This Blog Essay site devotes every February to a series of integrated but short essays on a single theme. The Ruminations Series in 2009 produced a month long series of aphoristic (ἀφορισμός) essays, meant to provoke thought rather than explain it. The hope was that, built up on each other, the series would provide a matrix of thoughts that together might lead the reader in new directions.
For 2010, this site introduces a new series--Business and Human Rights. The series takes as its starting point the issues and questions raised by John Ruggie, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on business and human rights, in a global online forumThe U.N. "Protect, Respect, Remedy" framework is made up of three pillars: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to avoid infringing on the rights of others; and greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial. The forum is currently focused on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, the second pillar of the framework. The forum is divided into sections, each of which contains multiple topics with space for discussion and comment.New Online Forum for U.N. Business and Human Rights Mandate, United Nations Press Release, New York and Geneva, Dec. 1, 2009. Each of the Essays will consider one of the topics raised in the online consultation. My hope is to help generate discussion and to encourage further discussion of the issues within the framework fo the consultation framework.
Part XXVI: On the History of the Protect-Respect-Remedy Framework
As set out in John Ruggie’s personal web site, “In 2005, responding to a request by the UN Commission on Human Rights (now Human Rights Council), Annan appointed Ruggie as the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, a post he continues to hold in the new UN administration of Ban Ki-Moon. In that capacity, his job is to propose measures to strengthen the human rights performance of the business sector around the world.” That appointment, and subsequent work on what was to become the Protect-Respect-Remedy framework, was to some extent bound up in the history of a previous effort to provide an international framework for the governance of multinational corporations—the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (the “Norms”).
The elaboration of what became the Norms was itself bound up in a series of extraordinary events that began to be realized in the 1960s. Pressure for regulation at a supra-national level came from virtually every state, but their respective motivations were very different. First, developed nations feared competitive threats from each other. In the 1960s Europeans feared American industrial power. In the 1970s the Japanese feared the effects of trade liberalization on their export driven economy. Ion the 1980s the U.S. feared Japanese penetration of its industrial sectors and developed states feared the power of multinational corporations to use the flexibility inherent in globalization to exploit differences in local wage labor markets to move their operations and jobs outside of high consumption states. Second, developing nations feared that the continuing economic influence of the old colonial powers would give rise to economic imperialism through multinational corporations. Multinational corporations were said to be able to control global media to subvert national peculiarities.  Their ability to participate in internal political matters, especially through corruption and suborning local elites was feared. Multinational corporations were also caught participating in violent overthrows of unreceptive governments of host states. The popular media began to view multinational corporations as creatures worthy of suspicion and regulation. Fourth, the issue of multinational regulation became caught up in a general debate about the emerging framework of globalization. Some began to characterize these entities as the latest stage in the march toward monopoly capitalism or as the vanguard of capitalist consumerism. Moreover, the basic assumptions and methods of the so-called neo-liberal model, especially in connection with globalization through private amalgamations of economic power, were also questioned by high-status Western academics.
It was against this background that the United Nations, through the human rights organs in Geneva began serious work on the production of a set of rules that might directly bind multinational corporations to a set of mandatory obligations. David Weissbrodt, one of the principal authors of the Norms, explained:
In parallel with increasing attention to the development of international criminal law as a response to war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity, there has been growing attention to individual responsibility for grave human rights abuses. The creators of this ever-larger web of human rights obligations, however, failed to pay sufficient attention to some of the most powerful non-state actors in the world, that is, transnational corporations and other business enterprises. With power should come responsibility, and international human rights law needs to focus adequately on these extremely potent international non-state actors.
The Norms themselves were ultimately grounded on principles of direct application of human rights norms to multinational corporations and on a system of using binding contracts to establish a global network of human rights obligations enforceable against multinational corporations. But the ultimate efforts were criticized, especially by developed states that thought the proposal threatened sovereignty and the current structure of international law. The Norms project was ultimately abandoned.
