INTRODUCTION

The violations of human rights have a grave side effect to a lot of corporate activities
across nations. Many corporations are criticized because of their use of child labor, slavery,
illegitimate expropriation of land and other operations that harm not only human health but also
the environment. Multinational corporations in particular have been singled out as important
players in the maintenance of human rights given their economic status and international
dimension.

Under international law, states must protect their people from the acts of entities that
harm human rights. However, while the government bears the primary responsibility to protect
and respect human rights, many, if not all, often fail due to the lack of will or capacity, or
because of their utter disregard of human lives. What then could be done to hold corporations
accountable for their human rights abuses? Many attempts to apply human rights law directly
against corporations have gathered heated arguments and a wide array of initiatives to come to
terms with such concern. Thus, in 2011, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
was endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council which reinforced the states’ legal obligation to
protect against human rights abuses. It also emphasized the responsibility of businesses to avoid
infringing on human rights.

This paper will take a closer look at the corporate human rights abuses internationally and
in the Philippines with respect to various forms of industries which have adverse effects on the
different rights of individuals. This paper will aim to explore the different international laws
which aim to support, protect and promote human rights, the state duty to protect human rights,
the corporate responsibility to respect such rights, the need for a remedy, internationally and
locally and the various obstacles people face in enforcing their claims against multinational or
transnational corporations. This aims to provide for an overview and assessment of the legal
ways for asserting responsibility for violation of human rights arising out of corporate activities.
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Understanding Human Rights

The issue of corporate involvement in human rights abuses has been pressing issue for
about three decades now. Before, you would rarely see the words “human rights” and
“corporations” in one sentence. Human rights were the business of States while corporations just
had to mind their own business. Today, the issue on corporate violation of human rights is
everywhere, but what do corporations understand and talk about human rights?

Some sources define rights as a “privilege”, but when used in the context of human
rights, we are talking about something more basic. Every human being is entitled to certain
fundamental rights, simply by the fact of being born into this world, of being human. These are
called human rights, rather than a privilege. Inherently, these rights could not be taken away
capriciously. They are “rights” because they are things that we human beings are allowed to be,
to do or to have. These rights are for our protection against people who might want to harm or
hurt us. They are also there to help us get along with each other and live in peace.

Most people know something about their rights, usually only the basic ones, but millions
have no idea that human rights mean more than our right to live, to food, etcetera. And this is
where the problem comes in. When human rights are not well known by people, abuses can arise
such as discrimination, intolerance, injustice, oppression and slavery.

While “international human rights” is a broad concept to define, several international

agreements enumerate specific standards. The United Nations (UN) has set forth the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states that human rights are rights inherent to all
human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other
status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture,
freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.1 It therefore
provides standards for various human rights like the rights of life, liberty, security of person,
assembly and association, freedom of movement, and the right to vote or take part in the
government. It also promotes freedom from torture, cruel and inhuman punishment, arbitrary
arrest, unjust labor practices, and slavery.2

Other directives consider environmental protection a vital human right. The UN has also
stated that the involvement of corporations in human rights issues is present and that
“transnational corporations should/shall respect the social and cultural objectives, values and
traditions of the countries in which they operate” and “shall respect human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the countries in which they operate.”3

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights is already stated in the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights.4 The Guiding Principles explicitly call on companies
to respect human rights and such is not optional. It arises from the global standard of expected

1
(United Nations, 2019)
2
(United Nations General Assembly, 1948)
3
(Development and International Economic Cooperation: Transnational Corporations, 1990)
4
(United Nations Human Rights Council, 2011)
conduct that is embodied in the generally accepted principles of international law. Specifically,
Principles 11 and 12 are relevant to the corporations and the impact of their global operations:

11. 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.

12. 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 Organization’s
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Thus, under Foundational Principles 11 and 12, the duty and responsibility respect human
rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all businesses wherever they operate. It exists
independently of States’ abilities to fulfil their own human rights obligations and it exists over
and above compliance with local laws and regulations addressing the protection human rights.
Addressing adverse human rights impacts requires taking adequate measures for their prevention,
mitigation and, where appropriate, remediation. Business enterprises may undertake such other
commitments or activities to respect and promote human rights, which may contribute to the
enjoyment of rights, but this does not give an excuse to a failure to respect human rights
throughout their operations.

