Human Rights Due Diligence is a key topic in the debates among human rights advocates and the business world. Its understanding varies from a standard ofexpected care to a process to manage business risks. As introduced in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, it is a process through which business enterprises should identify, assess and properly address human rights risks. Today, the concept is used or tends to be incorporated in avariety of legal instruments, from international soft-law to regional and national regulations. However, the understanding of what is the objective of human rights due diligence, its content, and the required standard still vary. Relying on the international soft-law instruments and the developments in national law, this study analyzes the foundation and narrative of human rights due diligence, content, common elements, and scope of obligation in a way to identify similarities and/or differences in the concept within different jurisdictions.

Globalization and increased growth in international value chains has brought great benefits to developing countries but have at the same time contributed to negative consequences related to human rights violations. Against this background and as a result of increased awareness, companies have been encouraged to take responsibility for their value chain and a framework for due diligence was adopted in 2011 with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UNGP introduced the first global standard of due diligence and created a non-binding framework for companies to take responsibility and to respect human rights. However, the voluntary aspect of the due diligence process has not had the desired effect as the voluntary approach has had a limited impact on preventing business-related human rights violations. This has been a factor in increasing legislative initiatives around the world, with the aim of establishing clear and binding rules to ensure responsible and sustainable business conduct. The purpose of the study is to examine the EU's legislative initiative on mandatory human rights due diligence through an ideational analysis. The further purpose is to investigate how and what the introduction of a new legislation can imply for the prevention of human rights violations in the value chain and how the accountability can be expressed. The thesis finds that the legislative initiative can be considered to have an overall positive impact to prevent and demand accountability for human rights violations in global value chains.

Supply Chain Due Diligence (SCDD) is conducted by companies to minimise or even eliminate risks of being involved directly or indirectly in human rights violations. It is part of Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) requirement. Through their suppliers companies may be exposed to irresponsible business practices. Considering this, companies should be able to systematically formulate concise demand from their suppliers that they practice responsible business practices which respect human rights. Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) as management tool commonly assist companies to direct suppliers methodically in achieving their financial goals. This research attempts to repurpose SRM concepts to enable companies to conduct SCDD methodically. Defining human rights requirements into practical supplier’s evaluation system is a challenging task. Possible criteria and their indicators are discussed. The structure and processes to implement SRM framework for SCDD purposes are also described.:1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2. INTENSIFICATION OF PURCHASING FUNCTION AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT FOR IMPROVED COOPERATION WITH SUPPLIERS 2.1. Procurement and Purchasing Function in Integrative Supply Chain Management 2.2. Supplier Relationship Management and Purchasing Function 2.2.1. Supplier Relationship Management Framework 2.2.2. Strategy Development 2.2.3. Supplier Observation 2.2.4. Supplier Selection 2.2.5. Classification of Suppliers and Performance Assessment 2.2.6. Cooperation and Collaborating with Suppliers 2.2.7. Development of Suppliers 2.2.8. Disturbance and Dissolution Management 3. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN DUE DILIGENCE THROUGH IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING 3.1. Relation between Business and Human Rights 3.2. Human Rights Due Diligence for Companies 3.2.1. Basic Concept of Human Rights Due Diligence 3.2.2. Relating Human Rights Due Diligence to Common Commercial Due Diligence 3.2.3. Business Case for Human Rights Due Diligence from Legal and Other Perspectives 3.3. Human Rights Due Diligence with Focus on Impact Assessment 3.3.1. Approaches and Guidelines to Conduct Human Rights Impact Assessment 3.3.2. Relevance of Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) Approaches to Practical Implementation within Procurement Activities 3.4. Human Rights Reporting 3.5. Supply Chain Due Diligence Activities as Instrument to Conduct Human Rights Due Diligence 4. EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SUPPLIERS’ PROSPECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS PERFORMANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION RISKS: DETERMINING CRITERIA AND THEIR INDICATORS 4.1. Performance Evaluation and Indicators Development 4.2. Rationalization in Grouping Human Rights Performance Criteria into Three groups of Criteria and Weighing/Scaling/Calculation System 4.3. Sourcing and Regulation 4.3.1. General Standards and Regulations 4.3.2. Specific Product Standards and Requirements 4.3.3. Supplier’s Code of Conduct and Industry Initiatives 4.4. Political and Social Circumstances 4.4.1. Political Condition in Country of Supplier 4.4.2. Risks of Corruption 4.4.3. Social Circumstance and Civil Society 4.5. Suppliers’ Internal Condition 4.5.1. Supplier’s Human Rights Policy 4.5.2. Supplier’s Human Rights Record and Reputation 4.5.3. Supplier’s Corporate Governance and Political Connections 4.6. General Remarks on Groups of Performance Criteria and Framework for Suppliers’ Classification 5. RESULTS INTERPRETATION OF SUPPLIERS’ CLASSIFICATION FOLLOWING EVALUATION OF SUPPLIERS’ PROSPECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS PERFORMANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION RISK 5.1. 5.1.1. Understanding and Using the Assessment Framework 5.1.2. Determining Indicators’ Scaling Complexity, Weighing System and Cut-off Points 5.1.3. Interaction Model of the Framework in Determining Overall Performance and Classification of Suppliers 5.2. Suppliers with Low-Level of Prospective Human Rights Performance 5.3. Suppliers with Medium-Level of Prospective Human Rights Performance 5.4. Suppliers with High-Level of Prospective Human Rights Performance 6. INTRODUCING SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPLY CHAIN DUE DILIGENCE 6.1. Building the Supplier Relationship Management Framework for Supply Chain Due Diligence Framework: Laying Out the Foundation 6.2. Supply Chain Due Diligence Using an Approach of Supplier Relationship Management: How to Implement the Framework 6.2.1. Purchasing Strategy Development 6.2.2. Observation of Potential Suppliers 6.2.3. Suppliers Selection 6.2.4. Performance Assessment and Classification of Suppliers 6.2.5. Disturbance and Dissolution Management 6.2.6. Cooperation and Collaboration with Suppliers 6.2.7. Development of Suppliers 7. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

Operating through complex supply chains and multiple jurisdictions, today’s business enterprises can outsource manufacturing to different parts of the world where they can take advantage of low labour- and production costs. In the global quest for businesses to maximise their profits, deteriorating working conditions for offshore labour workers are increasing the risks of human rights abuses. Such abuses often take the form of ‘modern slavery’, which refers to situations of exploitation in which labour workers are trapped and unable to leave due to threats, violence, deception, abuse of power or other forms of coercion. In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) enacted the Modern Slavery Act (MSA), aimed at combatting modern slavery by requiring business enterprises to be transparent with the steps they have taken to ensure that modern slavery is not taking place within their supply chains. By putting pressure on business enterprises to display their actions taken to address adverse human rights impacts, the MSA has brought the responsibility of business enterprises to conduct ‘human rights due diligence’ (HRDD) – as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - into domestic law. While the MSA has been regarded as a ‘world-leading instrument’ and a ‘historic milestone’ by the UK government, its effectiveness in counteracting modern slavery has been questioned in various studies, pointing towards a risk that the MSA is allowing human rights abuses to prevail under a form of a legal veil. Bearing in mind the country’s long colonial history, the enactment of the MSA can be seen as carrying an important symbolic value for the UK when it comes to taking accountability for human rights abuses committed overseas. However, adopting weak or ineffective legislation could instead, paradoxically, reflect an interest by the UK government to maintain beneficial trade relationships based on exploitative working conditions in a manner that reflects a continuation of former colonial power structures. This thesis is set out to examine this potential paradox by analysing the MSA’s level of compliance with the UNGPs from a postcolonial perspective.