 Well, good afternoon and welcome to the closing session of our training session Human Rights and Business. It's been two days with a diverse amount of topics, diverse amount of expertise, diverse amount of problems and also, and I hope this is the note we end on despite the gloomy question of the prior panel, hopefully diverse amount of solutions. So to sort of close our panel, our training session, we sort of adopted this format that we've named European Dialogues and the idea is that we have as democratic of a presence as possible. So, instead of having our panelists close the session, we thought that it would be nice to close the session with our participants. So let me introduce to you who is with us today. We've been following patiently our discussions. To my left is Malin Johnson, who is a law student doing her postgraduate studies in Stockholm Sweden in EU law. Next to Malin is Susana Sanchez, who is a recent graduate of the University of Dostoe where she studied a double degree in law and business and is about to begin her next job at the Spanish Embassy in South Africa. Next to Susana's page, Mauro, who is a Canadian lawyer who practiced corporate litigation for several years and is currently the head of Brussels operation for the Frank Bolt Society on Corporate Governance. So I like to do an attempt to give a bit of a global view of the subjects of the two days, sort of the first domino and then sort of head down the row and open it up to the floor and try to get your general ideas and sensations of the training sessions and see if we can leave on some note of not just of ending, but hopefully and ideally optimistically of continuing our work and our ideas in this conversation and on this challenge. So I want to sort of end the training sessions with where we began, which is with our keynote speaker Antonio Vittorino, the former commissioner of justice of the European Commission, who mentioned that the EU Charter reserves very few fundamental rights, very few human rights for European citizens. In fact, guarantees those rights for all. So it's sort of something that we should consider as we discuss the application of the promotion of human rights and allowing for access to remedies outside of the European Union. And then it turns to our challenge. So how do we handle this challenge? How do we provide justice when rights are violated by EU corporations outside of the EU? On this very point, he himself mentioned that you have to be, and I quote, sufficiently imaginative to find coordinated solutions between legal systems. So what does this collective imagination involve? As we know, as we've discussed in the last two days, involves a number of actors working in a number of different fields, a number of disciplines facing different challenges. We talked yesterday about the idea that there's a divorce, the metaphor was used between the need to protect human rights and victims and on one side and businesses need to compete and the hope is that this does not need to be a divorce or a separation or a competitive or exclusive idea. We need to find a way to bridge the needs and advance common goals. We heard various interesting interventions from the business community. And Doitz-Kortem mentioned that the interest of his company to be an example. But at the same time, wondering and questioning how how to compete when companies that do not, with companies that do not respect human rights. And so one thing that I sort of noticed in the last two days is we highlighted a lot of the problems with this issue and something that's come up. And one thing that I encourage us to do going forward and inspire those of us watching, streaming and those of us that are here today is maybe try to replace this approach with a more solution oriented methodology as we move forward. And also admitting that there is no one size fits all. It's not a one it's not one question and there's certainly not a one size fits all solution. This is a conversation and most importantly, an area of work for all. So this sort of an idea to sort of move down the panel to begin with trying to give some some cohesive idea to our discussion. And I'd like to really hear from those of you who are listening. What were your impressions? What stood out? What are you thinking? Malin, I'll start with you. Well, firstly, thank you for sending me the invitation, which made me come here quite spontaneously. For me, it's been a very interesting day with many interesting and destructive presentations concerning different topics. In human rights and business, human rights and business, as we've seen is a global issue, which makes it important to have these kinds of conferences where different people from different countries can meet and discuss to keep developing the protection of human rights. I myself found the session on non-judicial mechanisms very interesting and it made me think and realize that my knowledge is actually quite limited on alternative dispute resolutions. And also the time spent in teaching these matters is quite little, I would say. And therefore, I believe that training sessions like this is a great initiative that should be taken seriously and supported. Professor Catherine said that she didn't want to start preaching about the appropriate dispute resolutions, as she called them. I would say that you got me inspired to get involved and that I think, I believe that we need people like you with enthusiasm to keep projects like this, to keep involving those are my general thoughts. It was very interesting and