposively
sampled Chibuluma Mines Plc as a case study for this research, the research will specifically
focus on this mine. The study will look at the conditions of service of the employees at the
mining firm, the nature of the relationship that exists between management and employees as
well as the kind of structures and processes that exist at the mining firm to deal with allegations
of human rights violations.

1.6. Significance of the Study


While the contribution of business enterprises to national economies is indispensable and
must be appreciated, the idea that some of these enterprises have adverse impacts on human
rights cannot be overlooked. Conceding that these impacts are wide ranging, this study focuses
on the impacts these enterprises have on the rights of employees in light of the fact that there has
generally not been much research conducted with a particular focus on this group of
stakeholders. Employees are the backbone of any organization or indeed business entity and
must thus be treated with utmost reverence, by among other things, respecting and protecting
their rights. This study, therefore, seeks to establish the nature of the human rights impacts on
employees as well as how those impacts can be identified, prevented, mitigated or indeed
remediated and hence its significance. These findings will help fill up the gaps in human rights
research with regard to business enterprises and their personnel as well as bring to light the ever
so important corporate responsibility that business enterprises have to respect and indeed protect
internationally recognized human rights. The study will also provide a starting point for civil
society organizations and government agencies involved in human rights advocacy to engage
businesses and other relevant stakeholders in the debate about the pressing need to harmonize
business and human rights.

1.7. Hypotheses
Null hypothesis (Ho)- Chibuluma Mines as a business enterprise negatively impacts the rights of
employees.
Alternative hypothesis (H1)- Chibuluma Mines as a business enterprise positively impacts the
rights of employees.
1.8. Organization of the Paper
This paper is organized in the following manner:
Chapter One- provides an introduction to the area of study and highlights the background
on business and human rights. The chapter further illuminates the problem statement,
research objectives, research questions, as well as the scope and significance of the study.
Chapter Two- provides a review of relevant literature on the business and human rights
nexus and also provides an outline of the theoretical framework adopted for this study.
Chapter Three- outlines the research design and methodology, discussing methods of data
collection and analysis as well as the limitations experienced in carrying out the study.
Chapter Four- essentially highlights the findings of the research and the ensuing analysis.

Chapter Five- presents the conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.0 Introduction
This chapter reviews both theoretical and empirical literature on business activities in
relation to the human rights of employees as well as explains the theories employed in this study
in order to address the research problem. While there is an abundance of theoretical literature on
the topic, few studies have been conducted to establish the extent to which business enterprises
uphold their corporate responsibility to promote and protect human rights and thus assess the
impact of business activities on the rights of employees. This chapter, therefore, takes an
investigative study of literature relevant to the topic in an attempt to draw valuable lessons upon
which this study can then be developed.

2.1 Contextualization of Human Rights


The term human rights describes the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone is
entitled to (UN, 2009). They provide the basis for individuals to lead a dignified life, to freely
express independent beliefs and to live free from abuse. They are inherent to all individuals,
regardless of nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
language, or any other status. Everyone is equally entitled to enjoy their human rights without
discrimination. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by international law
in the form of treaties, customary international law and general principles (UN, 2009). At the
domestic level, human rights are often enshrined in national constitutions or other domestic laws.
International human rights law prescribes the obligations of governments to act (and refrain from
acting) in certain ways in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms
of individuals and groups. The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of
international human rights law. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OHCHR, 2012). These,
together with the core labour standards of the International Labour Organization form the most
widely accepted codification of human rights standards as enshrined in international law. All

human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights (for example; the right to
life, equality before the law and freedom of expression), economic, social and cultural rights (for
example; the rights to work, social security and education), or collective rights (for example; the
rights to development and self-determination). Human rights are also interdependent, the
improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one
right adversely affects the others (OHCHR, 2012).

2.2 The Corporate Responsibility to Promote and Protect Human Rights


Privatization and economic globalization have given companies unprecedented access to
new territories, and expanded their reach across national borders (Amnesty International, 2011).
But all companies, no matter where they are, have a direct responsibility to respect human rights
in their own operations. Amnesty International believes that the business community also has a
wider responsibility, moral and legal, to use its influence to promote respect for human rights.
Governments bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that companies respect human rights.
But companies must also uphold human rights in their operations (Amnesty International, 2011).
Amnesty International has made calls for more effective regulation of business to prevent human
rights violations, better practices by companies and accountability and access to justice.
Globalization has significantly changed the world we live in, presenting new and
complex challenges for the protection of human rights. Economic players, especially companies
that operate across national boundaries (trans-national companies) have gained unparalleled
power and influence across the world economy. This has not always benefited the societies in
which they operate (Amnesty International, 2011). Amnesty International's research has
highlighted the negative impact companies can have on the human rights of the individuals and
communities affected by their operations. Companies cause harm by directly abusing human
rights, or by colluding with others who violate human rights. Despite this potential to cause
significant harm, there are few effective mechanisms at national or international level to prevent
corporate human rights abuses or to hold companies to account. This means those affected by
their operations, often already marginalized and vulnerable, are left powerless, without the
protection to which they are entitled, or meaningful access to justice (Amnesty International,
2011).

In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) unanimously endorsed
Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. These principles were developed in
collaboration with the private sector, the non-profit sector and governments (UN, 2013). The
Guiding Principles set forth a system for delegating human rights duties between companies and
governments. As with traditional discussions of human rights, a differentiation between rights
holders and duty-bearers is made. This move established the Guiding Principles as the global
standard of practice that is now expected of all States and businesses with regard to business and
human rights. While they do not by themselves constitute a legally binding document, the
Guiding Principles elaborate on the implications of existing standards and practices for States
and businesses, and include points covered variously in international and domestic law (Ruggie,
2011). Unlike existing agreements, businesses are included as duty-bearers, taking on the duty to
respect the human rights that governments are duty-bound to protect and promote as
signatories to treaties and purveyors of justice. The corporate duty to respect human rights is
an active duty requiring verification processes to demonstrate that operations do not negatively
impact human rights (Ruggie, 2011). The Guiding Principles are based on six years of work by
the former Special Representative, including in-depth research; extensive consultations with
businesses, Governments, civil society, affected individuals and communities, lawyers, investors
and other stakeholders; and the practical road-testing of proposals. They were developed to put
into operation the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework presented by the Special
Representative to the United Nations in 2008. The United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights welcomed the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, which set: both a
new and clear benchmark and represents an important milestone in the evolving understanding of
human rights in our societies... Clarity about the baseline expectations of business with regard to
human rights is a first important step towards developing appropriate and effective responses to
such problems (Pillay, 2009, pg. 27).
The Guiding Principles reflect and build on the three-pillar structure of the Protect, Respect
and Remedy Framework. Together, the Guiding Principles outline steps for States to foster
business respect for human rights; provide a blueprint for companies to manage the risk of
having an adverse impact on human rights; and offer a set of benchmarks for stakeholders to
assess business respect for human rights (Ruggie, 2011). The Guiding Principles have gained
extensive support from businesses and civil society as well as States. A number of other

international and regional organizations have reflected them in their own standards, and more are
expected to do so in the months and years to come. Many businesses around the world are
already looking at how they can implement the Guiding Principles in their operations (OHCHR,
2012).
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has
supported the six-year long process that led to the Principles under the stewardship of the Special
Representative. Before their endorsement by the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner
stated that:
These Guiding Principles clarify the human rights responsibilities of business. They seek to
provide the first global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse human rights
impact linked to business activities. If endorsed, the Guiding Principles will constitute an
authoritative normative platform which will also provide guidance regarding legal and policy
measures that, in compliance with their existing human rights obligations, States can put in place
to ensure corporate respect for human rights. (OHCHR, 2012)
As Ruggie (2011) asserts, the Guiding Principles will not bring all human rights
challenges to an end, but their endorsement marks the end of the beginning. They provide a solid
and practical foundation on which more learning and good practice can be built.
Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing
on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they
are involved. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to
internationally recognized human rights understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the
International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in
the International Labour Organizations Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work. International human rights treaties generally do not impose direct legal obligations on
business enterprises. Legal liability and enforcement for the infringement by businesses of
international human rights standards are therefore defined largely by national law. However, the
actions of business enterprises, just like the actions of other non-State actors, can affect the
enjoyment of human rights by others, either positively or negatively. Enterprises can affect the
human rights of their employees, their customers, workers in their supply chains or communities
around their operations. Indeed, experience shows that enterprises can and do infringe human

rights where they are not paying sufficient attention to this risk and how to reduce it
(UNGC/OHCHR, 2011).
The International Bill of Human Rights and the core ILO conventions provide basic
reference points for businesses in starting to understand what human rights are; how their own
activities may affect them; and how to ensure that they prevent or mitigate the risk of adverse
impact (UN, 2012). Depending on the circumstances of their operations, enterprises may need to
consider additional standards beyond the International Bill of Human Rights and core ILO
conventions, in order to ensure that they act with respect for human rights: for instance, if their
activities could pose a risk to the human rights of individuals belonging to specific groups or
populations that require special attention. Certain United Nations human rights instruments have
elaborated the human rights of persons belonging to such groups or populations, recognizing that
they may need particular accommodation or protection in order to fully enjoy human rights
without discrimination. Ruggie (2011) argues that, in fact, the corporate responsibility to respect
human rights applies to all internationally recognized human rights, because business enterprises
can have an impact, directly or indirectly, on virtually the entire spectrum of these rights.
The idea that businesses should avoid infringing on human rights basically means that
enterprises can go about their activities, within the law, so long as they do not cause harm to
individuals human rights in the process. The responsibility to respect human rights is not
optional for business enterprises. In many cases, the responsibility of enterprises to respect
human rights is reflected at least in part in domestic law or regulations corresponding to
international human rights standards (UNGC/OHCHR, 2011). For instance, laws that mandate
workplace standards in line with the ILO conventions and safeguards against discrimination, or
that require individuals informed consent before they take part in drug trials, are all different
ways in which domestic laws can regulate the behavior of enterprises to help ensure that they
respect human rights. The responsibility to respect human rights is not, however, limited to
compliance with such domestic law provisions. It exists over and above legal compliance,
constituting a global standard of expected conduct applicable to all businesses in all situations. It
therefore also exists independently of an enterprises own commitment to human rights. It is
reflected in soft law instruments such as the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). There can be legal,
financial and reputational consequences if enterprises fail to meet the responsibility to respect

