Responsibility Of Corporation Case Study
4. Responsibility of Corporations: Rationale, source and limits
Whether there is social responsibility or obligation proper to speak of towards corporations is a topic of debate. However, the suspicious perception of business personnel towards CSR is understandable, essentially because the policy choices and actions of government may directly impact their operations, with a spillover effect on their responsibility to their stakeholders especially their employees and customers.
a. Theoretical basis of responsibility
When you think of human rights, the first and most important perceivable purpose requiring protection is one given against the violent measures of the government; i.e. protection against vertical violence. Broadly speaking, …show more content…
The nature and extent of the responsibility is in direct correlation with the tie that exists between the company and the persons concerned.
b. Legal norms/instruments as sources of responsibility
Under section 2, it is established that Corporate Social Responsibility goes far beyond an organization’s voluntary submission to accepted standards. CSR in fact constitutes a variety of mandatory rules and regulations the violation of which results in liability. The question as to whether it should entirely be left to the voluntary will of the corporation or not is still controversial.
The problem with taking the extreme side towards voluntarism, as pointed out by Tony Royle, is its interruption with the effectiveness of the protection. The cynical attitude taken by some authors regarding the idea of leaving the execution task to corporations is also expressed by Frynas in his Article ‘the false developmental promise of CSR’. For an effective enforcement of CSR norms, the tendency of scholars has been towards a coordinated efforts of corporations, governments and …show more content…
The act was adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2011.
In the Guiding Principles, the responsibilities of both states and corporation are defined. One of the operational principles provided is requiring states to issue necessary legislations that governs how businesses should operate in their jurisdiction. They are required to make sure that businesses do not intervene in the enjoyment of basic human rights. It also provides that, alongside the state’s responsibility to protect human rights, corporations have the obligations to be abide by the major international human rights instruments since as the UDHR and ILO Conventions. It further enumerates specific behaviors such as abstention from a conduct that result in the violations of human rights.
Furthermore, since it is inevitable that some activities of businesses might bring negative effects to the society. In such times, the Guideline requires corporations to take remedial measures to the
Whether there is social responsibility or obligation proper to speak of towards corporations is a topic of debate. However, the suspicious perception of business personnel towards CSR is understandable, essentially because the policy choices and actions of government may directly impact their operations, with a spillover effect on their responsibility to their stakeholders especially their employees and customers.
a. Theoretical basis of responsibility
When you think of human rights, the first and most important perceivable purpose requiring protection is one given against the violent measures of the government; i.e. protection against vertical violence. Broadly speaking, …show more content…
The nature and extent of the responsibility is in direct correlation with the tie that exists between the company and the persons concerned.
b. Legal norms/instruments as sources of responsibility
Under section 2, it is established that Corporate Social Responsibility goes far beyond an organization’s voluntary submission to accepted standards. CSR in fact constitutes a variety of mandatory rules and regulations the violation of which results in liability. The question as to whether it should entirely be left to the voluntary will of the corporation or not is still controversial.
The problem with taking the extreme side towards voluntarism, as pointed out by Tony Royle, is its interruption with the effectiveness of the protection. The cynical attitude taken by some authors regarding the idea of leaving the execution task to corporations is also expressed by Frynas in his Article ‘the false developmental promise of CSR’. For an effective enforcement of CSR norms, the tendency of scholars has been towards a coordinated efforts of corporations, governments and …show more content…
The act was adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2011.
In the Guiding Principles, the responsibilities of both states and corporation are defined. One of the operational principles provided is requiring states to issue necessary legislations that governs how businesses should operate in their jurisdiction. They are required to make sure that businesses do not intervene in the enjoyment of basic human rights. It also provides that, alongside the state’s responsibility to protect human rights, corporations have the obligations to be abide by the major international human rights instruments since as the UDHR and ILO Conventions. It further enumerates specific behaviors such as abstention from a conduct that result in the violations of human rights.
Furthermore, since it is inevitable that some activities of businesses might bring negative effects to the society. In such times, the Guideline requires corporations to take remedial measures to the