444 By Susan Ariel Aaronson and David Deese With a reaction by ...

how they must act to ensure respect for those rights. Moreover, some companies holdtheir suppliers to human rights standards but many don’t. Finally, companies don’t knowhow to monitor their human rights performance and have little incentive to do so—firmsare rarely praised for positive steps, but consistently condemned for shortcomings.172In recognition that global business (and the global community broadly) needgreater clarification of the human rights responsibilities of business, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2005 appointed Harvard Professor John Ruggie as his SpecialRepresentative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations. In April2008, Ruggie put forward a framework to “anchor the business and human rights debateand guide all relevant actors.” The framework, which was approved by the member statesof the UN Human Rights Council, highlights the responsibilities of states to protectagainst human rights abuses by third parties, including business, the corporateresponsibility to respect human rights, and the need for more effective access toremedies.173 Many business groups have responded positively to the UN SpecialRepresentative’s framework, but it remains to be seen whether they will make associatedchanges in behavior and whether the markets will reward such actions. And it is unclearwhether oil companies can effectively meet these evolving human rights norms at thesame time that they struggle to meet shareholder and stakeholder demands regardingprofits, investment, and sustainability.The Resource Curse, Transparency, and AccountabilityOil companies may not be able to choose the countries where oil and gas areplentiful. But they can work with policymakers and the public in such countries to reducecorruption and in particular, thwart the “resource curse.” Many resource rich developing459