Liao's Outline on Health and Safety

安全和健康：劳动力的贬值？

今天我想讲的话题主要是从学校里的建筑工地想到的。在北大里有很多的建筑工地，我想这对我的调查还是有一定帮助的。另外还有一个原因就是，在建筑行业的工人中，90%（或者80%？）以上都是农民工，而我国现在社会中对农民工的关注无疑是与日俱增的，所以在分析中，我会利用到一些对农民工这个问题的论述，将建筑行业中农民工的安全和健康问题作为我论述的中心。这可能同时涉及到两个方面，那就是在建筑行业生产中的安全问题，以及工人的待遇，同时也涉及到健康问题。

一、 所见所闻

1、中央台新闻（例证，从大家的反应看大众心理）

2、工地照片（自己照或者是网上）

3、医保和工伤保险的覆盖情况及分析，深圳的最低工资的图

二、 造成安全事故，尤其是在农民工身上造成安全事故的原因

1、 安全意识淡薄，没有经过安全技术培训

2、施工现场的防护设施设置不到位。

3、利益因素

4、国家监管体系

其实我一直想不通的是，为什么对利益的追求就必然导致对安全的不重视呢？是因为安全教育也需要成本吧。但是实际上我认为这是一个利益循环的过程。不重视安全教育，必然导致事故发生率的上升，导致赔偿成本的增加（赔偿的例证），最后反而会导致利益的减少，利益减少之后只能继续降低对农民工的待遇，或者是减少安全教育等所带来的成本。这是一个恶性循环，是经过简单的想象就能够发现的问题。但是为什么还会有很多人不重视安全教育呢？我想是农民工自身权利意识淡薄，或者是事故被掩盖，因而降低了赔偿成本那一个环节出现了问题。而这之中的利益牵扯，似乎不是我们所能够理解的。

三、农民工工作待遇的问题及其成因

1、社会歧视

2、 自身权利意识淡薄、无知以及对现状的满足

3、利益驱动

4、国家法制的不健全

四、 分析

制度上的规制是多方面的，国家，行业，企业自身，但是实施却是另人失望的。

五、可适用的规则和规范、标准

1、 公约、建议、法律

ILO：

1）General provisions

Up-to-date instruments

Occupational Safety and Health Convention (No. 155) and Recommendation (No. 164), 1981

Protocol of 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155)

Occupational Health Services Convention (No. 161) and Recommendation (No. 171), 1985

Protection of Workers’ Health Recommendation, 1953 (No. 97)

Welfare Facilities Recommendation, 1956 (No. 102)

List of Occupational Diseases Recommendation, 2002 (No. 194)

Instruments with interim status

Prevention of Industrial Accidents Recommendation (No. 31), 1929

Replaced Recommendations

Occupational Health Services Recommendation, 1959 (No. 112)

2） Protection against specific risks

Up-to-date instruments

Radiation Protection Convention (No. 115) and Recommendation (No. 114), 1960

Occupational Cancer Convention (No. 139) and Recommendation (No. 147), 1974

Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention (No. 148) and Recommendation (No. 156), 1977

Asbestos Convention (No. 162) and Recommendation (No. 172), 1986

Chemicals Convention (No. 170) and Recommendation (No. 177), 1990

Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention (No. 174) and Recommendation (No. 181), 1993

Instruments to be revised

White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 (No. 13)

Guarding of Machinery Convention (No. 119) and Recommendation (No. 118), 1963

Maximum Weight Convention (No. 127) and Recommendation (No. 128), 1967

Benzene Convention (No. 136) and Recommendation (No. 144), 1971

Anthrax Prevention Recommendation, 1919 (No. 3)

Lead Poisoning (Women and Children) Recommendation, 1919 (No. 4)

White Phosphorus Recommendation, 1919 (No. 6)

Outdated instruments

Power-driven Machinery Recommendation, 1929 (No. 32)

3） Protection in specific branches of activity

Up-to-date instruments

Hygiene (Commerce and Offices) Convention (No. 120) and Recommendation (No. 120), 1964

Safety and Health in Construction Convention (No. 167) and Recommendation (No. 175), 1988

Safety and Health in Mines Convention (No. 176) and Recommendation (No. 183), 1995

Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention (No. 184) and Recommendation (No. 192), 2001

Instruments with interim status

Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45)

Outdated instruments

Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937 (No. 62)

Replaced Recommendations

Safety Provisions (Building) Recommendation, 1937 (No. 53)

Co-operation in Accident Prevention (Building) Recommendation, 1937 (No. 55)

法律：

《中华人民共和国劳动法》、《中华人民共和国职业病防治法》、《中华人民共和国劳动与保障法》、《中华人民共和国安全生产法》、《工伤保险条例》

2、标准体系的要求

SA8000（健康安全：企业须提供安全健康的工作环境，对事故伤害的防护，健康安全教育，卫生清洁维持设备和常备饮用水）、CSC9000、OHSAS 18000职业健康与安全管理体系（具体规定没有找到）、很多行业标准，比如《北京市建设工程施工现场安全防护标准 》等，都对企业提出了很多安全和健康方面的要求和标准