human rights. Such failure may also hamper an enterprises ability to recruit and retain staff, to
gain permits, investment, new project opportunities or similar benefits essential to a successful,
sustainable business. As a result, where business poses a risk to human rights, it increasingly also
poses a risk to its own long-term interests (Ruggie, 2011).
The responsibility to respect human rights further requires that business enterprises avoid
causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address
such impacts when they occur. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights
applies to all enterprises 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 enterprises
adverse human rights impacts. The severity of a potential adverse human rights impact is the
most important factor in determining the scale and complexity of the processes the enterprise
needs to have in place in order to know and show that it is respecting human rights. The
processes must therefore first and foremost be proportionate to the human rights risks of its
operations (UN, 2012). All enterprises have the same responsibility to respect human rights as
they go about their business. However, size will often influence the kinds of approaches they
take to meet that responsibility. A large enterprise will have more employees, typically undertake
more activities and be engaged in more relationships than a small one. This may increase its
human rights risks. Large enterprises are also likely to have more complex systems and
procedures in place for decision-making, communications, control and oversight. They are more
likely than small enterprises to have operations, value chain relationships, clients or customers
that span multiple countries, making the implementation and monitoring of standards more
challenging. They may have longer and more complex value chains with multiple forms of
relationships, some of them entailing more human rights risks than others (UN, 2012).
The policies and processes that a large enterprise needs to ensure respect for human rights by the
enterprise as a whole will need to reflect all these factors. They will need to extend to all those in
the enterprise who deal with the activities and relationships with which its human rights risks are
associated. Small and medium-sized enterprises may have less capacity and more informal
processes and management structures than larger companies, so their respective policies and
processes will take on different forms. With fewer employees, communications across functions

may be easier and less formal. Internal systems and oversight functions will typically be less
complex (UN, 2012).
In many instances, the approaches needed to embed respect for human rights in a smaller
enterprises operations can mirror the lesser complexity of its operations. However, size is never
the only factor in determining the nature and scale of the processes necessary for an enterprise to
manage its human rights risks. The severity of its actual and potential human rights impact will
be the more significant factor. For instance, a small company of fewer than 10 staff that trades
minerals or metals from an area characterized by conflict and human rights abuses linked to
mining has a very high human rights risk profile. Its policies and processes for ensuring that it is
not involved in such abuses will need to be proportionate to that risk (OHCHR, 2012).
In addition, all enterprises have the same responsibility to respect human rights regardless of
ownership. It applies whether they are publicly listed, privately owned, State-owned, joint
ventures or have some other, or hybrid, form of ownership.

Abuse by State-owned enterprises, that is to say, where the State controls the enterprise or where
the enterprises acts can otherwise be attributed to the State, may constitute a violation of the
States own international law obligations. If States own or control business enterprises, they have
the greatest means within their powers to ensure that relevant policies, legislation and regulations
regarding respect for human rights are implemented (UN, 2012). Senior management typically
reports to State agencies, and associated government departments have greater scope for scrutiny
and oversight, including ensuring that effective human rights due diligence is implemented. The
legal obligations of the State to respect and protect human rights are additional to the enterprises
own responsibility to respect human rights and do not diminish it in any regard.
For joint ventures with significant human rights risks, it is particularly important to ensure that
the legal and other agreements underpinning the ventures provide the necessary basis to ensure
that human rights are respected in their operations (UN, 2012).
In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in
place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including:
(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights;
(b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they
address their impacts on human rights;
(c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to
which they contribute.
Respecting human rights is not a passive responsibility: it requires action on the part of
businesses. It is relatively easy for an enterprise to say that it respects human rights and it may
genuinely believe that this is the case. But to make that claim with legitimacy, an enterprise
needs to know and be able to show that it is indeed respecting human rights in practice. That, in
turn, requires it to have certain policies and processes in place. The Guiding Principles define
these as: a statement of policy commitment, a human rights due diligence process and processes
to enable remediation (UN, 2012). As the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect
human rights, business enterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility
through a statement of policy that:
(a) Is approved at the most senior level of the business enterprise;
(b) Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise;

(c) Stipulates the enterprises human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and other
parties directly linked to its operations, products or services;
(d) Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business
partners and other relevant parties;
(e) Is reflected in operational policies and procedures necessary to embed it throughout the
business enterprise.
The term policy commitment is used here to mean a high-level and public statement by an
enterprise to set out its commitment to meet its responsibility to respect human rights. It makes
this commitment a clear, overarching policy that will determine its actions. The policy
commitment is distinct from the operational policies and procedures referred to in the Guiding
Principles, which are typically not public, are more detailed in nature and help translate the highlevel commitment into operational terms. A policy commitment to meet the enterprises
responsibility to respect human rights demonstrates both inside and outside the enterprise that
management understands this is a minimum standard for conducting business with legitimacy.
In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human
rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence
(UNGC/OHCHR, 2011). The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights
impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how
impacts are addressed. Human rights due diligence:
(a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or
contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations,
products or services by its business relationships;
(b) Will vary in complexity with the size of the business enterprise, the risk of severe human
rights impacts, and the nature and context of its operations;
(c) Should be ongoing, recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the
business enterprises operations and operating context evolve.
It is through human rights due diligence that an enterprise identifies the information it needs in
order to understand its specific human rights risks at any specific point in time and in any
specific operating context, as well as the actions it needs to take to prevent and mitigate them.

Human rights risks refers to the risks of having an adverse impact on human rights, as against
risks to the enterprise itself, although the former increasingly leads to the latter.
Human rights due diligence is not a single prescriptive formula. Enterprises of different sizes, in
different industries, with different corporate structures and in different operating circumstances
will need to tailor their processes to meet those needs. However, the key elements of human
rights due diligence; assessing, integrating and acting, tracking, and communicating, when taken
together with remediation processes, provide the management of any enterprise with the
framework it needs in order to know and show that it is respecting human rights in practice. As
the Guiding Principles state, human rights due diligence should cover adverse human rights
impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or
which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships
(Ruggie, 2011).
The focus of due diligence is on identifying and addressing the relevant impact on human rights,
that is, that which is connected to the enterprises own activities and to its business relationships.
Consequently, these activities and business relationships set the scope of human rights due
diligence. Human rights due diligence aims to prevent and mitigate potential human rights
impacts in which an enterprise might be involved. Remediation aims to put right any actual
human rights impact that an enterprise causes or contributes to (Global Compact Network,
2010). The two processes are separate but interrelated. For example, an effective grievance
mechanism through which those directly affected can raise concerns about how they are or may
be harmed can be a good indicator of potential and recurring human rights impact. Tracking the
effectiveness of the enterprises responses to human rights impact will similarly benefit from
feedback via an effective grievance mechanism, as well as from wider stakeholder engagement.
And enterprises should be in a position to communicate, as appropriate, both on how they
address human rights risks in general and how they have remedied significant human rights
impacts (Global Compact Network, 2010).
In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any actual
or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their
own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should:
(a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise;

(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant
stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of
the operation. For any enterprise, gauging its human rights risks is the starting point for
understanding how to translate its human rights policy statement, and therefore its responsibility
to respect human rights into practice (OHCHR, 2012). It is the prerequisite for knowing how to
prevent or mitigate potential adverse impact and remedy any actual impact that it causes or
contributes to. It is therefore the essential first step in human rights risk management. An
enterprises operations may pose risks to the human rights of various groups. Direct employees
are always a relevant group in this regard. In order to verify whether adverse human rights
impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response.
Tracking should:
(a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;
(b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders. It
is generally recognized that what gets measured gets managed.
Tracking how an enterprise has responded to both potential and actual adverse human rights
impact is essential if its personnel are to be able to account for its success in respecting human
rights, whether internally to management or externally to shareholders and wider stakeholders
(Ruggie, 2011).
In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business
enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should:
(a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;
(b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders.
Tracking human rights issues and responses will also help it to identify trends and patterns.
This provides senior management and others with the big picture: it highlights repeated
problems that may require more systemic changes to policies or processes, and it brings out best
practices that can be disseminated across the enterprise to further reduce risk and improve
performance (Ruggie, 2011).
In order to account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises should
be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on
behalf of affected stakeholders. Business enterprises whose operations or operating contexts pose

risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them. In all
instances, communications should:
(a) Be of a form and frequency that reflect an enterprises human rights impacts and that are
accessible to its intended audiences;
(b) Provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of an enterprises response
to the particular human rights impact involved;
(c) In turn not pose risks to affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of
commercial confidentiality.
The concept of accountability is familiar to enterprises. They typically recognize the importance
of internal accountability for achieving business objectives and, in the case of publicly traded
companies, of accounting for their performance to shareholders. When it comes to how
enterprises address their actual and potential impact on human rights, wider issues of public
interest have additional implications for accountability.
Businesses therefore need to be able to show that they are meeting their responsibility to respect
human rights in practice. That means, at a minimum, having internal information-gathering and
accountability systems and being able to account externally for their actions if faced with
allegations of human rights abuse. Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or
contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through
legitimate processes. An enterprise cannot, by definition, meet its responsibility to respect human
rights if it causes or contributes to an adverse human rights impact and then fails to enable its
remediation (UN, 2012).

