1. From 'business or human rights' to 'business and human rights': what next?
1. 從「商業或人權」到「商業與人權」：下一步是什麼？

The interface between human rights and business is perhaps as old as the notions of ‘business’ and ‘rights’. ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} This interface is also inescapable because both human rights and business enterprises have a universal presence as well as relevance. However, the main thrust of the interface between human rights and business has been changing over the years. In my view, this evolution can be analysed in terms of three broad eras each with a distinct thrust: the ‘business or human rights’ era, the ‘business and human rights’ (BHR) era and the ‘business of human rights’ era.
人權與工商業之間的聯繫可能與「工商」和「權利」的概念一樣古老。 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 這種介面也是不可避免的，因為人權和企業都具有普遍的存在和相關性。然而，多年來，人權與工商業之間介面的主旨一直在發生變化。在我看來，這種演變可以用三個廣泛的時代來分析，每個時代都有不同的主旨：“商業或人權”時代、“商業與人權”（BHR） 時代和“商業人權”時代。

Before I explain these three eras in this chapter, let me flag three points. First, the three eras described here do not have a strict separation. While these eras are sequential at least in their origin, they do not have a clear start or end point. The three eras now exist in parallel with a change in the dominant theme. For example, while currently the BHR era is dominating the scene, there may still be some voices vouching for the business or human rights era. Second, although the third era - the business of human rights - is still in its infancy, I expect this to gain traction and perhaps become more dominant in coming years. The basis of this prediction is discussed below. Third, while the debate continues about the relationship between BHR and CSR, ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} this debate does not capture fully how the interface of business and rights has evolved over years at a holistic level, rather than merely from a CSR or BHR lens. I think both CSR and BHR - and even RBC (responsible business conduct) - share the common starting point of corporations having responsibilities beyond their shareholders. However, key differences exist regarding the normative basis of corporate responsibilities, the nature and extent of these responsibilities, the process of identifying individuals and communities to whom responsibilities are owed, and the modus operandi of enforcing corporate responsibilities in cases of noncompliance.
在我在本章解釋這三個時代之前，讓我指出三點。首先，這裡描述的三個時代沒有嚴格的區分。雖然這些時代至少在起源上是連續的，但它們沒有明確的起點或終點。現在，這三個時代與主導主題的變化同時存在。例如，雖然目前 BHR 時代佔據主導地位，但可能仍有一些聲音為商業或人權時代作擔保。其次，儘管第三個時代——人權事業——仍處於起步階段，但我預計它會越來越受歡迎，並可能在未來幾年變得更加主導。這一預測的基礎將在下面討論。第三，雖然關於 BHR 和 CSR 之間關係的辯論仍在繼續，但 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 這場辯論並沒有完全捕捉到多年來商業和權利的介面是如何在整體層面上演變的，而不僅僅是從 CSR 或 BHR 的角度來看。我認為 CSR 和 BHR——甚至 RBC（負責任的商業行為）——都有一個共同的出發點，即公司承擔股東以外的責任。然而，在企業責任的規範基礎、這些責任的性質和範圍、確定應承擔責任的個人和社區的過程以及在不遵守的情況下執行企業責任的作案手法方面存在關鍵差異。
${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} For an excellent account of how the operations of the British East India Company impacted people and their rights during the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, see William Dalrymple, The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence and the Pillage of an Empire (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019).
${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 有關英國東印度公司的運營在 17 世紀和 18 世紀如何影響人們及其權利的精彩描述，請參閱威廉·達爾林普爾 （William Dalrymple） 的《無政府狀態：東印度公司、公司暴力和帝國的掠奪》（布魯姆斯伯里出版社，2019 年）。
${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} See Chapter 2 in this Handbook. See also Chris Avery, ‘The Difference between CSR and Human Rights’ (August/September 2006), www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/reports -and-materials/Avery-difference-between-CSR-and-human-rights-Aug-Sep-2006.pdf (accessed 18 December 2019); Florian Wettstein, 'CSR and the Debate on Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Great Divide’ (2012) 22:4 Business Ethics Quarterly 739; Anita Ramasastry, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap between Responsibility and Accountability’ (2015) 14 Journal of Human Rights 237.
${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 請參閱本手冊的第 2 章。另見克裡斯·艾弗里（Chris Avery），《企業社會責任與人權的區別》（The Difference between CSR and Human Rights）（ 2006年8月/9月），www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/reports-and-materials/Avery-difference-between-CSR-and-human-rights-Aug-Sep-2006.pdf（2019年12月18日訪問）;弗洛裡安·韋特斯坦（Florian Wettstein），《企業社會責任與商業與人權辯論：彌合巨大鴻溝》（2012年），《商業道德季刊》（2012年）22：4，《商業倫理季刊》，第739頁;Anita Ramasastry，“企業社會責任與商業與人權：彌合責任與問責之間的差距”（2015 年），14 Journal of Human Rights 237。