3 、自律

没有找到……

六、解决建议：

别国经验：美国，英国

1、 国家层面

建立明确标准，提供更好的实施方式，加强执行的力度，建立专门组织进行类似的监督，督促企业内部自己建立一种更好的三方机制，同时邀请专家进行标准确立的工作。

2、 社会层面

改变不正常的歧视，舆论的压力，各种社会组织的共同作用，建立更加良好的道德氛围

3、 企业

自觉自愿？不太可能，主要是国家和社会的压力

4、 劳动者

加强安全知识的学习，权利意识的增强

问题：

国家的法律和规制到底起到了什么作用？像美国的侵权行为法一样？重罚之下必然会出现对劳动力的尊重吗？

企业自身的责任靠什么来衡量和实现？合同是否就足够？没有合同的时候呢？责任产生的根源是什么？

工伤认定的举证责任和举证上的困难

材料：

图片：建筑工人工作和生活的状况以及一些对比

新闻：关于农民工生活状况的

社会调查和统计：主要涵盖的是医疗保险和失业保险的覆盖状况，以及和城市基本覆盖范围的对比

公约和法律的规定：主要分析的是中国批准的国际劳工组织第167号公约，是专门针对建筑方面工作和工人安全和健康保护的，将它的规定与中国的相对比

标准：主要是SA8000、CSC9000中对安全和健康的要求

更多的问题希望梁老师能够给我提出来，这个材料是我上个星期就准备好了的，所以可能跟您的要求有一点不一致，期待您的批评和指正！

Xinxin Wang's Outline on Non-discrimination

形形色色的就业歧视

性别歧视，形象歧视，年龄歧视，视力歧视，身高歧视，地域歧视，户籍歧视，健康歧视，口音歧视，属相歧视，姓名歧视，血型歧视，恋爱歧视……，……，……

歧视：

1、不合理的区别对待 （直接歧视）

2、不合理的同等对待对某些群体产生不利 （间接歧视）

区别对待的正当的理由：

1、法律对禁止歧视的范围规定了有限的例外。

2、法律允许雇主对自己使用的某一录用标准主张正当职业资格。

3、为了促进机会平等、防止歧视或对过去的歧视予以补偿而专门设计的暂行特别措施（积极行动或肯定行动）。

案例：重庆一饮食公司专招矮个子卖大郎烧饼

8月2日，万州的大郎饮食文化公司打出招聘启事：招聘身高1.4米以下身残志不残的员工，男女不限，侏儒、佝偻病患者均可。

问题：此做法是歧视行为吗？

分析理论准备：暂行特别措施

暂行特别措施作为一种法律方法，不只是防止或惩处歧视，而且还要求社会组织和机构采取积极的措施，以消除歧视背后所包含的权力支配关系、社会不平等结构和偏见。它可以运用于许多领域的加速平等，包括对教育、政治参与、健康服务、住房等领域的歧视进行补救。

案例简要分析

从对求职者和企业各自的正负面影响进行分析（still being developed…..）

一点思考

1、就业歧视的法律软肋

2、企业形象、自由用工权、社会责任、利润之间的纠葛

疑问：

员工的外貌与身高与企业形象有因果关系吗？

企业有自由用工权作为法律规定以外的空间，那么如何对其进行有效的反歧视约束？

课堂报告分工

各位：
以下是暂定的课堂报告分工，请大家提前准备自己的发言稿。请在每周四之前把你的提纲发到我的信箱（xiaohuil@pku.edu.cn, xiaohuiliang@hotmail.com），我会按照各位的提纲提供一些材料供课堂讨论参考。

10月30日 non discrimination 王欣欣 张冰子
11月6日 health and safety 廖思雨 陆洲
11月13日 freedom of association 王芳
11月20日 forced labour 徐莹
11月27日 child labour 汪潇潇
12月4日 ethical business practices 冯翔 高瑰曦
12月11日 business and collective rights 张尔军
12月18日 environmental influences 李春嘉
12月25日 responsible investments 滕飞
1月8日 declaration 向天宁

继续以上讨论：其实诸多COC的确包含这样的“说法”