very, I learned a lot. I think good afternoon, everybody, as she has just now. I realize that I have a very whole of knowledge, but I think that we have been speaking about what can we do for avoid violation of human rights and what have to do the government or ONGs. But in fact, I think that we, the citizens, we can do many things for avoiding these problems. I'm living in South Africa and there are a lot of policies to avoid racism and human rights violations. But the problem is not also the government, what is, what are they doing? But also the people. I have been rejected for, from many companies just because the color of my skin and in contrast, I have been paid more than three times the salary of a black person. And that's not the problem of what the government has done, but what the people and what is them, what the managers do to avoid this huge problem. And it's not the government, it's us. Thanks so much for the invitation to this event, which has been a great opportunity to hear some of the perspectives of both the academics working in the community, as well as SMEs that are attempting to cope with these challenges in their day-to-day business. As someone who worked in Canada, working with primarily larger corporations, but also some smaller ones as well, I think what became apparent to me working there was the disconnect between the external legal framework and the understanding of both, I mean, business practitioners or business leaders, obviously, but also in-house counsel in that they were perhaps aware of sort of some of the, I mean, there were, there was a lack of understanding of, for example, the need to respect this as human rights, anti-corruption regulation and to ensure that they have responsible supply chains. So Catherine, in her presentation, I think did an excellent job of referring to the importance of training and education. Ian Binney, for example, has been quite active in this area. He's been partnering with the CCIJ in Canada to develop trainings on this for lawyers and in-house counsel to sort of raise capacity in the EU. It was quite striking at the recent multi-stakeholder forum that there was a clear lack of engagement with businesses in terms of building capacity. On the resolving dispute side, again, just from having practiced law with businesses and being involved in mediation, the, it's quite, it was quite apparent that there was a, where businesses had an ongoing relationship with the individuals, with the claimants. There was some, usually a possibility of bringing them in the same room and having mediation, but where there was a protracted legal dispute court, usually it was the only outcome. That being said, in domestic legal systems, we obviously have enforced mediation, which requires the parties to be in the room and preserves confidentiality while the court process is ongoing. And so interesting possibilities are there for hybrid processes. And looking forward to hearing what the people from the floor have to say. Impressions, thoughts, remarks, doubts, concerns. I don't know whether I'm the only one in the room, but I really wonder what the European Union is trying to do with this collective research. So if you could give us a bit more information about the mandate you have, what they are expecting, what is the calendar, and who is, I think it's Digi Justice, who gave you the mandate, but who particularly in Digi Justice, are you talking to other people aware of those issues and so on and so forth. I mean, a little bit more background. I'm sorry if this has been done the first day when I was not here, just forget about my question. No, I was assembly done very generally on the first day, but to give a bit more background about our work and our work with our local partners as well. So we have a mandate from the European Commission, Digi Justice, specifically the Civil Action, Civil Justice Action Grant to do a two-year length project with three work streams into research, into training, and into dissemination. So this is the first of four training sessions with the challenge question being access to remedies for human rights violations by EU companies abroad. Generally, and so through our training sessions and one of the goals that we were hoping to do today is in these two days is bring this issue to our local community, race consciousness and show the scope and the challenges and try to begin to discuss what sort of solutions can go forward. And this is something that we'll do on a much more technical level in our research reports, which tackle private international law obstacles largely, but also more generally corporate obligations, nonjudicial remedies as well and dissemination. We also are very fortunate to have local partners and patrons. The foundation for the cultural capital of San Sebastian 2016 are hosts today, the San Tanmo Museum, who are also very invested in European challenges and have given us this format of which this training session forms a part of European dialogues, which is where we use cultural spaces, the museum particularly, to bring these pertinent issues to the local society. I think one of the, particularly with the European elections last year, there was a lot of discussion in our local community here in the Basque country, in San Sebastian in particular, about the distance of Brussels from this community. And I think this distance is real in certain senses, but also perceived. And so one of, I think our responsibility as people that work in policy and in law and in culture is to bridge that gap