Support Responsible Investment and Business Practices for Companies (US0104)
Overview
At-a-Glance
Action Plan: United States Action Plan 2015-2017
Action Plan Cycle: 2015
Status: Inactive
Institutions
Lead Institution: NA
Support Institution(s): NA
Policy Areas
Private Sector, Public ParticipationIRM Review
IRM Report: United States End-of-Term IRM Report 2015-2017, United States Mid-Term Report 2015-2017
Starred: No
Early Results: Did Not Change
Design i
Verifiable: Yes
Relevant to OGP Values: Civic Participation
Implementation i
Description
In September 2014, President Obama committed to work with the private sector and other stakeholders to develop a National Action Plan to promote and expand responsible business conduct. This effort marks the first time the U.S. Government has undertaken a whole-of-government process to focus, improve, and expand its efforts to promote responsible business conduct. Following robust consultation with stakeholders, the Administration expects to publish a Responsible Business Conduct National Action Plan by the end of 2016
IRM Midterm Status Summary
For details of these commitments, see the report: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/united-states-mid-term-report-2015-2017/
IRM End of Term Status Summary
Commitment 52. Support Responsible Investment and Business Practices for Companies
Commitment Text:
Consult with the Public on the Responsible Business Conduct National Action Plan
In September 2014, President Obama committed to work with the private sector and other stakeholders to develop a National Action Plan to promote and expand responsible business conduct. This effort marks the first time the U.S. Government has undertaken a whole-of-government process to focus, improve, and expand its efforts to promote responsible business conduct. Following robust consultation with stakeholders, the Administration expects to publish a Responsible Business Conduct National Action Plan by the end of 2016.
Responsible Institution: Not Specified
Supporting Institution: Not Specified
Start Date: Not Specified End Date: Not Specified
Editorial Note: Completion at the midterm is not assessed for this commitment because it was submitted to OGP in September 2016 following the close of the midterm reporting period; progress for this commitment is therefore assessed from September 2016 onwards in the sections below.
Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed for the White House to work with the private sector and other stakeholders to develop a Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) national action plan (NAP), with the overall goal of promoting responsible business conduct. Per a speech delivered by President Obama announcing the plan’s development on 24 September 2014 at a meeting of the Open Government Partnership, [768] the plan is explicitly focused on promoting “responsible and transparent business conduct overseas.” As noted in an article appearing in Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law on 27 September 2014, “the United States had been under considerable pressure from civil society organizations and others to develop such a plan.” [769] This pressure is reflected in the stakeholder recommendations received from roughly 40 stakeholders, including academic institutions, civil society organizations, and individuals, that were collectively received as part of a public consultation process (see discussion in Completion section below) and posted independently on a plan-related website hosted by the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR). [770]
The magnitude of interest in the proposed plan is reflective of growing interest in RBC more broadly among relevant stakeholders, in turn motivating the government’s development of the plan. As described in a web post by the US State Department, “the Administration has been focused for some time on a host of issues related to corporate conduct abroad…. In the course of this work, we have registered an uptick in interest and engagement on these issues by American businesses, non-governmental organizations, academics, faith groups, the media, and the public at large.” The post goes on to say that “The NAP is also an opportunity for the US government to explain what we expect of ourselves and reflect how US businesses inform our work globally with other governments, international organizations, and various stakeholder groups.” [771] The development of the proposed plan described in the commitment text takes place against this backdrop.
While the commitment has a well-defined deliverable, the scope of the issues to be addressed in the proposed national action plan, as well as the scope and methods of stakeholder consultation that will inform its development, are not described in the commitment. Collectively, these issues result in a coding of medium specificity for the commitment. Without knowing the expected content of the RBC national action plan or the proposed mechanisms for stakeholder consultation, it is not possible to anticipate that the commitment will have a major impact on open government if fully implemented. The commitment is relevant for the OGP value of civic participation given that the plan’s stakeholder consultation process is expected to provide opportunities for interested stakeholders to contribute to the plan’s development.
Status
End of term: Complete
At the end of term, progress on this commitment is complete. On 16 December 2016, the Department of State released the US national action plan on Responsible Business Conduct. [772] The plan is similar in structure and content to the US government’s overall third national action plan (the evaluation of which comprises the focus of this report).
As described in the plan’s introduction, the “NAP is designed to reinforce and strengthen the US government’s role in advancing RBC through effective intra-governmental coordination and policymaking, promoting high standards globally, facilitating current and future RBC efforts through enhanced collaboration, and highlighting and supporting US industry leadership.” The plan defines “responsible business conduct” as “a broad concept based on the idea that business can perform well while doing good and that governments should set and facilitate the conditions for RBC to take place,” with particular emphasis on (1) the “positive contributions that businesses can make to economic, environmental, and social progress” and (2) “avoiding possible adverse impacts of business conduct… [and] addressing them when they occur.” [773]
Structurally, the plan is divided into five main sections that describe the US government’s existing and future commitments to enhance RBC. These sections include: (1) leading by example; (2) collaborating with stakeholders; (3) facilitating RBC by companies; (4) recognizing positive performance; and (5) providing access to remedy. [774] Each section of the NAP contains a general discussion of the US government’s goals with respect to the section’s overall theme, followed by a series of more specific commitments it aims to achieve, comprised of both new and existing commitments. Across the five sections, the plan proposes 27 new commitments, and describes 43 existing commitments. While the plan specifies an implementing department or agency for each commitment, the plan largely does not specify corresponding implementation deadlines, leaving open the question of exactly when the United States intends to meet these commitments.
With respect to civic participation, Annex I of the plan provides a detailed accounting of the plan’s development and strong evidence of civil society involvement. In particular, following President Obama’s announcement that the government would begin working to develop such a plan in late 2014, the White House National Security Council (NSC)—the federal agency leading the plan’s development—convened an interagency group to “map out the development of the NAP.” As described in the Annex, more than a dozen federal agencies participated in the drafting of the plan. On 20 November 2014, the White House announced a series of public events for interested stakeholders to provide input into the plan via a posting on the White House Blog, with events to be hosted by various independent organizations. Four such events took place as follows: an event in New York City on 15 December 2014 co-hosted by New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and the United States Council for International Business; an event in Berkeley California on 6 February 2015 [775] hosted by the Center for Responsible Business at the University of California-Berkeley’s Haas School of Business; an event in Norman, Oklahoma on 2 April 2015 hosted by the Oklahoma College of Law [776]; and an event in Washington, DC on 16 April 2016 [777] co-hosted by the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, the Global Business Initiative on Human Rights, and the Harrison Institute for Public Law at Georgetown University Law Center. [778] As described in the plan’s Annex, “Each open dialogue featured a wide range of stakeholder groups, and the diverse locations allowed each to focus on certain RBC issues of particular relevance to stakeholders in that location, including but not limited to: the financial sector, the technology sector, extractive industries, the impact of business on indigenous groups, transparency and reporting, and government purchasing practices.” [779]
As part of the blog post, the White House also noted that it would accept written comments on the plan by email, with an initial deadline of 15 January 2015, [780] and with the plan’s Annex further noting that US government officials additionally met with a variety of different stakeholders to solicit inputs into the plan, including non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), academic institutions, foreign government officials, labor unions, business, indigenous peoples, and industry associations. [781] As noted above, the government received inputs from at least 40 stakeholders, including many academic institutions and civil society organizations. [782] With respect to the substantive focus of inputs received, the plan notes that key themes included protecting human rights, human health, and the environment; improving the performance of the US National Contact Point for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines on Multinational Enterprises; [783] leveraging US procurement to promote RBC; and conducting a baselines assessment of RBC-relevant laws in the United States. The IRM researcher was unable to gauge the extent to which the inputs that stakeholders provided on these and other topics were ultimately incorporated into the plan.
Did It Open Government?
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
This commitment did not change the status quo of open government in the United States by the end of the action plan period.
The government afforded interested stakeholders multiple opportunities to provide inputs to the plan’s development over a period of months and via multiple channels, including in-person events and by email. The geographic distribution of the events was noteworthy, covering both coasts as well as the middle of the country. That said, an RBC plan assessment prepared by ICAR—which also co-hosted one of the RBC plan’s public consultation events—notes that “the U.S government did not release any information or summary documents regarding its deliberation over the content of the NAP, making it difficult to discern the extent to which the government took stakeholder recommendations into consideration… While a timeline for initial consultation and terms of reference were provided through the government’s online portal early in the drafting process; beyond that, the US government did not publish a timeline in relation to the rest of the NAP process, such as the drafting, review, or publication dates.” [784] The report also notes that “the US government did not consult around or release a draft NAP, missing a key opportunity to gather stakeholder opinions during a critical phase of the drafting process,” [785] highlighting a lack of transparency on the back-end of the consultation process.
More importantly for the purpose of the evaluation, while the plan itself was published in December 2016, the major components of the government’s engagement with civil society—notably, the four public consultation events and the written comment solicitation period—took place prior to the start of the evaluation period. For this reason, the commitment is not considered to have improved levels of civic participation.
Carried Forward?