试看一例：

冷静对待玩具新规
2006-02-10 10:39 文章来源：商务部科技司
　　 中国是世界上最大的玩具生产国，也是全球最大的玩具出口国，全球75％以上的玩具产品出自中国，中国玩具在欧盟的市场份额更是高达81％。2005年我玩具出口151.85亿美元，比2004年同比增加了26.9%。我国内地共有8000多家玩具生产企业，其中6000多家有出口业务。　　从去年年底到今年年初，多家媒体发布了玩具出口面临新规则的消息，像其他技术壁垒一样，这一消息又造成了许多出口企业的恐慌，许多企业都认为一场灾难又在劫难逃。不能否认，从今年1月1日起部分玩具采购商承诺推行的《国际玩具业协会商业操作守则》认证（ICTI CARE Process）是有可能对我玩具出口造成一定影响，但面对新挑战，国内玩具企业应对突发事件做出客观冷静地分析与研究，在消息确凿的基础上做好各种准备，毕竟自主创新、提高自身竞争力才是企业立于不败之地的关键。 　　
一、背景 　　ICTI是国际玩具工业行业协会的简称，《国际玩具业协会商业操作守则》（以下简称《守则》）是由该协会制定的，该《守则》主要内容涉及到玩具业安全生产、劳动保护、员工福利与公平待遇等方面的要求。国际玩具工业行业协会对外声称其制定和推行《守则》的目的是维护全球范围内玩具行业供应链中的公平劳动待遇。 　　
ICTI《守则》的认证证书是由ICTI签发，企业只有通过ICTI委托的六个审核机构（其中香港4家、美国1家、瑞士1家）进行的工厂审核，才能获得ICTI发放的证书。《守则》认证是自愿性的，而非强制性的。但ICTI为了全面推广这项认证工作，采取邀请世界有关玩具采购商签订承认ICTI认证结果协议的方式推行认证，签定协议的采购商普遍承诺逐步将通过ICTI认证作为采购和下达订单的条件，从而实现强力推行此项认证的目的，也造成了目前社会上认为该认证是强制性认证的误解。
　　据了解，到目前为止已有129个采购商或大卖场签署了承认ICTI认证结果的协议，其中美国玩具协会340个会员中，只有62家签署了协议，这些签定协议的采购商将逐步把生产厂通过ICTI认证作为下达定单的必备条件，但具体执行的日期没有统一，最早的是于今年1月1日起执行，但大多数采购商还没有制定最终日期，最终的执行期限是由采购商与生产商共同协商决定的。因此，多家媒体一味的将今年1日1日视为最后期限的说法不准确。
　　二、ICTI认证的具体内容与费用问题 　　ICTI认证于2002年推出，审核内容涉及工厂资料、工时、工资补偿、青工、强迫劳工、纪律习惯、歧视、员工代表、工厂设施、火灾防护、一般环保健康及安全、福利(包括宿舍、食堂、医疗)等（具体内容见附件）。
　　关于认证费用，包括以下项目： 　　（一）工厂应支付给ICTI的费用： 　　１、申请费用：500 美元 　　在开始认证时支付。工厂认证程序应于申请日期起12月内完成。 　　２、延期费用：150 美元 　　延长3个月审核期限的附加费用，即申请日起15个月内完成。 　　３、年审：350 美元 　　即确认证书每年得费用 　　４、副本：每本 15 美元 　　即证书副本的费用 　　（二）工厂需要另行支付给审核公司的审核服务费用： 　　根据生产企业规模大小和需要改进多少项目而定，需要由工厂和审核公司双方协商，通常中小企业初次认证收1.5万元人民币，每年复审费用另收。 　　（三）认证成本中还有一个必不可少的部分，就是企业要想达到ICTI认证的要求所需进行的硬件方面的整改费用，这也可能是认证中所占比重最大的一部分。 　　 三、中国玩具出口企业ICTI认证情况与应采取的正确态度 　　据ICTI网站显示，目前已有191家相关生产厂获得了认证证书，大多数厂家是中国企业。由此可见，已有部分国内企业及时注意到了这个问题并完成了认证工作。但是，被动地遵守规则不是最重要的，那些 原来与签订协议的玩具采购商有合作的国内玩具生产厂更应在今后的销售中关注采购商的要求，与采购商就此项事宜进行充分的协商，才能在国际市场上争取更大的主动性。
　　同时，如果国内企业的玩具不是销售给这些要求ICTI认证的采购商的，就不必过于惊慌，目前出口还不会受到太大的影响，但是也不能掉以轻心，毕竟严把产品质量与安全关，有效提高企业技术水平和产品附加值，研发符合环保和安全要求的产品，提高出口玩具在国际市场的竞争力才是企业立于不败之地的关键。