and to allow for accessibility. This event, for example, is free. We're streaming. These videos will then be available online and not just through our project webpages, human rights and European dialogues, but from the cultural capital foundation, from the museum. It is to sort of bridge this distance, this perceived distance from European issues, to make these issues real, put them front and center in the hands of a local community. And here back, which is specifically what this platform is for, which is why I know that it's always nerving to speak in public, particularly for people in this community, but we would like to change that culture. And not just here, but in other places as well in Europe, that a European citizen, regardless of where they live, has a voice and it's as relevant as anyone else's. So we want to encourage that kind of new citizenry moving forward. I know if that answers your question or maybe goes beyond into an idealist category, but that's what we're trying to do here today. So on that note, I want to thank you for being here from anyone that's present with anything to say. I think it's a great idea. And we have to combat apathy and anomy across, probably not only Europe, but, and I think if something that could come out of this in the different European countries that are participating is to encourage the civil society groups or the formation of groups who are going to push their governments and push these mechanisms to come up with better solutions to these problems. And as Katrin I'm sure will be reminding me to engage with, you know, because business isn't a monolith and, you know, there are voices in there that can be helpful, but, you know, so that we have a more sort of nuanced approach. I think that would be a great outcome. No, in particular, on that point, we have been speaking a lot about the role of states and in no way do I want to undermine the absolute importance for regulation and first for states and duty to protect. But as we mentioned in an earlier panel, there is duty on one side, but there's also responsibility. And that responsibility I think is an individual one as much as it is one of corporations or larger entities. And some apathy is a bit of the challenge to overcome in that area. But this is, you know, these events is one act, right? We used the grain of sand metaphor earlier, but there is something we can do, small or large, and it's at least if nothing else creating a dialogue on these points is something to do. Catherine, you had a point. One idea that actually was not originally mine, I have to give back to Cesar what pertains to Cesar. I attended the third, I think it was the third forum in Geneva on business and human rights. And at the end, the last plenary session, a very young lady, very young, even younger than you are, all the four of you, came out and took the floor. She was very brave because in the big, you know, Geneva room with everybody there. And she said she is a business law student. And she regretted that those classes on human rights and businesses were not taught to business students. And I took that idea back to my school and proposed to my colleagues to open my own seminar on business and human rights, which is now taught only to human rights students to open it up so any student in the business stream could actually register for credit to the seminar. And the answer has been no, we don't allow that. Well, first of all, it's the French way you have to, you know, it's very complicated if you want to open a new seminar and so on and so forth. But there was absolutely no interest from my colleagues in the business stream to actually start a dialogue on this. So I was actually, I'm not taking a no very easily as you probably all know right now. But I think we have to continue to do that. But I think this young lady had exactly put the right nail on where it is. So perhaps that's the one thing we could suggest to the European Union. But that would not be under the justice that would be under the education, whatever stream they have, to actually fund special chairs in universities around Europe to cater to students, both in human rights and business together in the same room. Because it starts there if those young people are educated in this way, then, you know, we can we can build on that. And then if we have three that have actually studied a lot, I don't know if you want to speak to your experience with legal education, and obviously three different, very different countries on that point. Maybe just briefly going back to the first point about the way that is currently structured in the EU. I mean, I think what's fascinating working on corporate governance right now is that for understandable reasons it's housed within what's been moved actually into DG justice with the current commission. And the CSR on the other hand is under DG growth. Even the name the change of name implies that it's the focus is strictly on economic growth. And so the focus is exclusively on CSR as being voluntary. And any hint of external regulation is deeply discouraged and not a point of conversation up there. So I think as long as it's currently set up in that way, it's quite difficult to have a discussion about flexible, the smart mix between voluntary versus external regulation. On the other hand, with the curriculum, the issue of curriculum reform is critical for business schools obviously. And there's been a number of initiatives working on that. So 2020 is working on business school reform. I think there's also a lot of