Because businesses and corporations alike can have an impact on the entire spectrum of
internationally recognized human rights, it is their responsibility to respect all such rights. Some
human rights may be at greater risk of being violated than others in particular instances, and
therefore will be the focus greater attention. However, situations may always change, so all
human rights should be the subject of review.

An authoritative list of the core internationally recognized human rights is contained in

the International Bill of Human Rights (consisting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the main instruments through which it has been codified: the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights),
coupled with the principles concerning fundamental rights in the eight ILO core conventions as
set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. These are the
benchmarks against which other social actors assess the human rights impacts of business
enterprises. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights is distinct from
issues of legal liability and enforcement, which remain defined largely by national law
provisions in relevant jurisdictions.5

Depending on circumstances, business enterprises may need to consider additional

standards. For instance, enterprises should respect the human rights of individuals belonging to
specific groups or populations that require particular attention, where they may have adverse

5
(Human Rights Council, 2011)
human rights impacts on them. In this connection, United Nations instruments have elaborated
further on the rights of indigenous peoples; women; national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities; children; persons with disabilities; and migrant workers and their families. Moreover,
in situations of armed conflict enterprises should respect the standards of international
humanitarian law.6

However, despite the acceptance of most states and corporations of these definitions, the
concept of what constitutes human rights violation is still many and varied, covering virtually
anything of internationally recognized rights. The lack of a uniform definition is apparent.
Seventy years after issue, the UDHR still remains as a dream rather than a reality. Various forms
of violations exist in every part of the world. The Amnesty Report 2017/18 documented various
conflicts across 159 countries and territories during 2017.

Although the UN has treaties to address these corporate violations, there is no single
institutional authority that can exercise direct review over companies, multinational corporations
or transnational corporations. These instruments are also not designed for holding corporations
responsible. Thus, the most comprehensive mechanism for asserting their responsibility is
through the state where they conduct operations, or the state of incorporation.

In Africa, children and adults risked their lives and health working in cobalt mines for a
dollar a day. The Report also shows that individuals are tortured or abused in at least 80
countries, face unfair trials in at least 55 countries and are restricted in their freedom of speech
and expression in at least 77 countries.7 In simple parlance, beating a civilian would constitute
human rights violation but beating a thief would not, as it would be a punishment for his crime.

Displacing locals from their ancestral lands and exploiting their lands in the guise of
“development” would not constitute human rights violation as the exploitation was with the
tribe’s consent. But as if that is not enough, mining corporations and other industries engaged in
extracting activities often leave their areas of operation bare and deforested, without due
compliance to their corporate social responsibility. Often these places are left polluted and
damaged, leaving the locals with no choice but to leave the area for good.

In sum, to protect human rights is to ensure that people receive decent, humane treatment.
To violate is to deny individuals of their much more basic and fundamental rights.

6
(Human Rights Council, 2011)
7
(Amnesty Interational Report 2017/18, 2018)
The Nature of Multinational Corporations

Insofar as this paper is concerned, a “corporation” is a company, recognized by law to

possess legal personality. A “multinational” is one that operates in multiple jurisdictions8. Thus,
it may be incorporated in its domiciliary state, but operates in another. As such, these
multinational corporations (MNCs) wield significant power in the global arena. They have the
ability to exercise market power and influence in the countries where they operate, although such
control is remote. Their extraordinary power and impact has different perspectives. This
economic power, and the de facto political power that comes with it, means that MNCs are in a
dominant position to be able to affect human rights, whether adversely or not. The digital and
electronic age has caused this power to increase dramatically, thus, the need for their regulation
is not just hypothetical in nature.