附件：《国际玩具业协会商业操作守则》（总则） 　　

国际玩具工业行业协会（ICTI）是由世界上不同国家/地区的玩具行业协会组成的行业联合组织。它代表各成员协会的会员单位，致力于促使玩具厂商以合法、安全和健康的方式进行生产运作。ICTI倡导玩具厂商要坚持三大原则：一是"三不用"--即不用童工、不用强迫劳动工、不用囚工（许多国家认为劳动改造是罪犯改过自新的一个重要过程，但部分国家禁止或限制进口囚工所生产的产品，本《守则》规定不得向这部分国家输出此类产品）；二是用工"不歧视"-- 员工不因性别、种族、宗教、社团倾向不同而受歧视；三是"奉守环保法规"。同时，要求各成员协会下属的玩具厂商的承包商也应该遵循这三大原则。
　　ICTI的职责是通过对各成员协会的会员进行宣传、教育和监察，使各会员公司遵守《国际玩具业协会商业操作守则》（以下简称《守则》）。作为行业联合组织，ICTI也致力于促使玩具厂商所在的国家和当地政府贯彻有关工资、工时和工厂安全卫生的法规。
　　会员公司在承接生产合同之前，应该遵守下列具体运作条款：
　　一、员工 　　1、每周工作时数、工资、加班费等的支付均应符合法律规定的标准。如果没有相关法规，则以人道、安全和有利生产为标准； 　　2、在任何玩具生产工序上，都不得使用未满法定最低就业年龄的人员，虽然以14岁为法定最低就业年龄适用于所有情况，但会员公司应遵守《国际劳工组织C138 号：最低年龄公约》(1973) 和《国际劳工组织C182号:关于禁止和立即行动消除最有害的童工形式公约》（1999）的规定； 　　3、不得进行强迫劳动和雇用囚工；工人下班后可自由离开；工厂保安员只是执行正常的保安工作。 　　4、所有员工均享有法定的病假和产假权益； 　　5、所有员工均有权自由行使当地法律赋予的员工代表权。
　　 二、工作场地 　　1、玩具厂商须为员工提供安全的工作环境，并提供符合或者优于当地所有相关法律所规定的卫生及安全保障； 　　2、工厂有适当的照明、通风。通道和出口，随时保持畅通； 　　3、遇紧急情况时能提供足够的医疗救援，所派的急救人员均受过急救程序培训； 　　4、具有足够而且明确标识的紧急出口。所有员工均受过紧急疏散训练； 　　5、有安全防护装置供员工使用，且员工接受过使用此类设备的训练； 　　6、机器上的防护装置符合或优于当地法律的有关规定； 　　7、洗手间设施足够，符合当地卫生法规且维护保养完善； 　　8、设有员工用餐和其他工间休息的相应设施，并制定了适当的规定； 　　9、如果工厂为员工提供住宿，应确保宿舍房间及卫生设施符合基本需要，通风良好，并符合消防安全和其他的法规要求； 　　10、工作中不实施精神或肉体上的处罚。
　　三、遵行情况 　　1、本《守则》旨在建立一个商业运作标准，教育和鼓励会员公司致力于负责任的工业生产，而不是以惩罚为目的； 　　2、ICTI的会员单位应对本工厂和承包商进行评估，以判定是否有违反《守则》的情况。要查阅所有文件和记录，并对工厂设施进行现场检查，同时要求承包商采用同样的方法评估其分承包商； 　　3、每家制造厂商或其承包商须每年就自身贯彻落实《守则》的情况编写报告，此年度报告须经主管人员签署； 　　4、玩具制造合同应该注明：凡在遵守本《守则》或在按时履行纠正措施计划方面有重大疏漏的便属违约，可据此取消该合同； 　　5、因为玩具种类、生产方法、工厂规模、员工数量方面会存在较大差异，故在本《守则》上增加三个附件，以便为适用情况的判定提供指南。应依据合理性原则判断附件的适用性； 　　6、本《守则》的中文版应公开张贴或可供所有员工查阅。

　　 　　以上《守则》的中文翻译仅供参考，英文原文参见：
http://www.toy-icti.org/info/care_process.pdf


但是问题是，为什么我们在现实中很少看到真正以此为由解约的情况？

向天宁同学关于白麟提出的就违反COC作为解约情形的问题的讨论

诸位学友：

大家好！

今天课上白麟同学提出的关于 CoC实现机制改进（将验厂后supplier 被发现违反CoC作为解约条件写入订单合同）的问题非常有意思。我当时引入了海商法的一个规定，但由于课上时间比较宝贵，不便展开说明，这里稍加补充。

