The Limits of Corporate Human Rights Obligations and the Rights of For-Profit Corporations

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The extension of human rights obligations to corporations raises questions about whose rights and which rights corporations are responsible for. This paper gives a partial answer by asking what legal rights corporations would need to have to fulfil various sorts of human rights obligations. We should compare the chances of human rights fulfilment (and violations) that are likely to result from assigning human rights obligations to corporations with the chances of human rights fulfilment (and violations) that are likely to result from giving corporations the legal rights needed to undertake those human rights obligations. Corporations should respect basic human rights of all people. Non-complicity in human rights violations requires that corporations have the right to political freedom of speech. To actively protect people from human rights violations, corporations need the right to hire armed security personnel; such obligations should be limited to protecting corporate property and narrowly defined stakeholders. Obligations to spend corporate resources on human rights fulfilment are confined to contributing to specific projects. Corporations have no obligation to ensure a society in which human rights are fulfilled. This principle helps us understand why corporate obligations are substantially different from those of governments.

Firms with benefits: A systematic review of responsible entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility literature

“…Several CSR texts in our corpus that score highly for the topic "Stakeholder" examine the interplay of corporations and NGOs and how these NGOs pressure corporations into (more) responsible behaviour (Burchell & Cook, 2007van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008). This literature investigates how corporations attempt to develop a "social license to operate" when their business activities impact communities (Curran, 2017;Parsons et al, 2014;Pegg & Zabbey, 2013) and also considers cases of human rights abuses (Bellace, 2014;Bishop, 2012;McPhail & Adams, 2016). This literature investigates how corporations attempt to develop a "social license to operate" when their business activities impact communities (Curran, 2017;Parsons et al, 2014;Pegg & Zabbey, 2013) and also considers cases of human rights abuses (Bellace, 2014;Bishop, 2012;McPhail & Adams, 2016).…”

“…Meanwhile, CSR literature within the topic "Society-Corporations" and "Human rights" tends to focus on communities as a specific stakeholder impacted by corporations. This literature investigates how corporations attempt to develop a "social license to operate" when their business activities impact communities (Curran, 2017;Parsons et al, 2014;Pegg & Zabbey, 2013) and also considers cases of human rights abuses (Bellace, 2014;Bishop, 2012;McPhail & Adams, 2016).…”

Should Business Have Human Rights Obligations?

“…They overpower people, markets, government, and international institutions and thus operate in positions of increasing political authority" (2009: 256). 12 One objection against assigning human rights obligations to corporations has been raised by John Bishop (2012). Bishop begins with the claim that if corporations have human rights obligations, then they must have the rights required to fulfill those obligations (2012: 128).…”

“…As discussed above, some commentators are skeptical that MNEs have the capacity or relevant motivation to realize and carry out human rights obligations if they were assigned them (Bishop 2012). The worry about status runs deeper.…”

Eco-justice Perspective and Human Rights-Based Approach to Responsible Business in the Indonesian Mining Industry

“…Human Rights-Based Approach Bishop (2012) has convincingly argued that companies have a responsibility to respect freedom and human rights. The company will lose its power to operate if it does not act responsibly (Shaw and Barry 2016).…”