In 2003, a working group under the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights drafted the «Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights», which assumed that companies had legal obligations in relation to human rights. When the draft norms were submitted to the member states of the UN Human Rights Commission in 2004, they were rejected. Several of the member states opposed holding non-state entities directly accountable for human rights violations as they felt this would dilute state responsibility. The Human Rights Commission made it clear that the draft entailed no legal obligations. Several of the member states did, however, point out that the draft norms contained useful elements and ideas. It was against this backdrop, and following a resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Commission, that the UN Secretary-General in 2005 appointed a Special Representative for human rights and business.
The abandonment of the Norms project, and its approach continues to be criticized by one of its principal architects.
Among the most influential critics of the Norms framework was John Ruggie. Mr. Ruggie agreed that the transnational corporate sector wasa legitimate object of transnational governance. He suggested that “the Norms exercise became engulfed by its own doctrinal excesses. . . . Two aspects are particularly problematic in the context of this mandate. One concerns the legal authority advanced for the Norms, and the other the principle by which they propose to allocate human rights responsibilities between states and firms.” This was not idle criticism, but the foundation for an alternative approach to the construction of a regulatory matrix, at the supra-national level, for the governance of multinational corporations, grounded in the legal duties of states, the social responsibilities of corporations and the process obligations of both to their respective stakeholders.
The initial appointment of Mr. John Ruggie as Assistant Secretary-General and chief advisor for strategic planning to the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 1997-2001 began the long sequence of events that produced the Protect-Respect-Remedy framework. It was during this appointment that Mr. Ruggie was instrumental in developing, designing and overseeing the United Nations Global Compact. The UN Global Compact is an initiative developed to encourage businesses worldwide to adopt within their operations and strategies ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption. The Global Compact is now the largest global corporate citizenship initiative in the world with 6500 signatories, 5000 from business and 1500 from civil society and other non-business organizations based in 135 countries.
Mr. Ruggie also proposed and gained General Assembly approval for the Millennium Development Goals, which were signed into effect in 2000. The Millennium Development Goals had an ambitious agenda; they were to be something more than a mechanical benchmarking tool, but also “an instrument for broader social mobilization, generating innovative responses to society’s systemic challenges by, and among, all social actors.” But both the Global Compact and the Millennium Development goals also served as an operational foundation to the critique of the Norms approach.
That operational foundation became the framework for the construction of an alternative regulatory framework with the collapse of the Geneva based Norms project and the movement of corporate human rights based initiatives back to New York and the appointment in 2005 of John Ruggie as Special Representative to the Secretary-General on the issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprise. Ruggie began his mandate with a series of studies designed to elicit information from stakeholders, including the corporate sector, and a set of fact finding missions. Other organizations and governments also provided early assistance.
Early on, Mr. Ruggie abandoned the Norm’s focus on the direct obligations of multinational corporations. Instead, he divided his focus between legal obligations, which flow from and through states, and other obligations, that more directly affect corporate entities under traditional conceptions of law.  The object was to identify “the directions in which achievable objectives may lie.” Legal obligations would center on an identification and harmonization of legal standards; “achieving greater clarity of, and possibly greater convergence among, emerging standards is a pressing need.” Even at this early point in the development of the framework, shortly after his appointment and the announcement of his mandate, Ruggie acknowledged that the scope of the mandate goes beyond simply the legal realm, and also includes a “full range of governmental responsibilities and policy options in relation to business and human rights.” Additionally, it encompasses all sources of corporate responsibility including legal compliance as well as social norms, moral considerations and strategic behavior. At this point, Ruggie realized that “a strategy for strengthening the corporate contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights that recognizes and leverages the dynamics at work in each of these spheres” was needed.
In 2006, Ruggie produced the first of a set of annual reports based on his initial research and conceptualization of the mandate. He emphasized the legal obligations of states to enforce law and of corporations to comply with legal requirements. The object was to avoid the irreconcilable policy tension that doomed the Norms project.
