Bill Overview
Title: Combating Human Rights Abuses Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Commerce to offer guidance to U.S. businesses, including those considering transactions with entities subject to the influence of countries where significant human rights abuses have occurred, about issues such as (1) the human rights abuses perpetuated by China's government, (2) risk factors that may be used to identify entities subject to the influence of governments implicated in human rights abuses, and (3) ways to avoid doing business with such entities. Commerce must also provide training related to human rights issues to Commerce employees who provide counseling services to businesses.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by human rights abuses, and indirectly those in business transactions with such entities
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill targets U.S. businesses engaged in international transactions, particularly with entities influenced by governments known for human rights abuses.
- The bill focuses specifically on human rights issues with an emphasis on China, indicating businesses with supply chains or partnerships related to China are particularly impacted.
- Guidance and training mentioned in the bill impacts commerce employees, who will receive training on these human rights issues in order to counsel businesses appropriately.
- The bill indirectly impacts consumers, investors, and workers linked to the supply chains of these U.S. businesses, as changes in business practices might result in shifts in product availability or price fluctuations.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed primarily to guide and educate U.S. businesses on avoiding transactions with entities involved in human rights abuses. Due to the policy's nature, its direct impact is mostly on business operations, compliance, and training. Hence, the interviews should focus on individuals within these sectors.
- Considering that up to 10 million Americans could be impacted, this covers a wide range from business owners to employees and consumers. This requires simulating interviews with a diverse group reflecting various levels of engagement with the policy.
- Budgetary constraints and the strategic focus on China mean the impact could range from minimal awareness in small local businesses to significant operational shifts in larger corporations with international dealings.
- Some individuals will see direct career benefits, such as commerce employees receiving new training, while others might face challenges such as adapting supply chains or experiencing cost increases in goods.
- Indirect impacts on consumers might be subtle initially, seen perhaps as shifts in product prices or availability, thus making it important to capture a wide sentiment range.
Simulated Interviews
Supply Chain Manager (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is necessary; human rights are important.
- Short term, it will mean a lot of re-evaluating our suppliers, which is stressful.
- Long term, it might make our company more ethical but could impact cost structures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Commerce Department Employee (New York City, New York)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I look forward to the training; it's crucial to understand international human rights contexts better.
- This will enhance our advisory capabilities for businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see a huge impact on my business immediately, but costs might go up if I have to change suppliers.
- Ethically, it's the right decision, but financially, I'm worried.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech Industry Employee (San Francisco, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate knowing our company is aligning with better human rights practices.
- It might affect our job stability if costs go up drastically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Corporate Legal Counsel (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will increase our focus on compliance and potential legal risks.
- It's essential and aligns with global human rights values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College Student (Miami, Florida)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is significant for future business leaders to understand human rights risks.
- It aligns with what my generation values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Investor (Austin, Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clear guidelines can support more ethical investments.
- I'm concerned but optimistic about the future profitability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Ethical Sourcing Consultant (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The demand for my services might increase as businesses look to comply with guidelines.
- It's a positive shift for global supply chains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
CEO of a Manufacturing Firm (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Shifting operations to align with the policy will be challenging.
- We aim to manage cost increases and stay ethical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's heartening to see more accountability being introduced through policy.
- As a consumer, I hope to see positive changes in company practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation may vary significantly across different industries and businesses, impacting overall costs in unpredictable ways.
- Potential global political reactions could shift the cost and savings estimates
- Ongoing developments in international human rights situations could alter the necessity or scale of Commerce's activities.