{"id":31051,"date":"2026-03-30T21:06:04","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T18:06:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bicakhukuk.com\/?p=31051"},"modified":"2026-03-31T06:53:26","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T03:53:26","slug":"human-rights-compliance-for-businesses-in-turkiye","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bicakhukuk.com\/en\/human-rights-compliance-for-businesses-in-turkiye\/","title":{"rendered":"Human Rights Compliance for Businesses in T\u00fcrkiye"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. Introduction: Why Human Rights Compliance Matters for Businesses in T\u00fcrkiye<\/span><\/h3>\n

The relationship between business activities and human rights has evolved from a peripheral ethical concern into a central legal, regulatory, and commercial issue. In today\u2019s globalised economy, companies are no longer assessed solely on their financial performance, but increasingly on how their operations affect individuals, communities, and broader society. Business enterprises can have profound impacts on human rights through employment practices, supply chain management, environmental footprint, data processing activities, and engagement with local communities. As a result, human rights compliance has become an integral component of corporate governance, risk management, and long-term sustainability.<\/span><\/p>\n

This transformation has been driven largely by the emergence of internationally recognised frameworks, most notably the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<\/a> (UNGPs), which established a global standard clarifying the respective roles of states and businesses. The UNGP<\/a>s articulate that while states have the primary duty to protect human rights, companies bear an independent responsibility to respect them, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they operate (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). This responsibility extends beyond direct actions and encompasses business relationships, including suppliers, contractors, and other entities within the value chain. Consequently, corporate responsibility is no longer confined to internal operations but has expanded to cover complex and often transnational networks of economic activity.<\/span><\/p>\n

From a European perspective, the increasing regulatory emphasis on human rights and sustainability has further reinforced this shift. The European Union has progressively moved from soft-law guidance toward more binding regulatory approaches, integrating human rights considerations into corporate reporting, due diligence obligations, and trade relationships. This \u201csmart mix<\/em>\u201d of legal and policy instruments reflects the EU\u2019s broader objective of embedding human rights standards into global economic governance (EEAS 2025<\/a>). For companies operating in or trading with the EU, including those based in T\u00fcrkiye, these developments create indirect yet significant compliance obligations.<\/span><\/p>\n

T\u00fcrkiye occupies a strategically important position within global supply chains, particularly in sectors such as textiles, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and logistics. As a result, Turkish companies are increasingly exposed to international expectations regarding labour rights, environmental standards, and human rights due diligence. Even in the absence of a single comprehensive domestic law dedicated specifically to business and human rights, a multifaceted regulatory environment is emerging. This includes constitutional guarantees, labour and criminal law provisions, anti-discrimination rules, and the growing importance of sustainability reporting frameworks such as the Turkish Sustainability Reporting Standards (TSRS<\/a>), which require companies to disclose material sustainability-related risks and impacts, including those linked to human rights (KGK 2025<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

At the institutional level, T\u00fcrkiye has established mechanisms that contribute to the protection and promotion of human rights in the business context. The Human Rights and Equality Institution of T\u00fcrkiye (T\u0130HEK<\/a>), established under Law No. 6701<\/a>, plays a significant role in addressing discrimination, examining complaints, and raising awareness of human rights issues (T\u0130HEK 2024\/6701<\/a>). In parallel, international organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP<\/a>) actively support capacity-building efforts and promote the integration of human rights considerations into business practices and public policy (UNDP T\u00fcrkiye 2023<\/a>). Furthermore, the OECD\u2019s Responsible Business Conduct framework and its National Contact Point mechanism provide an additional layer of oversight and dialogue, particularly for companies engaged in cross-border activities (OECD 2024<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Against this background, human rights compliance for businesses in T\u00fcrkiye should not be understood as a purely voluntary or reputational exercise. Rather, it represents a multi-layered compliance framework shaped by international standards, regional regulatory developments, domestic legal structures, and market-driven expectations. Companies that fail to address human rights risks may face not only legal consequences, but also contractual disputes, loss of market access, reputational damage, and diminished investor confidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

This article argues that the emerging business and human rights landscape in T\u00fcrkiye reflects a broader global transformation: from a state-centric model of human rights protection toward a more complex system in which businesses themselves are recognised as key actors. In this evolving framework, human rights compliance is not merely a defensive mechanism, but a strategic necessity for companies seeking to operate sustainably and competitively in both domestic and international markets.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Conceptual Framework<\/span><\/h3>\n