At the time of writing, the US government had not published its fourth national action plan, so it is unclear if this commitment will be carried forward. While the implementation of the RBC commitments could lead to improvements related to access to information, civic participation, and public accountability, neither the plan itself nor government discussion surrounding the plan provide a clear indication of how progress on the government’s RBC commitments will be monitored, and whether information on that progress will be tracked centrally and made publicly available. Prior to the plan’s publication, the US State Department noted that “We do not view the creation and publishing of a NAP as an end unto itself, but rather part of our ongoing efforts to clarify and address these important issues. As with other US government national action plans, we will treat this as an iterative and evolving process.” [786] Going forward, the government should aim to complete the new commitments described in the plan, establish mechanisms for monitoring progress on the commitments, and continue making progress on existing RBC-related initiatives.
[768] For the text of the speech, see The White House. “Remarks by President Obama at Open Government Partnership Meeting.” 24 September 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/24/remarks-president-obama-open-government-partnership-meeting. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[769] Altschuller, Sara A. “United States to Develop National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.” 27 September 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law. https://bit.ly/1ytxfOR . Consulted 2 October 2017.
[770] International Corporate Accountability Roundtable: National Action Plan US “Stakeholder Recommendations.” http://nationalactionplan.us/other-recommendations/. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[771] US Department of State. “USG National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct: Frequently Asked Questions.” Humanrights.gov. 12 February 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20170428124214/https://www.humanrights.gov/dyn/2015/usg-national-action-plan-on-responsible-business-conduct/. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[772] US Department of State. “US National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.” 16 December 2016. https://www.state.gov/e/eb/eppd/csr/naprbc/index.htm. Consulted 2 October 2017. For the text of the Plan, see US Department of State. “Responsible Business Conduct: First National Action Plan of the United States of America.” 16 December 2016. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265918.pdf. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[773] Ibid. p.4. As described in a preamble written by former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, the plan’s two main aspirational goals are to promote human rights and fight corruption abroad “by encouraging companies to adopt high standards of responsible business conduct.”[773] At a more micro-level, the plan aims to “enhance coordination within our government, push for higher standards and a more level playing field globally, and strengthen public-private coordination to help US companies attain their responsible conduct goals in a variety of environments around the world.” Ibid. Preamble.
[774] Ibid. p6.
[775] For confirmation of the event’s date (which was not included in the White House’s initial blog post), see Counts, Laura. “White House Enlists Haas on Responsible Global Business.” University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business: Haas News. 20 January 2015. http://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/white-house-enlists-haas-responsible-global-business/. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[776] For confirmation of the event’s date (which was not included in the White House’s initial blog post) and a summary of the event, see Oklahoma College of Law. “National Action Plan for Responsible Business Conduct Dialogue at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, Oklahoma.” 2 April 2015. http://www.law.ou.edu/sites/default/files/content/april_2_nap_summary_final.pdf. Consulted 2 April 2017.
[777] For confirmation of the event’s date and Georgetown University’s participation (which was not included in the White House’s initial blog post), as well as a summary report on the event, see Georgetown University Law Center. “Summary Report: Consultation on the US National Action Plan for Responsible Business Conduct.” 16 April 2015. https://bit.ly/2JzK7vr. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[778] For the full list of events, see Smart, Christopher. “Announcement of Opportunity to Provide Input into the US National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.” The Obama White House Blog. 20 November 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/20/announcement-opportunity-provide-input-us-national-action-plan-responsible-business-. Consulted 1 October 2017.
[779] US Department of State. “Responsible Business Conduct: First National Action Plan of the United States of America.” p.24. 16 December 2016. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265918.pdf. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[780] For the full list of events, see Smart, Christopher. “Announcement of Opportunity to Provide Input into the US National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.” The Obama White House Blog. 20 November 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/20/announcement-opportunity-provide-input-us-national-action-plan-responsible-business-. Consulted 1 October 2017.
[781] US Department of State. “Responsible Business Conduct: First National Action Plan of the United States of America.” p.24. 16 December 2016. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265918.pdf. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[782] International Corporate Accountability Roundtable: National Action Plan US “Stakeholder Recommendations.” http://nationalactionplan.us/other-recommendations/. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[783] For more information on the Guidelines, see Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.” http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/guidelines/. Consulted 2 October 2017. Per their website, the Guidelines “are recommendations addressed by governments to multinational enterprises operating in or from adhering countries. They provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards.”
[784] International Corporate Accountability Roundtable. March 2017. “Assessment of the United States National Action Plan (NAP) on Responsible Business Conduct.” p.1. https://bit.ly/2KjKLOE. Consulted 2 October 2017.
[785] Ibid. p.2.
