The Case for Leverage-Based Corporate Human Rights Responsibility

Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (1):63-98 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Should companies’ human rights responsibilities arise, in part, from their “leverage”—their ability to influence others’ actions through their relationships? Special Representative John Ruggie rejected this proposition in the United Nations Framework for business and human rights. I argue that leverage is a source of responsibility where there is a morally significant connection between the company and a rights-holder or rights-violator, the company is able to make a contribution to ameliorating the situation, it can do so at modest cost, and the threat to human rights is substantial. In such circumstances companies have a responsibility to exercise leverage even though they did nothing to contribute to the situation. Such responsibility is qualified, not categorical; graduated, not binary; context-specific; practicable; consistent with the social role of business; and not merely a negative responsibility to avoid harm but a positive responsibility to do good.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Business and Human Rights.Michelle Westermann-Behaylo & Harry J. van Buren Iii - 2011 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 22:99-110.
Human rights and positive corporate duties: the importance of corporate–state interaction.Ivar Kolstad - 2012 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 21 (3):276-285.
Agricultural technology, wealth, and responsibility.Gene Wunderlich - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (1):21-35.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-09-18

Downloads
32 (#431,738)

6 months
9 (#144,939)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?