Having systems in place to enable the remediation of such impact in no way implies that the
enterprise does not intend to respect human rights. On the contrary, it demonstrates a recognition
that impact may occur despite its best efforts, and intent to ensure that respect for human rights is
restored as swiftly and effectively as possible should this happen. If an enterprise recognizes it
has caused or contributed to adverse human rights impact, it will in many cases be well
positioned to play a direct role in providing timely and effective remedy. Remedies can take a
variety of forms and it is important to understand what those affected would view as effective
remedy, in addition to the enterprises own view (Ruggie, 2011). This may be an apology,
provisions to ensure the harm cannot recur, compensation (financial or other) for the harm,
cessation of a particular activity or relationship, or some other form of remedy agreed by the
parties. The focus of Guiding Principle 22 is on achieving remediation. That said, the means of
providing for remediation can influence the effectiveness of that outcome. For instance, if an
enterprise relies entirely on ad hoc processes to remedy any impact it has caused or contributed
to, there is unlikely to be a shared understanding within the enterprise as to what kind of
response is appropriate. This creates a risk of internal dispute over how to proceed and of delays
in remediation (Ruggie, 2011).
Some enterprises may have formalized processes for specific adverse impact that is a particular
risk for their operations, for instance, if a pollutant escapes into a waterway or if an employee is
injured. The risk of such an issue-specific approach is that there is no clear process available
when a less foreseeable impact occurs (UN, 2009).
It is therefore generally preferable to have in place agreed processes for the remediation of
adverse human rights impact arising in any area of operations, even if this requires more than
one type of process (for instance, for direct employees and for external stakeholders).
In many instances, the most effective and efficient way to provide for remediation processes is
through an operational-level grievance mechanism (Ruggie, 2011). A grievance mechanism is
not just an internal administrative procedure for handling impact or grievances. Whereas an
internal procedure is typically passive, i.e., waiting for problems to arise and then responding, a
grievance mechanism is active: it aims to facilitate the identification of grievances and address
them as early as possible. It does so by ensuring it is known to, and trusted by, those stakeholders
for whom it is intended. The key processes provided by the mechanism are public, as are the

general timelines it provides for handling grievances and the ways in which individuals can
register their concerns. There is transparency of communication with complainants and
accountability to them for the provision of a fair process. A grievance mechanism of course also
requires some internal procedures, but these are just part of the larger process it provides.
To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business
enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms
for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted (UNGC/IFC/IBLF, 2010).
Unlike many State-based mechanisms (courts, ombudsmans offices and so forth), an
operational-level grievance mechanism does not have to wait until an issue amounts to an alleged
human rights abuse or a breach of other standards before it can address it. It can receive and
address concerns well before they reach that level and before an individuals or a communitys
sense of grievance has escalated.
Pallay (2009) argues that effective grievance mechanisms also help reinforce aspects of the
human rights due diligence process. They can help in identifying adverse human rights impact in
a timely manner and in tracking the effectiveness of responses to impact raised through the
mechanism. They can also help build positive relationships with stakeholders by demonstrating
that the enterprise takes their concerns and the impact on their human rights seriously.
An operational-level grievance mechanism, in essence, is a formalized means through which
individuals or groups can raise concerns about the impact an enterprise has on them including,
but not exclusively, on their human rights and can seek remedy.
These mechanisms are distinct from whistle-blower systems, which enable employees to raise
concerns about breaches of company codes and ethics, which may or may not harm those
individuals, but are of concern to the enterprise as a whole. Operational-level grievance
mechanisms are specifically a channel for individuals, inside or outside the enterprise to raise
concern about impact on themselves and they do not require the individual to show a breach of a
company code.
In all contexts, business enterprises should:
(a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights,
wherever they operate;

(b) Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognized human rights when faced
with conflicting requirements;
(c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance
issue wherever they operate.
The responsibility to respect human rights applies in all contexts. It is a uniform standard,
reflecting its roots in the universal expectation that enterprises should not harm the dignity of
people as they go about their business. The responsibility to respect human rights, as a global
standard expected of all enterprises in all situations, provides clarity and predictability for
enterprises facing differing expectations and demands. It also means that enterprises should not
take advantage of operating environments that provide insufficient protection for human rights to
lower their own standard of conduct (UN, 2012).
Corporations began incorporating this duty into policy statements and the discourse of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) (Harrison, 2011). Multinational corporations in extractive and
industrial sectors began announcing intentions to conduct human rights impact assessments
(HRIA) but faced an immediate setback, as CSR personnel do not include HRIA practitioners
(Wettstein, 2012). An important underlying reason for the lack of HRIA expertise is that no
HRIA discipline exists to train assessors. Indeed, as of the end of 2012, there was awareness of
only two corporate-commissioned HRIAs in the public domain, one in summary form only.
These assessments, produced for BP's Tangguh project in Papua New Guinea and GoldCorp's
Marlin mine in Guatemala, were prefaced with observations that, lacking an established
methodology for HRIA, assessors had to pursue assessment using a patchwork of tools (On
Common Ground, 2010). Thus far, corporate calls for guidance on HRIA have been discussed in
webinars and conferences, but still without establishing, field testing and validating needed tools.
The need for corporate HRIA tools has been clearly demonstrated.
Not only are major institutions calling for corporations to conduct human rights due diligence
(FAO, 2012; IFC, 2008; OECD, 2011), business enterprises themselves have human rights
concerns. For example, in August of 2012, human rights-based protests indefinitely halted the
development of a US$ 5 billion gold mining project in Peru although all permits were in place
and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) had
conformed to best practices (Jamasmie, 2012; Newmont, 2012; Rubio et al., 2012). A new round
of opposition to GoldCorp's Marlin Mine in Guatemala, initiated in March of 2012, is based on

human rights listed in international conventions (FIAN, 2012). As these cases illustrate,
corporations need a mechanism to predict and mitigate adverse human rights impacts.
HRIA is designed to prospectively and retrospectively identify positive and negative
effects on human rights. As such, it is important to clarify what these rights are. The most widely
embraced list of human rights is presented in the International Bill of Rights, a compendium of
three instruments ratified by 159 countries, incorporating political, civil, cultural, social and
economic rights (United Nations, 1948, 1966a, 1966b). These instruments comprise the basis for
assessment, and their contents provide the benchmarks of adequacy against which a company's
performance is measured (Walker, 2009). Although companies are not signatories to these
instruments, they have adopted the duty to respect the human rights enumerated therein by
accepting the Business and Human Rights framework.
It is important to note that human rights have historically inhabited the quasi-legal sphere of
international agreements among governments. From a corporate standpoint, human rights are not
a legal matter but rather a perspective. This difference is not semantic, but is fundamental to how
governments and corporations are held accountable to international human rights instruments
(Harrison, 2011). Whereas governments can be judged for their compliance with human rights
law, corporations can only be benchmarked by their operations' interactions with the components
of each right as laid out in human rights documents. This has two implications for the usefulness
of the human rights framework for corporate assessment. First, it provides benchmarking
standards absent in other currently available assessment tools. While the impacts that
corporations have on people can be qualified as social, environmental, political, among
others, they can only be qualified as human rights-related if a human rights lens is employed
(Harrison, 2011). For example, a company cannot be held liable for violating the right to the
highest attainable standard of health; instead the thresholds of affordable, accessible, adequate
and culturally appropriate care can be examined contextually and then analyzed for how a
corporate project would influence the affordability, accessibility, adequacy and appropriateness
of care. Second, the human rights perspective elucidates corporate duties beyond legal
compliance. While governments can only be held accountable to the treaties they sign and the
laws through which they codify international duties, companies accept the duty to respect all the
human rights in the International Bill of Rights and the ILO Core Conventions, regardless of

whether national law requires it. This is because companies risk allegations of complicity
when their actions contribute to rights violations (Harrison, 2011).

2.3 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in SubSaharan Africa.
2.3.1. Ghana
One study conducted at a Chinese construction company, Shanghai Construction Group, in
Ghana revealed that all the workers were employed as casual workers. None of the local workers
signed an employment contract with the company. Even those workers that were employed
between six months and one year remained casual workers which was a violation of Ghanas
labour laws which requires that a temporary worker who is employed by the same employer for a
continuous period of six months and more shall be treated as a permanent worker (Article 75 of
the Labour Act (Act 651, 2003). Working hours varied among the workers. Out of 26 workers
talked to, 19 said they worked for eight hours a day seven days a week. This translates into an
average of 56 hours a week instead of the normal 40 hours a week (Baah, 2009). Seven other
workers said they worked for nine hours a day everyday or 63 hours per week. According to the
Labour Act, working an extra hour daily or working full-time during the weekend is considered
to be overtime work. But all the 26 workers who participated in the discussion said they did not
do overtime (Baah, 2009). This means the workers were not aware that the extra hours of work
constituted overtime work, which had to be paid for. Some workers said they were compelled to
work all week without rest (Fokouh, 2009).
According to the workers, the daily wage for workers ranged from GH 3.04 to GH 3.93.
Nineteen of those interviewed said they earned a gross of GH106 cedis and a net of GH 96
per month. The remaining 7 said they earned a gross of GH 100 and a net of GH 75 cedis
per month (Fokouh, 2009). The official national daily minimum wage in 2007 was GH 1.9 or a
monthly minimum wage of GH 51.30. That means no worker was paid below the national
minimum wage. Some of the workers said they were given helmets and gloves as protective
gears others said they did not have such protective equipment. The workers complained further
that it was not uncommon for workers to complain of eye troubles because of particles in their
eyes (Fokouh, 2009). All health and safety issues were dealt with by Management without any
involvement of the workers. According to the workers that were interviewed there was no trade

union at the construction site. Ten of the respondents indicated that they were ignorant of what
unions stood for. Those who knew of trade unions and their importance said they could not have
thought of joining or forming one because of fear of victimization and possible dismissal (Baah,
2009).
2.3.2. Botswana
Advance Construction is a private Chinese company operating in Botswana and was working on
several sites at the time of the study including one in Francistown, a town 435 km from the
capital, Gaborone and near the border with Zimbabwe (Kalusopa, 2009). The company was
constructing an ultra modern school whose project would take 10 months. The company had 53
employees, 48 nationals comprising 42 male and six female with five expatriates (four Chinese
and one Zimbabwean) at management level (Kalusopa, 2009). Among the nationals were 15
skilled and 33 unskilled workers. The company did not belong to any Employers Association.
The relation between management and the workers had been strained for a long time, prompting
workers to file complaints with the local Member of Parliament (MP) several times (Kalusopa,
2009). Opinions drawn from the reports of the meeting convened by the MPs office, labour
officials, management and selected workers representatives indicated gross breach of
employment legislation especially with regard to occupational health and safety and just blatant
victimatisation. The workers called for protection since there was no trade union or workers
committee allowed to operate in the company (Kalusopa, 2009). The report also indicated that
workers felt insecure to take their grievances to management. The occupational health and safety
standards at the company left much to be desired. The employees were made to pay for safety
clothing such as boots and overalls. This disregard of OHS standards is rampant in many
construction companies in Botswana. An earlier study by Kalusopa and Solo (2006) also showed
that although most workers are covered under the legal framework and compensation
mechanisms in most formal organizations in Botswana, these have not been extended to the
informal economy or those in casual employment with the construction sector indicating a high
poor record in operational health and safety standards. The study recommended the need for
trade unions to campaign for legislation to address the prevention, monitoring and management
of occupational risks and injury in the informal economy and to develop comprehensive systems
for incorporating these into national programmes. In terms of wages, the unskilled workers in the
company were paid the statutory minimum wage while the skilled ones negotiated their own

rates. These negotiated rates were dependant on employees reference to the last pay rate when
they were employed. There had been cases when unskilled workers were paid less than the
statutory minimum wage and the labour department had to intervene to protect the workers
(Kalusopa, 2009). The minimum wage is reviewed every year by government but does not
actually constitute an economic wage commensurate to the high cost of living in Botswana. The
company does not also have a pay structure. This is a choice of Management at corporate level
and is on a take or leave it basis. With the high rate of unemployment, workers are always in a
no-win situation. Compared with employees doing construction work in the mining industry, the
wages in this company are poorer (Kalusopa, 2009). For example, an Assistant in construction in
the mining industry is paid P6.00/hr (approximately US$ 1) while in this company they are paid
half that amount (P3.85 or appropriately US$ 0.50). There are no benefits such as social security,
medical aid, free/subsidized transport, paid vacation/holiday, housing allowance, child care
services, incentive bonus, severance pay, interest-free loans, employee share ownership plan and
provident fund among the local workers (Kalusopa, 2009).
Landmark Projects is also another construction company with several projects around the
country. Some of employee rights violations include;