Ideally, with the influence held by MNCs, cooperation between them and government
authorities with regard to different commercial, financial and technical activities shall guarantee
legal and actual respect and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Surely,
MNCs have influenced the world in a positive way such as the creation of employment, new
innovations in technology and products, and the enhancement of peoples’ lives and interest. Yet
there are also many instances where MNCs misuse the laws of its host country in order to
perpetuate more harm than good. This causes the obliteration of the society. In some instances,
there is an utter disregard of not only the municipal laws, but also of the international laws that
govern human rights. In reality, corporations should have the legal duty to respect human rights.
As stated earlier, the Guiding Principles state that corporations should respect human rights.

Relevant to this discussion is the Foundational Principle 13 of the Guiding Principles

which provides that businesses are required to:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights

impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts
when they occur; [and] (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse
human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations,
products or services by their business relationships, even if they
have not contributed to those impacts.

Thus under the Interpretative Guide, companies are responsible for the adverse impact on
human rights under the following instances:

a. When it causes impacts through its own activities;

b. When it may contribute to impacts through its own activities, either directly or
indirectly; and
c. When it may be involved in impacts caused by an entity that is directly linked to its
business operations, products, or services.

Corporations should not be allowed to profit from abusing human rights. But respecting
is different from promoting. Even if the UDHR discourages the abuse of human rights in
corporate operations, it lacks the necessary imposition of such. In the next part, corporate
8
(Donohue, 2015)
violators will be enumerated to show how corporations have a hand in committing acts against
human rights.
International Corporate Involvement in Human Rights Violations

Over the years, many corporations have faced the spotlight of international condemnation
for committing such violations. Take for example Caterpillar Company. For years, Caterpillar
has provided the Israel government with machineries and equipment to destroy Palestinian
homes, yet despite the criticism, Caterpillar has refused to end its participation in the house
demolition.9 Indeed, businesses have legitimate needs for the acquisition of lands which shall
enable them to carry out a number of economic activities. But too often, the methods used to
acquire and use lands have resulted in adverse human rights impacts for local communities and
tribes who have prior claims to the land, as users, tillers, or owners.

Nestle, one of the largest MNC, has been reported to continuously violate human rights.
In the 1970s, Nestle promoted their infant formula in developing countries. The formula,
however, have to be mixed with clean water, a resource which the African countries lacked. This
resulted in babies consuming infant formula mixed with contaminated water causing serious
illness and death. This violates the peoples’ right to a healthy life. Colorado and California had to
face a drought due to water drainage by Nestle for their bottled water industry10. In addition to
that, Nestle has also committed various acts that violate labor standards, human rights and others.

Child slavery is common. Slavery alone is considered as an illegal act which is highly
condemned and criticized across the globe. Thus, if a well-established MNC encourages slavery,
it is unacceptable in all levels. By enslaving children, Nestle has clearly violated the rights of
children who were forced to work without wages in cocoa farms. Freedom from torture was also
violated when these children were abused.

Petrochemical giant Chevron is also responsible for unleashing over 600 unlined oil pits
in the pristine Amazon rainforest and dumping about 18 billion gallons of toxic pollutants into
the rivers. Local communities around the area have suffered severe health effects, including
cancer, skin lesion, birth defects and spontaneous abortions.11

Coca-Cola leads in the abuse of laborers’ rights and discrimination. In the year 2000,
thousands of African-American employees in the United States sued the company for race-based
disparities in pay and promotions. Hundreds of other Coca-Cola workers who have joined or
considered joining the Colombian union SINALTRAINAL have been kidnapped, tortured, and
detained by paramilitaries who are hired to intimidate workers to prevent them from
unionizing12. In some other chains, workers are subjected to dangerous working conditions,
forced labor and low pay.

Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world; it is also one of the worst
abusers of the human right of universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine.13

9
(Global Exchange, 2005)
10
(Mattera, 2013)
11
(Global Exchange, 2005)
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
 In 2015, British defense company BAE Systems supplies advanced spy technology and
decoding systems to carry out wiretapping and to intercept communications. Concerns over mass
surveillance practices of the government continue to rise. The adoption of mass surveillance
technology will undoubtedly infringe upon every person’s right to privacy. This danger is far
from being resolved, but mobile companies, such as Apple and Google are strengthening
encryption of mobile devices as a default mobile service measure, making it extremely difficult
for anyone to access data unlawfully. This is in response to the governmental violations of right
to privacy with the help of technology provided by toner companies.

