Response to interpellation 2023/24:586 on Sweden's actions in the negotiations on LBI
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Sweden's actions in the negotiations on LBI. M believes that the state has the primary responsibility for human rights 1 2 and that Swedish companies already follow international guidelines 1 2. The Government is hesitant about the UN process as it risks undermining states' responsibilities 1 2 3 and argues that the current regulatory framework should be followed 1 2 3. M emphasizes that a new convention must be practically feasible and have broad support 2. M believes that countries should take responsibility for their own legislation 3 and that it is difficult for small countries to direct legislation towards very large companies 4. M argues that conventions must be comprehensive 4 and highlights the OECD guidelines 4. V believes that binding agreements are needed to hold transnational companies accountable 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Lorena Delgado Varas has asked me what reasons underlie the fact that Sweden does not participate actively in the negotiations on LBI or act actively to give the EU a negotiating mandate, and in what way I and the government see that the safeguarding of human rights can be guaranteed by states without binding international rules.
Let me begin by stating that the business community has a very important role to play in the work for sustainable development. Swedish companies are already at the forefront in that work. This government believes in a functioning market economy as the engine for a sustainable economic and social development. One prerequisite is common rules of the game regarding human rights and the environment in order to remove unserious actors.
The Government has a clear expectation that Swedish companies and their operations shall not cause, contribute to, or be linked to abuses or violations of human rights, regardless of where they operate. Companies shall comply with prevailing laws but also take into account international guidelines, particularly the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
But let me be very clear. It is still the state that has the primary responsibility to respect, protect and realize human rights. Sweden has legislation that sets high requirements for respect for human rights, in accordance with the international HR conventions we have joined. These also include companies in Sweden. The same applies to several other European countries.
The government has followed the negotiations in LBI and attended the various negotiation rounds held since 2015 but is represented by the EU's diplomatic service, which coordinates the participation and the EU's input. The negotiation text has been discussed at the annual negotiation meetings, and although some improvements can be noted, the process has continued to face weak support among the UN's member states. Sweden has therefore contributed to a line of action with constructive but restrictive participation from the EU in the negotiations.
Sweden and the EU have consistently had reservations regarding the added value of a legally binding convention. If current conventions, regulatory frameworks, and guidelines regarding human rights were followed, major improvements would occur.
A large part of the questions in the draft convention are judged to fall under EU competence. Sweden and other Member States have therefore requested a deeper legal analysis and a common roadmap for the EU's actions, but for such an analysis, the EEAS needs to have a formal negotiating mandate, which neither they nor the Commission have yet requested.
The EU is a global leader in promoting corporate responsibility to respect human rights, even in its activities outside the EU. Following the completed negotiations, the adoption and implementation of the new EU directive on corporate sustainability due diligence are now awaited, which is based on the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and due diligence guidance.
For Sweden, it has been important to achieve a directive where the administrative burdens for companies become proportionate and appropriate in relation to the purposes of the new rules. With the changes made during the negotiations, the final text is judged to live up to that objective. The directive will be an important and balanced instrument to promote companies' respect for human rights. It is expected to contribute to the EU's work with the negotiations on the UN convention and can constitute a basis for a future negotiating mandate, even though there are areas in the convention text that are not covered by the EU directive.
In summary, the government is hesitant as to whether the UN process creates the conditions to achieve an effective convention that strengthens global protection against corporate-related violations and abuses of human rights. Rather, there is a risk that states' responsibilities to respect, protect, and realize human rights are undermined. We will continue to work towards all states taking their responsibility for human rights and that Swedish and other countries' companies respect these, not least through UD's work within international trade, export promotion, development cooperation, and human rights.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
I must once again remind what the group leaders have agreed upon regarding the dress code - that clothes with political messages shall not be worn in the chamber. In the chamber, it is the spoken word that prevails. I hope that the member respects this.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! I wish that the spoken word is always respected.
Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I hear the Minister expressing how important human rights are and that, first and foremost, states bear the responsibility. At the same time, we see time and again violations that often do not have consequences and that those affected all too often do not receive justice.
I want to clarify some things and perhaps seek further answers from the Minister.
Firstly, the legally binding agreement LBI covers a spectrum that is not covered by current laws and agreements. In addition to it being an instrument for those affected to obtain justice against Swedish companies and especially transnational companies, it would be an incredibly important tool to cover the utterly impossible constructions that the transnational companies have built up to circumvent responsibility.
