No abstract

Abstract:Building on John Rawls’s account of the Law of Peoples, this paper examines the grounds and scope of the obligations of transnational corporations (TNCs) that are owned by members of developed economies and operate in developing economies. The paper advances two broad claims. First, the paper argues that there are conditions under which TNCs have obligations to fulfill a limited duty of assistance toward those living in developing economies, even though the duty is normally understood to fall on the governments of developed economies. Second, by extending Rawls’s account to include a right to protection against arbitrary interference, the paper argues that TNCs can be said to have negative and positive obligations in the areas of human rights, labor standards, and environmental protection, as outlined in the U.N. Global Compact. More generally, the paper aims to further our understanding of the implications of Rawls’s account of justice.

ABSTRACT:Drawing upon John Rawls's framework in The Law of Peoples, this paper argues that MNEs have a responsibility to promote well-ordered social and political institutions in host countries that lack them. This responsibility is grounded in a negative duty not to cause harm. In addition to addressing the objection that promoting well-ordered institutions represents unjustified interference by MNEs, the paper provides guidance for managers of MNEs operating in host countries that lack just institutions. The paper argues for understanding corporate responsibility in relation to the specific institutional environment in which MNEs operate.

In this address, I outline a "back to basics" approach to specifying the responsibilities and role of business in relation to society. Three "basics" comprise the approach. The first is arguing that basic principles of ordinary morality, such as a duty not to harm, provide an adequate basis for specifying the responsibilities of business managers. The second is framing the role of business in society by looking to the values realized by the basic building blocks of contemporary economic activity, i.e., markets and firms. The third is making explicit the basic institutions that structure the background against which business operates. The aim is to develop a plausible framework for managerial decision making that respects the fact of value pluralism in a global economy and that fosters meaningful criticism of current business practices while remaining sufficiently grounded in contemporary circumstances so as to be relevant for managers.

Liberal egalitarianism has been criticized for paying insufficient attention to what justice requires for the institutions that structure economic production. In the light of such criticism, this paper investigates arguments that liberal egalitarians might give for the kinds of institutional reforms that critics have proposed. These reforms include (1) guarantees for meaningful work, (2) worker participation in the governance of economic enterprises, and (3) democratic participation in the control of the means of production at the level of society. The paper argues that liberal egalitarianism has much to say not only about questions regarding distribution, but also about questions regarding production. Comments are warmly welcomed.ABSTRACT Liberal egalitarianism has been criticized for paying insufficient attention to what justice requires for the institutions that structure economic production. In the light of such criticism, this paper investigates arguments that liberal egalitarians might give for the kinds of institutional reforms that critics have proposed. These reforms include (1) guarantees for meaningful work, (2) worker participation in the governance of economic enterprises, and (3) democratic participation in the control of the means of production at the level of society. The paper argues that liberal egalitarianism has much to say not only about questions regarding distribution, but also about questions regarding production. * For helpful discussion and comments, I thank Geoffrey Brennan, Sara Toomey, and seminar participants at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Robert Goodin for prompting me to write this paper and for his comments along the way. For providing a hospitable environment in which to write the paper, I thank the Social and Political Theory Program of the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. I also thank the Legal Studies and Business Ethics Research Program and the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research for funding this research. All errors remain my own. possibility of analyzing the structure of economic production from the perspective of a distributive paradigm. First, the structure of economic production influences the distribution of income and wealth and the nature of economic opportunity. For example, it has been argued that the distributional requirements of Rawls's difference principle would be better satisfied by an economic regime that involved control of the means of production by citizens as a whole. JUSTICE IN PRODUCTION 9Second, questions about the reform of economic institutions can be recast as questions of distribution. If, for example, we were to regard a claim to meaningful work to be a right whose allocation is of concern from the standpoint of justice, then we might consider the question of meaningful work to be one of distribution. While acknowledging these points, the aim in this paper is to examine a distinct set of concerns that may be overlook...