梁队在课上反复强调，在现行实践中，验厂只能检验在实施验厂行为的那一刹那该供应商是否符合 CoC的要求。这是我们希望达到的效果吗？显然不是。在这一点上我跟白麟同学的观点是一致的。但为了达到更好的效果，是否就需要把验厂后 supplier被发现违反 CoC作为解约条件写入订单合同呢？我个人认为不可一概而论。如果从总体上看，我们可以把人权在企业中的实现机制以两个极端为据简单地划分为这么几个做法（当然，整个过程在逻辑上是连续而非突变的）：最极端的不顾人权（企业下订单根本不考虑任何人权因素）＝》现行普遍做法（仅以验厂结果为据决定是否下订单）＝》改进做法（除了以验厂为依据之外，引入别的制约机制，如 supplier在验厂后被发现违反 CoC则品牌商有权解约，或品牌商有权收取违约金但同时保留订单，或其他任何约定性惩罚措施， whatever）＝》极端尊重人权（品牌商派人蹲守在供应商处，一旦发现其有违 CoC则立即解约）。我们都认为现行普遍做法的效果是不够理想的，但这或许并不构成改进的充分条件。因为随着改进的进行，交易成本无疑会加大，这里的交易成本是广义的，既包括派人重新做验厂的相关成本，也包括梁队提及的由于对验厂标准的难以统一把握而引发的双方争议，还包括如果验厂后不达标而取消订单对于双方的经济伤害，以至于双方中的任何一方都没有足够的自发动力推行这一重新的验厂……我们知道，作出改进会使得人权的保护状况更好，但同时与之相随的是，交易成本会加大，两相权衡
，到底值不值得做出改进，该项改进的损益之比到底如何这是需要做出更深入定量分析的，从定性上我个人认为不好判断。另一个附随的问题是，即使需要做出改进，是否有必要把验厂后\nsupplier被发现违反\nCoC作为解约条件写入订单合同？我个人认为也值得细加考量。因为在这里如果供应商在验厂后被证实违反\nCoC，那么可供品牌商选择的惩罚措施多种多样，包括违约金，减少订单接受数量等等。而在我看来，直接就取消整个订单似乎过于激进而难以为订单合同双方接受，事实上，品牌商和供应商也没有这么干，这或许多少也是有道理的。\n\n \n白麟同学说得有道理，海商法的条款之所以那么规定，更多的是考虑到出海后就难以在技术上保证船舶的适航，是一种"无奈"之举；而这里咱们讨论的加强对供应商的监管在技术上没有实现的障碍（当然对此梁队持不同意见，立此存照）。但或许是因为我自己没有表述清楚，这里来稍做澄清吧。我其实并没有认为海商法的这一条款在每个层面上都与咱们课堂上讨论的问题相同，我想表达的是，在内核上，二者是可比的。因为某种原因（技术原因也好，历史习惯也好）海商法做出了这么一个看似不太彻底的规定（毕竟没有规定船舶须保证在整个航行过程中保持适航状态），但事实上海商法运行得非常顺畅，这一条款也很少被船方恶意滥用。从这一事实中，我们可以推断出的是，并不需要在合同中将一切都写得那么明白合同才能有效地运行。尤其是对于反复博弈（区别于一次性博弈）而言，有了大致条件作为框架就可以让整个运作比较正常了，因为毕竟制定更详尽，对合同一方（或双方）更为苛责的条款本身是有交易成本的，更遑论此等条款的执行了；而与此同时，与合同条款并存的隐性惩罚机制（如，这次跟你做生意发现你不老实我下次就不与你做了）在某种程度上可以弥补合同显性约定的缺陷。回到课堂讨论的内容，即使我们监督供应商是否严格遵循了\nCoC在技术上没有障碍（按照梁队的说法，其实是存在技术难度的，甚至在技术上统一掌握判断是否符合\nCoC是不可能的，但这里为了讨论的方便请暂且允许放宽这一假设），但由于做出所谓"改进"所必然附随的交易成本增加就从定性的层面上阻止了这一"改进"在未获得定量层面合理性论证支持的前提下的贸然实施。\n\n \n以上就是我的一点管见，仅供大家参考。",1]
);
//-->
，到底值不值得做出改进，该项改进的损益之比到底如何这是需要做出更深入定量分析的，从定性上我个人认为不好判断。另一个附随的问题是，即使需要做出改进，是否有必要把验厂后 supplier被发现违反 CoC作为解约条件写入订单合同？我个人认为也值得细加考量。因为在这里如果供应商在验厂后被证实违反 CoC，那么可供品牌商选择的惩罚措施多种多样，包括违约金，减少订单接受数量等等。而在我看来，直接就取消整个订单似乎过于激进而难以为订单合同双方接受，事实上，品牌商和供应商也没有这么干，这或许多少也是有道理的。

白麟同学说得有道理，海商法的条款之所以那么规定，更多的是考虑到出海后就难以在技术上保证船舶的适航，是一种"无奈"之举；而这里咱们讨论的加强对供应商的监管在技术上没有实现的障碍（当然对此梁队持不同意见，立此存照）。但或许是因为我自己没有表述清楚，这里来稍做澄清吧。我其实并没有认为海商法的这一条款在每个层面上都与咱们课堂上讨论的问题相同，我想表达的是，在内核上，二者是可比的。因为某种原因（技术原因也好，历史习惯也好）海商法做出了这么一个看似不太彻底的规定（毕竟没有规定船舶须保证在整个航行过程中保持适航状态），但事实上海商法运行得非常顺畅，这一条款也很少被船方恶意滥用。从这一事实中，我们可以推断出的是，并不需要在合同中将一切都写得那么明白合同才能有效地运行。尤其是对于反复博弈（区别于一次性博弈）而言，有了大致条件作为框架就可以让整个运作比较正常了，因为毕竟制定更详尽，对合同一方（或双方）更为苛责的条款本身是有交易成本的，更遑论此等条款的执行了；而与此同时，与合同条款并存的隐性惩罚机制（如，这次跟你做生意发现你不老实我下次就不与你做了）在某种程度上可以弥补合同显性约定的缺陷。回到课堂讨论的内容，即使我们监督供应商是否严格遵循了 CoC在技术上没有障碍（按照梁队的说法，其实是存在技术难度的，甚至在技术上统一掌握判断是否符合 CoC是不可能的，但这里为了讨论的方便请暂且允许放宽这一假设），但由于做出所谓"改进"所必然附随的交易成本增加就从定性的层面上阻止了这一"改进"在未获得定量层面合理性论证支持的前提下的贸然实施。

以上就是我的一点管见，仅供大家参考。

向天宁
2006-10-16

CFCSR Established In Beijing

October 20, 2006

The Chinese Federation For Corporate Social Responsibility has held its inaugural meeting at Beijing University and announced its formal foundation.