The workers were asked to work on Saturdays on a voluntary basis and not remunerated

over time;
There were no employment cards which made it possible for the company to hire and fire
as they wished since the unskilled workers did not know how long they had worked at the

company;
They were not provided with protective clothing;
Workers were threatened with dismissal if they reported any abuse to the labour office;
Workers were not allowed tea break and were fed on bread and coke;
There were no toilets for junior staff at the site and
There were no contracts of employment (Kalusopa, 2009).

2.3.3. South Africa


In South Africa, a study was carried out at Formosa Chemical Company, a privately-owned
company located in Newcastle and operating in the chemical sector. According to the workers,
this company was established in 1986 at Madadeni and then it moved in 2001 to Newcastle
(Nkosi, 2009). During the time of conducting this study, Formosa employed one thousand
workers in total in the factory (Simunye, 2009). At the time when this information was gathered,

the workers at Formosa were not unionized and there were no processes in place which showed
that they were about to be organized. When the workers started working on one year contracts
their union was rendered irrelevant because it was now difficult for the union to collect its
subscriptions and management did not recognize the union (Guliwe, 2008). Furthermore, a major
challenge for unionization was that the workers who were organizing at the factory were all
expelled (that is, the organizers were not re-hired). This change started in 2006, to be exact.
According to the workers, there is no form of bargaining that takes place at the factory; the
wages and any increases thereof are unilaterally decided by management (Mkhonta, 2008). Yet
according to Article 1 of Convention 98 on the right to organize and for collective bargaining:
Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of
employment and further measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where
necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for
voluntary negotiation between employers or employers organizations and workers
organizations, with the view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means
of collective agreements (ILO, 2007). There are no unions within Formosa and there is no
bargaining forum and/or structure within the company, yet South Africa is a signatory to the ILO
(Mkhonta, 2008). This raises the question whether there is proper monitoring and follow-up by
the Department of Labour regarding compliance with ILO standards and the Labour Relations
Act. If there are monitoring mechanisms in place, how are the employers escaping? It would also
be critical to check whether the unions organizing in the chemical sector have compiled an
appropriate database that includes these most vulnerable workplaces (Mkhonta, 2008). From the
interviews that were conducted, the researchers made the following observations regarding
Formosa:
(i) Analysis of wages: The minimum wages at Formosa range from R5.50-to-R7.90. In other
words, workers are earning between R308-to-R442 per week and this totals to minimum wages
of between R1232-to-R1769 per month. Thus on average the minimum wage at Formosa is
R1200 per month (Mkhonta, 2008). Although there is no legally mandated minimum wage in
South Africa, the law gives the Minister of Labour the authority to set wages by sector, but if
this minimum wages are compared with an agreement which was signed between Bosoga
Stationery and the Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union
(CEPPWAWU) as at 31st July the company Bosoga agreed to give the workers a minimum wage

of R2200.00 per month and a 9.5% increase across the board (Guliwe, 2008. Pg. 62). The
agreement between New African Packaging (PTY) LTD t/a GENPAK and CEPPWAWU
stipulated the minimum wage at R2700.00 and this agreement is binding as from 1 July 2008
until 30 June 2009. Although no specific amount has been stipulated in the chemicals sector
with regards to a minimum wage, the wage at Formosa needs to be looked at.. (Guliwe. 2008.
pg. 71).
(ii) Working conditions in the factory: The employees at Formosa work an 8 hour shift: the nightshift starts from 23h00 to 07h00; the morning shift starts from 07h00 to 15h00; and the afternoon
shift starts from 15h00 to 23h00. According to the workers, a very unfavorable aspect of the
workplace is that there is no structured relationship between management and the workers. An
instance that can be quoted on the bad relations between the workers and the management was
when a lady kicked one of the employees, but this case was simply disregarded. Overall the
workers reported that they are always threatened with being dismissed on a daily basis if they are
found relaxing or talking to a friend whilst working on the lines (Mkhonta, 2008).
(v) Work environment and Health and Safety: The working environment at Formosa appears to
be the worst among the factories investigated by this study. The waste material is recycled within
the factory building. Since the workers find it hard to work outside, especially during the winter
season, they burn and recycle whatever waste material exists within the factory. This leads to the
problem of pollution (Mkhonta, 2008, pg. 72). According to the workers, there are ailments
and/or diseases that have occurred because of this recycling. There is no safety ware and
protection like helmets, masks or even gloves. Basic medication like a panado cannot be
provided within the factory. The toilets in the company are in a very bad state; furthermore, they
are being used as eating and changing rooms. The workers use the toilets as eating rooms
because they are not allowed to eat during work, thus they pretend to be going to the toilet
(Guliwe, 2008).
Similar studies carried out in Angola, Malawi, Namibia, and Zimbabwe revealed similar trends.

2.4 A Review of the Impact of Business Activities on the Rights of Employees in Zambia
In reviewing relevant literature, the researcher found that there has been little to no research
conducted on the topic of business and human rights or that perhaps the problem has been with
documentation of any such research. However, there is one study that was conducted at Mopani
Copper Mines (MCM) that briefly highlighted the nature of the jobs at Mopani Copper Mines as
being temporary, dangerous and poorly paid, which, essentially, speak to an impact on the rights
of employees at this mine. The study found that since privatization the impact of mining
companies on employment has tended to be negative, from both a qualitative and a quantitative
point of view and that Mopani was no exception to this rule. For example, in 2008 and 2009, the
firm cut over a thousand workers in just a few months. The reason: the financial crisis which
caused the copper price to drop. Yet the price was still in excess of US$2,000 per ton, which was
higher than when Mopani bought the mine (Simpere, 2010). In fact, after experiencing record
prices of close to US$9,000 per ton from 2005 to 2007, MCM preferred to freeze operations until
they became more profitable again. The wages of MCM miners are also very low (Simpere,
2010). In 2004 and 2005, they were under the value of the basic needs basket calculated by the
Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection for some permanent workers and for all workers
employed by sub-contractors. When the researcher who conducted this study visited Mufulira in
2009 and 2010, the miners confirmed that their wages were still far from sufficient, and that
those employed by sub-contractors could be paid as little as half the wages of permanent
employees, for the same work. This caused them to do overtime, to make up for their low wages
(Simpere, 2010). Moreover, working conditions are difficult. In the mine they are described as
pathetic due to the lack of ventilation and the heat. A worker explained: They will tell us to go
ahead, where there is no ventilation, as long as theyre producing () When there is an
inspection, they show other parts underground [than those that are not ventilated] (Simpere,
2010).. Many miners complained of leg pain and respiratory problems. A study in 2008 revealed,
however, that in the mines managed by the company (Nkana and Mufulira), the levels of silica in
the air exceeded rates authorized by US regulations. This means that emission controls are
insufficient, and that the miners are exposed to greater risks of lung diseases, especially silicosis
(International Journal of Public Health and Environmental Research, 2008). Finally, serious

security problems exist at Mopani. In 2005, the year in which its loan was approved by the
European Investment Bank, at least 71 miners were killed in occupational accidents, of whom
over 20 were Mopani employees (Simpere, 2010). Tim Henderson, the CEO of Mopani, refused
to answer the unions questions on security problems (Range, 2010). Since then, the situation has
not improved much and the national press regularly announces the death of miners employed by
the company (Simpere, 2010). In 2008, Dayford Muulwa, the district commissioner at Mufulira,
described the number of occupational accidents at Mopani as alarming (Reuters, 2008).

2.5 A Focus on some of the Rights Business Enterprises are expected to Respect
2.5.0 Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining
The freedoms to associate and to bargain collectively are fundamental rights. They are
rooted in the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia annexed to the ILO
Constitution. Their core value has been reaffirmed by the international community, notably at the
1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen and in the 1998 ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. These enabling rights make it possible to promote
and realize decent conditions at work. ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization,
adopted in 2008, noted that freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to
collective bargaining are particularly important to the attainment of all ILO strategic objectives
(ILO, 2009).
Strong and independent workers and employers organizations, and the effective
recognition of their right to engage in collective bargaining, are major tools for labour market
governance. Collective bargaining is a way of attaining beneficial and productive solutions to
potentially conflictual relations between workers and employers. It provides a means of building
trust between the parties through negotiation and the articulation and satisfaction of the different
interests of the negotiating partners. Collective bargaining plays this role by promoting peaceful,
inclusive and democratic participation of representative workers and employers organizations
(ILO, 2009). The continuing importance of collective bargaining in the twenty-first century
derives from its potential as a powerful tool for engagement between employers and workers
organizations to address economic and social concerns. It can strengthen weak voices and reduce
poverty and social disadvantage. This can be done by applying collective bargaining to the needs

