Search results

This paper aims to highlight the disparity between the huge global influence and reach of transnational corporations, on the one hand, and the lack of international legal infrastructure for regulating TNC activity, on the other. Existing avenues for holding TNCs accountable for breaches of international standards are woefully inadequate. After rejecting the idea of subjecting TNCs to potential criminal liability, the paper then proposes a set of principles for international TNC responsibility modelled on the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility. The potential future role of regional human rights courts and the International Labour Organisation in holding TNCs accountable is also explored.

A survey of existing legal texts and secondary scholarship was undertaken to determine the existing coverage of the regulatory infrastructure for holding TNCs to account, and to identify gaps in that coverage.

Significant governance gaps in the existing institutional infrastructure were identified, creating a permissive environment within which blameworthy acts by TNCs may occur without adequate sanctioning or reparation. Potential regulatory and institutional avenues for filling these gaps were identified.

The author lacks hands‐on experience of the political barriers which may exist and may make the proposed reforms unrealistic. Those in the field are encouraged to consider whether the proposed reforms are feasible/desirable.

The paper contains implications for the future of international law, the regional human rights courts and the International Labour Organisation.

The paper contains original proposals for the future evolution of international law in its application to TNCs.

Efforts to create an international system for corporate responsibility should now be concentrated not on the drafting of yet more rules and standards, but on the strengthening of existing international institutions. This chapter first outlines the problems with using rules that are generally not enforceable within national courts to make global corporations accountable. It is argued that at least some of these obstacles could be overcome by strengthening already existing international institutions. Four such institutions are examined – the existing regional human rights bodies, the International Criminal Court, the International Labor Organization (ILO), and an expanded International Court of Justice.

The purpose of this paper is to map out the voluntary‐regulatory dynamics of the discourse of human rights in a business context within the European Union (EU) regulatory environment.

The paper examines the human rights and corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourses at the EU institutional level, in order to identify the interplay between soft and hard regulatory instruments that may contribute to the “human rights for business” normative landscape.

A renewed focus at the international level on business and human rights has recently produced a United Nations (UN) framework document mapping corporate and state responsibilities in the area of human rights (the UN SRSG Ruggie Framework). Emphasising voluntariness as main tool, but also recognizing the importance of domestic uses of corporate law, of the investment and trade agreements, as well as of the international development cooperation tools, this framework report is in need of “operationalisation”. Starting from the interface between domestic and international developments in CSR and human rights for business, the paper explores the extent to which the European CSR context can offer tools and instruments towards such an operationalisation of the corporate responsibility for human rights and for social values generally. The article charts the dynamic relationship between EU soft regulatory attempts and the community mandatory legislation. Together, these define the EU's policy on CSR and human rights.

The paper reveals an innovative normative mosaic, made up of complex soft and hard regulatory instruments that should enable the EU to integrate economic, trade and human rights policies and, ultimately, to contribute to the new CSR framework proposed at the international level.

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.

Drawing on Fairclough (1989, 2005), the purpose of this paper is to explore how respect for human rights is emerging and being operationalized in the discourse of 30 Fortune 500 companies in the mining, pharmaceutical and chemical industries at two key points in the recent evolution of the UN’s business and human rights agenda. Specifically the paper explores the scope of rights for which corporations are accountable and, more specifically, the degree of responsibility a company assumes for enacting these rights.

The authors draw on Fairclough (1992) and Mashaw (2007) in a critical discourse analysis of corporate human rights disclosures of ten companies in each of the chemical, mining and pharmaceutical industries at two points in time coinciding with: first, the publication in 2008 of the Protect, Respect, Remedy policy framework; and second, the endorsement by the UN in 2011, of a set of Guiding Principles designed to implement this framework.

The study finds four grammars of respect and three different scopes of rights within specific corporate accountably disclosures on their responsibility to respect rights. Corporate constructions of human rights are broad: from labour rights, through social and political rights, to the right to health and a clean environment. The corporate discourse is one of promoting, realizing and upholding rights that construct the corporation as an autonomous source of power beyond the state.

The paper contends that the structuring of this emerging discourse is important, not only because the meaning and scope of corporate respect for rights affects the lived experience of some of the most vulnerable in society, but also because it reflects a shifting the relationship between the state, business and society (Muchlinski 2012).

