View previous stories
	UN treaty on transnational corporations must put people over profit by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, agencies   Dec. 2024   Negotiations towards a strong treaty on transnational corporations (TNCs) and other businesses to effectively protect people and the environment have been underway for a decade.   Ahead of the tenth round of talks in Geneva next week FIAN International calls on states to make progress on holding powerful interests to account on human rights and the environment.   Despite long-standing demands from affected communities, social movements and civil-society organizations, no binding global legal framework exists to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights abuses around the world. This lack of global regulation allows TNCs to escape accountability by finding legal loopholes, subcontracting their obligations to entities in their value chain, or using their economic groups or holding structures in different jurisdictions.   Transnational corporations which dominate global value chains concentrate power in today’s globalized economies, frequently using their position to harm human rights and the environment in the pursuit of profit. Most of these abuses and violations have no legal consequences nor remedies for those affected.   “The existing asymmetries between trade and investment law give rights to corporations, and weak voluntary human rights standards only suggest how corporations should respect human rights, especially from a national perspective and without clear liability regimes,” says FIAN International’s permanent representative to the UN, Ana Maria Suarez Franco. “This allow corporations to exploit numerous loopholes in a globalized world where global value chains are controlled by a few powerful economic actors.”   In 2024, the intergovernmental working groups negotiating the UN TNC treaty adopted a technical decision to provide more resources that will intensify the negotiations. Nonetheless, during the last year most of the consultations were held on methodologies rather than substance. Moreover, abruptly in September, the dates of the negotiations were postponed from late October to the week before Christmas, a decision which impacts the ability of many participants to attend – notably civil-society organizations, social movements and representatives from affected communities.   Beyond negotiating the text of the treaty, the 10th session will aim to define the road map of intersessional negotiations to be held in 2025 and the role of legal experts announced earlier this year.   Civil society organisations, social movements, Indigenous Peoples, women's rights and youth advocates part of the Treaty Alliance will attend the negotiations and continue advocating for states to actively participate in the negotiations.   The collective aim is to strengthen the currently weakened draft text and ensure robust prevention mechanisms that go beyond mere due diligence and include strong gender-responsive provisions.   We are also seeking extraterritorial liability regimes that put the burden of proof on perpetrators and include joint liability along the value chains, as well as effectively ensuring people's access to remedy where controlling companies are based and where they operate.   Concerned with the triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution and destruction of biodiversity, many environmental organizations are demanding a strong environmental component in the TNC treaty, incorporating the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.   “A treaty that does not protect the environment nor make those responsible for environmental harm liable, will not be effective enough to protect humanity from corporate greed and ensure the remediation of losses and damages, including regarding their intergenerational impact,” says Stephan Backes, secretary of the Consortium on Extraterritorial Obligations (ETO Consortium) and corporate accountability officer at FIAN.   “Transition, including towards more just, healthy and sustainable food systems, cannot be fair without robust corporate accountability beyond borders and generations”.   The differential impact of corporate harm on women has been strongly argued by the women's rights agencies. Access to remedy, protection of rightsholders, prevention and liability must be negotiated including gender-sensitive regulations that allow women to access justice and remedy and to adequately participate in their definition.   During the week of negotiations, FIAN will continue advocating for human dignity and nature at the UN. We urge all member States to respond to the demands of human rights and environmental defenders and actively negotiate a treaty that is effective to stop corporate injustice to ensure a more just world for all – today and in the future.   Dec. 2024   Proper corporate liability is vital for sustainable development, by Luiz Gustavo Lo-Buono, former General Coordinator of Human Rights and Business, Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship, Brazil:   "It’s never been more important for business and human rights to become a single guiding vision for global sustainable development, particularly in the context of reducing inequalities and combating climate crises.   Starting with the Right to Development, which ensures that “all people can participate in and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised”, the driving principle for the adoption of legal measures and public policies on business and human rights must be “development for whom, and at whose cost?”   