of the parties and promoting voluntary agreements that sustain the well-being of individuals and
enterprises (ILO, 2009).
The recognition of the right to collective bargaining is the key to the representation of
collective interests. It builds on freedom of association and renders collective representation
meaningful. Collective bargaining can play an important role in enhancing enterprise
performance, managing change and building harmonious industrial relations. Collective
bargaining, as a way for workers and employers to reach agreement on issues affecting the world
of work, is inextricably linked to freedom of association (ILO, 2009). The right of workers and
employers to establish their independent organizations is the basic prerequisite for collective
bargaining and social dialogue. The right to strike has been recognized internationally as a
fundamental right of workers and their organizations and as an intrinsic corollary to the right to
organize. Nevertheless, these fundamental rights are still not enjoyed by millions around the
world, and where these rights are recognized, there continue to be challenges in applying them.
In some countries certain categories of workers are denied the right of association, and workers
and employers organizations are illegally suspended or their internal affairs are subject to
interference. In extreme cases trade unionists are threatened, arrested or even killed (ILO, 2009).
The exercise of the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining requires a
conducive and enabling environment. A legislative framework providing the necessary
protections and guarantees, institutions to facilitate collective bargaining and address possible
conflicts, efficient labour administrations and, very importantly, strong and effective workers
and employers organizations, are the main elements of a conducive environment. The role of
governments in providing for an enabling environment is of paramount importance (ILO, 2009).
2.5.1 Elimination of Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Discrimination at work can occur in many different settings, from high-rise office
buildings to rural villages, and in a variety of forms. It can affect men or women on the basis of
their sex, or because their race or skin colour, national extraction or social origin, religion, or
political opinions differ from those of others. Often countries decide to ban distinctions or
exclusions and forbid discrimination on other grounds as well, such as disability, HIV status or
age. Discrimination at work denies opportunities for individuals and robs societies of what those
people can and could contribute (ILO, 2010). Eliminating discrimination starts with dismantling

barriers and ensuring equality in access to training, education as well as the ability to own and
use resources such as land and credit. It continues with fixing conditions for setting up and
running enterprises of all types and sizes, and the policies and practices related to hiring,
assignment of tasks, working conditions, pay, benefits, promotions, lay-offs and termination of
employment. Merit and the ability to do a job, not irrelevant characteristics, should be the guide.
Discrimination in employment or occupation may be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination
exists when laws, rules or practices explicitly cite a particular ground, such as sex, race, etc. to
deny equal opportunities. For instance, if a wife, but not a husband, must obtain the spouse's
consent to apply for a loan or a passport needed to engage in an occupation, this would be direct
discrimination on the basis of sex (ILO, 2010).
Indirect discrimination occurs where rules or practices appear on the surface to be neutral
but in practice lead to exclusions. Requiring applicants to be a certain height could
disproportionately exclude women and members of some ethnic groups, for example. Unless the
specified height is absolutely necessary to perform the particular job, this would illustrate
indirect discrimination (ILO, 2010). Equality at work means that all individuals should be
accorded equal opportunities to develop fully the knowledge, skills and competencies that are
relevant to the economic activities they wish to pursue. Measures to promote equality need to
bear in mind diversity in culture, language, family circumstances, and the ability to read and to
deal with numbers. For peasants and owners of small or family enterprises, especially the women
and ethnic groups, equal access to land (including by inheritance), training, technology and
capital is key (ILO, 2010). In the case of both employees and self-employed or (own-account)
workers, non-discrimination at work depends on equal access to quality education prior to
entering the labour market. This is of chief importance for girls and disadvantaged groups. A
more equal division of work and family responsibilities in the household would also permit more
women to improve their work opportunities. Effective avenues are needed to permit meaningful
challenges to discrimination when it occurs. ILO principles fix minimum thresholds. National
laws and practices may well be broader and include more comprehensive approaches for the
elimination of discrimination at work (ILO, 2010).

2.6 Theoretical Framework


In addressing the research problem, this study adopted the Contingency Theory (Galbraith,
Husted). This is because the Contingency Theory is rooted in the second step in the human
rights due diligence process which is about assessing impacts, which means to identify the
business areas where the company has an impact on human rights (Business & Human
Rights Initiative, 2010). The framework is very explicit about not deeming any human
rights as inferior prior to a risk assessment but to identify the risk areas and prioritize
actions to mitigate these. A contingent approach to the human rights impact is valuable in
order to direct the corporate efforts and actions in the relevant direction. This perspective
recognizes the internal and external contingency factors that influence formal
organizational structures and strategies (Pertusa-Otega et al., 2010; Husted, 2000), and
argues that there is no best way to organize and that any way of organizing is not equally
effective under all conditions (Galbraith, 1973). The logic of the theory is in finding the
fit between organizational process and the characteristics of the situation. In determining
the extent of companies responsibility, previous proposals have centered on variables such
as company size, degree of influence or proximity to the human rights abuse. However the
UN Framework has changed the focus from sphere of influence to a focus on sphere of
impact, arguing that a companys responsibility is valid whenever its activities have a
potential or actual impact on human rights, which can occur either directly through their
own activities or indirectly through its relationships. It is thus not a question of economic
and/or financial influence in a local context that is of concern but the effects arising from
the business activities. Ruggie (2009) outlines three factors determining the scope of the
responsibility to respect human rights: the companys own activities; the companys
relationships (with, for instance; suppliers, contractors, customers, governments); and the
country and local context of operation (and its social, economic, and political factors)
(Ibid.).
It might be useful to add a few extra perspectives on these to clarify and highlight the risk
situations, but also to emphasize that companies will not be held accountable for everything,
especially when it is outside of their impact. In terms of the first area mentioned by Ruggie
(2009), the companies own activities, this obviously includes its industry. The risk associated
with the industry should be thoroughly assessed. As the companies unravel their impacts on

human rights, they also have to set out priorities for mitigating the risks, and the effect of their
actions will be dependent on the influence level they have. Thus, in terms of relationships,
companies should pay attention to their supplier base, its dispersion, and the companys ability to
positively influence their conduct. The cultural context of the suppliers is also an influential
factor to assess. It is coherent with the country and local context of operation, and its inherent
social, political and economic factors. Cultural differences in terms of ethics, norms, quality,
reliability, practices etc. can be critical factors to approach. A study by Oke et al. (2009) on the
contingent factors for sourcing from developing countries highlighted cultural proximity as a
benefit in terms of facilitating the process and the overall communication. Thus, companies with
suppliers in a distinctly different cultural setting must carefully consider these, as well as how
potential complicit issues should be addressed. As such a company operating in the service
industry in a given country will have distinctly different human rights impacts than a company
working with, for example, chemicals in a high-risk country, (identified as countries where the
government is unable or unwilling to properly enforce the law and its human rights duties,
Business & Human Rights Initiative, 2010).
In sum, assessing impacts is the determination of the human rights responsibility. Companies
cannot be responsible for all human rights violations, but should thoroughly assess the contingent
factors: its activities and industry; its supplier relations; and the context of its operations, to
ensure that the risk areas will be addressed by the policy. The impact assessment is crucial as a
means between creating the human rights policy and setting up the appropriate systems for
complying with this. Thus, the knowledge gained in this process is valuable and necessary in
order to operationalize the companys human rights engagement.

2.7. Summary
This chapter looked at the existing theoretical and empirical literature related to the study in
trying to review what is already known so as to be able to relate it to this study and indeed guide
further action. The chapter also presented the theoretical framework within which analysis and
interpretation of results was guided.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter introduces the techniques used for data analysis and interpretation of results. It also
briefly discusses sources of data. This chapter further specifies how the study was carried out in
terms of identification of the study population, the sample used as well as a description of the
sampling procedure employed.

3.1 Research Design


This study engaged a qualitative research design. In order to reveal the linkages of business and
human rights, an in-depth research of a qualitative nature was considered appropriate. It is in
view of this that the research employed the descriptive design in its study. This design enables
the researcher to assess the degree of relationship that exists between two or more variables
Kombo and Tromp (2006, p71); the variables in this research being business activities and
human rights. The research design employed was thus poised to determine the relationship that
exists between the two variables by focusing on how the business activities of Chibuluma Mines
Plc impact human rights. Therefore, to be able to make meaning from the explorations of this
study, an interactive procedure through communication between the researcher and the
respondents was employed. This involved semi-structured interviews as part of the fieldwork. An
informal interactive session apart from the interviews was also used.

3.2. Target Population


A population is a group of individuals, objects or items from which samples are taken for
measurement. From the foregoing, the population of this study is all business enterprises which
fall under the category of multinational corporations (MNCs), transnational corporations (TNCs),
and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

3.3. Sample Selection


According to Webster (1985), a sample is a finite part of a statistical population whose properties
are studied to gain information about the whole. For this study, Chibuluma Mines Plc was chosen
as a sample considering the fact that it is owned by the Jinchuan Group Company Limited, a
Japanese based MNC, and thus falls under the target population. The mine employs a total of 197
employees in the mining department on a permanent basis while the number of contractual
employees is not documented. Using purposive, snowball and convenience sampling techniques,
a total of 25 employees were selected with 15 representing permanent employees and 10
representing contractual employees. Two members of the trade union and two representatives of
Management were purposively and conveniently sampled respectively. These numbers were
chosen because it was the researchers conviction that the results obtained from this sample
would be representative of the true picture of the conditions of service of both the contractual
and permanent employees as well as the stance management has taken on ensuring that employee
rights are promoted and respected. While there are three categories of employees at the mine
with the third category being casual workers, the study focused on permanent and contractual
employees because these two categories of employees were seen as being more relevant to
comprehensively addressing the research objectives.

3.4 Sampling Design


Due to the qualitative nature of this research which stressed an in-depth investigation into one
organization, purposive sampling was used as opposed to random sampling. This is because the
emphasis was on quality rather than quantity; the objective was not to maximize numbers but to
become saturated with information on the topic (Padgett, 1998, p. 52). Thus, a case study of
Chibuluma Mines Plc was picked to suit the study. The criteria used for the selection of this site
for the study hinged on manageability in terms of the researchers accessibility to management
and the employees (prospective respondents) and the willingness of respondents to speak freely
with the interviewer.

3.5 Ethical Considerations


The ethical challenge that arose in this research study was the issue of confidentiality of all
personal information supplied by the respondents. Any such reference that arose in the research
was, therefore, with the full consent of the respondents. The privacy of respondents was
considered in that no particular name was cited. Also, all information supplied by the
respondents was used specifically for the purpose of this study and no other purpose.