discussion about law school or curriculum reform because students leave with understanding of corporate governance and company law that is extremely shareholder centric at the expense of employees, communities, environment, etc. So I think a business in human rights seminar would be critical and quite important. But I think the risk is that only a very small percentage of students that are already sympathetic to that will take those courses, predominantly female, as the reality. But if we are able to at least shift the understanding of mainstream curriculum to have a broader view of the role of companies within society, that might reach a broader group of students both within business schools and law schools. Well, I study law and business and knowing one of the of the bull degrees, I never heard anything about human rights. Well, in one subject, yes, the one that Katarina told me in the university, but the rest of all, human rights weren't in my subject. All was benefits, rights, what's forbidden was not. And human rights is something that is over there lost in nowhere. And this is something that the language, not just the discipline, the breach, the gas between disciplines, but in language, one thing that came up a lot, particularly in the preparation of this event was we really wanted to engage different stakeholders. That's also part of our mandate from the Commission. And one thing that was very difficult was to convince the business community that this was not only the relevance was somewhat noted, but their direct implication having something to say was not was something that was convincing work effectively. And it was interesting is when they did come in, they did participate, which I thought was a really valuable intervention. And I appreciate their appreciation, their participation very much. They began to see that there is a connection. The problem is, is the language that we use to discuss these issues between lawyers or policymakers and the business community is very different. In one of the conversations I had with one of the business associations, local business associations, when we spoke of human rights, like oh, human rights, I'm sorry, I'll stop you there, that's law, I'm not a lawyer. I was like, well, let's talk about things that you do that promote, say, your employers or the communities. Oh, well, we build schools and we provide health services and certain steps that were very clearly in the promotion of human rights. But that the language was different. And so once we started realizing that we're speaking of similar goals, then the conversation changed. What was different, though, were the values attached to them. And so I think there's work as we just as researchers and as we form our recommendations to be very conscious of the language that we use and who is our target audience and to be as inclusive as possible. And that means maybe being a bit more generous with our approach to these concepts. More comments, Philip. There are things that we can do better in this respect when we speak about education. Is there a textbook on business and human rights? Is there a textbook on CSR which wouldn't be meant for public relations people, but that would be meant either for law students or business students. And I've been contracted by people from Leiden actually who were part of our project, but I understand that they are not anymore. And they were playing with this idea of actually creating such a textbook. So maybe that may be that may be something for the academic community to work on. Obviously, it would be of little use if it would if it would be a book written by only academics. It would be much more interesting if there would be some actually some texts from people from practice, from legal practice, from business practice, and also from, let's say, the NGO sector. Obviously, if there is a public support, I mean, from the States, from the European Commission towards such initiatives and to our building such, you know, materials resources for changing the curriculum in the end, they would be desirable. I appreciate that. There's a common theme that I'm picking up from a lot of the comments, which is things that we can do practical steps that can be taking, whether it's drafting of a textbook or curriculum change or redesigning. More ideas on that point from for many of the participants or those of you sitting here. Any practical steps that we can take? Just a really small one is our own project will be coming out with a handbook. So again, I think the having texts that are written at different registers from everyone from academics to CSOs to members of the community to, you know, that are working directly on business and human rights versus ones that are not, but may come into these contact with these issues and then just have a starting place for reference that they can then, um, if they wish to, they can know where to go for greater information. That would allow, I think, the project to hopefully hit a greater number of people across a spectrum of interests. Any other concluding remarks or impressions? If not, I would like to thank you all for your participation assistance and all of you who have been joining us via streaming. Also to keep in mind that the work obviously does not stop today, the conversation, the dialogue does not stop today. You can follow us on hashtag human business, sorry, hashtag human business EU or EU dialogues and let us know your ideas. Thank you very much and good luck with your work going forward, all of us. Good afternoon.