Between Self-Regulation and the Alien Tort Claims Act: On the Contested Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility

Using Alien Tort Claims Act suits against multinational corporations as an immediate context for discussion, this article explores the emerging field of corporate social responsibility. The article argues for an understanding of concrete legal struggles as part of broader competing strategies for regulating corporate obligations to a multitude of stakeholders. By identifying and analyzing the positions of concrete actors who operate in the field, the main thesis of this article is that the field strongly tilts in the direction of voluntary and self-reliant models of corporate responsibility. The article identifies this process as consistent with the privatization of regulative structures in general and with extant modeling of corporate governance in particular, and points at the correlation between these trends and the interests of multinational corporations.     

论公司社会责任及其规制

公司社会责任在本质上不是个严谨的法学术语,而应隶属社会学范畴,与个人社会责任相呼应,内容包括对于股东之外的、与公司密切相关的主体的社会性义务承担。公司社会责任的有无与公司本质的认定密切相关,在当前的社会环境下应维持公司的营利性本质,公司社会责任的履行须在不违营利性的框架内运转。结合对公司社会责任规制的比较法考察,我国公司社会责任规制问题的合理进路是外部引导督促与内部优化改善相结合,促使公司在接纳社会责任思想的前提下主动承担社会性的义务。     

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES ON SOCIAL CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY: THE ROLE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The political and the economic spheres increasingly overlap. Consumption is viewed not only as an economic act, but also as an act of political and moral significance. Due to the blurring of the commercial and the political spheres, consumers use their purchasing power as a carrot and a stick for corporations to comply with corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards. As a consequence, corporate communication strategies tend to highlight commitment to CSR standards, portraying companies as “good corporate citizens.” Conversely, other stakeholders expose unethical business practices so as to induce corporate change. Both sides tend to invoke freedom of expression with a view to opposing limitations on their communication strategies. Taking two well-known examples as a starting point, the present article explores the role of freedom of expression as a means to incite corporate actors to both adopt and comply with CSR standards from a comparative perspective. Using an economic framework, it argues that non-commercial expression critical of corporate practices deserves a higher level of protection than corporate communication strategies.     

Corporate Social Responsibility European Style

Abstract: The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) emerged in the official discourse of the EU in 2000. This article explains how, while CSR may have been initially an idea about the scope of the responsibility of companies towards their environment, it has now become a process in which the representatives of the business community have come to occupy the main role, and whose purpose is to promote learning among business organisations, rather than to identify the components of a regulatory framework for CSR. The central question now, therefore, is whether the so‐called ‘business case’ for CSR is strong enough, so that we may hope that the forces of market will suffice to encourage companies to behave responsibly, over and above their obligation to comply with their legal obligations. The article shows, however, that this case rests on certain presuppositions about markets and the business environment, which cannot be simply assumed, but should be affirmatively created by a regulatory framework for CSR. Following the introduction, it proceeds in four stages. First, it examines the development of CSR in the EU. Second, it offers a critical examination of the so‐called ‘business case’ for CSR, taking into account the growing diversity within the enlarged EU. It then discusses, as an alternative, what a regulatory framework for CSR could resemble, highlighting a number of initiatives which have been taken in this regard by the EU. The article finally concludes that, since the failure of the European Multi‐Stakeholder Forum on CSR in 2004, the debate has made a turn in the wrong direction, both because of the mistaken view that the establishment of a regulatory framework for CSR would threaten the competitiveness of European companies, and because of the naive (and contradictory) view that reliance on market mechanisms will suffice to ensure that corporations will seek to minimise the negative social and environmental impacts of their activities, even in circumstances where they are not legally obliged to do so.     

