Labour Rights Project: A Case for Corporate Social Responsibility
“The Company needs to be an ethical creature – an organism capable of both reaping profits and making the world a better place to live” by Robert Hass, Chairperson and CEO of Levi Strauss
With markets opening up all around the world and trade and investment flows reaching unprecedented levels, the Kenya Human Rights Commission recognizes the large role business plays in the lives of millions of people in rich and poor countries alike. The Kenya Human Rights Commission believes that if business is to be a positive influence in people's lives, it must be fundamentally ethical in its treatment of people especially as employees, and in regard to host communities and the environment. Currently, human rights abuses once committed primarily by repressive governments are increasingly carried out in the corporate interest.
As the Kenya Human Rights Commission, we appreciate that the protection of human rights is not traditionally considered a responsibility of corporations. Domestic and international laws of many states including Kenya fail to impose adequate human rights duties on corporations. Yet corporations, especially multinational corporations (MNCs), are very powerful entities in the current world order. Their impact on the well being of communities and individuals, including in terms of human rights, is evident wherever they operate. While there is considerable scope for that impact to be positive, corporate activity is often perceived to have had, and has had, a detrimental impact on human rights protection. Domestic laws are not adequate to control the human rights excesses of multinational corporations (MNCs). In most instances, some MNCs are more powerful economically and de facto politically, than a state it is operating in, particularly when that state is a developing nation which perceives that it needs foreign direct investment in order to achieve satisfactory levels of economic development.
Therefore, as human rights advocates begin to address corporate crime, they often do so in the absence of any serious government support. As a result, they are tempted to fall back on voluntary codes of conduct adopted by the corporations themselves. At best, this self-monitoring represents “enlightened self-interest” by companies looking for a stable investment climate and providing corporations with cover from public scrutiny making corporate agents rather dubious guarantors of human rights.
Whether voluntary codes of conduct advance human rights or are an intermediate step toward deeper change or just window dressing is a topic still hotly debated by human rights activists, labour groups and grassroots movements. As always, it ends up as a David and Goliath battle. Many favor some sort of international body that will monitor and regulate corporate activities around the world while others propose that what needs to happen is a redefinition of human rights as the fight for self-governance.
Reference: http://www.khrc.or.ke/subsubsection.asp?ID=5
With markets opening up all around the world and trade and investment flows reaching unprecedented levels, the Kenya Human Rights Commission recognizes the large role business plays in the lives of millions of people in rich and poor countries alike. The Kenya Human Rights Commission believes that if business is to be a positive influence in people's lives, it must be fundamentally ethical in its treatment of people especially as employees, and in regard to host communities and the environment. Currently, human rights abuses once committed primarily by repressive governments are increasingly carried out in the corporate interest.
As the Kenya Human Rights Commission, we appreciate that the protection of human rights is not traditionally considered a responsibility of corporations. Domestic and international laws of many states including Kenya fail to impose adequate human rights duties on corporations. Yet corporations, especially multinational corporations (MNCs), are very powerful entities in the current world order. Their impact on the well being of communities and individuals, including in terms of human rights, is evident wherever they operate. While there is considerable scope for that impact to be positive, corporate activity is often perceived to have had, and has had, a detrimental impact on human rights protection. Domestic laws are not adequate to control the human rights excesses of multinational corporations (MNCs). In most instances, some MNCs are more powerful economically and de facto politically, than a state it is operating in, particularly when that state is a developing nation which perceives that it needs foreign direct investment in order to achieve satisfactory levels of economic development.
Therefore, as human rights advocates begin to address corporate crime, they often do so in the absence of any serious government support. As a result, they are tempted to fall back on voluntary codes of conduct adopted by the corporations themselves. At best, this self-monitoring represents “enlightened self-interest” by companies looking for a stable investment climate and providing corporations with cover from public scrutiny making corporate agents rather dubious guarantors of human rights.
Whether voluntary codes of conduct advance human rights or are an intermediate step toward deeper change or just window dressing is a topic still hotly debated by human rights activists, labour groups and grassroots movements. As always, it ends up as a David and Goliath battle. Many favor some sort of international body that will monitor and regulate corporate activities around the world while others propose that what needs to happen is a redefinition of human rights as the fight for self-governance.
Reference: http://www.khrc.or.ke/subsubsection.asp?ID=5
posted by Netreneur at 4:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home