Any serious discussion of human rights compliance for businesses in T\u00fcrkiye must begin with the conceptual framework established by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UNGPs remain the most authoritative and widely accepted global reference point in this field. Endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, they do not create a new treaty regime; rather, they clarify how existing human rights standards apply in the context of business activity and corporate conduct (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). Their importance lies in the fact that they transformed a previously fragmented discussion into a coherent governance model that is now used by states, companies, courts, investors, international organisations, and civil society.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the heart of the UNGPs is the well-known \u201cProtect, Respect and Remedy<\/em>\u201d framework. This framework is built on three interrelated pillars. First, states have the duty to protect individuals and communities against human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises. Second, business enterprises have an independent responsibility to respect human rights. Third, where business-related human rights harm occurs, those affected should have access to effective remedy through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). This three-pillar structure has also been reinforced in European regional materials, including the Council of Europe\u2019s handbook for legal practitioners, which presents the same architecture as the central organising principle of business and human rights law and policy in Europe (Council of Europe 2018<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

The first pillar, the state duty to protect, reflects a fundamental principle of international human rights law: states are the primary duty-bearers. They must take appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish, and redress human rights abuse by private actors, including companies. In practice, this means that human rights compliance in the business sphere is not solely a matter of private ethics or corporate choice. It is also shaped by legislation, regulation, adjudication, labour inspection, anti-discrimination enforcement, environmental controls, public procurement rules, and access to justice. The UNGPs make clear that a state may fail in its human rights obligations not only by directly violating rights, but also by failing to exercise adequate oversight over business conduct (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). This understanding is particularly important in jurisdictions such as T\u00fcrkiye, where corporate human rights compliance must be read together with the broader regulatory and constitutional environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second pillar, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, is the normative centre of the business and human rights framework. This responsibility exists independently of the state\u2019s willingness or ability to fulfil its own obligations. In other words, a business enterprise cannot justify harmful conduct by pointing to weak enforcement, regulatory gaps, or permissive local practice. Under the UNGPs, all businesses are expected to avoid infringing the human rights of others and to address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). The Council of Europe handbook similarly emphasises that although businesses have not traditionally been treated as direct duty-bearers under international human rights law, the contemporary legal order increasingly requires states to regulate corporate conduct in ways that make business respect for human rights a practical and enforceable expectation (Council of Europe 2018<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

This corporate responsibility is broad in scope. It applies to all enterprises regardless of size, sector, ownership structure, or place of operation. However, the way in which a company fulfils this responsibility may vary according to its size, the nature of its activities, the operational context, and the severity of its human rights impacts (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). This is an important point for the Turkish context. A large industrial exporter, a fintech company processing personal data, a textile manufacturer using subcontracted labour, and a medium-sized agricultural enterprise employing seasonal workers may all be subject to the same underlying responsibility to respect human rights, but the concrete compliance measures expected of them will differ. The principle is universal; the implementation is context-sensitive.<\/span><\/p>\n

A particularly significant contribution of the UNGPs is their explanation of how companies may be involved in human rights harm. The framework distinguishes between three situations. A company may cause an adverse human rights impact through its own activities. It may contribute to such an impact together with other actors. Or the impact may be directly linked to its operations, products, or services through a business relationship, even where the company has not itself caused or contributed to the harm (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). This distinction is essential because it determines the nature of the company\u2019s response. Where the company causes harm, it must cease the harmful conduct and provide for remediation. Where it contributes to harm, it must cease its contribution and use its leverage to mitigate the remaining impact. Where the harm is directly linked through a business relationship, the company must seek to prevent or mitigate the impact, typically through leverage, contractual influence, monitoring, engagement, and, where necessary, disengagement. This tripartite distinction is one of the most important doctrinal tools in the entire field of business and human rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

The UNGP framework also moved the discussion beyond abstract commitments by establishing human rights due diligence as the central operational process through which companies are expected to identify and manage risk. Human rights due diligence is not a one-time exercise and is not limited to a formal checklist. It is an ongoing process through which a business identifies actual and potential human rights impacts, integrates findings into internal decision-making, takes action to prevent or mitigate harm, tracks the effectiveness of its response, and communicates how impacts are addressed (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). This concept has become the core compliance methodology in the field and has strongly influenced European regulatory thinking, policy guidance, and corporate governance practice. It also aligns with more practical tools promoted by institutions such as UNDP and other business and human rights actors, which increasingly treat due diligence as a necessary component of responsible business conduct rather than a voluntary extra (UNDP T\u00fcrkiye 2023<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Another key conceptual element is that business and human rights is not confined to labour abuses in the narrow sense. The UNGPs adopt a much wider understanding of human rights impacts. These may include discrimination, unsafe working conditions, forced labour, child labour, privacy violations, harmful environmental exposure, interference with community rights, restrictions on freedom of association, and failures to provide remedy. In other words, the business and human rights field is not a specialised niche affecting only multinational manufacturers in high-risk jurisdictions. It is a framework capable of applying across diverse sectors, including finance, technology, retail, logistics, construction, agriculture, and public contracting. This wide scope is especially relevant in T\u00fcrkiye, where the human rights footprint of business may arise not only in factories and fields, but also in digital services, surveillance practices, workplace equality policies, outsourcing chains, and consumer-facing operations.<\/span><\/p>\n