Following the delivery of the 2006 Report, Mr. Ruggie continued information gathering and consulting stakeholders. A number of events were conducted, including convening three regional multi-stakeholder consultations; civil society consultations on five continents; visits to the developing country operations of major multinational corporations in four industry sectors; four workshops of legal experts; two Geneva-based multi-stakeholder consultations, on the extractive and financial services industries; and discussions with representatives of all relevant multilateral institutions and some government officials.
The 2007 report to the UN Human Rights Council was targeted at addressing the four elements that the initial mandate. It also set the foundation for what was to come during the next three years of the mandate. Five clusters of standards were developed that have evolved into the three-pillar framework. These clusters include: the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, potential corporate responsibility and accountability for international crimes, corporate responsibility for other human rights violations under international law, soft law mechanisms, and self-regulation. A focus was on accountability and interpretive mechanisms. After announcing these standards at the International Chamber of Commerce, Commission on Business in Society in Paris in April 2007, Ruggie asked that the attendees “convene a global business and human rights forum for dialogue and information exchange” among the membership. The influence of organizing work on the Global Compact is evident in this phase of work.
Fourteen multi-stakeholder consultations on five continents led up to the 2008 Report with concern expressed for a common need among them all – “a common framework of understanding, a foundation on which thinking and action can build in a cumulative fashion.” The three-pillar Protect-Respect-Remedy framework was unveiled in the 2008 Report. For that purpose the five clusters of standards from the previous report were pared down to the most formalistic and important principles. The framework of complementary principles now includes the state duty to protect, the corporate responsibility to respect, and access to remedies. It is necessary that all social actors involved in business and human rights play an active role in addressing and attempting to resolve these issues. The Report explored governance gaps in more detail. These governance gaps have created a permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies without a system for adequate sanctions or reparations; narrowing this gap is the fundamental challenge.
2008 also saw the renewal of the SRSG’s mandate by the Human Rights Council. The SRSG was directed to operationalize the framework, by providing “’practical recommendations’ and ‘concrete guidance’ to states, businesses and other social actors on its implementation.” The Human Rights Council stressed “the obligation and the primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lie with the State.” The HRC also emphasized “that transnational corporations and other business enterprises have a responsibility to respect human rights.” The emphasis was on proper regulation produced by a proper source, and a limited regulatory role for corporations.
The 2009 Report followed. The report incorporates policy considerations touching on the global economic crisis of 2008, and the resulting pressure on stakeholders to reduce the priority of human rights concerns. The SRSG emphasized that that elements of the business and human rights agenda should be aligned more closely with the overall world economic policy agenda. The body of the report considered issue of operationalization. This 2009 Report is to be followed by one in 2010 in which the SRSG is to unveil a set of applicable principles for fulfilling obligations under each fo the three pillars. Included also may be suggestions for institutionalizing the framework within a to-be-developed governance framework.
 Harvard Unversity, Kennedy School of Government, John Ruggie, available http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/johnruggie/index.html.
.U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council (ECOSOC), Sub-Comm’n on Promotion & Prot. of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/L.8 (Aug. 7, 2003) (draft resolution prepared by Alfonso Martínez et al.), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/6b10e6a7e6f3b747c1256d8100211a60?Opendocument. This document was subsequently revised. See ECOSOC, Sub-Comm’n on Promotion & Prot. of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (Aug. 26, 2003), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/
huridoca.nsf/0/64155e7e8141b38cc1256d63002c55e8?OpenDocument [hereinafter Norms]. All references to the Norms are to the revised Norms issued August 26, 2003. For the official commentary on the Norms, see ECOSOC, Sub-Comm’n on the Promotion and Prot. of Human Rights, Commentary on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (Aug. 26, 2003), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/
Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2003.38.Rev.2.En?Opendocument [hereinafter Commentary]. For a report on the finalization of the statement of Norms, see ECOSOC, Sub-Comm’n on the Promotion and Prot. of Human Rights, Report of the Sessional Working Group on the Working Methods and Activities of Transnational Corporations on its Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/13 (Aug. 6, 2003), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/906e3013f1cb27eac1256d82004d7fe2?Opendocument [hereinafter Report of the Working Group, Fifth Session].
