Search results

This research develops a set of specific modern slavery disclosure principles for organisations. It critically evaluates seven legislative Acts from five different countries and 16 guidelines and directives from international organisations. By undertaking an in-depth content analysis, the research derives an index comprising nine principles and 49 disclosure items to promote best-practice disclosure in tackling modern slavery. We promote nine active principles for organisations to implement and disclose: recognising modern slavery practices, identifying risks, publishing a modern slavery risk prevention policy, proactive in assessing and addressing risks, assessing efficacy of actions, garnering internal and external oversight, externally communicating modern slavery risk mitigation, implementing a suppliers' assessment and code of conduct to ensure transparency and specifying consequences for non-compliance. The research is motivated by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 8, which focusses on economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work. The research findings will assist practitioners seeking to discover and disclose evidence of modern slavery practices and their mitigation to minimise and encourage the elimination of this unethical and illegal practice in domestic and global supply chains and operations.

Companies are often accused of using sustainability disclosures as public relations tools to manage financial and non-financial stakeholders' impressions. The purpose of our study was firstly to determine how comprehensive the human rights disclosures of a sample of large international companies were and secondly, whether different narrative styles are associated with levels of disclosure to manage readers' impressions about the company. We analysed the public human rights disclosures for 154 large, international companies obtained from the UN Guiding Principles Reporting website. On average, companies complied with only one-third of the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework criteria. Communication about policies has the highest compliance, whilst communication about determining which human rights aspects are salient to the company, remedies for transgressions and stakeholder engagement have the lowest disclosure. When we split the sample between high disclosure and low disclosure companies, we found that the readability of the human rights disclosures is exceptionally low and even more so for low disclosure companies. Low disclosure companies used words implying Satisfaction significantly more than high disclosure companies, which provides some support for suspecting that low disclosure companies practise impression management by only presenting a ‘rosy picture’, as well as obfuscation via low readability. We add to the literature on impression management by large corporations in their sustainability reporting, and specifically human rights disclosures, by revealing how the interplay of low disclosure, low readability and overuse of words signalling Satisfaction contributes to impression management, rather than sincere attempts at accountability to all stakeholders.

The Equator Principles are a transnational corporate social responsibility initiative in the project finance sector. In 2013, the Equator Principles Association celebrated the tenth anniversary of its principles and at the same time the formal launch of the latest generation of the Equator Principles (EP III). The paper describes the historic development of the Equator Principles – from the initial drafting process in the early 2000s up to the latest review process which led to the third generation of the Equator Principles. The paper also analyzes the current state of affairs of the Equator Principles (Association) and gives a brief outlook on potential lines of (future) development. In particular, the paper deals with the following questions: What are the main characteristics of the Equator Principles framework? What are the relevant actors involved in the drafting and reviewing process? Why are the EPs and other organizational and associational codes of conduct in the finance sector so important? What has been achieved so far by the Equator Principles (Association) and the participating (financial) institutions and what remains to be done?

Purpose – This chapter discusses the possibilities and difficulties in the development of pragmatic solutions to address human rights issues in global value chains in line with the existing institutional framework.

Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual chapter examining the development and impact of a new public–private governance institution, namely the protect–respect–remedy framework developed under the auspices of the UN.

Findings – The concept of due diligence that is central to the UN framework has been incorporated into other codes by the OECD and the IFC, and offers a promising way of defining the human rights responsibilities of MNEs. At the same time, the information required for an effective due diligence analysis is difficult to gather, and requires extensive cooperation with nonmarket partners.

Originality/value – The chapter combines perspectives from international business and legal studies to achieve a better understanding of the development and implications of a new governance instrument concerning the human rights obligations of MNEs.

This chapter develops a novel conceptualization of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and identifies possible avenues for further research in the international business (IB) and related fields.

A conceptual chapter examining the existing definitions of CSI and proposing a classification of irresponsible behaviours using an international law approach.

The concept of CSI has been weakly conceptualized and measured so far. We improve this by distinguishing between unethical conduct bearing no direct impact on human rights and those behaviours that do entail a human rights impact. Next, we classify human rights abuses in two categories based on whether they entail the violation of a derogable or a non-derogable human right. Finally, we make a distinction between direct and indirect irresponsible actions. These distinctions are also illustrated empirically.

This chapter bridges the gap between IB, management and international law research on human rights or else defined irresponsible behaviours. Our novel conceptualization of CSI can help to better address unanswered questions about factors driving CSI in IB firms.

This chapter aims to reflect upon the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and human rights. We argue that although CSR is a good attempt to propose better practices for managerial decisions, a human rights perspective enriches this vision. Therefore, the authors will define the meaning of a human rights perspective for business activities and, specifically, for CSR. The authors apply the idea of res extra commercium to human rights and CSR. As a first step, both factors need to be identified as moral absolutes. Essentially, businesses should start by identifying areas of human activity that are off limits.

The chapter aims to clarify the relationship between corporate governance structure and corporate subscription to Global Compact standards. Part one of the chapter looks at the relationship between different models of board governance and active Global Compact participation by publicly listed companies. Part two of the chapter examines a number of external mechanisms aimed at bringing corporate behavior in line with Global Compact principles, and argues that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between internal governance structures and external provisions aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

Part one of the chapter uses an independent T-test to compare the average (mean) proportion of publicly listed companies from unitary board countries with an active Global Compact Communication on Progress status with the average proportion of publicly listed companies from two-tier/hybrid corporate governance systems listed as active Global Compact participants. Part two of the chapter uses primary and secondary sources to examine external mechanisms operating across national borders aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

The chapter finds that a higher proportion of public companies from countries with two-tier/hybrid corporate governance structures have become active Global Compact participants compared to public companies from legal systems with unitary board corporate governance structures. Part two of the chapter examines the potentially mutually reinforcing relationship between internal governance structures and external mechanisms for modifying corporate behavior.

While external codes and standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises appear to be influencing corporate behavior worldwide, quantitative data confirming and recording the extent and nature of this influence (if any) remains limited.

The chapter provides useful insights for policy makers and corporate leaders into the relationship between internal corporate governance structures and external codes, standards and guidelines aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

This chapter provides original insights into whether and how internal governance structures can complement and reinforce social standards regarding global corporate citizenship, and the legal guidelines reflecting those standards.