3.6 Data Collection Methods


3.6.1 Primary Data
This is first hand data collected directly from the field by the researcher. The importance of
primary data is to bridge the gap that exists between the past studies and the current one. This
type of data is also significant in that it provides the study with updated information, which suits
the problem at hand. Therefore, primary data, in the form of first-hand accounts of events and the
prevailing situation at the mining firm, was collected from employees of Chibuluma Mines Plc,
members of the trade union and a few representatives of management.
The primary data collection method used was in-depth, open-ended interviews. The use of the
interview guide indicates that there was some structure to the interviews even though they were
treated as conversations during which the interviewer drew out detailed information and
comments from the respondents. One way to provide more structure than in the completely
unstructured, informal conversational interview, while maintaining a relatively high degree of
flexibility, is to use the interview guide strategy (Patton as cited in Rubin & Babbie, 2001, p.
407). More structure eases the researchers task of organizing and analyzing interview data.
3.6.2 Secondary Data
Secondary data is, essentially, that data which has already been collected and written on by other
researchers in relation to the topic of research. The secondary data, consequently, was collected
through archival research which included electronic (internet based) and hard copy issues of
books, journals, newspapers as well as other academic publications.

3.7 Research Instruments


Research instruments entail the means used to collect data from the respondents. The most
common ones are questionnaires, interview guides, and observations.
In this study, interview guides were used as research instruments to collect the information from
the field. In order to obtain the desired information, interview guides were used to collect data
from a selected sample. Interview guides were the preferred choice of research instruments
because, as was alluded to in explaining the design of the research, an interactive procedure
through communication between the researcher and the respondents was considered appropriate
in terms of being able to make meaning from the explorations of this study. This would not have
been possible with questionnaires and/or observations.

3.8 Data Analysis


The analysis of interview transcripts as well as field notes was based on an inductive approach
geared to identifying patterns in the data by means of thematic codes. Inductive analysis means
that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the
data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis (Patton, 1980, p.
306).
Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990) whereby line, sentence, and paragraph segments of the transcribed interviews and
field notes were reviewed to decide what codes fit the concepts suggested by the data. Each code
was constantly compared to all other codes to identify similarities, differences, and general
patterns.
In sum, data were reduced and analyzed by means of thematic codes and concepts in a two-level
process. Themes gradually emerged as a result of the combined process of becoming intimate
with the data, making logical associations with the interview questions, and considering what
was learned during the initial review of the literature. At successive stages, themes moved from a
low level of abstraction to become major, overarching themes rooted in the concrete evidence
provided by the data. These emerging themes together with a substantive-formal theory of
development-focused collaboration became the major findings of this study.

3.9 Reliability and Validity of Data


The reliability and validity of the data contained herein is guaranteed by the fact that there was
extensive review of relevant literature found in various publications such as books, journals,
articles and other publications of academic standing. The primary data was further collected from
management and employees of Chibuluma Mines Plc who have practical experience of the
relationship that exists between the business activities of the mine and the impact of these
activities on human rights.

3.10 Limitations of the study


The researcher experienced the following limitations while carrying out this study:
Firstly, gathering of data was problematic owing to the sensitive nature of the research topic.
There was need to engage management at a given point in the research who were reluctant to cooperate with the researcher perhaps for fear of being exposed should there be a breach in their
human rights policy or lack thereof. This limitation was overcome by assuring and guaranteeing
management that the study was being conducted exclusively for academic purposes and that, to
this end, all information obtained while conducting this study would only be used to serve this
and no other purpose.
Secondly, there were time and resource constraints. The researcher had limited time to collect all
the data necessary from all stakeholders deemed as being valuable to the successful completion
of this study. Financial resources were also limited as the researcher required stationery,
transportation to the mine, and incurred other miscellaneous costs. Time limitations were
overcome by spending sufficient amounts of time at the mine on days that the researcher visited
the mine site so as to interview as many respondents as possible within a limited timeframe.
Resource constraints were overcome by seeking financial support from sponsors.

3.11. Summary
This chapter looked at the research design and methodology employed to fit this study. The
chapter also looked at the limitations experienced during the course of carrying out the study as
well as provided a brief justification of the reliability and validity of the data collected.

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.0. Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the interview data. The themes identified
within the data included: (a) employment and working conditions, (b) hours of work, (c) wages
and allowances, (d) unionization and labor relations, and (e) managements policy commitments
to human rights and labor standards.

4.1. Presentation of Findings


4.1.0. Employment and Working Conditions
It is important to start by noting that Chibuluma Mines is largely capital intensive and therefore
does not employ a large number of people in the mining department in particular. Management at
the mining firm confirmed that the mining department has a total number of 197 employees
employed on permanent basis. However, the Human Resource Department was not able to
confirm how many workers exactly are employed on contractual basis. Interviews with
contractual workers revealed that there was little to no job security for this category of workers
as workers could be fired on a whim. One respondent reiterated, This job of ours is not safe,
some of our friends have come to work one day only to be told it was their last day. The
supervisor just tells them dont come back tomorrow and that is it. This points to another way
in which business enterprises negatively impact the rights of employees considering they are
supposed to protect employees against unemployment and not have situations where employees
can be fired at any given time.
The national labor laws and international conventions require that employers ensure safe
working environments for their workers. Asked (contractual and permanent workers) about what
health and safety concerns workers had with regard to the work environment they were subjected
to, both permanent and contractual workers seemed to be on the same accord in stressing that
health and safety were a priority for management and that therefore they had no concerns with
regard to health and safety. The workers, in fact, were appreciative of the strides made by
management such as providing employees with safety bonuses for having worked a given period

of time without accidents to ensure a safe working environment for the mine employees. Two
contractual workers however expressed concern with the difficulty associated with accessing
medical services from the clinic situated at the mine site when they felt unwell while on duty
compared to their counterparts employed on permanent basis. The contractual workers also said
sometimes they are forced to work even when they are unwell because medical officers at the
mine clinic refuse to grant them sick leave which is a blatant violation of employee rights. All
workers are provided with protective clothing which includes; uniforms, safety boots, and
helmets. The workers pointed out that these items are actually replaced every six months to
mitigate the problem of tear and wear.
When asked what occupational health and safety concerns employees have expressed, the two
trade union members interviewed stated that there were none as far as they were concerned and
further added that all permanent employees are actually insured against accidents and injuries
and that employees who sustain serious occupational injuries, even though this has not happened
in a long time, are awarded as much as six months sick leave with full pay.
Asked how many leave days they are entitled to and whether these leave days are paid, all
permanent employees interviewed said they were entitled to at least 24 days of paid leave in any
calendar year. The contractual workers expressed that they did not necessarily have leave days
but just a day off work every once in a while. These days off were also paid.
Asked whether there have been times when employees were forced to do work against their will,
all employees interviewed (permanent and contractual) could not cite any situations where they
were subjected to forced labor. The researcher also attempted to find out if employees were
overloaded with work and the two trade union members when posed with this question expressed
that, sometimes, employees were overloaded with work especially during periods where they had
to meet targets for that given period.
4.1.1. Hours of Work
The laws of Zambia mandate normal working hours of 8 hours a day equivalent to 40 hours a
week. This includes periods of rest during working hours. The law further allows for overtime
work which must be fully paid for. Overtime work is naturally meant to be voluntary with the

exception of situations where the nature of the work of the organization requires compulsory
overtime in order to be viable.
All workers interviewed at the mining firm confirmed that they work in shifts of 8 hours every
day from Monday to Friday. The first shift starts at 07:00am and ends at 15:00pm, the second
shifts starts at 15:00pm and ends at 23:00pm and finally the last shift commences at 23:00pm and
ends at 07:00am. Asked how much employees are paid for working overtime whenever they are
required to do so, some employees explained that every once in a while, they are required to
work on Saturdays from 07:00am to 13:00pm and are paid for doing so. However, there was
reluctance on their part to disclose how much they are paid exactly for working overtime. Based
on the information gathered from the mine employees and Management, the researcher
concluded that, in principle, overtime work is not compulsory on weekends but that in practice,
workers (particularly the contractual workers) do not have much option considering overtime
work is an opportunity for them to make a little more money seeing as they are paid very little.
4.1.2. Wages and Allowances
Of the two categories of employees interviewed, the wages of the contractual workers is perhaps
the biggest problem these workers face. Most of these workers are paid well below the official
national minimum wage, the existing wage rate is alarmingly low when measured against the
expectations of the workers, their workload and the rising cost of living in the country.
Having interviewed contractual workers, the researcher established that the maximum a
contractual worker at Chibuluma Mines gets is about K1800.00 with the lowest paid worker in
this category getting as little as K900.00 take home pay. Asked whether this salary was sufficient
to support them and their families, all the respondents in this category of workers answered in
the negative with some expressing that given the amount of work they do, they have
contemplated quitting their jobs several times but that they could not because the little they were
getting from this job was better than sitting at home doing nothing. While these workers are not
employed directly by the mining firm but by Contractors and Sub-contractors, this is a clear case
of how business activities impact the rights of employees through their relationships (in this case
the relationship between Chibuluma Mines and the Contractors) as was expressed in the
literature review.

The permanent employees were also asked what their net pay per month was. The lowest a
permanent employee at the mining firm gets is K2,554.22 with the highest getting K4,219.31.
Asked whether their salaries were sufficient to support themselves and their families, the
responses were varied. Some workers expressed that their salaries were not enough to sustain
them and their families while others expressed that they were able to make do with their salaries
on a monthly basis. However, the researcher observed that the majority of respondents who
claimed they were able to make do with their salaries were single and below the age of 27.
In terms of allowances, contractual workers do not receive any allowances whereas permanent
employees receive housing allowance, subsistence allowance and production allowance.
Permanent employees also receive safety bonuses for every year completed with no or minimal
accidents experienced as an incentive to encourage employees to be responsible for their own
safety as well as that of their colleagues.
4.1.3. Unionization and Industrial Relations
An analysis of the impact of the activities of Chibuluma Mines as a business on the rights of
employees required an understanding of the nature of the relationship that exists between
Management and the employees of the mine. Asked what policies are in place to ensure a
conducive environment for employees to freely organize and participate in collective bargaining,
Management explained that the mining firm tries by all means to conform to all ILO provisions
on fundamental principles and rights at work ratified by Zambia and this includes allowing their
employees to form or join a trade union and thus having members of the union participate in
collective bargaining. Management further explained that as a matter of fact, workers salaries
and general conditions of employment were by far and large a product of the collective
bargaining process and thus a determination of the collective agreements. The members of the
union interviewed however refuted this claim and charged that the determination of salaries was
the prerogative of Management and that all they are able to do is negotiate for raises when need
arises. When the two members of the union were asked how they would describe their
relationship with Management, they described their relationship as cordial. One of the
members of the trade union conceded that while differences between them as employees and
indeed employee representatives and Management were unavoidable in light of their different

interests, these differences are always addressed in an amicable manner as the goal is always to
ensure a win-win situation for both groups.
Asked what kind of processes and structures exist in the organization to respond to any
allegations of human rights violations made by employees, and how general employee
grievances are dealt with, the Management official interviewed said the mining firm has a
grievance procedure in place. Asked to briefly explain this procedure, the official reluctantly said
it was a long process and simply explained that the mine has grievance mechanisms from
operational level all the way to senior management level. When employees were posed with the
same question, they also made reference to the same grievance procedure explaining that when
they had grievances, they had their immediate supervisors (referred to as Mine Captain for the
permanent employees and Person in Charge for the contractual workers) to report to first and that
if these people were unable to address their grievances, they would go to more senior officials
and would go as far as they needed to until their grievances were satisfactorily addressed.
4.1.4. Managements Policy Commitments to Human Rights and Labour Standards
One of the Management officials interviewed contended that the mining firms employment
policy is developed in light of human rights, the Employment Act and the Industrial and Labour
Relations Act. Asked what the salary scales of the junior staff at the mine are, the official
provided the researcher with information which could essentially be summarized as follows:
Table 1.0: Salary Scales of Junior Staff at Chibuluma Mines
Grade
Entry
SG1
3,768.72
SG2
3, 537.48
SG3
3, 274.88
SG4
2, 970.65
SG5
2, 813.52
SG6
2, 704.59
SG7
2, 554.22
Source: Authors Compilation.