Secondly, the instruments that exist today are not binding. That is probably what has been the problem within trade policy – that one does not dare to set legally binding requirements, which would actually enable this to be followed for real.
The Minister points out that Swedish companies are at the forefront when it comes to human rights. In that case, I think this is rather positive for Swedish companies. I mean: Which companies can see this as a competitive advantage, if not Swedish companies? And which companies will need to change their way of working to comply with the legal requirements, if not the transnational companies? It should be in the government's interest to participate actively in the negotiations and to get this through, if one safeguards the interests of Swedish companies.
Studies have been conducted comparing due diligence and LBI which show that they rather complement each other. Both are needed to obtain a complete framework when it comes to responsibility for human rights in terms of the business sector. Nevertheless, the government has been involved in watering down the proposal on due diligence, and has not been active in the work with binding agreements to strengthen accountability. This means that the government is not really on board that this needs to be changed and improved.
I also wonder: How are states to be able to guarantee their citizens' human rights if mining companies that poison the land and water sources, which people live off of, wind down their operations in the country and move assets, which could be used for remediation, to a sister company in another country? This is what is intended with LBI.
This is a tool for states to hold transnational companies accountable. I think it would also be beneficial for Sweden, as we see that we will get an increased number of mining companies here in Sweden.
I would simply like to get an answer as to why one does not see the positive in these changes. One tries instead to find the negative or one does not even want to participate.
(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I perceived a tendency to reply to the Speaker regarding the rules that the group leaders have agreed upon. I note that.)
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lorena Delgado Varas, for the interpellation! It touches on very important issues. It is absolutely crucial that, not least our Swedish companies, always behave and, so to speak, handle issues and risks that exist linked to various investment projects in a responsible and long-term manner.
We from the Swedish government's side support the work in the UN and also in the OECD, it should be noted, because work is also being done there. This concerns the work to develop different types of standards for a rules-based global trade - that was exactly what we discussed in the previous interpellation debate - but also for responsible business.
I am convinced that it is a major competitive advantage for Sweden as a country that we have a very good reputation in this area.
Nothing is black or white. It is clear that there can be advantages to having a UN convention. There can be a potential to, so to speak, strengthen the global protection that exists. In that case, it is important that legally binding instruments are based on the consensus framework that the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights constitute. It is also important and actually completely crucial that the rules that are in that case negotiated within the UN are practically feasible and that they are long-term and have the intended effect.
A new convention that is not comprehensive or that is not even anchored among the majority of the UN's member countries, we believe is not the right way to go, because such a convention will not gain traction.
It is also important to remember that we live in a time when the entire human rights system is under attack. We need to make more of an effort to defend and implement the different types of human rights frameworks that already exist rather than creating new norms.
If the current regulatory framework were followed, very significant improvements would occur. It is also one of the reasons why Sweden urges, but also in various ways helps, countries to implement the UN's current guiding principles for business and human rights.
Then one can note that several of the countries that are most pressing for a convention - Ecuador, Cuba, Pakistan, South Africa and Venezuela - lack their own national action plans. In some sense, the work also begins here at home.
There is a risk that I think we should dwell on. Fundamentally, it is the states that have the responsibility to respect, protect and realize human rights. There is a risk that states' responsibility would be undermined with such a solution.
I am proud as Minister for Foreign Trade that we have many world-leading Swedish companies with an incredibly good reputation in this regard. Everywhere in the world where I travel to promote Swedish business and Swedish entrepreneurship, I hear this. I am convinced that it is also a very large competitive advantage for Sweden, not only today and in the past but also in the future – when we now, for example, in our trade strategy, lay the foundation for increased and more forward-looking promotion within green transition or digitalization.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! It is good that the Minister acknowledges that there may be positive aspects to this and that it can be a competitive advantage for Swedish companies. The Minister points out that it needs to be practically feasible. In that case, I think it is another argument for why we should participate actively in this.
I intended to return to the Minister's first answer, where the Minister pointed out that it is the responsibility of states to respect, protect, and realize human rights. On that point, we are in complete agreement. But the Minister expresses concern that LBI would in some way risk undermining states' responsibilities. I think it would be useful for all of us to hear exactly how LBI would undermine states' responsibilities. The lines of reasoning do not quite hang together.
