Business and Human Rights: Alternative Approaches to Transnational Regulation

Abstract

In recent years, various approaches to transnational regulation of business conduct have evolved as an alternative to the command-and-control model focusing on conduct of domestic businesses and the soft law approach of international human rights law to regulate corporations. On reviewing the potential of five such approaches (i.e., polycentric governance, extraterritorial regulation, proposed international treaty, reform of corporate laws, and rebalancing of trade-investment agreements), this article makes two arguments. First, although polycentric governance is critical to fill regulatory deficits of state-based regulation, this approach should not ignore or weaken further the role and relevance of states in regulating businesses, given the dynamic relation between state-based and other regulatory approaches. Second, greater attention should be paid to nonhuman rights regulatory regimes to change the corporate culture, which tends to externalize human rights issues. The increasing focus on the role of corporate laws and trade-investment agreements should be seen in this context. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Corporate Climate Change Responsibilities Under the Oecd Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

“…This dynamic relationship between polycentric and binding governance serves to fill regulatory deficits in State-based regulation, provided it does not undermine or weaken the legitimate role of the State in regulating business. 108 In essence, the Guidelines serve as a valuable tool within the broader spectrum of corporate accountability mechanisms for addressing climate change and human rights. Their role is best understood as complementary to other legal and governance frameworks, working synergistically to advance responsible corporate behaviour and accountability on a global scale.…”

The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations

“…Yet, how the general public views MNE involvement in human rights violations is not well understood. The business and human rights literature has generated important insights on the existence and contours of business human rights obligations (Arnold, 2016 ; Bilchitz & Deva, 2013 ; Hsieh, 2015 ; Macdonald, 2011 ; Wettstein, 2010a ), as well as on the changing regulatory landscape (Choudhury, 2018 ; Deva, 2021 ; Seppala, 2009 ; Wettstein, 2012a ). But, while researchers have examined managers’ and employees’ perceptions of business human rights obligations (Arkani & Theobald, 2005 ; Egels-Zandén, 2017 ; Giuliani et al, 2020 ; McBeth & Joseph, 2005 ; Obara, 2017 ; Puncheva-Michelotti et al, 2010 ), few have addressed questions related to the views of the general public (Schrempf-Stirling & van Buren, 2020 ).…”