Human rights embody important values of universal relevance. This collective understanding cannot be shaken by continued violations of human rights by both states and non-state actors in all world regions. Nor can it be shaken by certain political leaders dismissing or misappropriating the language of human rights, or some scholars rightly reminding us of the dangers inherent in both the overreach of human rights as well as their limits. ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} Similarly, businesses in some form are present everywhere. In fact, one can hardly do anything nowadays without some assistance or contribution on the part of corporations.
人權體現了具有普遍意義的重要價值觀。這種集體理解不能因世界所有地區的國家和非國家行為者持續侵犯人權而動搖。某些政治領導人對人權語言的輕視或挪用，或者一些學者正確地提醒我們人權的過度擴張及其局限性所固有的危險，也不能動搖它。 ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} 同樣，某種形式的企業無處不在。事實上，如果沒有公司的幫助或貢獻，現在人們幾乎無法做任何事情。

Nevertheless, many scholars and business leaders long took the position that respecting human rights or performing social responsibilities was not the business of business. I will label this as the ‘business or human rights’ era. The famous Berle-Dodd debate in the early 1930s was illustrative of this era, ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} in which Berle argued that corporations should exercise their power only for the benefit of their shareholders.
然而，許多學者和商界領袖長期以來一直認為，尊重人權或履行社會責任不是企業的事。我將把這個時代稱為「商業或人權」時代。1930 年代初期著名的 Berle-Dodd 辯論說明了這個時代， ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} Berle 認為公司應該只為股東的利益行使權力。

Berle’s views were taken forward forcefully by Milton Friedman, ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} who famously argued that in a free market economy, the only social responsibility of business is to maximise profits for shareholders. More recent support for this line of thinking is offered by Elaine Sternberg. ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} For her, the ‘defining purpose of business is maximising owner value over the long term by selling goods or services’ ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} and using ‘business resources for non-business purposes [social responsibility] is tantamount to theft’. ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} I will suggest that the ‘shareholder primacy’ model is also rooted in the philosophy of the business or human rights era.
米爾頓·弗裡德曼 （Milton Friedman） 有力地推動了伯勒的觀點， ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} 他有一句名言：在自由市場經濟中，企業唯一的社會責任是實現股東利潤最大化。Elaine Sternberg 最近對這種思路提供了支援。 ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} 對她來說，“商業的定義目標是通過銷售商品或服務實現擁有者長期價值最大化” ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} ，而“將商業資源用於非商業目的 [社會責任] 無異於盜竊”。 ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} 我認為「股東至上」模式也植根於商業或人權時代的哲學。