The authors develop a way of conceptualizing business human rights responsibilities and contend that the corporate human rights discourse of respect reflects a significant reconfiguration of political power.

This chapter examines roles and challenges for corporations in addressing Post 2015 world development objectives. Specifically it does review the contributions and opportunities of the principles of the Global Compact and other social responsibility initiatives for embedding corporate contribution to sustainable markets and societal development.

The results presented in this chapter are based on analysis of secondary sources and a literature review to determine conceptual and theoretical frameworks for identifying assumptions and challenges of corporate sustainability in the Post 2015 era.

It was found that although there are neither academic nor activist definitive consensuses regarding positive impacts of adopting the UN Global Compact principles for sustainability, the impacts of committed corporations, organisations and association are multiplying societal understanding of the implications in societies, governments and markets of violating human and labour rights, degrading and not protecting the environment, and having corruption.

This chapter could be used as teaching material for undergraduate and master courses of corporate social responsibility, business ethics, sustainability, operations management and strategy.

This chapter discusses firms’ responsibilities regarding world development objectives in a Post 2015 world.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a general review of international efforts to hold transnational corporations (TNCs) responsible for human rights. It tracks the evolution of international conventions related to TNCs and human rights and assesses their effectiveness.

The paper describes and analyzes efforts over the last four decades by the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, the International Labour Organization and non‐governmental groups to provide guidelines and encourage TNCs to aspire to international standards in human rights.

The early attempts to regulate TNCs internationally lacked any form of the robust compulsion, systemic monitoring and effective enforcement mechanisms necessary to deal with the magnitude of the global investment arena. However, during the last decade, there has been explicit recognition on the part of the UN that action is necessary and the most recent convention emanating from the UN, the Norms, may evolve into a binding instrument on TNCs.

This paper, by mapping the development of global ethical conventions up to the UN Norms on the responsibilities for TNCs and other business enterprises with regards to human rights, informs corporate officers of the state of global discussions on this issue and lays the groundwork for further scholarly analysis of the Norms in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that corporate social responsibilities of international business can be defined in terms of human rights responsibilities.

The approach taken is to draw from international law to examine whether these responsibilities can be defined in a precise way.

The paper finds that human rights responsibilities of business needs further refining.

Research needs to be conducted from a law perspective on defining concepts such as “complicity”, “spheres of influence” or “respecting” human rights.

This paper calls upon international business and their stakeholders to use and pro‐actively manage their human rights responsibilities and further refine the existing managerial human rights tools.

In exploring the human rights responsibilities of business, this paper contributes to an important crossroads of international law and management.

Virtually all of the literature of the MNC assumes that the modern or Westphalian international order of geographically defined sovereign states is the context in which international business takes place. I argue that we are in the midst of a deep-seated systemic transformation to a transnational or post-Westphalian world order characterized by a redefinition of space and geography, the fragmentation of political authority and a more diffuse distinction between public and private spheres. The emergence of a transnational order will have significant implications for the multinational firm in terms of the depth of its involvement in politics and how it formulates strategy. MNCs will both be subject to and a participant in governance, the latter in terms of hybrid public–private regimes. Strategy will have to be reformulated to incorporate a non-territorial context where firms function as actors in the international political process.

Purpose – This chapter examines how structural dynamics of the global mining industry condition and limit the positive impacts of corporate responsibility and sustainable development strategies, despite considerable efforts on the part of both the Canadian government and the global mining industry to promote the twin concepts.

Methodology/approach – The chapter reviews current literature highlighting the structural elements of corporate irresponsibility in the mining industry, arguing for a radical reconceptualization of governance in the mining industry based on four dimensions of responsibility and backed by a flexible and robust international legal framework.

Research/practical implications – This chapter presents practical implications for improving policy for and regulation of mining companies, Canadian or otherwise, with international operations. While further research needs to be undertaken to explore in more detail the ideal roles of different actors in a system of international governance, this chapter provides a theoretical framework for integrating four dimensions of responsibility into a governance framework that can address the systemic dynamics of organized irresponsibility in the mining industry.