According to Oxfam International's 2024 report, since 2020 the five richest men in the world have doubled their fortunes - while almost five billion people across the planet have become poorer. Seven in 10 of the world's largest companies have billionaires as CEOs or main shareholders, bringing an immense concentration of power that is based on the accumulation of individual and corporate capital through mechanisms such as hyper-exploitation of labour, tax evasion and the race for privatisation of state services, particularly in countries in the Global South.   In relation to climate crises, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) points out that global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change.   The Carbon Majors database, which tracks cumulative historical emissions of 122 industrial producers from 1854-2022, affirms that businesses are responsible for 72% of the global fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions.   Besides, the issue of climate destruction collides with inequality when we consider 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change, according to IPCC.   The responsibility of companies in combating inequalities and climate crises is evident if they are committed to real sustainable development. There is no sustainable development possible, after all, without the full guarantee of human and socio-environmental rights, including labour rights, in business operations.   In relation to the international legally binding instrument (LBI) on transnational corporations and other business enterprises, this was a vision shared between a series of Latin American, Caribbean and African States in various provisions commented on at the 9th negotiation session in 2023.   Brazil, in fact, was one of the countries to request the specific inclusion of the Declaration on the Right to Development in the preambles of the LBI, as well as the inclusion of a statement on the importance of the pro persona principle and the principle of the primacy of the most favorable norm to the human person in the interpretation of any conflicting provision contained in international trade, investment, finance, taxation, environmental and climate change, development cooperation, and security agreements.   Crucially, the very existence of negotiation on an LBI comes mainly from identified gaps in businesses' liability regarding the relationship between their activities and the crises described above, notably in relation to violations of human and socio-environmental rights.   We will not succeed in a model of sustainable development for everyone without advancing on this crucial point: mechanisms and instruments of businesses' liability.   In this sense, we must guarantee that dialogue on the LBI evolves quickly and substantially, focusing on the rightsholders, and on corporate liability. Like some of the recommendations collected from civil society organisations by the Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship for the 2023 session, I would highlight the aspect of joint and solidary responsibility throughout the global value chain. Quoting the document shared by the organisations:   “To ensure the full protection of human rights, the future treaty must cover all activities along TNCs’ value chains. This means that liability must also be applied upwards, so that investors, shareholders, banks and pension funds that finance TNCs can be held accountable for human rights violations committed by the TNCs that they financially support.   “The Treaty must therefore establish a comprehensive and adequate structure of legal, criminal, civil and administrative liability, which must be joint and several. Generally speaking, joint and solidary liability at the bottom of the value chain serves as a mechanism to ensure that all parties involved in a given violation of human rights and the environment are held responsible for any damage caused and that an appropriate solution is provided to affected communities and individuals.”   Ensuring the treaty effectively addresses liability issues will help create an international environment of greater cooperation between States in ensuring the full exercise of human rights. It will also assist with the development or adaptation of domestic legislation and public policies that are even more robust.. International regulatory instruments and domestic due diligence legislation must be respected so that justice for affected communities and rightsholders can be achieved".   Dec. 2024   Why the Business and Human Rights Treaty must prioritise workers’ rights, by Luc Triangle - General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation.   The ongoing negotiations for a binding Business and Human Rights (BHR) Treaty at the United Nations offer a critical opportunity to advance global business conduct standards, and human and trade union rights.   As the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), representing over 191 million workers globally, we believe this treaty’s success hinges on protecting the most vulnerable in global supply chains. It must hold transnational corporations accountable and ensures that workers’ rights are non-negotiable. This is a call for justice, not just reform.   For nearly a decade, the ITUC and Global Union Federations (GUFs) have pushed for a strong, enforceable treaty to close international law loopholes that allow unchecked human rights abuses by businesses. This is about addressing the long-standing prioritisation of corporate interests over human rights. This is a unique chance to correct the imbalance between corporations and working people.   Workers are on the front lines of the global economy, producing the goods and services that generate profits, yet they often face unsafe conditions, denial of trade union rights and exploitation, particularly in complex supply chains. For civil society organisations, investors and companies committed to human rights, it is clear: a BHR Treaty that fails to protect workers fails to protect human rights.   