The Petitioners believe that those who are largely responsible for and profit generously from the problem, and yet are undermining solutions, should be held accountable, in accordance with the polluter pays principle and intergenerational equity.75 3. The investor-owned Carbon Majors have also breached their responsibilities to respect the rights of Filipino people and communities by failing to prevent human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products, or services by its business relationships. As part of their corporate responsibility to respect human rights, the Carbon Majors are required to exercise due diligence in their business activities or relationships. Guiding Principle 17 explains that businesses should “identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts” by carrying out human rights due diligence.76 The human rights due diligence process includes the following elements: • • • • Assessing actual and potential impacts of business activities on human rights; Acting on the findings of this assessment, including by integrating appropriate measures to address impacts into company policies and practices; Tracking how effective the measures taken are in preventing or mitigating adverse human rights impacts; and Communicating to the outside world about the due diligence process and results.77 The scope of due diligence includes “adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships.”78 Further, this process should be on-going and involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders.79 Inconsistent with the requirement of due diligence in corporate responsibility, these companies are making long-term investments based on a scenario in which global consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow, thus warming the earth to levels that will lead to dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system resulting in human rights impacts. For example, Exxon publicly dismissed a “low carbon” scenario—stabilization of the global !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 75 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Rio Declaration, Fifth Session, April 25, 1997 at principle 16. 76 Id. at principle 17, page 31. 77 International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions and Danish Institute for Human Rights, Business and Human Rights: A Guidebook for National Human Rights Institutions (2013), at 40, http://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/udgivelser/bhr_guidebook_for_nhris_2013_eng.p df (last access on Apr. 20, 2016) 78 79 Guiding Principles, supra note 24, principle 17(a), page 17. Id. at principles 17 and 18, page 17-19. ! 29! ! ! ! ! !