The views of Berle, Friedman and Sternberg did not go unchallenged. ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} The validity of the shareholder primacy model too has been contested on legal, normative and practical grounds, ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} and not many corporations would now claim - at least publicly - that their sole objective is to maximise profits irrespective of any adverse impact on society. Consequently, the business or human rights era has lost much of its steam, though traces of it can still be seen. For example, the continued overemphasis on the business case for human rights suggests that corporations
Berle、Friedman 和 Sternberg 的觀點並非沒有受到挑戰。 ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} 股東至上模式的有效性也因法律、規範和實踐原因而受到爭議， ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} 現在沒有多少公司會聲稱——至少在公開場合——他們的唯一目標是利潤最大化，而不考慮對社會的任何不利影響。因此，商業或人權時代已經失去了大部分動力，儘管仍然可以看到它的痕跡。例如，對人權商業理由的持續過分強調表明，公司
${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} See, e.g., David Kennedy, ‘International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?’ (2002) 5 Harvard Human Rights Journal 101; Eric Posner, ‘The Case against Human Rights’ (4 December 2014), www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights (accessed 18 December 2019); Dominique Clément, ‘Human Rights or Social Justice? The Problem of Rights Inflation’ (2012) 22 International Journal of Human Rights 155; Samuel Moyn, Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World (Belknap Press, 2018).
${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} 例如，參見大衛·甘迺迪（David Kennedy），《國際人權運動：問題的一部分？（2002） 5 哈佛人權雜誌 101;埃裡克·波斯納（Eric Posner），《反人權案》（The Case against Human Rights）（2014年12月4日），www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights（2019年12月18日流覽）;多米尼克·克萊門特（Dominique Clément），《人權還是社會正義？權利通貨膨脹問題》（2012年）22 《國際人權雜誌》第 155 頁;撒母耳·莫恩（Samuel Moyn），《不夠：不平等世界中的人權》（Belknap Press，2018 年）。

4 Adolph A Berle, ‘Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust’ (1931) 44 Harvard Law Review 1049; E Merrick Dodd, ‘For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?’ (1932) 45 Harvard Law Review 1145; Adolph A Berle, ‘For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees: A Note’ (1932) 45 Harvard Law Review 1365.
4 Adolph A Berle，《作為信託權力的公司權力》（1931 年），《哈佛法律評論》第 44 頁，第 1049 頁;E Merrick Dodd，“公司經理人為誰受託？（1932） 45 哈佛法律評論 1145;Adolph A Berle，“企業經理受託人是誰：一個註釋”（1932 年），45 哈佛法律評論，1365 年。

Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago University Press, 1962); Milton Friedman, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine (13 September 1970), 33.
米爾頓·弗裡德曼，《資本主義與自由》（芝加哥大學出版社，1962 年）;米爾頓·弗裡德曼，“企業的社會責任是增加其利潤”，《紐約時報雜誌》（1970 年 9 月 13 日），第 33 頁。
${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} Elaine Sternberg, Just Business: Business Ethics in Action, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2000).
${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} 伊萊恩·斯滕伯格（Elaine Sternberg），《公正的商業：商業道德在行動》（Just Business： Business Ethics in Action），第二版（牛津大學出版社，2000年）。

7 Ibid, 32 (emphasis in original).
7 同上，第 32 頁（強調為原文所加）。
8 Ibid, 41 (emphasis in original).
8 同上，第41頁（強調為原文所加）。
9 For an analysis, see Surya Deva, Regulating Corporate Human Rights Violations: Humanizing Business (Routledge, 2012) 119-39.
9 有關分析，參見 Surya Deva，《規範企業人權侵犯：人性化商業》（Routledge，2012 年），第 119-39 頁。