The third pillar, access to remedy, ensures that the framework is not purely preventive or aspirational. Human rights compliance is incomplete if affected individuals and communities have no realistic pathway to challenge abuses and obtain redress. The UNGPs therefore stress that states must ensure access to effective remedy through judicial, administrative, legislative, or other appropriate means, while companies should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms where appropriate (OHCHR 2011<\/a>). The Council of Europe handbook develops this point further by showing that effective remedy requires more than formal rights on paper; it also requires practical access, institutional capacity, procedural fairness, and mechanisms capable of overcoming the asymmetries that often exist between companies and affected persons (Council of Europe 2018<\/a>). This aspect is particularly significant for any discussion of T\u00fcrkiye, where the effectiveness of complaint channels, litigation routes, administrative remedies, and internal reporting mechanisms will be central to the practical meaning of human rights compliance.<\/span><\/p>\n

For present purposes, one further conceptual clarification is important. Business and human rights should not be confused with corporate philanthropy, general corporate social responsibility, or public relations-driven sustainability language. A company may donate to social causes, support local communities, or publish a sustainability brochure, yet still fail to respect human rights in its workforce, supply chains, or data practices. The UNGP framework is not about image management; it is about preventing harm, managing risk, ensuring accountability, and embedding human rights considerations into governance and operations. This is why the framework has become increasingly relevant not only to human rights advocates, but also to boards of directors, compliance teams, investors, auditors, procurement departments, and legal advisers.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Turkish context, this conceptual framework provides the basis for understanding why human rights compliance must now be approached as a structured legal and governance issue. It helps explain how constitutional principles, labour protections, anti-discrimination rules, sustainability reporting standards, public institutional mechanisms, and international market expectations fit together. It also makes clear that even in the absence of a single codified business and human rights statute, Turkish companies may still face substantial compliance expectations through international norms, value chain pressures, investor scrutiny, and evolving reporting duties (KGK 2025<\/a>), (OECD 2024<\/a>), (T\u0130HEK 2024\/6701<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

For all these reasons, the UNGPs are not merely a background reference. They are the conceptual foundation on which the modern law, policy, and practice of business and human rights is built. Any analysis of human rights compliance for businesses in T\u00fcrkiye must therefore be grounded in this framework before turning to the more specific questions of regulation, due diligence, reporting, supply chains, remedy, and corporate accountability.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. International and European Normative Sources Relevant to T\u00fcrkiye<\/span><\/h3>\n

The conceptual framework established by the UN Guiding Principles provides the foundation for business and human rights; however, it is through a broader ecosystem of international and regional instruments that these principles are operationalised, reinforced, and, in some cases, transformed into binding or quasi-binding obligations. For businesses operating in or connected to T\u00fcrkiye, this normative landscape is not merely theoretical. It has direct implications for compliance, market access, contractual relations, and risk exposure. This section examines the key international and European sources shaping human rights expectations for companies relevant to the Turkish context.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.1. The UN System: From Normative Framework to Policy Integration<\/span><\/h4>\n

The United Nations system remains the central normative authority in the field of business and human rights. Beyond the UN Guiding Principles themselves, various UN bodies and programmes contribute to embedding human rights standards into economic activity. The UNGPs have been widely adopted as a baseline for policy-making, corporate governance, and international cooperation, forming the backbone of national action plans, corporate policies, and international development programmes (OHCHR 2011<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

In this context, the role of development-oriented institutions is particularly significant. The United Nations Development Programme has played an important role in translating abstract principles into practical implementation strategies. Through country-level initiatives, including those in T\u00fcrkiye, UNDP supports governments, businesses, and civil society in integrating human rights considerations into business operations, public procurement, and development policy. These efforts include capacity-building programmes, guidance materials, and pilot projects aimed at embedding human rights due diligence into corporate practice (UNDP T\u00fcrkiye 2023). As a result, UNGP-based standards are increasingly reflected not only in legal discourse, but also in operational frameworks and institutional practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.2. ILO Standards: Labour Rights as the Core of Corporate Human Rights Responsibility<\/span><\/h4>\n

Within the international system, the International Labour Organization occupies a central position in defining the content of business-related human rights obligations, particularly in the field of labour. The ILO\u2019s fundamental conventions -covering forced labour, child labour, freedom of association, collective bargaining, and non-discrimination – constitute a core set of internationally recognised labour rights that are directly relevant to corporate conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