Day in, day out, developing countries lose more than they earn due to crime, stolen
property, bribery, corruption and various acts which constitute tax evasion. These illegal cash
flows are accompanied by illegal trade in goods and commodities such as drugs, weapons,
minerals and timbers, gems, human organs, as well as the trafficking of people and the
smuggling of migrants. Human rights violation is present in every act and turn in these series of
activities, and with every turn, money is gained.

Sexual violence, while one of the most widespread human rights violation, remains to be
the one which is grossly underreported. The workplace itself is a sanctuary for violence and
harassment in the society. In other cases, the work itself provides the avenue for such harm.
Outside sexual violence, other instances of abuse arise such as sex-segregated workplaces, pay
discrimination, precarious contracts and the lack of female representation. Vulnerable groups
include domestic workers, migrant workers, low status workers, service sector workers and sex
workers. Men, boys, women and girls can also be vulnerable to exploitation in various several
other specific scenarios.

Actual Cases have also been filed alleging the direct and primary responsibility of
corporations for gross human rights abuses.

In October 2007, proceedings were filed in the US courts against Blackwater (a privately
owned company) together with its parent company Prince Group LLC and its chairman and
owner Eric Prince alleging direct liability for extra-judicial killings and war crimes following the
actions of Blackwater employees in Iraq in 2007. The claim under the ATS and state tort law
alleged that the defendants had acted negligently in that they had not taken proper care in hiring,
screening and training employees and for maintaining a corporate culture that fostered the
excessive and unnecessary use of force.14

There were also allegations that Shell and members of the Shell group of companies
(incorporated in the UK, Netherlands and Nigeria) were involved in the torture, extra-judicial
killing, arbitrary detention and other violations by the Nigerian government. The factual
allegations against Shell included claims that Shell companies had enlisted the help of the
Nigerian authorities to put down protests in a violent manner. It was alleged that Shell, through
its subsidiaries, had provided transport, staging points for launching attacks and that Shell had
also provided food and financial remuneration to the soldiers. The case was dismissed.15

Some violations also included harassment of human rights advocates.

14
(Zerk, 2011)
15
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et. al. 569 U.S. 108, April 16, 2013.
 Ken Saro-Wiwa, the co-founder of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People
who fought against Shell and the Nigerian Government over the effects of oil pollution, was
executed in 1995. His family sued Shell for alleged complicity in his execution, and settled a
lawsuit with Shell for $15.5 million in 2009. His story stresses the vulnerability of activists
working for corporate accountability16.

In 2016, the Chinese Government intensified its crackdown on human rights lawyers.
Over 240 lawyers and activists were questioned by police, detained or charged for subverting
state power. This included lawyers involved in business and human rights cases such as Jiang
Tianyong who disappeared in November 2016. The police have confirmed that he was in police
custody and later informed his family that he is under “residential surveillance,” another form of
detention, but have not disclosed where. He had been involved in high profile cases and
represented victims of the 2008 scandal over deadly tainted milk.

Globally, of the 450 cases of violence, 166 involved criminalization and legal harassment
of activists and their actions, including 64 cases of lawsuits against them and 75 cases of
arbitrary detention. This type of attacks occurs most frequently in cases involving the mining
sector (46 instances).

The number of corporations committing human rights violation is countless and many are
left unreported. Corporate impunity is common, but corporate accountability is rare. The trend
shows that the impunity of companies and corporations for involvement in human rights abuses
is increasing, along with the increase of economics and it is likely to get worse, particularly in
territories or areas were business interests are able to ride and influence the national politics
enabling companies to hide themselves from responsibility.

Many human rights violations by businesses are by nature, invisible. As already stated
and illustrated above, black market labor conditions, human trafficking and government
corruption are only some of the acts designed to avoid detection. Many third world countries lack
the staff and equipment to monitor working conditions, measure pollution and audit revenues.

