Archimedes’ Lever: An Alternative Conceptual Framework for Understanding Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations

Abstract

The chapter develops the theoretical framework guiding the volume. That framework adapts the notion of an Archimedes’ Lever: that even weak actors (victims of business and human rights abuses in the Global South) with effective tools (institutional innovation) and the fulcrum in the right position (contexts favouring corporate human rights accountability), can lift up heavy weights (human rights accountability for economic actors' abuses) from under opposing forces (veto players in the business community and their allies). This ‘from below’ process challenges two existing frameworks. It first questions whether the transitional justice focus on the importance of international pressure is useful when such pressure has been very weak with regard to corporate accountability for past human rights abuses. It secondly disputes the business and human rights 'bottom up' approach that advances foreign courts in the Global North as the protagonists of corporate human rights accountability when the dynamism resides in Global South courts. The chapter introduces the set of factors that have led to corporate accountability in the world and the obstacles that have prevented it.

Corporate Accountability for Involvement in Gross Human Rights Violations During the Brazilian Civil-Military Dictatorship – The Role of the Truth Commissions and the Case of Volkswagen Do Brasil

“…In spite of these characteristics, few commissions delve deeply into determining corporate responsibilities. 12 One reason for this is that corporate accountability is rarely part of the institutional mandate of truth commissions (Payne et al, 2020, pg.73).…”

“…1 agenda. 2 (Payne et al, 2020, pg.37). In general, the focus is on civil and political rights violations by state actors, resulting in several measures and arrangements, such as public reparation processes, memory policies, criminal liability of these actors, administrative measures, opening of archives, acts of acknowledgment, and institutional reforms.…”

“…An important reason for bridging the corporate accountability gap in transitional justice is that the support and participation of an economic power is linked to both the origin and continuation of authoritarian regimes or armed conflicts (Payne et al, 2020, pg.35–36). 3…”

“…A lack of said criteria makes it difficult to convince the business world to endorse a shift towards corporate accountability. Therefore, the mere fact that a company does business or even makes profit in the context of an authoritarian regime or armed conflict does not necessarily characterize accountability or complicity in human rights violations (Payne et al, 2020, p, 40). It is also important to specify the nature of human rights violations in question and, finally, what potential sanctions could be imposed once corporate complicity and accountability are established.…”

“…Most civil cases involving multinationals in the context of transitional justice do not result in convictions (Payne et al, 2020, pg.150), generally ending in dismissals, acquittals, or settlements. Considering these three resolutions, the most ambiguous is the case of settlements, since even though they serve to avoid a conviction of the company and the creation of a legal precedent, they may also serve to promote reparations and publicize the company’s involvement, even when it does not admit responsibility and participation in gross human rights violations.…”