The global pandemic has shaken up our societies and global economy. It will run deep in every society worldwide for months and years to come. Horrible statistics about new deaths and infections have been become our new normality.  As a result, the pandemic has fundamentally altered the global ways of doing business, resulting in decreases of production, demand and consumption, distortion of global supply chains and threatens the socio-economic survival of the most vulnerable. As it stands, it has placed many individuals and businesses at the brink of the socio-economic survival.

Undoubtedly, the decision-makers first priority has to be restoring national and global health and coping with its consequences for socio-economic survival of many vulnerable individuals, groups and businesses. States have, with few exceptions, taken a lead in adequately responding to the pandemic and its consequences by adopting containment measures of different nature and scope to protect the most vulnerable individuals and groups. As a rule, businesses’ human rights responsibilities have, with some noble exceptions, taken a back seat to the various governmental measures addressing production and consumption downturn.

The pandemic has affected individuals and their human dignity in several ways. First, businesses (and public administrations) have decreased employees’ salaries or they have in worst cases laid off workers or place them on waiting lists. Seconds, workers on the front lines in the health, law enforcement, logistic have been exposing themselves to extremely dangerous health risks. Thirdly, small businesses and the self-employed have been generally experiencing lower or even zero incomes, subjecting themselves to socio-economic difficulties. Fourth, the pandemic has placed huge strains on the work-life balance of workers. The majority of schools and universities are now closed, whereas many parents are coping with their work obligations and taking care of their children thereby immensely affecting their possibilities to generate income.  On top of this, workers in the informal economy will be hit even harder as they will be mostly left out of the government aid programmes.

The global pandemic has brought about negative consequences for businesses. The majority of them have had to trim down their production, some of them they closed their factories. As a result, several companies have faced unavailability of liquidity or at least its shortage. An even harder hit has been suffered by small business and self-employed particularly in the service sector. The OECD has in this way some weeks ago revised their predictions for 2020 and they have then predicted economic growth of 2.4% in 2020, however it now seems that such estimates have been overly optimistic. The coronavirus pandemic has therefore been the litmus test for the global economy.

The governmental economic responses to the pandemic have varied in the nature and scope of state intervention. Nonetheless, most governments have adopted different degrees of state aid measures, which have among others included tax allowances and suspension of payment of different taxes including value added taxes, guaranteed schemes for companies and self-employed, direct grants, subsidies of salaries, suspension of state coverage of compulsory social security contributions to zero interest loans. The European Commission has in the past week introduced “Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak” allowing for some exceptions from EU rules on the state aid. As for rights of employees, some governments have increased state benefits and suspended tax and social security contributions. Some governments have even introduced a form of temporary basic universal income for self-employed workers.

The extraordinary crisis calls for extraordinary measures on the part of governments and companies alike. One can agree with Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, the out-going UN Independent Expert foreign debt and Human Rights, who noted that “…these measures must be carefully designed to make sure that their principal contribution goes well beyond only bailing out large companies and banks”. States have primary duties to ensure that their economies survive the pandemic by offering programmes both to employees and governments. Those aid programmes are to strive alleviate pressures from businesses and at the same protect the human dignity and socio-economic livelihoods of employees and their families. A careful and reasonable balance should be found between individuals’ rights and economy with human dignity always to be places in the centre of the policies. However, one nonetheless fears the financial and human cost of such aid programmes. Once the pandemics ends, there is high probability of the economic crises in the short and medium term, which may again result in the excessive austerity measures.

For these reasons, five objectives are to be followed in the execution of state and business aid programmes. First, states are to adopt comprehensive aid programmes for business and individuals that will all aim to protect human dignity of individuals. Second, international organisation such the European Union and the International Monetary fund should prove themselves as pioneers in adopting comprehensive aid packages in the form of grants, “coronabonds”, subsidies and interest-free loans available for all its members’ states. Effective protection of human dignity has been during the extraordinary public health crises only possible to achieve through coherent cooperation between states, international organisations and businesses. Third, the global business has long been dragging its feet in terms of internalizing human dignity in its business operations. In this way it should in these difficult times finally fully discharge its obligations towards employees, suppliers and wider communities.  Fourth, supervisory mechanisms should be put in place such that once the pandemics ends states and business will not take advantages of the ensuing crises to lower human rights protection. Fifth, the new normality should propel reforms to strengthen the normative protections of the most vulnerable individual and groups against future crises and shocks.

Finally, the coronavirus pandemic has therefore placed a huge strain on the way the global economy has functioned and on daily lives of ordinary persons. It has triggered off negative business and human rights impacts on individuals’ rights and the majority industries and business sectors. The state aid programmes should propel reforms that will in short and medium term advance human dignity of individuals. The decision-makers both in governments and business should in these difficult times not turn a blind eye to the plight of individuals and should adopt concrete measures to protect their human dignity. The new normality requires that human dignity is finally placed at the heart of the global economy.

Jernej Letnar Černič is Associate Professor of Human Rights and Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Government and European Studies of the New University (Ljubljana/Kranj, Slovenia). The author acknowledges that this post has been written within the auspices of the research project on ‘Holistic Approach to Business and Human Rights: A Normative Reform of Slovenian and International Legal Order’, no JP-1790, Slovenian Research Agency.