.For an excellent summary, from which this paragraphs draws, see ., Peter T. Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law 123–72 (1995) at 1–11, 90–115, 573–604.
.See Republic of Cuba, Permanent Mission to the United Nations and International Organizations With Headquarters in Switzerland, Note No. 461 to the Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights, October 27, 2004. This concern was reflected in the work of various academics. See, e.g., Dine, supra note 58.
.Fleur Johns, The Invisibility of the Transnational Corporation, 19 Melb. U. L. Rev. 893, 906 (1994). These same practices infringe upon a state’s people’s right to self-determination, as history has shown TNCs “soliciting the assistance and protection of [foreign] troops,” and “disturbing [the] traditional subsistence economies [of indigenous peoples], rendering them economically dependant upon corporate offerings . . . thus [making them] pliable to the corporate will.” Id. at 908. “When foreign businesses come in they often destroy local competitors, quashing the ambitions of local businessmen who had hoped to develop homegrown industry. . . . [A]fter the international firm drives out the local competition, it uses its monopoly power to raise prices.” Stiglitz, supra note 7, at 68.
 Id., at 905-06.
. See, e.g., T. Moran, Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile 252–53 (1977); Anthony Sampson, The Arms Bazaar (2d ed. 1991).
.See, e.g., the website maintained by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, http://www.business-humanrights.org. For a more formal discussion of the nature of corporate complicity in human rights and other abuses, see Andrew Clapham & Scott Jerbi, Categories of Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Abuses, 24 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 339 (2001). For an early example of the policy response to the perception of these abuses, see generally R.S. Barnett & R.E. Muller, Global Reach: The Power of Multinational Corporations (1974), analyzing the incentives and structure attributes of the multinational corporation that contribute to its power and lack of accountability on a global level.
.See, e.g., John H. Dunning, Global Capitalism at Bay? (2001) (cataloguing the influence that both TNCs and national governments have on the technological, social, and institutional development of global capitalism); Bob Milward, Globalisation? Internationalisation and Monopoly Capitalism: Historical Processes and Monopoly Capitalism 25–36 (2003) (arguing that TNCs are the current manifestation of the drive toward consolidation in the search for profit that, because of the basic contradictions of capitalism, will result in the system consuming itself).
.See, e.g., Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990); Amartya Sen, On Ethics and Economics (1987); Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents 3–22 (2002).
 David Weissbrodt & Muria Kruger, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises With Regard to Human Rights, 97 Am. J. Int’l L. 901, 901 (2003) (emphasis added) (referencing in part Mary Robinson, High Comm’r for Human Rights, Second Global Ethic Lecture (Jan. 21, 2002)).
 For an analysis of the Norms and their applications, see, Larry Catá Backer, Multinational Corporations, Transnational Law: The United Nation’s Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations as a Harbinger of Corporate Social Responsibility as International Law, 37 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 287 (2006).
 See, Id., at --.
 Norway, Ministry of Finance, Report No. 10 to the Storting, Corporate Social Responsibility in a Global Economy 2008-2009, Jan. 23, 2009, at 76, available http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/Documents/Propositions-and-reports/Reports-to-the-Storting/2008-2009/report-no-10-2008-2009-to-the-storting.html?id=565907.
 Ruggie’s conclusion that the Norms were of little help in advancing the interests of business and human rights, has drawn criticism from Professor David Weissbrodt, one of the architects of the Norms. Weissbrodt has complained that Ruggie has "embark[ed] on an extremely negative and unproductive critique of the Norms - inspired, if not copied word for word, from the advocacy of the International Chamber of Commerce and the International Organization of Employers" while also not citing one of these “mainstream international lawyers and other impartial observers,” but rather relying on the biased views of lawyers employed by the International Chamber of Commerce. See David Weissbrodt, UN Perspectives on "Business and Humanitarian and Human Rights Obligations," 100 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 135, 138 (2006). Weissbrodt does find that a lot of Ruggie’s work has great potential to advance the interests of business and human rights, but he does show a general disdain for the way that Ruggie has derided the Norms in form and function. Id., at 139.