10 See Paddy Ireland, ‘Company Law and the Myth of Shareholder Ownership’ (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 32; Jennifer Hill, ‘Visions and Revisions of the Shareholder’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 39; Beate Sjåfjell and Mark B Taylor, 'Clash of Norms: Shareholder Primacy vs. Sustainable Corporate Purpose’ (2019) 13 International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal 40.
10 參見 Paddy Ireland，「公司法和股東擁有權的神話」（1999 年）62 現代法律評論 32;詹妮弗·希爾，《股東的願景和修訂》（2000 年）48 《美國比較法雜誌》第 39 頁;Beate Sjåfjell 和 Mark B Taylor，“規範衝突：股東優先與可持續企業目標”（2019 年），13 國際和比較公司法雜誌 40。
still need to justify demands to respect human rights in terms of profit maximisation. ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} But if human rights are merely tools to make more profit or avoid risk to corporations, why the pretence about corporations becoming more socially responsible? In fact, Friedman was critical of CSR being used as a cloak for actions that could be justified for corporate self-interest. ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12}
仍然需要證明在利潤最大化方面尊重人權的要求是合理的。 ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} 但是，如果人權只是賺取更多利潤或避免公司風險的工具，為什麼還要假裝公司變得更有社會責任感呢？事實上，弗裡德曼批評企業社會責任被用作為企業自身利益辯護的行動的外衣。 ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12}

Although the usage of the term ‘business and human rights’ has a more recent origin, the BHR era started taking root around the early 1970s. ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} The UN Economic and Social Council’s appointment of a Group of Eminent Persons in 1973 to study the impact of transnational corporations on economic development and international relations; ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} the OECD and the ILO releasing soft norms outlining responsibilities of multinational enterprises in 1976 and 1977 respectively; ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15} the launch of the Sullivan Principle in 1977 to articulate the role of corporations in fighting apartheid in South Africa; ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} and the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster, which killed thousands of people in India, ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} incrementally but firmly grounded the BHR era. By the early 1990s, the BHR era had begun to gain prominence (including as a result of several high-profile cases under the Alien Tort Statue (ATS) as well as civil society advocacy and reports ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} ), while the business or human rights era had begun to weaken significantly.
儘管「商業與人權」一詞的使用起源較晚，但 BHR 時代在 1970 年代初左右開始紮根。 ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} 聯合國經濟及社會理事會於 1973 年任命了一組知名人士來研究跨國公司對經濟發展和國際關係的影響; ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} 經合組織和國際勞工組織分別於1976年和1977年發佈了概述跨國企業責任的軟性規範; ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15} 1977 年推出沙利文原則，闡明公司在南非打擊種族隔離制度中的作用; ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} 以及 1984 年在印度造成數千人死亡的博帕爾天然氣災難， ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} 逐漸但牢固地為 BHR 時代奠定了基礎。到 1990 年代初，BHR 時代開始受到重視（包括由於外國人侵權雕像 （ATS） 下的幾起備受矚目的案件以及民間社會的倡導和報告 ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} ），而商業或人權時代開始顯著削弱。

A distinctive component of the BHR era has been development of standards - the ‘new rules of the game’ - by states, international organisations, multi-stakeholder groups, corporations, industry associations, civil society organisations (CSOs), lawyer associations and academics to guide business behaviour. I will focus here only on the role of the United Nations (UN) in developing BHR-related standards. The UN’s engagement with BHR standard setting could be divided into four distinct phases, each with a distinct approach. In the first phase, which lasted for about two decades (1974-92), the debate and disagreements revolved around ‘rights versus responsibilities’: while developing countries wanted to impose obligations on TNCs, developed countries’ priority was to secure fair treatment rights for such companies in host states. This phase ended with the UN in 1992 suspending negotiations on the proposed Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations.
BHR 時代的一個獨特組成部分是國家、國際組織、多方利益相關者團體、公司、行業協會、民間社會組織 （CSO）、律師協會和學術界制定標準，即“遊戲新規則”，以指導商業行為。我在這裡只關注聯合國 （UN） 在制定 BHR 相關標準中的作用。聯合國參與 BHR 標準制定可分為四個不同的階段，每個階段都有不同的方法。在第一階段，持續了大約二十年（1974-92年），辯論和分歧圍繞著“權利與責任”展開：雖然發展中國家希望對跨國公司施加義務，但發達國家的首要任務是確保這些公司在東道國享有公平待遇的權利。這一階段以聯合國於 1992 年暫停關於擬議的《跨國公司行為準則》的談判而結束。