Launched by 13 Chinese and foreign-owned enterprises including China Merchants Bank, IBM, Ping An Insurance, China Vanke Company, Nokia, HP, TCL and Junyao Group, CFCSR aims to support the sustainable development in underprivileged areas of China and undertake more social responsibility. It will make efforts to promote the construction of corporate social responsibility in China by the promotion of government agencies, supervision of non-government organizations and the self-discipline of corporate entities.

Li Yining, honorary dean of Beijing University's Guanghua School of Management, says that Chinese corporations bear inevitable responsibility in building a harmonious society and realizing sustainable economic development. He hopes that more corporations can join in the federation.

Ma Weihua, chairman of CFCSR and president of China Merchants Bank, says that the establishment of CFCSR will create a platform for Chinese corporations to join hands to do something good for the society and carry out the welfare plans to support the poor.

From: http://www.chinacsr.com/2006/10/20/cfcsr-established-in-beijing/

Forced-labour prisoners killed in Chinese mine blast

dpa German Press AgencyPublished: Tuesday October 17, 2006

Beijing- Thirteen people who died in a southwestern Chinese coal mine were prisoners forced to labour, a local official and a rights group said on Tuesday. The 13 miners died and seven were injured after gas exploded underground at the Furong Coal Mine in Yibin city, Sichuan province, the State Administration of Work Safety said on its website.

An official at Furong confirmed by telephone that all the workers at the mine were prisoners. "Not only the prisoners, the guards also work underground," the Furong official told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa The prisoners worked at Furong's Zhongpingtong mine under the supervision of the Chuan Nan (Southern Sichuan) Prison, the Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said. The mine employs an estimated 3,000 prisoners, with about 100,000 unpaid prisoners working at "dangerous" coal mines nationwide, the centre said. Under China's "re-education through labour" concept, most citizens confined to prisons and labour camps are required to work.

The families of the prisoners who died at Zhongpingtong have still received no compensation after mine managers refused to meet their demand for 200,000 yuan (25,000 dollars) each, the centre said. The mine had a designed annual capacity of 1.2 million tons, the safety administration said. Nine people died in a previous accident at the mine in December 2001, state media said.

About 6,000 coal miners were killed in accidents in China last year, according to official figures. Out-of-date equipment, illegal mining as well as poor safety systems and supervision are behind many accidents.

From: http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Forced_labour_prisoners_killed_in_C_10172006.html

2006“世界未来500强”国际论坛

For more information, please visit:
http://www.future500china.org/cn/onews.asp?id=274

About the Exam

Two options will be provided for the course effect evaluation (that is EXAM):

I. One-day Take-home Exam:

You will have one (1) day to answer ALL four (4) questions on the exam paper, which you must pick up from the registrar during a particular period of time, and which must be submitted within 24 hours after the pick-up period expires. Questions will be provided in English, and your answer must also be in English. You can make references to any materials you have, but plagiarism in any way or excessive quotations (more than 20% of all words) will be subject to record penalties.

II. Paper Option:

You can also write a paper on a topic that is (better, closely) related to any issue we touch upon during the semester. Please restrict the length of your paper within 3,000 Chinese charaters or 2,250 English words (notes excluded), which implies, you can write your paper either in Chinese or in English. The rules of the Peking University Law School on the deadline for paper submission will be applied in this case, and plagiarism or excessive quotations will also be penalized.

There is only one simple but difficult purpose for the exam: show me what you learn, and contribute some little thing to the intellectual world.

More clarifications will come up when I receive your questions on this piece.

Accountability: Think about Human Rights

If we assume (or believe) that business entities can (and shall) bear human rights duties and accountabilities towards individuals, how can we justify this within the contemporary international human rights legal framework?

Please try to take into consideration of following arguments into your answer:

1. Is there any inherent difference between “(legal) rights” and “human rights”, and is there any particular implication for “human rights violations”?

2. Is “horizontal effect” doctrine an adequate justification or a persuasive explanation for the human rights accountability of business entities?

3. Can the naturl law theory (also the nature of human rights) assume human rights responsibility upon business entities, which enjoys equal legal status within national legal system?

4. Can the expanding explanation of certain provisions and terms within some international human rights instrument accommodate the theoretical needs and practical developments of human rights influences of business?

5. Shall business be conscious of the human rights obligations of a State during its operation in the State? On the other hand, shall a State implement the “rights-based approach” of development when regulating, promoting and dealing with business?

6. What if business operates in a way that is complying with the national laws and regulations of the host State but contrary to the international human rights obligations of the State? How to defined and distinguish in this case human rights responsibility of the State and that of the business? Bear in mind that, international human rights obligations can derive from certain peremptory norms, and customary rules.

The Human Rights Accountability of Business

How do we define the human rights accountability of business entities, especially that of transnational corporations (TNCs)?

