Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore care home providers’ public communications covering their commitments to respecting residents’ the human rights. The discussion considers the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and a domestic legal and regulatory human rights framework.

Qualitative content analysis undertaken in 2017 of 70 websites of England’s largest commercial care home providers.

There are strong value-based public commitments in the websites of many English care home providers, which may or may not be interpreted as expressing their commitments to human rights.

Research was limited to websites, which are public facing and marketing tools of care home providers. This does not provide inferences regarding the practical implementation of value-based statements or human-rights-based procedures or policies. This paper does not make any value judgements regarding either the public communications of care home providers or normative claims regarding human rights and care home service provision.

There is a need for clarification and debate about the potential role and added value of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the UNGPs’ operating principles within the English residential care sector. Further exploration of the relationship between personalisation/person-centred care and human rights might be useful.

This paper introduces the UNGPs and corporate responsibility to respect human rights to the debate on human rights, personalised/person-centred care, safeguarding and care homes in England. It adds a new perspective to discussions of the human rights obligations of care home providers.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the basis for, and ramifications of, applying relevant human rights norms – such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In doing so, the paper seeks to contribute to scholarship on the political legitimisation of the IASB’s structure and activities under prevailing global governance conditions.

The paper explores three distinct argumentative logics regarding responsibilities for justice and human rights vis-à-vis the IASB. First, the authors explore the basis for applying human rights responsibilities to the IASB through reasoning based on the analysis of “public power” (Macdonald, 2008) and public authorisation. Second, the authors develop the reasoning with reference to recent attempts by legal scholars and practitioners to apply human rights obligations to other non-state and transnational institutions. Finally, the authors develop reasoning based on Thomas Pogge’s (1992b) ideas about institutional harms and corresponding responsibilities.

The three distinct argumentative logic rest on differing assumptions – the goal is not to reconcile or synthesise these approaches, but to propose that these approaches offer alternative and in some ways complementary insights, each of which contributes to answering questions about how human rights obligations of the IASB should be defined, and how such a responsibility could be “actually proceduralised”.

The analysis provides an important starting point for beginning to think about how responsibilities for human rights might be applied to the operation of the IASB.

The United Nations Guiding Principles locate human rights at the centre of the corporate social responsibility agenda and provide a substantial platform for the development of business and human rights policy and practice. The initiative gives opportunity and focus for the rethinking and reconfiguration of corporate accountability for human rights. It also presents a threat: the danger, as we see it, is that the Guiding Principles are interpreted and implemented in an uncritical way, on a “humanitarian” model of imposed expertise. The critical and radical democratic communities have tended to be, perhaps rightly, suspicious of rights talk and sceptical of any suggestion that rights and the discourse of human rights can play a progressive role. The purpose of this paper is to explore these issues from a radical perspective.

This paper uses insights taken from Jacques Rancière’s work to argue that there is vital critical potential in human rights. There is an obvious negativity to Rancière’s thought insofar as it conceives of the political as a challenge to the existing social order. The positive dimension to his work, which has its origins in his commitment to and tireless affirmation of the fact of equality, is equally important, if perhaps less obvious. Together the negative and positive moments provide a dynamic conception of human rights and a dialectical view of the relation between human rights and the social order, which enables us to overcome much of the criticism levelled at human rights by certain theorists.

Rancière’s conception of the political puts human rights inscriptions, and the traces of equality they carry, at the heart of progressive politics. The authors close the paper with a discussion of the role that accounting for human rights can play in such a democratic politics, and by urging, on that basis, the critical accounting community to cautiously embrace the opportunity presented by the Guiding Principles.

This paper has some novelty in its application of Rancière’s thinking on political theory to the problems of critical accounting and in particular the critical potential of accounting and human rights. The paper makes a theoretical contribution to a critical understanding of the relationship between accounting, human rights, and democracy.

Policy is key for effective displacement governance in times of crises and in response and recovery. Therefore, this study assessed if Australian climate, disaster and emergency management policies provide effective mechanisms for governing displacement crises and areas where current approaches could be improved.

This study assessed 18 national and state-level disaster, emergency and climate change management frameworks to determine if best practice displacement governance themes were reflected in policy documents. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase method.

Issues of displacement are reflected in policies analysed in this study. However, current policy frameworks need to be equipped to comprehensively address the housing requirements of displaced people or provide long-term initiatives. Approaches are focused on crisis management rather than pre-emptively planning for displacement response and recovery. Therefore, Australia has not exercised national responsibility for displaced people appropriately.

Disaster displacement is an under-researched area of Australian scholarship and disaster management policy and practice. Therefore, this paper has practical implications in so far as it draws attention to the issue of displacement in Australia. A limitation of this paper is that it only analysed policy frameworks specific to disasters. While broader engagement was outside the scope of this study, this limitation provides opportunities for further research from disciplinary perspectives of public housing and homelessness to examine displacement policy challenges in these fields. Furthermore, this study is limited to a theoretical inquiry into this topic through a desktop review of policy documents. While this is a necessary first step, empirical studies are required to determine accurate displacement rates, drivers and people’s experience of being displaced.

