Voluntary Corporate Measures are no equivalent of Govermental Policies

Voluntary corporate measures are increasingly being promoted to stand alongside governmental and intergovernmental actions as equal instruments for protecting the environment and human rights. This approach is deeply flawed. Experience across sectors and regions shows that voluntary corporate initiatives — from human rights pledges to multistakeholder certification schemes — have failed to prevent abuses, protect communities, or deliver justice (1).

The first problem is the absence of accountability. Voluntary frameworks rely on companies to monitor and report on their own human rights and environmental impacts. They are self-defined and self-evaluated, with no sanctions for non-compliance and no mechanisms for independent verification. Affected peoples and workers are rarely included in decision-making. Even the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights remain non-binding and have not ensured access to justice or remedy (2).

Secondly, conflicts of interest undermine credibility. Most voluntary schemes and audits are financed by the very corporations they are meant to scrutinise. This makes them structurally incapable of confronting systemic harms. In extractive industries, agriculture, finance, and manufacturing, corporate “human rights” commitments have coexisted with land grabbing, pollution, and violence against defenders. The resulting reports serve more to reassure investors than to protect rights holders (3).

A third limitation is the denial of remedy and reparation. Voluntary initiatives offer consultation and reporting, but not legally enforceable redress. Communities affected by toxic spills, deforestation, or forced displacement cannot rely on a company’s code of conduct for justice. On the contrary, voluntary initiatives frequently seek ways out of ackowledging the wrongdoings (4). Moreover, such frameworks allow governments to shift responsibility to private actors, weakening the state’s obligation to protect human rights.

Finally, profit imperatives will always be more defining for corporate behaviour than the voluntary mechanisms they are part of. Corporate governance prioritises returns to shareholders, not respect for human dignity. Without binding rules, voluntary promises will always be subordinated to financial interest (5).

For these reasons, placing voluntary corporate measures on the same level as governmental policy creates a false equivalence. States have binding duties under international human rights and environmental law. Corporations must be held to comparable obligations through mandatory accountability mechanisms, including liability for harm and access to justice for affected peoples. Real progress requires binding corporate accountability — not voluntary pledges that perpetuate impunity and the illusion of responsibility.

References

1. Vrije Universiteit Antwerpen, Voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives have failed. How to move forward? https://business-society.org/vids_pods/voluntary-corporate-social-respo…, 2021
2. European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Justice delayed: 10 years
   https://corporatejustice.org/news/justice-delayed-10-years-of-un-guidin…, 2021
3. The failure of transparency as self-regulation https://drcaroladams.net/the-failure-of-transparency-as-self-regulation, 2025
4. Milieudefensie , Not out of the Woods https://en.milieudefensie.nl/news/palm-oil-certification-not-out-of-the…, 2021
5. Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, 13 September
   1970