16
(Business and Human Rights Resource Center, n.d.)
Philippines: Corporate Human Rights Violations

In the Philippines alone, several of these actions are being committed in different levels
of corporate operations.

a. Human Trafficking

Agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) arrested 5 suspected human

traffickers during an entrapment operation in a condominium unit in Pasay City. In addition to
that, last May 9, 2019, the Destiny Rescue Philippines with its joint efforts with the NBI, have
successfully prevented the trafficking of 159 females. The Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) are also involved in the investigation of the case.

Region 7 was ranked third with most number of human trafficking cases filed in court
throughout the Philippines from 2003 to 2017. Regional State Prosecutor Fernando Gubalane,
also the chief of the Inter-Agency Council against Trafficking (IACAT) in Central Visayas, said
out of the 17 regions in the Philippines, the National Capital Region ranked first with the most
number of human trafficking cases. NCR has 991 cases of trafficking in persons filed before the
court, where 1,890 are victims and 1,227 are accused. It is followed by Region 3 with 387 cases
in court with 578 victims and 843 accused.17

b. Funds from Illegal Activities

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has also submitted its Suspicious Transaction Reports
(STRs) covering the period January 2013 to December 2017. According to the report, “the
Philippines has become a top destination of illicit funding for criminal activity such as violation
of environmental laws, illegal trafficking of persons, kidnapping for ransom, illegal drugs,
plunder and corruption-related crimes, investment scams and estafa, smuggling, violation of
intellectual property rights, illegal manufacture and possession of firearms, ammunition and
explosives, web-related crimes, financing of terrorism and terrorism and conspiracy to commit
terrorism.”18

c. Contribution of Carbon Majors to Climate Change and Global Warming

One petition was filed by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) requesting for the
investigation of the responsibility of the Carbon Majors for human rights violations or threats of
violations resulting from the impacts of climate change. Carbon Majors is the term used for the
global carbon dioxide and methane emissions by multinational state-owned producers of crude
oil, natural gas, coal and cement19. Some of the Carbon Majors have operations or a presence, or
a substantial connection to the Philippines and their presence have serious importance and
consequences to the Philippines due to the country’s high vulnerability to the impacts of climate
change. Aside from that, they also affect the marginalized and disadvantaged people and
communities specifically vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including women, children,
persons with disabilities (PWDs), those in extreme poverty, and indigenous people.

17
(Antojado, 2018)
18
(Lacuata, 2019)
19
(Heede, 2014)
 Some people from the islands of the Philippines testified that in the recent years, they
have been forced to settle in farther inland because seemingly the sea levels have risen. Farming,
copra making, and backyard vegetable gardening have also been very hard and most often,
unproductive. Incomes from these activities are small and insufficient to meet the daily needs of
the family.

Carbon Majors are required to exercise due diligence in their business activities or
relationships as part of their corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The UN Guiding
Principle 17 explains that businesses should “identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how
they address their adverse human rights impacts” by carrying out human rights due diligence.
Thus, the human rights due diligence process include the following elements:

 Assessing actual and potential impacts of business activities on human rights;

 Acting on the findings of this assessment, including by integrating appropriate
measures to address impacts into company policies and practices;
 Tracking how effective the measures taken are in preventing or mitigating adverse
human rights impacts; and
 Communicating to the outside world about the due diligence process and results.20

d. Labor

Many massacres have been documented throughout the Philippine history but the
violence that occurred involving the plantation and milling workers of the Cojuangco-owned
Hacienda Luisita remains as one of the most prominent instance of protest related death whereby
the protesters pushed for an increase in their weekly wage, increased work benefits, and a greater
commitment to national land reform.