The involvement of trade unions in the negotiation of this treaty is part of our broader defence of a key value of our movement: democracy. As seen in our For Democracy campaign, democracy is not just a political concept; it is a fundamental pillar of the workplace. Real democracy cannot exist in societies where corporations can violate trade union rights with impunity.   When workers’ rights are violated, the impact ripples through entire communities and economies. Companies that ignore these abuses, knowingly or not, risk complicity. Therefore, the treaty must hold businesses accountable not only for their direct operations but also for their suppliers, contractors and subsidiaries. Ignoring these responsibilities perpetuates exploitation-driven corporate profits.   The ITUC has been clear about the essential components for the BHR Treaty:   • Comprehensive coverage of human rights: The treaty must cover all internationally recognised human rights, including labour rights. Freedom of association, the right to organise and safe working conditions are fundamental, not optional.   • Applicability across all businesses: All companies, regardless of size or sector, must be held accountable. Exempting certain businesses leaves millions of workers unprotected and sets a dangerous precedent.   • Extraterritorial regulation: Victims of corporate human rights abuses, particularly in transnational contexts, must have access to justice wherever the abuse occurred. States must hold corporations accountable for actions abroad, ensuring avenues for redress.   • Human rights due diligence: Companies must adopt and implement human rights due diligence policies. Identifying, preventing and addressing human rights risks before they materialise is crucial. Businesses must engage proactively to prevent abuses, not react only after media exposure.   • Strong enforcement mechanisms: A treaty without enforcement is meaningless. It must establish a robust international monitoring and enforcement system. A patchwork of voluntary standards has proven inadequate – legally binding regulation is now needed.   For businesses aiming to lead in sustainability and human rights, protecting workers is essential. Companies that embrace their responsibilities towards workers benefit from improved productivity, lower reputational risks, and stronger stakeholder relationships. Investors increasingly seek assurance that companies are effectively managing human rights risks. The BHR Treaty provides a framework for businesses to operate responsibly in a globalised world.   Civil society organisations have long advocated for workers’ rights, exposing abuses and supporting victims. A strong BHR Treaty would equip these organisations to continue their vital work and hold companies and governments accountable. The treaty must recognise workers and their unions as central to the human rights agenda, ensuring their voices are heard in developing and implementing human rights policies.   The BHR Treaty is not just about preventing abuses; it is about rebuilding the global economy on fairness, equity and respect for human rights. It is part of a broader call for a New Social Contract where businesses, governments and civil society collaborate to create an economy that serves people, not just profits.   For investors, the treaty offers a path to more stable, sustainable returns. Exposed human rights abuses lead to operational disruptions, legal risks and reputational damage. By supporting a strong, enforceable BHR Treaty, investors foster a business environment that is both profitable and ethical.   For companies, the treaty builds trust, mitigates risks and demonstrates genuine commitment to responsible business practices.   Negotiations for a BHR Treaty are at a pivotal stage; the time for action is now. The world is watching, and the decisions made in the coming months will shape the future of human rights in business. At the ITUC, we are ready to work with civil society, investors and companies to ensure that the strongest possible treaty is adopted.   Workers’ rights are human rights, and a global economy that respects these rights is the only way forward. Together, we can seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity and create a framework that delivers justice for workers, accountability for businesses and a sustainable future for all.   Dec. 2024   While the legally binding treaty remains elusive, policy gaps are shrinking access to remedy in Asia for environmental harm by businesses, by Lara Jesani, Lawyer, India:   "The last draft of the legally binding instrument on business and human rights was released in July 2023. While the process had some momentum until then, there has been little to no movement on the much-awaited treaty since.   The upcoming 10th session of the UN Intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (IGWG) to discuss the binding treaty will take place in December 2024 at the UN in Geneva. With the IGWG constituted for this purpose in 2014, it has been a long decade in waiting.   Meanwhile, the conversations around business and human rights have been dominated by voluntary processes guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).   The UNGPs provide the non-binding framework of ‘protect, respect and remedy’, which to some extent enable advocacy with companies to introduce human rights considerations in their management.   States were also encouraged to release National Action Plans on business and human rights to disseminate and implement the UNGPs, and some states have launched them. But this last decade has shown none of this can substitute binding law.   