The importance of ILO standards lies in their practical applicability. While the UNGPs provide a general framework, the ILO offers detailed, sector-relevant guidance on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable practices in the workplace. This includes issues such as occupational health and safety, fair wages, working hours, and social protection. For companies operating in T\u00fcrkiye, especially in labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, agriculture, construction, and manufacturing, compliance with ILO standards is not only a matter of legal conformity but also a prerequisite for maintaining relationships with international buyers, investors, and partners.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the ILO\u2019s concept of \u201cdecent work<\/em>\u201d reinforces the idea that human rights compliance in business is most visibly manifested in employment relationships. Labour rights therefore represent the most concrete and frequently scrutinised dimension of business and human rights compliance.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.3. OECD Guidelines and the National Contact Point Mechanism<\/span><\/h4>\n

Another critical pillar of the international normative framework is provided by the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These guidelines set out comprehensive standards for responsible business conduct, including human rights, labour relations, environment, anti-corruption, and consumer interests. Although formally non-binding, they carry significant practical weight due to their institutional support and enforcement mechanisms.<\/span><\/p>\n

A key feature of the OECD system is the National Contact Point (NCP) mechanism, which provides a platform for addressing complaints related to alleged violations of the Guidelines. In T\u00fcrkiye, this function is carried out by the National Contact Point operating under the Ministry of Industry and Technology. The NCP offers a non-judicial grievance mechanism that allows stakeholders – including workers, communities, and civil society organisations – to raise concerns about corporate conduct and seek mediation or resolution (OECD 2024).<\/span><\/p>\n

For businesses, the importance of the OECD system lies not only in the potential outcomes of specific complaints, but also in the reputational and relational risks associated with being subject to NCP proceedings. Even in the absence of binding sanctions, such processes can influence investor perceptions, contractual relationships, and public trust. As a result, OECD standards have become an integral component of the broader compliance landscape for companies engaged in international business.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.4. The European Union: From Soft Law to Binding Regulatory Influence<\/span><\/h4>\n

The European Union has emerged as one of the most influential actors in the global development of business and human rights standards. While initially relying on voluntary frameworks and policy guidance, the EU has increasingly adopted regulatory measures that incorporate human rights and sustainability considerations into corporate obligations. This shift reflects a broader strategic objective: ensuring that economic activity within and beyond the EU aligns with fundamental rights and sustainable development goals.<\/span><\/p>\n

The EU\u2019s approach is often described as a \u201csmart mix<\/em>\u201d, combining binding legislation, policy instruments, and market-based mechanisms. This includes initiatives such as corporate sustainability reporting requirements, due diligence obligations, and human rights clauses in trade agreements. Importantly, these measures are not limited to companies headquartered within the EU. They frequently extend, directly or indirectly, to third-country companies that operate within EU markets or are part of EU-based value chains (EEAS 2025).<\/span><\/p>\n

For Turkish businesses, this development is particularly significant. Companies exporting to the EU, supplying EU-based enterprises, or seeking European investment are increasingly expected to demonstrate compliance with human rights due diligence standards. In practice, this means that EU norms can function as de facto regulatory requirements, even in the absence of direct applicability under Turkish law.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.5. Council of Europe and Regional Human Rights Jurisprudence<\/span><\/h4>\n

The European human rights system, particularly through the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also plays an important role in shaping the business and human rights landscape. While the European Convention on Human Rights is primarily addressed to states, the jurisprudence of the Court has increasingly addressed situations where state failure to regulate or supervise private actors – including businesses – has resulted in human rights violations.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Council of Europe\u2019s handbook on business and human rights for legal practitioners highlights how concepts such as positive obligations have expanded the scope of state responsibility. States may be held accountable for failing to prevent harm caused by private entities, particularly in areas such as environmental protection, workplace safety, and access to justice (Council of Europe 2018). This development reinforces the expectation that states must establish effective regulatory and enforcement frameworks governing corporate conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

For T\u00fcrkiye, as a member of the Council of Europe and a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, this jurisprudence has direct relevance. It underscores the importance of effective domestic regulation, enforcement, and judicial remedies in the business and human rights context.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.6. Convergence of Norms and the Implications for T\u00fcrkiye<\/span><\/h4>\n

Taken together, these international and European sources form a multi-layered normative system that shapes corporate behaviour. While each instrument – UNGPs, ILO standards, OECD Guidelines, EU policies, and Council of Europe jurisprudence – has its own legal nature and scope, they increasingly converge around a common set of expectations:<\/span><\/p>\n