美国企业法人在宪法上的权利考察

美国宪法实施以后，法人的宪法地位问题很快就提到了联邦最高法院。进入二十世纪以后，美国法人的宪法权利进一步扩展，法人又拥有了免于双重危险、陪审团审判、政治言论自由等一系列权利。在美国之外，法人的宪法权利也有不同程度的发展。德国在宪法文本中直接规定了法人的宪法权利，日本宪法文本虽无关于法人的明文规定，但在理论和实践中法人都享有一定的宪法权利。法人的宪法权利一直伴随着争议，尤其是法人的政治言论自由更是引发了热烈的争论。赋予法人宪法权利体现了宪法适用的价值，是法人对抗法律侵权的手段，客观上促进了经济发展，但是法人对政治活动的参与也可能引发金钱政治的危险。     

跨国企业食品安全与社会责任担当探析

从2006年美国的毒菠菜事件到2007年染毒点心事件,再纵观中国毒奶粉和肉制品食品安全事件,食品安全问题所呈现出的企业社会责任感的弱化再次引起公众的关注。企业社会责任在20世纪20年代由美国欧利文.谢尔顿首次提出。此后,美国和英国司法机构相继制定了利益相关法,以促进企业承担社会责任。本文认为,在经济全球化的背景下,跨国企业更好地承担社会责任,更好地进行法律规制,对于实现企业的长远利益具有积极的推动作用。     

Socially Responsible Private Regulation: World‐Culture or World‐Capitalism?

This article analyzes the phenomenon of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR; specifically: social private regulation) in light of two sociological paradigms of globalization: “world‐culture” and “world‐capitalism.” The study treats three analytically distinct features of CSR: the political contestation over its meaning, the role of business studies in transforming it into a managerial model, and its consolidation as a market of authorities. The study finds that (1) while CSR may be theorized as a emergent “world cultural” model, the culture paradigm does not take sufficient account of the role of corporations in shaping it, and (2) while both paradigms recognize the transition from political contestations over the character of CSR to its deployment by means of private regulation, the world‐capitalism paradigm offers stronger tools for theorizing the mechanisms of change that mediate between political agency and institutionalized regulatory outcomes.     

论公司的社会责任

公司不仅要为股东营利,而且要对社会承担法律责任和道德责任。正确处理公司社会责任与公司营利性之间的关系是界定公司社会责任含义的关键。公司社会责任理论是对股东利益最大化这一理论的修正和补充。我国应当从不同的角度对公司社会责任立法进行完善。     

企业社会责任践行机制之探究——兼论司法介入的合理性

从现代企业社会责任理论之勃兴着手探讨该理论的价值内涵及正确的价值导向,为企业社会责任之道德责任、法律责任的践行奠定正确的理论起点。针对践行企业社会责任之法律责任目前的立法状态分析司法介入企业社会责任实现机制的可能性及面临的几大难题,并提出了相应的理论构想以期待学界对企业社会责任的研究向司法领域的延伸。     

公司人格本质与社会责任的三种维度

从本质上说,法律塑造的公司人格不过是人与人之间社会关系在法律、社会伦理与自我认识层次上的集中反映。相应地,对公司社会责任也可从三个维度予以解构:法律意义上的社会责任是一切公司应尽的最低限度的法定责任,其约束力最强;伦理意义上的社会责任则是对公司的外在约束,此种约束机制可以是纯粹倡导性的公司伦理,也可以是介于伦理与法律之间的"软法";而公司内生的超出法律与"软法"之上的社会责任则是纯粹自律性的。三种性质的社会责任相互依存并相互转化,因此,仅有法律意义上的社会责任机制是远远不够的。     

试论“超越法律”的企业社会责任

"超越法律"的企业社会责任,是企业负担的那些超出法律强制性义务规定且符合社会价值和期望的责任,确认这种责任的法律规范实为"软法",它主要通过责任目标内化于企业的商业行为和治理结构之中,以实现企业的"自我管制";通过保护利益相关者的实质性和程序性权利,提高利益相关者的谈判抗衡力量以实现市场的自发对抗;并以声誉机制和非政府组织的作用作为责任的实施机制的补充。     

Corporate Compliance and Human Rights

Human rights violations by corporations are a major challenge, even if serious companies try to prevent them with their internal compliance program. Traditionally CSR and compliance were synonyms for soft law and self-regulation. Compliance, however, is increasingly establishing itself as a fundamental requirement to prevent corporate liability. Obviously, there are additional requirements for responsibility (like jurisdiction and the offence as a step towards the corporate goal). Overall, what has evolved in areas like corruption, money laundering and tax crime is gradually extending to the protection of human rights.     