Children in the Philippines are also engaged in the worst forms of child labor, including,
but not limited to, armed conflict and commercial sexual exploitation. There are 2.1 million child
laborers aged 5-17 years old based on the 2011 Survey on Children of the Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA). About 95 per cent of them are in hazardous work. Sixty-nine per cent of these
are aged 15-17 years old, beyond the minimum allowable age for work but still exposed to
hazardous work.

e. Torture and Harassment of victims and their lawyers

As of 2017, numerous sources had reported torture that is being practiced by police and
other security forces.21

Aside from the serious violent attacks and the instances of arbitrary killings and enforced
disappearances, persons who try and choose to go against corporations are also contending with
the danger of harassment, or even more.

Recently, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) sought Supreme Court
protection from army harassment. They alleged that since the beginning of the Duterte
20
(O'Brien, 2013)
21
(Dumlao, 2017)
administration, a total of 55 lawyers/human rights advocates have been attacked, 36 of whom
have been killed. In this case, “the lawyers are harassed not for their individual actions as
lawyers per se, but for being members of the NUPL and the cases, clients, and issues they take
on. Given the context, history, and contemporaneous statements and events, Petitioners have a
well-founded belief that the respondents herein and their agents are responsible in many ways for
the attacks against NUPL and its members,” said the lawyers.”

f. Discrimination Against the LGBTQ+

The first ever Philippine Corporate SOGIE Diversity and Inclusiveness (CSDI) Index —
a study conducted by the Philippine LGBT Chamber of Commerce and research firm Cogencia,
and supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Philippines — surveyed
100 companies on their anti-discrimination and equal opportunity employment policies. Out of
the 100, they found zero Philippine-based companies implementing policies meant to protect
their employees from SOGIE-based discrimination. The study includes results of Patricia Angela
Luzano Enriquez’s research paper, in which she found that 25 percent of respondents have
experienced harassment from their employers or superior officers, 33 percent have experienced
harassment from co-workers, and 60 percent have been the subject of slurs and jokes in the
workplace. The overall data makes clear the dominant attitude towards LGBTQs in the
Philippines’ professional world. While the CSDI Index did find 17 percent of companies with
some form of SOGIE-inclusive, non-discriminatory policy, they all had one thing in common:
they were all from the BPO Sector, which, more often than not, are foreign-headquartered. And
among the 17 percent, the policies were far from perfect.22

g. Environment Related Violations

During the rehabilitation of Manila Bay, various corporations received cease and desist
orders from the authorities. These corporations include leather factories, food and poultry
processing plants which failed to comply with the standard waste water treatment to prevent
water pollution.

Furthermore, more than 200 Boracay businesses have also been fined for violating
Philippine environmental laws. The acts included violations of the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act.

According to a news article, the Marcventures Mining and Development Corporation

(MMDC), a mining corporation in Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, still continues to operate despite its
violations. Apparent lack of transparency and accountability on the side of MMDC and
regulatory bodies in the area led to poor management and poor results of mining operations in
the town of Cantilan. Rivers were also polluted with silt, mountains were denuded, and
farmlands were devastated and indigenous people groups were left uncompensated. It was found
out that MMDC was mining beyond its mineral production and sharing agreement (MPSA) and
regulatory permits the company applied for. MMDC also failed to submit its environmental
protection and enhancement program and a final mine/decommissioning plan which is required

22
(Chasal, 2018)
by law. Yet despite the temporary environment protection order (TEPO) issued by the local court
against MMDC, they still continued to operate. This has resulted to loss of income due to the
government, in addition to the environmental it has done.

Having said all of these, one pattern is common: all around the world, MNCs are
violating most of the peoples’ most fundamental human rights. By prioritizing income and
profits, MNCs make decisions that adversely affect people. These adverse effects include
displacing people, making people sick, taking their lives and their home along with them.

But these MNCs are able to escape responsibility and accountability for their harmful
products, practices and methods of operation because they operate across borders. Even local
corporations evade this responsibility because of the difficulty in bringing a suit against
corporations themselves or the harassment they face in advocating their rights. As a result,
people or communities whose rights are violated by these corporations find it difficult to put
forward their claims.

Thus the question on corporate responsibility, the remedies available and the challenges
the victims face in asserting their rights will be discussed in the next part of this paper.