Maximum
4, 219.31
3, 988.07
3, 721.85
3, 414.01
3, 256.88
3, 146.75
2, 996.38

The official also contended that the mining firm conforms to and implements all international
conventions and labor standards such as those provided in ILO Regulations ratified by Zambia
when asked to cite which specific international standards the conditions of service for the

employees follow. Nonetheless, an objective review of the conditions of service for the
contractual workers seems to suggest otherwise.
When the Management officials were asked how the organization deals with the human rights
issue of due diligence policies and procedures in the work place, it appeared, from the response,
that the mining firm does not carry out human rights due diligence to assess its impacts or
potential impacts on human rights. The researcher deduced from this that Chibuluma Mines does
not, in a strict sense, fully espouse its corporate responsibility to promote and protect human
rights as the palpable lack of due diligence policies and procedures was a personification of a
lack of human rights policy.
However, when questioned on what ways the mine is committed to complying with the
provisions set out in the countrys national laws regarding conditions of service in the work
place, the interviewed officials said that the employment policy of the mine was 100% compliant
to the principle labour laws administered by the department of labour under the Ministry of
Labour which include:

The Employment Act, Cap. 268


The Industrial and Labour Relations Act, Cap. 269
The Employment (Special Provisions Act), Cap 270
The Minimum Wages and Conditions of Employment Act, Cap 276

In trying to elicit information on how the mine helps facilitate the incorporation of employees
into trade unions as well as their participation in collective bargaining with regard to
organizational policy, the interviewed officials explained that by virtue of the mines 100%
compliance to the countrys national laws, employees were at liberty to join or not join a trade
union as well as participate in collective bargaining given that one belongs to the trade union
and management did not have a hand to play in facilitating the same.

4.2.

Discussion of Findings

4.2.0. Employment and Working Conditions


Generally, it can be said that the employment and working conditions for both contractual
and permanent employees at Chibuluma Mines are better than the conditions that were found
at most of the business enterprises that were studied in Sub-saharan Africa and at Mopani
Copper Mines. For most of the business enterprises in Sub-saharan Africa, for example, the
workers were not provided with protective clothing, they had no paid leave, they expressed
occupational health and safety concerns with some employees in some organizations
complaining of ailments that were the result of their working environment and some
employees in other organizations such as MCM losing their lives as a result of being
subjected to dangerous working environments. They also worked longer hours without being
paid for working overtime and were compelled to work on weekends as well. However, the
issue of job insecurity is consistent in all studies particularly for contractual employees who
are not provided with employment contracts and can be dismissed from work any day.
Shanghai Construction Group, in Ghana, for instance employed all workers as casual workers
and even those that had been with the organization for a period exceeding six months were
not treated as permanent employees as per requirement by Ghanas Labour Act. The same is
the case for contractual employees at Chibuluma Mines some of whom have worked for the
mine for up to four years without employment contracts which is a clear breach of Part V of
the Employment Act of Zambia which requires that all employees are provided with a written
contract after having served an organization for six months or more.
4.2.1. Hours of Work
Other studies have shown that, like employees at Chibuluma Mines, workers in numerous
other business enterprises similar to the mining firm typically work in shifts of eight hours a
day from Monday to Friday as is the case at Formosa in South Africa. But this is not to say
that all businesses operate by the same standard as other studies, such as the one conducted in
Ghana, have shown that employees in some organizations work for up to nine hours a day for
every day of the week. This implies that some business enterprises are not doing their part to
ensure their employees have sufficient time for rest and leisure by reasonably limiting their
hours of work. This is a clear violation of employee rights. In terms of Chibuluma Mines, it
is fair to say that when it comes to hours of work, the mining firm upholds its corporate

responsibility to promote and protect the rights of its employees by reasonably limiting their
hours of work and paying for overtime when employees work beyond normal working hours.
4.2.2. Wages and Allowances
Article 23 of the International Bill of Human Rights provides that everyone who works has
the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social
protection.
While some employees at Chibuluma Mines are justly and favourably remunerated, most
employees are not and this is especially true for contractual employees some of whom are
paid below the minimum wage. This is consistent with the other studies conducted in other
parts of Africa and at MCM which also found that employees are paid low wages often
without allowances to supplement their low incomes. This is a clear-cut manifestation of how
business enterprises are negatively impacting the rights of employees. This is largely the
result of a lack of human rights due diligence policies and processes in the work place as is
illustrated by the contingency theory.
4.2.3. Unionization and Industrial Relations
The relationship between management at the mining firm and the employees is a friendly
one. This is a rare situation considering industrial relations tend to be very antagonistic and
naturally bring a divide between management and employees. This is true for all the studies
reviewed as indications were that the relationships between management and employees
were strained usually as a result of intimidation tactics by management as opposed to
fostering a progressive working relationship with employees.
In terms of unionization, Chibuluma Mines, true to their claim on commitment to complying
with national laws have created an enabling environment for employees to join trade unions
and have thus respected their freedom of association. In contrast, other studies have shown
that unions in some organizations are not tolerated and that any attempts to form or join a
trade union have resulted in employees being dismissed from work. The case of Formosa is a
very good example of this with employees being threatened with dismissal if they were doing
so much as talking to a friend on the lines in the factory. The lack of unions exacerbates the

problem of human rights violations as employees do not have representatives who can
effectively engage management on issues affecting them and this leaves them vulnerable.
4.2.4. Managements Policy Commitments to Human Rights and Labour Standards
The findings of this study were that management at the mining firm has no policies reflecting
their commitment to promote and protect the rights of employees and to adhering to national
and international labour standards. In practice, however, it was found that, at least to a certain
extent, the mining firm is committed to adhering to national and international labour
standards as well as to ensuring that employees rights are not infringed upon. This is
particularly true for permanent employees but does not apply to the contractual workers as
the violation of their rights could not be more obvious.
While it is not clear whether the studies that have been carried out before looked at business
policy commitments to human rights and labour standards, it is clear from their findings that
businesses, in relation to their impact on the rights of their employees, were found wanting as
it was apparent that their business activities were negatively impacting on the rights of their
employees. Studies carried out on Shanghai Construction Company in Ghana, Formosa in
South Africa, Landmark Projects and Advance Construction in Botswana are all perfect
examples. According to the contingency theory, which formed the theoretical framework of
this study, the lack of such policies in business enterprises implies that there are no human
rights due diligence processes in place and as such, it can be concluded that Chibuluma
Mines does not, in the strictest sense, espouse its corporate responsibility to promote and
protect the rights of its employees and that because of this, there are bound to be human
rights violations caused by them directly or indirectly through their business relationships as
is the case with the contractual employees.

4.6. Summary
This chapter endeavored to present and discuss the findings of the study under five themes
identified within the data which essentially became the major findings of this study. The key
findings of this research are; the employment and working conditions of both the permanent and
contractual employees point to a respect of their rights, the wages and benefits received by the
permanent employees of the mining firm are considerably fair for some and unjust for others,

and the relationship between management and employees is generally a healthy one. It can be
said that the business activities of Chibuluma Mines impact the rights of employees in both a
positive and negative way. The permanent employees, overall, are impacted in a positive way
mostly while the contractual employees are mostly impacted negatively with such things as low
wages, no allowances, and inability to belong to a trade union or have union representation. The
interpretation and subsequent discussion of the interview data were largely effective in
answering the research questions.

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0. Introduction
This study assessed the impact of the activities of Chibuluma Mines as a business on the rights of
its employees. This was essentially a case study of one business enterprise which is Chibuluma
Mines Plc. The constructivist interpretive paradigm was employed in the assessment and the
findings were presented in the fourth chapter of this paper. This chapter, consequently, draws
conclusions from the assessment and seeks to provide recommendations on how business
enterprises should go about their activities fully alive to their corporate responsibility to protect
and promote the rights of their employees so that they do not impact these rights negatively but
rather positively. The chapter will, additionally, suggest areas for future research.

5.1. The Research Problem


The worldwide expansion of the private sector during the last three decades has been
accompanied by a dramatic increase in the societal impacts of this sector, both in positive and
negative terms. Multinational enterprises may contribute to economic welfare and employment
and thereby contribute to the enjoyment of human rights. At the same time, however, enterprises
can also have a negative impact on human rights worldwide, for instance when they displace
indigenous peoples from their lands, when they pollute the environment on which communities
are dependent, when they breach labour rights, or when they are closely tied to a regime that
violates the rights of its citizens. Such adverse human rights impacts are abundant in the present
globalised economy, as profound power imbalances often allow the rights of the most weak and
vulnerable (such as employees) to be sacrificed for the interests of powerful enterprises and their
shareholders and herein lies the problem.

