In the wake of increasing corporate disasters, there has been an urgent need to address the impact of business on human rights. Yet business responsibilities for human rights are mainly voluntary and best understood as ‘soft law’. Recently, however, States have begun negotiations for an internationally binding treaty in this area, suggesting that there is a need to turn to ‘hard law’ to increase the efficacy of business and human rights (BHR) initiatives. This article argues that because soft and hard law concepts are not dichotomous, BHR governance need not become ‘hard law’ to be effective. Rather ‘hardened’ soft law instruments can be equally effective.

and the Business Case for Ethnic Minorities' (2007) 21:4 Work, Emp. and Soc'y 773, 779 (noting that decision-making on equity issues was largely made on an intuitive basis rather than through a cost-benefit analysis). 26 Colin McLaughlin and Simon Deakin, 'Equality Law and the Limits of the 'Business Case' For Addressing Gender Inequalities'(2011) University of 13

Worldwide there is a growing interest in increasing the number of women on boards. Quotas have been proposed in many countries as a way to address this problem, but it is not universally accepted as the right approach. Nevertheless, it is apparent that change is needed as women continue to represent minorities on boards of some of the largest companies. Moreover, increasing the number of women on boards can be beneficial to firms. While it is not clear whether there is a positive relationship between increasing the number of women on boards and firm profitability, it is clearer that women make positive contributions to the board decision-making process. As a result, increasing the number of women on boards improves the quality of decisions made by the board. Given the benefits increased numbers of women on boards can produce for companies and countries' lacklustre interest in quotas, this paper canvasses methods by which boards can increase female representation without relying on quotas. As such, it looks to practices adopted by American football teams, Australian mentoring programs, and UK disclosure rules. It also examines existing workplace norms and practices which inhibit female labour participation. In doing so, it proposes alternative approaches by which countries can increase gender diversity on boards.

No abstract

According to a universal bedrock principle of corporate law, corporations have separate legal personality and limited liability. These principles apply equally to corporate groups. Accordingly, a parent company is normally not liable for legal infractions and unpaid debts of its subsidiaries. In relation to torts and other misconduct committed by corporations, however, the bedrock principles of corporate law are increasingly subject to criticism, in particular where such claims cannot be brought by tort victims due to undercapitalization of subsidiaries, among other problems. While the doctrine of veil piercing may allow for relief in certain scenarios, this practice has fallen out of favour with many courts and the legal requirements for doing so have become increasingly strict. Thus, courts have developed new approaches to holding parent companies liable such as holding the parent directly liable. In view of these significant shifts, this article examines the law and policy considerations governing parent company and-more broadly-group liability. It argues that reform is necessary, which may be found in a model that involves combinations of voting equity ownership-based enterprise liability concepts with modified vicarious liability for corporations.