This research aims to inform policy by presenting recommendations for policy interventions for disaster displacement governance. Therefore, this research has practical implications as policy and disaster risk reduction (DRR) professionals can draw from the findings of this research when planning and initiating disaster response for displaced persons.

This research draws attention to an area of disaster management practice and policy that has not been adequately accounted for. Highlighting gaps in current policy can assist in developing targeted strategies and solutions for internally displaced people, which protect their rights and meet their needs.

Displacement is a growing climate change issue. This research aims to help address this problem by drawing attention to areas where Australian disaster management approaches fail to account for displaced populations. Therefore, this research has practical implications for addressing future issues of disaster injustice that may arise if displacement continues, unacknowledged in disaster management.

This paper aims to address the viability of two recent initiatives proposed to address the important human rights issue of employee and building safety among manufacturers in the global supply chain: the recently proposed “Shared Responsibility Paradigm” now being considered by concerned stakeholders as a new approach to understanding human rights issues across global supply chains and the proposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 45001 comprehensive framework for management systems addressing occupational health and safety.

First, the paper establishes a theoretical foundation for these two initiatives as practical and implementable solutions for this human rights issue and includes a section addressing the results of recent academic research on social responsibility in global supply chains. The paper then provides a detailed description of the shared responsibility paradigm and the ISO 45001 health and safety standard, respectively, followed by a discussion of their viability, policy implications and directions for future research.

Recent developments pertaining to the implementation of the ISO 45001 standard and the unveiling of the World Economic Forum’s shared responsibility model offer aspirational hope for a multi-stakeholder solution to successfully addressing serious human rights issues related to employee safety in Bangladesh and other least developed countries.

This paper offers an early viability assessment of the two recent initiatives proposed to address the important human rights issue of employee and building safety among manufacturers in the global supply chain: the “Shared Responsibility Paradigm” and the proposed ISO 45001 standard for worker health and safety.

In response to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights from 2011, several governments are enacting laws against exploitation in global supply chains. Such a legislative proposal is problematic in several respects. The authors aim to discuss these problems from an ethical perspective to provide a theoretical basis for law-setting and management decisions.

The paper studies the question based on an ethical framework with a libertarian focus.

From the perspective of a property rights-based ethics such a proposal prohibits voluntary exchanges and, thereby, a fundamental human right. From a utilitarian perspective it diminishes the utility of the parties of a potential exchange, because they cannot engage an exchange that they want to make. Moreover, it does not only shift an original state task to companies, but also tries to enforce specific values which are not shared all over the world, in third countries. In addition, it creates considerable restrictions on foreign procurement markets for domestic companies, which counteract the actual objective of the law.

The research provides managers with a moral compass regarding their supply chain decisions based on property rights ethics and utilitarian considerations. Based on that, they can weigh the arguments and make an informed decision. The paper is limited to these approaches that are often neglected in the public debate.

The authors’ comprehensive discussion from the perspective of libertarian ethics can be helpful for managers in their decision-making.

Supply chain acts have important social implications for people in developing countries as well as companies and consumers in Western countries. This study offers a comprehensive discussion from the perspective of libertarian ethics and can be helpful for entrepreneurs and managers in their decision-making.

The paper intends to encourage researchers from different disciplines to discuss the ethics of supply chain acts and to reflect governmental plans to transform the UN Guiding Principles in national law. It provides managers with a moral compass regarding their supply chain decisions based on property rights ethics and utilitarian considerations. Based on that, they can weigh the arguments and make an informed decision.

This paper aims to examine the Indonesian Stock Exchange-listed (IDX-listed) companies’ human rights disclosures.

The year-ending 2012 annual report disclosures of 75 IDX-listed companies are analyzed. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines are used as the disclosure index checklist.

The results show a low level of voluntary human rights disclosure (36.74 per cent). The highest level of communication is for assessment issues. Very few companies disclosed information about child labor and forced and compulsory labor. Statistical analysis reveals that board size significantly influences “human rights” communication in a positive direction. Company size, one of the control variables in this study, is also found to be positively significant. The managerial stakeholder theory partially explains the variability of these disclosures.

The main implication of the findings is that key stakeholders do not see the importance of human rights issues to be disclosed, except for commissioners. It seems that commissioners have the spirit of the United Nation Guiding Principles (UNGPs), requiring companies to respect human rights in daily business operations. Another implication is that companies may attempt to hide certain information regarding child labor and forced and compulsory labor.