When you frame your arguments relating to the general structure of international legal system (subjectivity, jus standi, personality etc.), think about following facts, rules and views:

1. So far, no binding international (human rights) agreement directly addressing corporations exists.

2. The early TNCs, such as the Dutch United East India Company and English East India Company, could occupy land, wage wars and conclude treaties.

3. At 17th century and even till much later, international law was concerned mainly with State issues, such as the delimitation of State jurisdictions, the immunity of States, diplomatic representatives and the law of war, etc.

4. In The Free City of Danzig case (1923), the PCIJ recognized that The Free City of Danzig had international personality; and in the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig case (1928), the PCIJ affirmed that practical needs can override theoretical considerations in regard to international legal personality. States can grant entities certain rights and duties making them subjects of international law, if they feel the practical need to do so.

5. In the Reparations case (1948), the ICJ concluded that the United Nations had legal personality as “the Organization was intended to exercise and enjoy, and is in fact exercising and enjoying, functions and rights which can only be explained on the basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to operate upon an international plane”. The ICJ further held that the United Nations is a “subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and that is has the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims”. ICJ also pointed out in this case “the subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or in the extent of their rights, and the nature depends on the needs of the community”.

6. International tribunals, such as the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal, the ICTY and ICTR, and the International Criminal Court, all have established the international responsibilities for war crimes of individuals.

7. Before the European Court of Human Rights, individuals can bring claims against States to effectuate their rights contained in the ECHR.

8. Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two additional protocols of 1977, insurgent forces as well as State armies are obliged to respect prohibitions such as those on attacking civilians, taking hostages and etc.

9. Rosalyn Higgins has considered the concept of legal personality “an intellectual prison” and “the whole notion of subjects and objects has no credible reality and…no functional purpose”, and “individuals are participants, along with states, international organizations…multinational corporations and indeed private non-governmental groups”.

10. For Brownlie, a subject of international law is “an entity capable of possessing international rights and duties and having the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims”.

11. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), corporations have access to a panel for dispute settlement.

12. The International Agreement Doctrine: internationalized contracts concluded between a host-state and a corporation (particularly in the filed of oil concessions and development agreements) confer rights on corporations; these agreements usually contain an “applicable law clause” stating that the contract is governed by “general principles of law” or “principles of the law of the concessionary state not inconsistent with international law”. These contracts often provide that in case of disputes, international arbitration will be used.

13. However, is the recognition of the personality of a corporation by one single state enough to elevate the corporation to a subject of international law? What if the state unilaterally withdraws such legal personality?

14. Corporations are organizations which have no inherent ability to suffer from human rights violations. On the other hand, corporations do enjoy the benefit of a number of human rights such as, for example, the right to own property, the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trail.

15. Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights states “the Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organizations or group of individuals claiming to be victims…” In the case Autronic v. Switzerland the Court held that “Article [10] applies to ‘everyone’, whether natural or legal persons’. Moreover, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to ECHR states “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions”.

16. Proceedings: Before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, corporations have legal standing under certain conditions. In the procedure before the United Nations Compensation Commission set up after the defeat of Iraq in 1991, corporations can bring claims for compensation against Iraq. The ‘Seabed Disputes Chamber’ under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has jurisdiction relating to disputes between parties to a contract, which can be states, natural or legal persons. Article 25(1) of the Conventions establishing the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes states “the jurisdiction of the Center shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment between a Contracting State…and a national”.

17. Duties: In the field of environmental protection several treaties contain binding duties for corporations, for example, under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, direct liability for oil pollution is placed on the owner of a ship. UN General Assembly resolutions concerning the apartheid system in South Africa during the 1980s mentioned corporations as the addressees of international duties.

18. Responsibilities: Article 2 of the OECD Convention on the Combat of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions states that “Each Party shall take such measures…to establish the liability of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign official’. The Global Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes requires State Parties to outlaw such “legal traffic” by legal persons in its national laws.

The Syllabus

Peking University Law School: Fall Semester, 2006
Lecturer: LIANG Xiaohui
LL.M. Harvard, LL.M. Peking University, M.A. University of Oslo
Course Material Pick-up Email: biziri@gmail.com

This course will be given in 16 weeks (September 2006-January 2007):

Part I: The Corporate Social Responsibility Movement
Introduction: Everybody's Business (week 1)
Human Rights Accountability of Business Entities: Theories and Practice (week 2-3)
Norms, Standards and Codes of Conduct (week 4)
The Implementation Mechanisms: Making Human Rights a Business? (week 4-5)

Part II: The Idealism and the Realism
Non-discrimination: Equal Rights to Be Exploited? (week 6)
Health and Safety: the Depreciation of Labor? (week 7)
Freedom of Association: United We Work (week 8)
Forced and Compulsory Labor: All Labor is Forced Labor? (week 9)
Child Labor: Toy Player or Toy Maker (week 10)
Ethical Business Practices: Deal!? (week 11)
Business and Collective Rights: Oil and Soil (week 12)
Environmental Influences: a Counterfeited Earth? (week 13)
Responsible Investments: Right Seeds for Good Harvest (week 14)

