dc.contributor.author | WOOD, Stepan | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-03-11T16:52:15Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-03-11T16:52:15Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Business ethics quarterly, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 63-98 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1052-150X | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2153-3326 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/39733 | |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Business ethics quarterly | |
dc.title | The case for leverage : based corporate human rights responsibility | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.identifier.doi | 0.5840/beq20122215 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 22 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 63 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 98 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | |