Search results

This chapter examines technology-facilitated violence from the perspective of international human rights law. It explores current research relating to technology-facilitated violence and then highlights the international human rights instruments that are triggered by the various forms of such violence. Ultimately, it focuses upon international human rights to privacy and to freedom from violence (especially gender-based violence) and the obligations on State and Nonstate actors to address violations of these rights. It argues that adoption of a human rights perspective on technology-facilitated violence better enables us to hold State and Nonstate actors to account in finding meaningful ways to address violence in all of its forms.

Social networking sites (SNS) are enjoying growing popularity and have triggered new ethical issues including risks of deception, social grooming, cyber-bullying and surveillance. This development along with the growing power of SNS providers calls for an investigation of the CSR engagement of SNS companies. The chapter examines to what extent three prominent providers – Google, Facebook and Twitter – fulfill their responsibilities.

The chapter draws heavily on a politicized concept of CSR, namely ‘corporate citizenship’ (Crane, Matten, & Moon, 2008a; Matten & Crane, 2005) and ‘political CSR’ (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011) and discusses the role SNS providers play in administering citizenship rights. The chapter takes a qualitative case study approach.

Facebook, Twitter and Google have not only made clear commitments to act responsibly, they actually enhance the citizenship status of their users in many ways, e.g. by offering a platform for democracy activists. Deficiencies and contradictions also become visible, e.g. SNS providers inhibit citizenship by failing to provide sufficient privacy protection.

The chapter is limited by its case study approach, but provides valuable insights to an industry with considerable influence. It contributes to CSR research by applying and testing the politicized concept of CSR in the context of SNS providers.

Although SNS have received appraisal as effective tools of CSR communication, there has been little attention to CSR policy and practice of the companies providing social networks. This is unfortunate since the activities of SNS providers directly impact on millions of users worldwide.

Rights and duties are involved in every area of business and markets, and society and governments. Most often, rights and duties involve serious ethical and moral issues of conflict. A good theory of the ethics of rights and duties, obligations, and responsibilities will empower us to understand the impact of our actions on various stakeholders. Additionally, a deep understanding of rights and duties could help us to analyze better the impact of our executive actions on various stakeholders and, in particular, to fathom the damaging effects of rights and duties violated by the man-made current financial crisis when seen from an ethical and moral point of view. Our coverage on the ethics of corporate rights and duties will comprise of two parts: Part 1: The Nature of Corporate Business Rights and Duties, and Part 2: Respecting Corporate Rights and Duties. The chapter will feature Newcomb Wellesley Hohfeld’s framework of legal interests such as claims, privileges, power, and immunity and its various applications to contemporary market and corporate executive situations. We illustrate the theory of rights and duties using several cases from the current turbulent markets.

I use a controlled experiment to examine, in the context of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) crises, whether investors' investment judgments are influenced by a firm's CSR reputation and CSR crisis response strategy. I find that for good CSR reputation firms, the use of a rebuild or deny crisis response strategy does not lead to improvements in investment judgments. However, for bad CSR reputation firms, the use of a deny response strategy leads to improvements in investment judgments while the use of a rebuild strategy does not.

The lexicon of corporate governance has ‘transparency’ as a key imperative. Yet transparency as a management principle begs explanation. It also raises several questions: transparent to whom, how and why? Who decides? Is full transparency desirable? What are its merits and benefits? What are the risks of increased transparency? The answers may lie somewhere between the shareholder and stakeholder views of the modern corporation, with the former defending shareholder-owner primacy and firm profit-maximisation, and the latter offering a values-based approach towards balancing the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. While corporate governance broadly addresses the needs of shareholders and investors, driven by the position that companies need to be better governed for stockholder value, the ‘stakeholder’ view of the corporation has gained ground over the past 20 or so years whereby the modern corporation is accountable not only to its owners, but also society.The transparency debate has emerged in parallel, and with it, issues of privacy and/or secrecy on one hand and the notion of ‘sunlight’ on the other. Transparency’s role has been variously described as the promotion of corporate disclosure and protection of the rights of minority shareholders in the information environment (Bushman & Smith, 2003); the promotion of corporate accountability and advancement of the rights of stakeholders (Clarke, 2004; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hess, 2007; Mallin, 2002); a tool to limit information asymmetries (Boatright, 2008; Florini, 2007a, 2007b; Hood, 2006; Lev, 1992); a means to create a level playing field through ethics and fairness (Boatright, 2008; Oliver, 2004); the promotion of market efficiency (Bessire, 2005; Heflin, Subramanyam, & Zhang, 2003); and the prevention of abuse through stakeholder activism (Bandsuch, Pate, & Thies, 2008; Roche, 2005). Aspirations aside, there is lack of consensus as to transparency's dimensions, drivers and dilemmas in corporate behaviour. Indeed, its perceived value to stakeholders and corporations alike remains questionable. In this chapter, the author discusses the governance of corporate transparency and argues that clarity and Board policy are needed to manage transparency activism and its resultant risks.

The study focusses on the legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), which are being investigated and debated about several European Union initiatives to manage and regulate Information and Communication Technologies. The goal is to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of adopting AI technology and the ramifications for the articulations of law and politics in democratic constitutional countries. Thus, the study aims to identify socio-legal concerns and possible solutions to protect individuals’ interests. The exploratory study is based on statutes, rules, and committee reports. The study has used news pieces, reports issued by organisations and legal websites. The study revealed computer security vulnerabilities, unfairness, bias and discrimination, and legal personhood and intellectual property issues. Issues with privacy and data protection, liability for harm, and lack of accountability will all be discussed. The vulnerability framework is utilised in this chapter to strengthen comprehension of key areas of concern and to motivate risk and impact mitigation solutions to safeguard human welfare. Given the importance of AI’s effects on weak individuals and groups as well as their legal rights, this chapter contributes to the discourse, which is essential. The chapter advances the conversation while appreciating the legal work done in AI and the fact that this sector needs constant review and flexibility. As AI technology advances, new legal challenges, vulnerabilities, and implications for data privacy will inevitably arise, necessitating increased monitoring and research.

This case study was designed using the qualitative research method of interviews with key employees to investigate university social responsibility (USR) practices within Institut Catholique de Kabgayi (ICK) in Rwanda and to advance understanding of ways USR is defined against a postgenocide history, to identify its core components, and to track how it is communicated. Key respondents in accordance with their relationships with internal and external stakeholder groups were interviewed from among functions/departments of public relations, human resource management, community outreach, student services, courses and examination office, and the ombudsperson who plays an intermediary role between employees and employer in case of conflict. Findings suggest that for this higher education organization, on one hand, USR is understood mainly as stakeholder aid and Christian engagement benefitting employees, students, and community members according to specific needs. On the other hand, USR also is understood in terms of privacy protection and as a research driver that integrates openness, flexibility, and autonomy. Core components comprising USR are extension services, business incubation, student volunteer services, public relations activities, public works services, alumni relations, and employee outreach services. Means for communicating USR are face-to-face communication, partnerships, and mass media channels.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing businesses and daily life, with AI-powered technologies like personal assistants and medical diagnostic systems transforming how we interact and make decisions. However, the ethical implications of these technologies cannot be ignored. AI systems can produce biased results and decisions if not designed to be fair and unbiased. Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) provides a valuable framework for addressing these ethical dilemmas. Service organizations need to navigate CDR issues across the data and technology life-cycle stages (e.g., their creation, operation, refinement, and retention) and across its digital service ecosystem (including its external business partners). Despite the risks associated with poor CDR practices, companies may adopt them to benefit from data monetization, enhanced customer experience, and productivity improvement. To mitigate these risks and build a strong CDR culture, organizations need to establish ethical norms, prioritize customer privacy, and ensure equitable power dynamics with business partners. The emergence of generative AI poses enhanced CDR challenges, such as AI complexity, monitoring, accountability, and workforce changes. Going forward, CDR is a crucial framework for firms to address the needs of their multiple stakeholders and to ensure sustainable business practices in the increasingly digital service world.