I think that what risks undermining states' responsibilities is the lack of tools, instruments, and binding international mechanisms that make it possible to hold transnational corporations, which today are sometimes even stronger than states, legally accountable. For that, much more is needed than what we have today.
The Minister confirms that Sweden and the EU have had reservations regarding the added value of LBI. He also confirms that voluntary conventions, regulations, and guidelines are not being followed. I wonder: How is it that one has then weakened what is on the table? Why does one choose to look away when building up something that is on the table? I would like to have answers to those two questions.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! This is quite technical and legal, and it is an issue that has been worked on for a number of years. There is much that suggests that it will continue that way.
If one is to take a slightly more overarching perspective on this, we have reasoned approximately as follows. It is crucial that companies take a great social responsibility. Our Swedish companies do that, I want to say. We are often in a class of their own. There may be individual companies that do not do it. But as a country, we have very much to be proud of. So it is.
We also, as a government, take the issue of human rights, and also the issue of human civil and political rights, very seriously. Then there is the question of what an international framework or regulations for this should look like.
We have pointed out two perspectives in this. Fundamentally, it is states that have a responsibility to regulate their own companies, just as we do in Sweden. It is Swedish legislation that governs how one operates in Sweden.
One can only observe that many of the countries that today are pushing most for the international framework have not yet handled the issues at home. They are starting at the wrong end in that part.
The second thing is that we must ask ourselves: If we are to find an international legislation or a framework on this, how do we ensure that it becomes long-term and transparent and that it covers the countries that we want it to cover? Otherwise, the legislation will not be effective in that part.
It does not matter so much if it is only a few countries that sign on to something like that if very many, and perhaps even the countries where the problems are greatest, choose to stand outside.
We have reasoned that we follow the negotiations that take place. We have done that for several years. It is as I said, the EU represents the union's members in this area. But there is very much that can be done already during that time.
One such thing is that more countries should take responsibility as states for their legislation. But it is also a matter of ensuring that the various frameworks and conventions that already exist in the area are complied with. That is perhaps actually step one in this before one takes such a large step forward, or in which direction one now thinks it is going.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! The Minister argues that states must take responsibility and that the countries driving this are countries that perhaps have not themselves enacted laws for their companies to follow human rights and so on.
But it is difficult for such countries to be able to withstand both the trade agreements as they look today and the constructions of the transnational corporations. We must acknowledge that we live in a society where the strongest economic actors are the corporations.
They have an incredible amount of power both through capital, of course, and through the various trade and investment agreements where there are mechanisms to protect corporate investments.
It goes even further. If we look at, for example, Chile's trade agreement, it concerns first and foremost the mineral supply to Europe more than it is about further developing or improving its opportunities to strengthen its country through entrepreneurship.
It will become an impossible situation for such countries to handle. Then perhaps an international legally binding framework is needed to support them in this because the order is such.
We have transnational companies that today have much more capital and much more power than individual countries. We cannot ignore that.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! As I said, it is not black or white. There are both advantages and disadvantages regardless of which path one chooses.
It can be lovely that one might one day think alike. I can in any case feel some sympathy for the starting point that comes from Lorena Delgado Varas. It is of course not always easy for a very small country to have legislation that targets very large companies. There are a number of international examples, often quite historical, where it has become a problem. Chevron is naturally one such case that is often mentioned.
Then there is another perspective. It is that the type of conventions that one is to sign must be all-encompassing. They must work and include exactly the right countries in this. Otherwise, there is a risk that it will become very toothless. It also becomes a way for countries to not have to do their own work, because they can always point to someone else. This applies particularly in the situation where there already exist quite enough international guidelines and regulations for this.
One such thing that can be pointed out is the OECD's guidelines on responsible business conduct for specifically multinational enterprises, where the protection for vulnerable persons and groups was strengthened. This applies, for example, regarding trade union rights and human rights defenders. The Government participated actively in the updating of them. If one looks at our new foreign trade strategy, one sees that it is included as very clear parts there.
We are following the work. We are represented, as said, by the EU. We are also in close dialogue with many other member states regarding how a continuation forward can potentially take place.
Thank you, Lorena Delgado Varas, for the interpellation!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.