Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWOOD, Stepan
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-11T16:52:15Z
dc.date.available2016-03-11T16:52:15Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationBusiness ethics quarterly, 2012, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 63-98
dc.identifier.issn1052-150X
dc.identifier.issn2153-3326
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/39733
dc.description.abstractShould 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.isoen
dc.relation.ispartofBusiness ethics quarterly
dc.titleThe case for leverage : based corporate human rights responsibility
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi0.5840/beq20122215
dc.identifier.volume22
dc.identifier.startpage63
dc.identifier.endpage98
dc.identifier.issue1


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record