 Ruggie suggested three causes. . The first is that large firms have become major players around the globe and countervailing efforts have currently come from civil society actors. Secondly, some companies have made themselves and their sector targets by doing bad things on a larger scale as a result of mistakes, shortsightedness and even malfeasance; which has generated an increased demand for corporate accountability. Thirdly, the fact that it has global reach and capacity while simultaneously being capable of making and implementing decisions that neither governments nor international agencies can accomplish with such speed. Oct 2005 speech p.3
 John Ruggie, Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97 (2006) at ¶59, available http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/business/RuggieReport2006.html. He also noted that “Even leaving aside the highly contentious though largely symbolic proposal to monitor firms and provide for reparation payments to victims, its exaggerated legal claims and conceptual ambiguities created confusion and doubt even among many mainstream international lawyers and other impartial observers.” Id.
 But see, David Weissbrodt, International Standard-Setting on the Human Rights Responsibilities of Businesses, 26 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 373(2008).
 It was during this first appointment that John Ruggie served as one of the main architects of the UN Global Compact. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sga934.doc.htm.
 One purpose of this initiative is to involve businesses, acting as private agents driving globalization, to “ensure that markets, commerce, technology, and finance advance in ways that benefit economies and societies everywhere.” Overview of Global Compact, available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html.
 The top reason for organizations and businesses to engage in the Global Compact is ““integration on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues,” reflecting a growing shift towards more proactive action, no longer simply viewing corporate responsibility as a reputation management function.” United Nations Global Compact Office, United Nations Global Compact 2008 Annual Review (March 2009) (prepared by Carrie Hall), 8. Available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ (follow “Global Compact Annual Review 2008” hyperlink).
 These goals require all of the participating nations to commit to eight goals to improve the standards and meet the needs of the worlds poorest within a set of time-based targets with a deadline of 2015. The goals include: End Poverty and Hunger, Universal Education, Gender Equality, Child Health, Maternal Health, Combat HIV/AIDS, Environmental Sustainability, and Global Partnership. Millennium Development Goals Background, available at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml.
 Oct.2007 Washington Remarks, p.2
 Press documents, available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sga934.doc.htm.
 He planned to conduct surveys of business policies and practices with regard to human rights to learn how businesses conceive of human rights, what standards they reference, and their use of impact assessments. Oct 2005 speech p.4. Legal teams were also contacted to determine how European and American courts understand the concepts of complicity and sphere of influence in this context. Id.
 Oct. 2005 speech p.5
 These organizations include Harvard Law School, The Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at the Kennedy School, the Office of the High Commissioner, and the Government of Switzerland. Oct. 2005 speech p.5
 The starting point is “corporate liability for abuses that amount to violations of international criminal or humanitarian law.” Dec 2005 Speech The reasons for starting at this point is that it is a critically important issue on its own, where greater clarity is needed, while it may also shed light on the general strategy of legalizing corporate human rights obligations. Id.
 Speech……Remarks by John G. Ruggie, Business & Human Rights Seminar, Old Billingsgate, London, December 8, 2005
 Dec 2005 Speech
 Speech Dec 2005 p.6
 Speech Dec 2005 p.6
 Speech Dec 2005 p.6
 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Interim Report, 2006, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97 (2006). Work on the mandate began by “conducting extensive consultations on the substance of the mandate as well as alternative ways to pursue it – with states, non-governmental organizations, international business associations and individual companies, international labor federations, UN and other international agencies, and legal experts.” Id., at ¶ 3.
 The “premise that the objective of the mandate is to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights in relation to transnational corporations and other business enterprises, but that governments bear principal responsibility for the vindication of those rights.”Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Interim Report, 2006, ¶ 7, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97 (2006).
