Trends in the Social [Ir]Responsibility of American Multinational Corporations: Increased Power, Diminished Accountability? (original) (raw)
Related papers
For better or for worse: Corporate responsibility beyond "do no harm"
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2010
Do corporations have a duty to promote just institutions? Agreeing with Hsieh's recent contribution, this article argues that they do. However, contrary to Hsieh, it holds that such a claim cannot be advanced convincingly only by reference to the negative duty to do no harm. Instead, such a duty necessarily must be grounded in positive obligation. In the search of a foundation for a positive duty for corporations to further just institutions, Stephen Kobrin's notion of "private political authority" offers a promising connecting point. Political authority implies political responsibility; Political obligation, however, includes more than merely not doing any harm—it is essentially positive obligation. The implications of the new political responsibilities of multinational corporations may even go far beyond the particular duty to promote just institutions; they may be symptomatic for a much more profound shift from an individual to a collective age.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2013
This paper aims to shed some more light on the current debate related to corporate social responsibility (CSR), specifically considering multinational enterprises (MNEs) and the complexities they face when dealing with international issues and a range of stakeholders. It discusses notions of CSR in the context of wider debates, including the question for whom and for what the firm exists, how responsibilities can or should be managed and by whom, and what room there is for managerial discretion. Particular attention is paid to cross-cultural differences, exploring the existing variety in ethical and societal norms relevant to MNEs: those originating from international agreements, those that are part of a so-called 'market morality' and those applicable in home and host countries. Although these norms may overlap, they can diverge as well, leaving ample room for managerial discretion in a 'moral free space'. The paper also explores recent trends, particularly the increasing importance of emerging economies such as China, which suggests that the picture is becoming even more complex, pointing at clear challenges for research and practice.
Socio-Economic Review, 2014
The article provides a historical-sociological perspective on contemporary, globalized 'corporate responsibility' (CR) by exploring a critical moment in the evolution of this institution, in mid-20th-century USA. CR was devised by the corporate capitalist elite, broadly defined, as an instrument for preempting governmental intervention. Corporations responded to surging public expectations for governmental-not corporate-assumption of social responsibility. In deploying CR practices, they would strategically enable the creation of the latter at the expense of the former, thus redefining the parameters of business's role in society and, along with it, the societal division of regulatory labour in the direction of increasing privatization. It is hypothesized that present-day attempts at 'civil regulation' of corporations embody a script of interaction among companies, publics and states that was designed to secure corporate power rather than limit it. Synthesizing organizational neoinstitutionalism and elite theory, the article shows how elites can defend their position of power through engagement in a 'defensive institutionalization project', that is, a sophisticated modification of the system aimed at redefining the very perceptions and strategies of everyone involved.
Law, The American Corporation, and Society
Osgoode Hall Law School Digital Commons (Nominated for the Best Doctoral Dissertation at York University in 2013), 2013
This book explores how American legal scholarship treats the corporation by providing a history of American corporate legal theory, a history of corporate (social) responsibility from the perspective of the Berle–Dodd debate, an analysis of how legal scholars understand corporate lawmaking in America, and an initial inquiry into how the prevailing opinions about the corporation are realized in the context of a critical assessment of whether or not this resulting corporate governance holds the potential to compliment the efforts of new governance regulators. This book consists of four essays about American corporate governance. Three essays trace how three particular presumptions about the corporation came to become part of the dominant narrative about the corporation within the American academic context. The first presumption is that the American contractarian theory of the corporation most accurately frames an understanding of the corporation. This presumption underpins much of Delaware's corporate law. Second is the notion that shareholder value maximization provides the necessary precondition for effective corporate governance. The modern incarnation of this presumption was inadvertently inspired by the early 20th Century work of Adolf A. Berle. Third is the idea that there is market competition for incorporations between states, and this competition creates a " race to the top. " Such presumptions help shape the dominant narrative about the American corporation. In the final chapter, the elements of these presumptions, and the narratives they weave, are reconsidered within the context of new governance, which encourages private actors, like corporations, to play larger roles within the administrative functions of governments. It is explained how new governance thought presumes that corporations are becoming more imbued with a sense of public spiritedness. This presumption is closely examined and then ultimately rejected as dangerously optimistic considering the narratives that dominate corporate legal thinking—at least in the American context. Each of the four chapters has been published in U.S. law reviews, creating a portfolio of essays regarding the American corporation and its place in society.
Law & Society Review, 2004
Using Alien Tort Claims Act suits against multinational corporations as an immediate context for discussion, this article explores the emerging field of corporate social responsibility. The article argues for an understanding of concrete legal struggles as part of broader competing strategies for regulating corporate obligations to a multitude of stakeholders. By identifying and analyzing the positions of concrete actors who operate in the field, the main thesis of this article is that the field strongly tilts in the direction of voluntary and self-reliant models of corporate responsibility. The article identifies this process as consistent with the privatization of regulative structures in general and with extant modeling of corporate governance in particular, and points at the correlation between these trends and the interests of multinational corporations.
TRENDS IN CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW: AN OVERVIEW
Although Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and all other related forms of business enterprises are now generally accepted as non-state actors in international law, the extent of their exact responsibilities and obligations vis-à-vis other institutional actors like states and international organisations is still largely a matter of huge conjecture. This is particularly so on the question of whether or not corporations - just like states, individuals and international organisations - should have direct obligations under international law, and if yes, to what extent and in what manner? Meanwhile, the debates on the status and hence obligations of corporations, under international law, has been largely, if not wholly, anchored on the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and in relation to human rights. This paper seeks to overview how modern international law has embraced the arguments for integration of corporate obligations and hence CSR. In doing this, the paper, among others, examines the progression of the debates from an initial scepticism - if not hostility - to the present day gradual acceptance and recognition, under international law, of some form of socially responsible obligations for corporations. The paper notes further that despite the initial opposition to imposition of standards on corporate non-state actors, there appears to be consensus now that some level of international regulation might be needed in view of the complex transnational nature of corporate activities. The paper then concludes that despite the absence of mandatory international legal obligations for corporations under international law, the present favourable paradigm shift in favour of debates on such trend, as presently demonstrated, amongst others, by the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (UN Norms), suggests a brighter future in favour of well-entrenched mandatory regulations.