Part III. The Practice
A Factory Visit (TBD): Field Study
The Draft and Announcement of "The Students' Declaration of Responsible Business"


REFERENCES TO START WITH

RECOMMENDED BOOKS:
袁家方主编 企业社会责任 海洋出版社 1990
李政义 企业社会责任论 台北巨流图书公司 1990
张向前 和谐社会的企业责任 中国文史出版社 2005
李立清、李燕凌 企业社会责任研究 人民出版社 2005
Asbjorn Eide, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: a Textbook (2nd ed.), M. Nijhoff Publishers, 2001
Michael K. Addo, Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations, Kluwer Law International, 1999
Nicola Jagers, Corporate Human Rights Obligations: in Search of Accountability, Intersentia, 2003
Lawrence E. Mitchell, Corporate Irresponsibility: America's Newest Export, Yale University Press, 2001
Neil H. Jacoby, Corporate Power and Social Responsibility: a Blueprint for the Future, Macmillan, 1977
David Sciulli, Corporate Power in Civil Society: an Application of Societal Constitutionalism, New York University Press, 2001
Alison Brysk, Globalization and Human Rights, University of California Press, 2002
Michael A. Santoro, Profits and Principles: Global Captalism and Human Rights in China, Cornell University Press, 2000
Anthony Woodiwiss, Globalisation, Human Rights and Labour Law in Pacific Asia, Cambridge University Press, 1998
S. Prakash Sethi, Setting Global Standards: Guidelines for Creating Codes of Conduct in Multinational Corporations, Hoboken, N.J., 2003
Stephen Tully, International Documents on Corporate Responsibility, Edward Elgar, 2005

WEB RESOURCES:
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/index.html (UN Global Compact Official Site)
http://www.business-humanrights.org/ (with rich up-to-date information)
http://www.csr-asia.com/ (Asia focused)
http://www.bsr.org/ (has some good issue briefs)
http://www.csreurope.org/ (the European perspectives)
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/globalization/index.htm (the Globalization Section of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Site)
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/business.html
(University of Minnesota Human Rights Library)
http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/ (the Danish Institute for Human Rights)
http://www.syntao.com/ （最丰富的企业社会责任中文信息网）
http://www.csrchina.com.cn/ （中国企业社会责任调查官方网站）
http://www.sa8000.org.cn/ （SA8000中文网站）

About the Course: to the Students

"Business and Human Rights" is a new course brought by the human rights master program of Peking University Law School to the curriculum of Chinese law students. It was first introduced to Chinese students in 2004 and was conducted by Professor Dennis Driscoll, former Dean of the Law Faculty National University of Ireland (Galway) and Legal Adviser to the Irish Foreign Ministry, who also first taught this subject in Europe. This semester marks the history in that it is the first time that such course is given by a Chinese lecturer at Chinese law schools.

The subject matter of this course is seemingly clear and straightforward: the operation of business and its influence on various human rights. Yet it embraces a wide range of disciplines, from legal study, economics and sociology to management, international relations, and even technologies. The specific topics will include non-discrimination in business practice, child labor, forced and compulsory work, freedom of association, environmental concerns, health and safety issues, business ethics and the influence of business to collective human rights etc. Students will also be exposed to different styles of implementation or enforcement mechanisms of corporate social responsibilities. Through all these topics, the course will explore into the comprehensive and complex social dimensions of business entities and the internal and external efforts to ensure the healthy operation of business in terms of respecting, protecting and promoting human rights.

Because it is a totally new area, there is no such thing as “textbooks” for this course. This does not follow, however, that you will have little to read. Instead, piles of essays, books and reports will come to you as we go along. Please try your best to cover them all. Plenty of internet resources will be used throughout the semester (for instance, this BLOG will be a platform for information, discussions and reflections), and ACTIVE participation of class discussions is strongly advised, as we will employ intensive case study. Heuristic questions (why is this…?) are welcome in any form, but do keep common questions (what is what…?) to yourselves, for you are supposed to be researchers in nature. In and outside the classroom, an array of practical "multi-stakeholders" experiences will be introduced to students, which may include CEO talks and interviews, CSR seminars, factory visits and internship or summer job opportunities.

Since I am not a full-time lecturer, I may not be able to show up at Room 118 of the Science Building at the preset time for this course (7:10-9:10pm, Monday) some Mondays. But first, this will not happen very often, and second, I will make sure that you are notified of any changes one week before the class. Thirdly, I will always secure patch-up arrangement if anything does happen. By the way, I am sorry for any inconvenience.

I am sure I did not get to all the questions you may raise, but please be patient enough to see that we will share four months ahead. Just one last thing for this moment: please do not ask me now about the exam, something that I have too much experience in the past but no idea for now.

The Global Compact-Ten Principles

The Ten Principles
The Global Compact's ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption

The Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Labour Standards
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies
Anti-Corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against all forms of corruption, including extortion and bribery.

More information about the Global Compact can be found at: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/index.html