[786] US Department of State. “USG National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct: Frequently Asked Questions.” Humanrights.gov. 12 February 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20170428124214/https://www.humanrights.gov/dyn/2015/usg-national-action-plan-on-responsible-business-conduct/. Consulted 2 October 2017.
Commitments
-
Federal Data Strategy
US0105, 2019, E-Government
-
Grants Accountability
US0106, 2019, E-Government
-
Public Access to Federally Funded Research
US0107, 2019, Access to Information
-
Workforce Data Standards
US0108, 2019, E-Government
-
Chief Data Officers
US0109, 2019, Access to Information
-
Open Data for Public Health
US0110, 2019, Access to Information
-
Enterprise Objective
US0111, 2019, Capacity Building
-
Developing Future Action Plans
US0112, 2019, Public Participation
-
Reconstitution of the USA.gov
US0053, 2015, E-Government
-
Accessibility of Government Information Online
US0054, 2015, Marginalized Communities
-
Access to Educational Resources
US0055, 2015, Access to Information
-
Public Listing of Every Address in the US
US0056, 2015, Access to Information
-
Informed Decisions About Higher Education.
US0057, 2015, Access to Information
-
New Authentication Tools to Protect Individual Privacy and Ensure That Personal Records Go Only to the Intended Recipients.
US0058, 2015,
-
Transparency of Open311
US0059, 2015, E-Government
-
Support Medicine Research Throught Opening up Relevant Data of the Field
US0060, 2015, Access to Information
-
Access to Workforce Data
US0061, 2015, Access to Information
-
Using Evidence and Concrete Data to Improve Public Service Delivery
US0062, 2015, Capacity Building
-
Expand Use of the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard
US0063, 2015,
-
Consolidation of Import and Export Systems
US0064, 2015, E-Government
-
Improving Government Records
US0065, 2015, Access to Information
-
Ammendments to FOIA
US0066, 2015, Access to Information
-
Streamline the Declassification Process
US0067, 2015, Capacity Building
-
Implement the Controlled Unclassified Information Program
US0068, 2015, Access to Information
-
Transparency of Privacy Programs and Practices
US0069, 2015, Capacity Building
-
Transparency of Federal Use of Investigative Technologies
US0070, 2015, E-Government
-
Increase Transparency of the Intelligence Community
US0071, 2015, Access to Information
-
Open Science Through Open Data
US0072, 2015, Access to Information
-
Open Data Portal
US0073, 2015, E-Government
-
Increase Transparency of Trade Policy and Negotiations
US0074, 2015, E-Government
-
Develop a Machine Readable Government Organizational Chart
US0075, 2015, Access to Information
-
Improving Public Participation
US0076, 2015, Public Participation
-
Expand Public Participation in the Development of Regulations
US0077, 2015, Open Regulations
-
Civic Engagement in Decision-Making Processes
US0078, 2015, Public Participation
-
Open Mapping
US0079, 2015, Access to Information
-
Tracking OGP Implementation
US0080, 2015,
-
Strengthening Whistleblower Protection
US0081, 2015, Anti-Corruption
-
Transparency of Legal Entities
US0082, 2015, Anti-Corruption
-
Extractive Industries Transparency
US0083, 2015, Anti-Corruption
-
Spending Transparency
US0084, 2015, Access to Information
-
Enhance the Use of U.S. Foreign Assistance Information
US0085, 2015, Aid
-
Participatory Budgets and Responsive Spending
US0086, 2015, Fiscal Openness
-
Expand Access to Justice to Promote Federal Programs
US0087, 2015, Dispute Resolution & Legal Assistance
-
Build Safer Communities with Police Open Data
US0088, 2015, Access to Information
-
Open Federal Data to Benefit Local Communities
US0089, 2015, Access to Information
-
Support the Municipal Data Network
US0090, 2015, Access to Information
-
Foster Data Ecosystems
US0091, 2015, Capacity Building
-
Extend Digital, Data-Driven Government to Federal Government’S Support for Communities
US0092, 2015, Capacity Building
-
Promote Implementation of SDGs
US0093, 2015, Access to Information
-
Promote Open Climate Data
US0094, 2015, Access to Information
-
Air Quality Data Available
US0095, 2015, Access to Information
-
Promote Food Security and Data Sharing for Agriculture and Nutrition
US0096, 2015, Access to Information
-
Promote Data Sharing About Global Preparedness for Epidemic Threats
US0097, 2015, Capacity Building
-
Promote Global Interconnectivity
US0098, 2015, Aid
-
Open Contracting
US0099, 2015, Access to Information
-
Harness the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development
US0100, 2015, Access to Information
-