This paper provides insights into the disclosure practices of human rights issues in Indonesia. The paper also investigates the key determinants of human rights disclosures, an empirical test which is largely ignored in previous human rights reporting studies. This paper highlights the potency of commissioners in campaigning and promoting the importance of social responsibility on human rights for corporate sustainability.

This paper aims to discuss how transnational universities create negative and positive social impacts on their host communities and what this means for campus sustainability and the expectation that universities contribute to sustainable development and to their local communities.

Using mixed methods, a multiple case study approach and qualitative meta-analysis, this study considers six transnational university campuses in China in terms of their relationship with local communities.

Because of the good reputation of universities generally, local residents tended to accord a social licence to operate (i.e. approval) to new university campuses. However, universities generally do not manage their social impacts, as well as many other industries and generally fail to consider the corporate social responsibility issues and the environmental, social and governance aspects of their activities. To improve their social licence to operate and grow and to meet expectations around “university social responsibility”, campus developments should observe key international principles and human rights standards: full disclosure of information; effective community engagement; appropriate resettlement and livelihood restoration; effective harm reduction procedures; provision of local benefits (benefit sharing); monitoring and adaptive management and implement a grievance redress mechanism.

This paper encourages broader thinking about sustainability in a higher education context and about what university social responsibility entails. Specifically, this study argues that the relationship between universities and their host communities also needs to be considered, especially during campus construction.

This viewpoint adds context and variety to the “decolonizing international business” debate by engaging in a discussion of the decolonial thinking approach and proposing a broader framework for analysing the link between international business (IB) activities on the one hand and colonisation and decolonisation on the other. The purpose of this paper is to inspire a more intensive engagement of IB scholarship with issues related to colonisation and decolonisation.

This paper involves taking a reflexive review on recent calls to decolonise IB, contextualising and extending the decolonisation debate in the academic field of IB.

This paper argues that the current discussion of decolonisation should be extended beyond the decolonial thinking approach and its focus on knowledge and the cultural dimension towards a broader framework that covers both colonisation and decolonisation as well as the respective economic, political, social and cultural dimensions. It introduces the varieties of colonisation and decolonisation approach, which considers the complexities of the phenomenon and covers the economic, social, political and cultural dimensions.

Through its focus on foreign market expansion, international trade, global value chains and formal and informal institutions in the business environment, the academic field of IB provides several starting points for research on the link between IB activities and colonisation and decolonisation. The decolonisation debate can be used to inspire future research in IB, for example, with respect to the role of multinational corporations in colonisation and neo-colonisation processes and the implications of the emerging multipolar world order for IB.

IB scholars will be better informed when engaging in discussions on decolonisation and the decolonise IB project. This paper suggests considering both colonisation and decolonisation processes as well as the respective economic, political, social and cultural dimensions in research and teaching. The varieties of colonisation and decolonisation approach provides a comprehensive and flexible alternative framework to analyse issues related to colonisation and decolonisation.

A balanced view of the implications of colonisation and decolonisation with respect to economic, political, social and cultural dimensions may suitably be incorporated in the field of IB and contribute to tackling grand societal challenges. This applies likewise to past, current and future processes of colonisation and decolonisation.

This paper contextualises and adds a new perspective and variety to the current debate on decolonising IB. This is valuable for engaging in discussions on decolonisation and future conceptual and empirical research on the topic.

The internally displaced persons (IDPs) are often overlooked population, falling between the cracks of international and national commitments. Displaced women and children go through more hardship than the male counterpart, as they are frequently at greater risk and do not get adequate access to the reproductive healthcare rights; they suffer from poor health amid threats of eviction. The purpose of this paper is to look into the IDPs reproductive healthcare situation in India and sustainable development goal (SDG) role in addressing the reproductive healthcare rights of the IDPs in India.

This paper is based on the available literature on reproductive rights of IDPs in India, analysis of the SDGs 3 and other legal safeguards.

The newly arrived IDPs in the camps have complex needs and health problems. They are susceptible to a number of health problems due to the exposure to physical and environmental threats, violence and trauma. Many of them face a loss of social networks and assets, knowledge and information in the new environment, and lack food security. They have inadequate shelter, healthcare services, sanitation and access to safe water.

This is a viewpoint paper and most of the information in this paper are taken from different sources which are cited in the reference section. There is a lack of sufficient data on IDPs in India. Most of the IDPs figures/data are quoted from Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and other literature.

To achieve the SDGs by 2030, India needs to take account of all people’s vulnerabilities to address their humanitarian and sustainable development needs. It is important that the development, humanitarian actors, along with the local communities, work collectively to respond to the health needs of the IDPs. Moreover, the active role of the government can provide the necessary assistance to guarantee the rights of IDPs health, adequate standard of living and to social security.

This paper highlights the reproductive healthcare rights of the IDPs in India and the challenges faced by them. It has analyzed the policy gaps. The paper also suggests few measures that can be undertaken to address those challenges under the SDGs.