5.3. Main Findings


The main findings of this study can be summed up as follows:
a) The employment and working conditions of both the permanent and contractual
employees point to a respect of their rights and, therefore, it can be said that their rights
are impacted positively.
b) In terms of hours of work, all employees normally work eight hours a day from Monday
to Friday except when they are required to work overtime every once in a while on
Saturdays for which they are paid.
c) The wages and benefits received by the permanent employees of the mining firm are
considerably fair for some and unjust for others. This is especially true for the contractual
workers who do not receive any benefits and are paid low salaries with some receiving
salaries well below the statutory minimum wage.
d) The relationship between management and employees is generally a healthy one with a
member of the trade union describing it as cordial. In terms of unionization, permanent
employees are free to form or join a trade union while contractual workers are not and do
not have representation in the trade union.
e) In practice, it can be said that the mining firm, to a certain extent, espouses its corporate
responsibility to respect the rights of employees but the lack of a human rights policy, in
theory, implies limited commitment. Also, it is evident that the mining firm is committed
to complying with national labour laws.

5.4. Conclusion
This study concludes that Chibuluma Mines Plc upholds its corporate responsibility to respect
the rights of its employees, particularly the permanent employees, to the extent that the mining
firm conforms to national labour laws with regard to conditions of service in the workplace. The
lack of a human rights policy, however, that stipulates the mining firms position on human
rights, in no uncertain terms, leaves much to be desired. Although the contractual workers are not
employed directly by the mine but indirectly through sub-contractors, the mining firm is
responsible for them and their failure to engage the sub-contractors on the need to treat
contractual employees fairly and with human rights in mind is indicative of a negative impact on
the rights of this category of employees. The management officials claimed that the subcontractors, by virtue of their relationship with the mine, were bound by the mines core values

but this is clearly not the case. Therefore, on the question of whether the mining firm espouses its
corporate responsibility to respect the rights of the employees, the answer is yes and no.
Naturally, then, in assessing how the business activities of the mine impact the rights of the
employees, this study found that the impact is both positive and negative. Further, in trying to
ascertain what processes the mine has in place to enable remediation when a human rights
impact has occurred, it was the discovery of the study that the mine has grievance mechanisms in
place to handle general employee grievances as well as allegations of human rights violations.

5.5. Recommendations
Given the findings of this study, the following are the recommendations:
i. To start with, Chibuluma Mines Plc should develop a human rights policy statement that
makes clear their commitment to honouring their responsibility to promote and protect
human rights and this policy statement should be made available to the public.
ii. The mining firm should also adopt human rights due diligence as this will enable them
actively identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address and manage their
potential and actual human rights impacts.
iii. The contractual workers should be allowed union representation for the advancement and
protection of their interests. Management should, therefore, change their policy inhibiting
contractual workers from joining or having representation in the union.
iv. There should be affirmative action in the form of a deliberate policy to ensure that
contractual employees are given first priority to be employed on permanent basis
whenever there is an employment opportunity.
v. The mining firm should also engage independent external human rights expertise to
assess its impacts on the rights of employees. This could be a starting point for dealing
with the plight of contractual workers.

5.6. Areas For Future Research


Considering the fact that this was a case study of one business enterprise, the findings may not
necessarily be reflective of the true picture of how business enterprises impact the rights of their
employees. It is, therefore, imperative that research on the same topic is conducted on multiple
business enterprises across all sectors of the economy so as to get a more insightful perspective
into how business enterprises are handling their corporate responsibility to respect the rights of
their employees in particular as well as how they are impacting these rights.

5.7. Summary
This chapter basically highlighted the main findings of the study and drew conclusions, based on
those findings, in a way that provided answers to the research questions. That is to say the
conclusions drawn in this chapter were in fact answers to the research questions. The chapter
also made recommendations and provided suggestions on possible areas for future research.

REFERENCES
Business and Human Rights Initiative. (2010). How to Do Business with Respect for Human
Rights: A Guidance Tool for Companies. The Hague: Global Compact Network Netherlands.
Available:
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/Resources/how_to_business_wi
th_respect_for_human_rights_gcn_netherlands_june2010.pdf. Last accessed 12th February 2014.
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. (2008). Rights Compatible Grievance Mechanisms: A
Guidance Tool for Companies and their Stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative
Working Paper No. 41: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Available:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg/CSRI/publications/Workingpaper_41_Rights
Compatible
%20Grievance% 20Mechanisms_May2008FNL.pdf. Last accessed 12th February 2014.
Danish Institute for Human Rights. (2006). Quick Check on MNCs. Available: https://hrca2.
humanrightsbusiness.org/docs/file/HRCA%20Quick%20Check_English.pdf. Last accessed 16th
February 2014.
Goldstone, J. (2013). The Business and Human Rights Review. Allen and Overy LLPs Human
Rights Working Group. Geneva, Switzerland.
Harrison, J. (2011). Human Rights Measurement: Reflections on the Current Practice and Future
Potential of Human Rights Impact Assessment. J Hum Rights Pract 2011;3(2):16287.
Harrison, J. (2013). An Evaluation of the Institutionalisation of Corporate Human Rights Due
Diligence. Working paper. SSRN. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117924. Last accessed 16th February 2014.
ICCM. (2009). Human Rights in the Mining & Metals Industry: Handling and Resolving Local
Level Concerns & Grievances.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2008). Cross-sectional
Silica Exposure Measurements at Two Zambian Copper Mines of Nkana and Mufulira.
Jackie Range. (2005). Zambias Miners Paying the Price.
Jungk, M. (2003). Building a Tool for Better Business Practice: The Human Rights Compliance
Assessment. The Danish Centre For Human Rights. Available: http://
www.humanrightsbusiness.org/files/HRCA/building_a_tool_rev03.pdf. Last accessed 16
February 2014.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). Human Rights,
Alternative Dispute Resolution and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/11/38297552.pdf. Last accessed 17th February
2014.
Rees, C. & Vermijs, D. (2008). Mapping Grievance Mechanisms in the Business and Human
Rights Arena. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative: John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University. Available: http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Rees-VermijsMapping-grievance-mechanisms-Jan-2008.pdf. Last accessed 10th February 2014.
Ruggie, J. (2008). Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights.
Available: http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf. Last accessed
19th February 2014.
Ruggie, J. (2011). The UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework for Business and Human
Rights. Available: http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-protect-respect-remedy-framework.pdf. Last
accessed 26th December 2013.
Simpere, A.S. (2010). The Mopani Copper Mine, Zambia: How European Development Money
has fed a Mining Scandal. CEE Bankwatch Network.
UNCTAD. (2007). Transnational Corporations, Extractive Industries and Development, World
Investment Report 2007. UN Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva. Available:
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2007_ en.pdf. Last accessed 10th February 2014.
UN. (2008c). Special Rep of UN Sec General, Report on the issue of human rights and
transnational corporations and other business enterprises. United Nations, Geneva. Available:
http://198.170.85.29/ Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf. Last accessed 10th February 2014.
UN. (2009b). Special Report of UN Sec General, Report on the issue of human rights and
transnational corporations and other business enterprises. United Nations, Geneva. Available:
http://www2.ohchr.
org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/11session/A.HRC.11.13.pdf.
Last
th
accessed 10 February 2014.
UN. (2011). Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and
Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework.
United
Nations
Human
Rights
Council,
Geneva.
Available:
http://www.
th
ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf. Last accessed 10 February
2014.
Van Huijstee, M. et al. (2012). How to use the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights in Company Research and Advocacy, A Guide for Civil Society Organisations, SOMO,
CEDHA, Cividep India. Available: http://somo.nl/news-en/somo-news/new-guide-for-civilsociety-organisations. Last accessed 10th February 2014.

Walker S. (2009). The Future of Human Rights Impact Assessment and Trade Agreements.
Utrecht: School of Human Rights Research Series 2009;vol. 35.

APPENDICES

Appendix A
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR EMPLOYEES
1. In which age category do you fall?
18-27years
28-37years
38-47years
48-57years
Above 57years
2. What is your Marital Status?
Single

Married

Widowed

Separated

Divorced

3. How long have you been working for the Mine?


Less than 1year
1-5years
6-10years
11-15years
More than 15years
4. In what capacity do you work for the mine (occupation)? [thought it would
make sense to establish if the given respondent is an underground miner, surface
miner, surveyor, and so on]
5. In what category of employees do you fall?
Full-time
Contractual
6. How many hours do you work per day?
7. What is your net pay per month?
8. From your experience, would you say this salary is enough to support you and
your family?
9. How much are you paid for working overtime whenever you are required to do
so?

10. How many leave days are you entitled to per year, and are these leave days paid?
11. What health and safety concerns do you have with regard to the work
environment you are subjected to?
12. What are your thoughts on whether Mine employees are paid equally for equal
work?
13. In your time working for the Mine, could you cite any situations where you were
forced to do work against your will (forced labour)?
14. To what extent are you free to form/join a trade union for the protection of your
interests?
15. What is your experience when it comes to your right to participate in collective
bargaining?
16. What are your thoughts on your freedom to associate with other employees of
the Mine during working hours?
17. How does Management deal with your grievances?

Appendix B
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE TRADE UNION
1. How would you describe your relationship with management as a trade union?

2. What policies are in place to ensure a conducive environment for employees to freely
organize and participate in collective bargaining?
3. What kind of processes and structures exist in this mine to respond to any
allegations of violations of human rights standards regarding employees, and how
does the mine deal with your general grievances as employees?
4. What occupational health and safety concerns have employees expressed?
5. What is your experience when it comes to the amount of leisure time and holidays
accorded to employees, and are these holidays paid?
6. In your own view, are all unionized workers treated equally?
7. What are your thoughts on whether employees are overloaded with work or not?
8. Do you think that employees are remunerated fairly or not?
9. In your time working for this Mine, could you cite any situations where employees
have been forced to do work against their will (forced labour).

Appendix C
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT
1. What kind of employment policy does your Mine implement, and what are some of
the issues the policy tries to address?

2. What are the salary scales of the junior staff at this Mine?
3. In your own view, what specific international standards (such as those provided in
the International Labour Organizations Regulations) do your conditions of service
for your employees follow?
4. How does your organization deal with the human rights issue of due diligence
policies and procedures in work places?
5. What kind of processes and structures exist in your organization to respond to any
allegations of human rights violations made by employees, and how are general
employee grievances dealt with?
6. In what ways is the Mine committed to complying with the provisions set out in the
countrys national laws regarding conditions of service in the work place?
7. With regard to organizational policy, how does the Mine help facilitate the
incorporation of employees into trade unions as well as their participation in
collective bargaining?