Open Government to Support Global Sustainable Development
US0101, 2015, Anti-Corruption
-
Open Collaboration Onf the Arctic
US0102, 2015, Environment and Climate
-
Support Capacity Building for Extractives Transparency
US0103, 2015, Anti-Corruption
-
Support Responsible Investment and Business Practices for Companies
US0104, 2015, Private Sector
-
Improve Public Participation in Government
US0027, 2013, Capacity Building
-
Modernize Management of Government Records
US0028, 2013, Records Management
-
Modernize the Freedom of Information Act
US0029, 2013, Access to Information
-
Transform the Security Classification System
US0030, 2013, Peace & Security
-
Implement the Controlled Unclassified Information Program
US0031, 2013, Peace & Security
-
Increase Transparency of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Activities
US0032, 2013, Data Stewardship and Privacy
-
Make Privacy Compliance Information More Accessible
US0033, 2013, E-Government
-
Support and Improve Agency Implementation of Open Government Plans
US0034, 2013,
-
Strengthen and Expand Whistleblower Protections for Government Personnel
US0035, 2013, Anti-Corruption
-
Increase Transparency of Legal Entities Formed in the United States
US0036, 2013, Legislation & Regulation
-
Implement the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
US0037, 2013, Access to Information
-
Make Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Transparent
US0038, 2013, Anti-Corruption
-
Increase Transparency in Spending
US0039, 2013, Access to Information
-
Increase Transparency of Foreign Assistance
US0040, 2013, Aid
-
Continue to Improve Performance.Gov
US0041, 2013, E-Government
-
Consolidate Import and Export Systems to Curb Corruption
US0042, 2013, Private Sector
-
Promote Public Participation in Community Spending Decisions
US0043, 2013, Fiscal Openness
-
Expand Visa Sanctions to Combat Corruption
US0044, 2013, Anti-Corruption
-
Further Expand Public Participation in the Development of Regulations
US0045, 2013, Capacity Building
-
Open Data to the Public
US0046, 2013, Access to Information
-
Continue to Pilot Expert Networking Platforms
US0047, 2013, Public Participation
-
Reform Government Websites
US0048, 2013, E-Government
-
Promote Innovation Through Collaboration and Harness the Ingenuity of the American Public
US0049, 2013, Capacity Building
-
Promote Open Education to Increase Awareness and Engagement
US0050, 2013, E-Government
-
Deliver Government Services More Effectively Through Information Technology
US0051, 2013, E-Government
-
Increase Transparency in Spending
US0052, 2013, Access to Information
-
Reform Records Management
US0001, 2011, Records Management
-
Lead a Multi-Agency Effort
US0002, 2011, Capacity Building
-
Monitor Agency Implementation of Plans
US0003, 2011,
-
Provide Enforcement and Compliance Data Online
US0004, 2011, Access to Information
-
Advocate for Legislation Requiring Meaningful Disclosure
US0005, 2011, Legislation & Regulation
-
Apply Lessons from Recovery Act to Increate Spending Transparency
US0006, 2011, Fiscal Openness
-
Government-Wide Reporting Requirements for Foreign Aid
US0007, 2011, Access to Information
-
Use Performanc.Gov to Improve Government Performance and Accountability
US0008, 2011,
-
Overhaul the Public Participation Interface on Regulations.Gov
US0009, 2011, Legislation & Regulation
-
Launch Expertnet
US0010, 2011, E-Government
-
Launch International Space Apps Competition
US0011, 2011, E-Government
-
Launch “We the People”
US0012, 2011, E-petitions
-
Open Source “We the People”
US0013, 2011, E-petitions
-
Develop Best Practices and Metrics for Public Participation
US0014, 2011, Capacity Building
-
Professionalize the FOIA Administration
US0015, 2011, Access to Information
-
Harness the Power of Technology
US0016, 2011, Access to Information
-
Advocate for Legislation on Whistleblower Protection
US0017, 2011, Anti-Corruption
-
Explore Executive Authority to Protect Whistleblowers
US0018, 2011, Anti-Corruption
-
Implement the EITI
US0019, 2011, Anti-Corruption
-
Partnership to Build on Recent Progress
US0020, 2011, Anti-Corruption
-
Promote Data.Gov to Spur Innovation Through Open Sourcing
US0021, 2011, Access to Information
-
Data.Gov: Foster Communities on Data.Gov
US0022, 2011, Access to Information
-
Begin Online National Dialogue with the American Public
US0023, 2011, Public Participation
-
Update Government-Wide Policies for Websites
US0024, 2011,
-
Promote Smart Disclosure to Ensure Timely Release of Information
US0025, 2011, Access to Information
-
Publish Guidelines on Scientific Data
US0026, 2011, Access to Information