 The two bookends of the debate include one position that “corporations cannot violate international human rights laws because they are only applicable to states.” Based on this reading, the only duty for companies is to comply with the national laws where they operate along with the voluntary initiatives they choose to undertake. Montreal Nov.2006 speech p.2. At the opposing position of the debate is the UN Norms which seek “to impose on corporations the full range of international human rights standards that states have adopted for states, with identical obligations ranging from “respecting” to “fulfilling” those rights.” Id. The debate between these two opposing views did not result in any light on the subject nor movement in policy, which then resulted in the appointment of SRSG Ruggie. Id.
 Regional multi-stakeholder consultation took place in Johannesburg, Bangkok, and Bogotá. The workshops including legal experts took place in London, Oslo, Brussels, and New York. And the two Geneva-based consultations included work on the extractives and financial services industries. Feb.2007 London speech p.1
 Report of the Special Representative to the Secretary General of the United Nations on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Business and Human Rights: Mapping International Standards of Responsibility and Accountability for Corporate Act, ¶ 1, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/035 (February 9, 2007).
 Paris speech. April 2007, p.2
 Paris speech. April 2007, pp.2-4
 Mr Ruggie emphasized there is commonly an underdeveloped accountability mechanism within voluntary initiatives that affects the performance of the initiative in that companies cannot correct what they don’t know is wrong. May 2007 Washington speech, p.5.
 Paris speech. April 2007, pp.6
 This can be seen in the similarities between the concept of Local Networks that exist in the UNGC and the challenge that he puts forth to industry leaders in his speeches. Local Networks are systems and groups located around the globe that permit, at its most basic form, companies to work together as a support network and source of inspiration to improve the concept of business and human rights. Networks are also used to improve understanding and share experiences on the Ten Principles, as well as to report progress in these areas. United Nations Global Compact Office, United Nations Global Compact 2008 Annual Review (March 2009) (prepared by Carrie Hall), 18. Available at http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ (follow “Global Compact Annual Review 2008” hyperlink).
 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (April 7, 2008).
 May 2008 speech, p.4
 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (April 7, 2008).
 Id., at ¶ 7.
 This gap is vast between “the scope and impact of economic forces and actors” on one side and “the capacity of societies to manage their adverse consequences” on the other. Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, ¶ 3, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (April 7, 2008).
 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, ¶ 3, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/5 (April 7, 2008).
 Human Rights Council, Eighth session, Agenda item 1, Organizational and procedural matters, A/HRC/8/52, 1 September 2008; 8/7. Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises June 18, 2008, at 30-32 (adopted without a vote). http://www2ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/8session/A.HRC.8.52.doc.
 S.A. Oct. 2009 speech, p.1
 Human Rights Council, Eighth session, Agenda item 1, Organizational and procedural matters, A/HRC/8/52, 1 September 2008; 8/7. Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises June 18, 2008, at 31.
 The HRC recognized “that proper regulation, including through national legislation, of transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and their responsible operation can contribute to the promotion, protection and fulfillment of and respect for human rights and assist in channelling the benefits of business towards contributing to the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Id.
 The HRC expressed concern “that weak national legislation and implementation cannot effectively mitigate the negative impact of globalization on vulnerable economies, fully realize the benefits of globalization or derive maximally the benefits of activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises and that therefore efforts to bridge governance gaps at the national, regional and international levels are necessary.” Id.
 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Business and human rights: Towards Operationalizing the “protect, respect and remedy” framework, at ¶ 15, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/11/13 (April 22, 2009), available http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/11session/A.HRC.11.13.pdf.
 It is pointed out quite clearly from the 14 consultations that “Every stakeholder group, despite their other differences, has expressed the urgent need for a common framework of understanding, a foundation on which thinking and action can build in a cumulative fashion.” The result of this was the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework. Supra note ????, at 4. Chatham house speech…