Asia, which is at the centre of attention for corporate interests due to cheap labour, abundant natural resources and desire for fast economic growth at all costs, faces the brunt of this delay, with human rights standards ignored by states and business alike to accommodate private sector interests.   Global free trade has led to changes in governance over time, which have not only removed existing barriers to economic trade but also prioritised economic growth over human development.   Even where domestic policies exist, there are considerable gaps. Ensuring business accountability poses serious challenges. Asians facing corporate abuse are often left remediless in this scenario.   It is ironic that in the same period as conversations on legally binding instrument were set in motion at the international level, the region has witnessed drastic deregulation to facilitate ease of doing business and attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), taking accountability mechanisms backwards. Many changes made to protective legislations that safeguard socio-economic rights, including labour and environmental rights, fall contrary to the UNGPs, which presume the existence of a strong domestic legal framework to protect human rights.   The enforcement of legal protections that exist is also poor. This has the effect of legalising wrongs, thereby impacting access to remedy for affected communities and victims of corporate abuse.   One critical area where these changes are felt is in the weakening of environmental laws, liberalisation of mining policy and easing of restrictions on land use.   In India, massive dilution of environmental policy and safeguards has paved the way for business-led development and commercial activities. More than 100 amendments were made to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 alone - the law that mandates businesses obtain prior environmental clearance for their projects and activities.   Some of these changes include exemptions for businesses from obtaining such clearance, conducting environmental impact assessments and public consultation. A spate of mining reforms were also brought in, starting with the controversial , to serve business interests in coal by allowing commercial mining.   In 2019, the government allowed 100% FDI in the mining sector. Following this, 41 coal blocks were launched for auction remotely during the Covid-19 lockdown, allowing private investments in the mining sector affecting dense forests and proceeding without obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of the affected local and Indigenous Peoples’ communities.   The forest conservation law was also amended to alter the definition of forests, thereby excluding critical forest areas from its protection and facilitating diversion.   While states’ prioritisation of immediate economic gains is myopic, the fast-developing climate scenario in the region calls for urgent action to stop such violations and enforce accountability.   A binding and enforceable human rights treaty can aid this process by not only regulating transnational companies, but also pushing states to strengthen domestic laws and bring them in line with international legal standards.   In Indonesia, the EU Directive on Deforestation Products, which requires exporters to prove commodities were not produced on recently deforested land and supply chains are free from human rights abuses and environmental violations, has brought some hope of providing incentive to producers to stop rampant deforestation enabled through domestic policy dilutions in Indonesia since 2020.   The adoption of the EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence earlier this year will require large companies in and from the EU to establish due diligence procedures to address adverse impacts of their actions on human rights and the environment, including across their chains of activities worldwide".   http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/governing-business-human-rights/un-binding-treaty/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/just-100-corporations-responsible-for-20-of-the-worlds-extractive-conflicts/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/driving-ecologically-unequal-exchange-a-global-analysis-of-multinational-corporations-role-in-environmental-conflicts/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/proper-corporate-liability-is-vital-for-sustainable-development http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/while-the-legally-binding-treaty-remains-elusive-policy-gaps-are-shrinking-access-to-remedy-in-asia-for-environmental-harm-by-businesses/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/why-a-scope-clause-in-the-binding-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights-is-unnecessary/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/ http://www.equaltimes.org/why-the-business-and-human-rights http://www.ituc-csi.org/Joint-ITUC-PSI-letter-to-UN-Ambassadors-UN-Framework-Convention-on-International-Tax-Cooperation http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/business-human-rights-environment/business-and-human-rights/un-binding-treaty-business-human-rights-position-tenth-session-negotiations http://www.ohchr.org/en/business-and-human-rights Visit the related web page
