Search results

The article addresses the tension between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the right to work in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, it explores the operation of corporations in adopting policies of mandatory vaccination and the role of the courts regarding these CSR patterns.

The article examines court case studies of CSR practices regarding unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel and the United States.

The findings show that the Israeli system adopted the regulating for individual discretionary CSR approach, whereas the American system adopted the regulating for ethical-public CSR approach. Adopting the latter infringes upon the right to work of unvaccinated employees. While in Israel, the possibility of compelling employees to vaccinate is denied, in the American model, mandatory vaccination is possible. As opposed to the American model, in the Israeli model, there is an obligation to consider proportionate measures to isolate the employees while allowing them to continue working.

The article introduces two possible notions of regulating CSR in times of the pandemic – regulating for individual discretionary CSR which is labor-oriented and regulating for ethical-public CSR which is focused on public aspects. While the former posits that corporations should advance individual interests of employees and their right to work, the latter claims that corporations should advance the public interest in health. Following the problems resulting from the Israeli and American cases, the article draws on the lines for a suggested approach that courts should embrace.

This paper explores different approaches to regulating corporate social responsibility (CSR) patterns of adopting codes of conduct, and discusses the approach that courts should embrace.

Case studies from various legal systems will be examined. The paper presents new typology relating to different patterns of the Corporate Social Performance (CSP) model, based on aspects of the CSR pyramid, namely, legislative CSR and ethical CSR. Legislative CSR includes adoption of thin codes which reflect compliance within current legal standards of the criminal code, while ethical CSR includes codes reflecting ethical norms and corporate social citizenship beyond mere compliance. The paper also includes the interplay of different patterns of CSR and three approaches to regulation regarding these patterns.

Both the Israeli negative CSR regulatory approach and the American legislative CSR regulatory approach present difficulties.

The paper introduces a theory for regulating CSR within criminal law, drawing on the pyramid of CSR. It presents an original discussion of distinct approaches to regulation of corporate liability, while further developing the institutional theory of CSR and the interplay of regulation and CSR. The paper suggests a novel solution regarding the regulation and acceptance of CSR: the granting of protection from criminal liability to corporations who adopt CSR.