The Corporate Responsibility to Remedy (3rd Pillar Ruggie Framework) - Analysis of the Corporate Responses in Three Major Oil Spill Cases: Shell - Nigeria, BP – US (the Gulf), Chevron – Ecuador

55 Pages Posted: 2 Nov 2011

See all articles by Tineke Lambooy

Tineke Lambooy

Utrecht University School of Law

Mary A. Varner

Washington University in St. Louis

Aikaterini Argyrou

Utrecht University, School of Law, Students; Nyenrode Business University

Date Written: November 2, 2011

Abstract

From 2005-2011, the UN Special Representative for Human Rights and Business, Prof. John Ruggie, has built a governance framework comprising three pillars, i.e., ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy,’ to clarify the complementary roles of governments (public actors) and companies (private actors) in respect to the protection and realisation of human rights. The first pillar of the framework concerns the State’s duty to protect citizens from human rights violations by private actors, such as companies. The second pillar regards the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The third pillar is about the shared responsibility of States and companies to provide legal and non-legal remedies to victims of corporate (mis)conduct. The concepts and ideas contained in this pillar still require sharpening as well as discussion on how to put them into practice. This article centres on the third pillar. First, it discusses the background and content of the third pillar: what does it mean to provide remedies, both from the corporate governance perspective and from a more operational perspective? It analyses what Ruggie’s ‘Guiding Principles’ state on providing effective remedies. Next, three case studies concerning major oil spills will be presented. In each of them, problems with communities escalated resulting in many legal procedures. The first is the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The second and third cases concern the oil spills and environmental pollution in water basins and soil in Ecuador and Nigeria for which, respectively, Chevron and Shell are being held accountable in various legal proceedings. The corporate responses by each of these multinationals towards said proceedings are analysed from the perspective of Remedy (and the prevention of conflicts). Finally, an attempt is made to test the oil companies’ remedies against the effectiveness parameters as contained in Ruggie’s Guiding Principles, meanwhile indicating where possibilities lay for improvement.

Suggested Citation

Lambooy, Tineke and Varner, Mary A. and Argyrou, Aikaterini, The Corporate Responsibility to Remedy (3rd Pillar Ruggie Framework) - Analysis of the Corporate Responses in Three Major Oil Spill Cases: Shell - Nigeria, BP – US (the Gulf), Chevron – Ecuador (November 2, 2011). University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2011-26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1953190 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1953190

Tineke Lambooy (Contact Author)

Utrecht University School of Law ( email )

3508 TC Utrecht
Utrecht
Netherlands

Mary A. Varner

Washington University in St. Louis ( email )

One Brookings Drive
Campus Box 1208
Saint Louis, MO MO 63130-4899
United States

Aikaterini Argyrou

Utrecht University, School of Law, Students ( email )

Utrecht
Netherlands

Nyenrode Business University ( email )

Straatweg 25
P.O. Box 130
Breukelen, 3620 AC
Netherlands

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,075
Abstract Views
5,572
rank
20,596
PlumX Metrics