	The top 1 percent own 43 percent of all global financial assets by UNDP, UNU Wider, Oxfam, agencies   Oct. 2024   The richest 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population put together, new Oxfam analysis of UBS data reveals today ahead of the annual UN High-Level General Debate.   Billionaires are exerting new levels of control over economies, with a billionaire either running or the principal shareholder of more than a third of the world’s top 50 corporations. The combined market capitalization of these corporations is $13.3 trillion.   Oxfam’s briefing paper “Multilateralism in an Era of Global Oligarchy” warns that multilateral efforts to respond to critical global challenges, including the climate crisis and persistent poverty and inequality, are being undermined by the ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations fueling inequality within and between countries.   Despite being home to 79 percent of the world’s population, Global South countries own just 31 percent of global wealth.   “The shadow of global oligarchy hangs over this year’s UN General Assembly. The ultra-wealthy and the mega-corporations they control are shaping global rules to serve their interests at the expense of people everywhere. The iconic UN podium is increasingly feeling diminished in a world in which billionaires are calling the shots,” said Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International’s Executive Director.   The paper describes a “movement toward a global oligarchy,” where the ultra-rich, often through their increasingly monopolistic corporations, shape global political decision-making and rules to enrich themselves while thwarting vital global progress.   The top 1 percent own 43 percent of all global financial assets. Just two corporations control 40 percent of the global seed market. The “big three” US-based asset managers —BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard— hold $20 trillion in assets, close to one-fifth of all investable assets in the world.   “While we often hear about great power rivalries undermining multilateralism —it is clear that extreme inequality is playing a massive role. In recent years the ultra-wealthy and powerful corporations have used their vast influence to undermine efforts to solve major global problems such as tackling tax dodging, making Covid-19 vaccines available to the world and canceling the albatross of sovereign debt,” said Behar.   Oxfam details three recent examples of extreme inequality eroding multilateral efforts —and where civil society and Global South leaders have offered inequality-busting solutions:   Powerful corporations undermining tax cooperation. The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS) fell short of realizing its potential, with new rules for profit allocation that will deliver only tiny extra revenues for lower-income countries of as little as 0.026 percent of their GDP.   The exclusion of financial services from OECD rules is a carve-out attributed to lobbying from countries with large banking and financial sectors.   Global South countries, led by African countries, are instead advancing negotiations for a fairer tax convention at the UN that, along with Brazil’s leadership at the G20, offer a pathway for fairly taxing the super-rich and mega-corporations.   Big Pharma resisting efforts to break up their monopolies over Covid-19 vaccine technologies to unlock supply. Monopoly control over vaccine production was highly profitable during the pandemic. In 2021 alone, the seven largest manufacturers generated an estimated $50 billion in net profit from the sale of Covid-19 vaccines, resulting in huge payouts to rich shareholders and the emergence of new vaccine billionaires.   The CEO of Pfizer Albert Bourla described the call to share Covid-19 vaccine technologies as “dangerous nonsense.” The failure to equitably share vaccines contributed to as many as 1.3 million excess deaths worldwide. A new pandemic treaty with strong provisions to suspend patents and allow for easier transfers of technology offers promise.   Private creditors exacerbating the global debt crisis. Low-income countries spend nearly 40 percent of their annual budgets on debt service, over 60 percent more than they spend on education, health, and social protection combined.   Over half of low- and middle-income countries’ external debt is owed to private lenders like banks and hedge funds. Some of these creditors are “vulture funds,” which purchase distressed debt on the cheap and exploit legal mechanisms to be repaid in full, reaping outsized profits.   “Only a solidarity-based multilateralism can reverse the movement toward global oligarchy. Some world leaders are showing they recognize this and are stepping up to fight inequality —but we need many more to demonstrate this courage,” said Behar.   “Ultimately, a fairer world and international order —where corporations pay their fair share, global public health is prioritized, and where all countries can invest in their own people— benefits us all. This is not new, and it’s long what leaders especially from the Global South have called for.”   http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/multilaterialism-era-global-oligarchy http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-top-1-own-more-wealth-95-humanity-shadow-global-oligarchy-hangs-over-un   Oct. 2024   1.1 billion people live in multidimensional poverty, nearly half a billion of these live in conflict settings, report United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.   1.1 billion people live in acute poverty worldwide, with 40 percent living in countries experiencing war, fragility and/or low peacefulness according to at least one of the three widely used datasets of conflict settings.   Due to lack of data, the global MPI is measured over a ten-year period (2012-2023) to create a comparable index of global levels and trends. In this new report the poverty data per country were matched to the country’s conflict/fragility status at the time to generate new insights on the overlap between conflict and poverty.The challenges of gathering data in conflict-affected countries likely lead to an underestimation of multidimensional poverty in these countries, with available data still underscoring the catastrophic effect of conflict on poverty reduction.   “Conflicts have intensified and multiplied in recent years, reaching new highs in casualties, displacing record millions of people, and causing widespread disruption to lives and livelihoods,” said Achim Steiner, UNDP Administrator.   “Our new research shows that of the 1.1 billion people living in multidimensional poverty, almost half a billion live in countries exposed to violent conflict. We must accelerate action to support them. We need resources and access for specialized development and early recovery interventions to help break the cycle of poverty and crisis.”   Countries at war have higher deprivations across all ten indicators of multidimensional poverty, underscoring the devastating impact of conflict on the world’s most vulnerable populations.   For instance, in conflict-affected countries, over one in four poor people lacks access to electricity, compared to just over one in twenty in more stable regions.   Similar disparities are evident in areas such as child education (17.7 percent vs. 4.4 percent), nutrition (20.8 percent vs. 7.2 percent), and child mortality (8 percent vs. 1.1 percent).   The analysis finds that deprivations are markedly more severe in nutrition, access to electricity, and access to water and sanitation for the poor in conflict settings relative to the poor in more peaceful settings.   Poverty reduction tends to be the slowest in countries most affected by conflict – where poverty is often the highest.   The report includes an in-depth case study on Afghanistan, where 5.3 million more people fell into multidimensional poverty during the turbulent period 2015/16–2022/23. Data are available now to examine Afghanistan’s post-conflict situation and the results are alarming. In 2022/23, nearly two-thirds of Afghans were poor (64.9 percent).   Sabina Alkire, Director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, says, “This study provides the first measured global analysis at this scale examining how in conflict settings multidimensionally poor people are affected. And it is sobering. Using the global MPI we find that out of the 6.3 billion people living in 112 countries, 1.1 billion are poor. And 455 million poor people live in countries experiencing conflict, fragility and/or low peacefulness. So poverty is not their only struggle. Moreover, the level of poverty in conflict-affected areas is far higher.   In countries at war, over one in three people are poor (34.8 percent) whereas in non-conflict-affected countries it’s one in nine (10.9 percent) according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. And sadly, poverty reduction is slower in conflict settings – so the poor in conflict settings are being left behind. These numbers compel a response: we cannot end poverty without investing in peace.”   In addition to the analyses of poverty in conflict settings, the latest MPI report offers insights on the trends in poverty reduction around the world:   Over half of the 1.1 billion poor people are children under the age of 18 (584 million). Globally, 27.9 percent of children live in poverty, compared with 13.5 percent of adults.   Large proportions of the 1.1 billion poor people lack adequate sanitation (828 million), housing (886 million) or cooking fuel (998 million). Well over half of the 1.1 billion poor people live with a person who is undernourished in their household (637 million).   "Ending child poverty is a policy choice," said the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). "Countries that have made this choice have drastically reduced the number of children growing up in poverty."   Steiner emphasized that many countries in the Global South are being suffocated by debt repayments to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, hindering efforts to reduce or eradicate poverty.   "Onerous debt burdens continue to impede progress on tackling poverty in many developing countries," said Steiner. "On average, low-income countries allocate more than twice as much funding to servicing net interest payments as they do to pay for health or education services."   Steiner said that on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, the U.N. is calling for the consideration of "a neglected dimension of poverty: the social and institutional maltreatment faced by people living in poverty augmented by conflict and lack of peace."   "Whether experienced through negative attitudes, stigma, discrimination, or through the structural violence embedded in institutions, it represents a denial of fundamental human rights," said Steiner.   "From unequal access to education, healthcare, social protection, jobs, or legal identity, prejudicial policies that exclude those living in poverty further perpetuate cycles of inequality and exclusion."   http://hdr.undp.org/content/2024-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi#/indicies/MPI http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/en/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2024/10/17/statement-international-financial-system-not-fit-for-purpose-to-address-catastrophic-debt-crisis-un-poverty-expert/ http://taxjustice.net/press/countries-can-raise-2-trillion-by-copying-spains-wealth-tax-study-finds/ http://taxjustice.net/reports/taxing-extreme-wealth-what-countries-around-the-world-could-gain-from-progressive-wealth-taxes/ http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/wider-annual-lecture-brief-billionaire-tax-modest-proposal-21st-century http://www.wider.unu.edu/news/gabriel-zucman-presents-his-modest-proposal-taxing-worlds-billionaires-provocative-wider http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/new-estimates-cost-ending-poverty Visit the related web page
	View more stories