Understanding transnational bribery: a corporate crime framework

Despite calls for utilizing white-collar and corporate crime frameworks to study corruption, the role of corporations in supplying bribes to foreign government officials is not well understood. In the current study, we draw upon a recent framework designed to examine the transnational corporate bribery process from an opportunity theory perspective. We apply the framework to a sample of individuals and organizations with enforcement actions levied against them by the United States Department of Justice’s Fraud Section for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 between 2011 and 2016. Using an exploratory mixed methods approach, we assess the prevalence and qualitative nature of multiple components of the framework. Our goal is to develop a systematic way to apply it to different sets of bribery data and to move toward a fuller theoretical account of transnational corporate bribery. Our findings demonstrate the significance of the corporate role in foreign bribery, the utility of the bribery process framework, and some areas of refinement and future theoretical development.

     

When a corporation rapes: perceptions of rape in civil court for corporate defendants

In recent years, the coupling of poor outcomes for rape victims in criminal court and the widening scope of legal responsibility for sexual assault has prompted plaintiffs to file civil suits for rape against corporations. Unfortunately, we know little about juror perception of civilly litigated rape against corporate defendants and most jury research involving corporate defendants concerns non-sexual injury cases (e.g. premises liability, automobile accidents). With the increasing number of corporations being sued civilly for rape, we need to understand how civil juries perceive these cases. The present study investigated mock jurors’ perceptions of a fictional civil rape trial against a hotel. Community members (N?=?155) read one of three trial summaries: Civil rape trial against the alleged perpetrator, civil rape trial against a hotel, or criminal rape trial. Results indicate females have higher pro-plaintiff judgments than males in civil court, perceptions of greed typically associated with civil litigation apply to rape, and favorable plaintiff decisions are most likely against a corporate defendant. Also, mental models suggest mock jurors conceptualize criminal and civil rape cases against an individual similarly. We discuss our results in terms of psychological, legal and practical expectations when suing for rape.     

Food Fraud and the Partnership for a ‘Healthier’ America: A Case Study in State-Corporate Crime

At a moment of heightened public concern over food-related health issues, major corporations in the food industry have found their products and practices under scrutiny. Needing to be understood as socially responsible, these corporations have established partnerships with the state to construct a positive, proactive, and cooperative public image. One major public–private partnership that evolved from former First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative—the Partnership for a Healthier America—serves as a case study in this paper, which analyzes the consequences and social harms perpetuated by a public health campaign bound by the imperative to maximize profit. By using trusted state actors to deliver accurate but deceptive claims about food companies’ commitment to public health, this public–private partnership actively misleads the public and potentially exacerbates public health challenges, warranting a skeptical revision of how we understand corporate social responsibility and neoliberal governance on issues of health and nutrition. As a form of fraud, these attempts to mislead the public go beyond the actions of public sector individuals or members of corporate boards, but are structurally incentivized by the legal rights, regulatory privileges, and profit-related incentives central to the modern corporate form. While conventional criminological research tends to underemphasize state and corporate harms, we make use of a critical criminological perspective to analyze state-corporate partnerships in the space between food industry practices and public health policy.     

CSR ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE: A LEGAL ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK

With intensified competition in international trade, corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues have been focused on contentions among different interest-oriented groups and thus overtly, or covertly, being taken into account as a prerequisite for fair trade. For catering to this demand, CSR certification has become a controversial topic in international trade. However, the concealment and complexity involved and woven into this certification can easily make CSR issues new barriers to trade with characteristics of multiplicity in law, sensitivity in recognition, and disputability in practice. For the sake of corporate survival and development, and a relatively harmonious and stable international trade order, it is earnestly urgent to explore appropriate legal approaches for responding to these complicated issues according to public international law.     

Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law

States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so.     

DOES THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE HELP PROMOTE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY?

The business judgment rule (BJR) is a U.S. corporate law concept that has gained international recognition. It has been moulded, particularly in the definition of the Delaware courts, to protect the managerial business discretion, in other words to protect directors’ decisions from judicial review. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) questions the relationship between corporation with a business purpose and society. More and more attention is drawn to the various impacts of corporate decisions on society, asking for the necessity for directors to take these impacts into consideration when making business decisions. At the centre of CSR and the BJR are the fiduciary duties of the directors — the duty of diligence and the duty of care — and the question as to if the directors have breached their duties and if they have fulfilled them in a CSR compatible manner. This paper discusses how the BJR helps promoting CSR by discussing the advantages and disadvantages (real or apparent) of the BJR with respect to CSR.     

美国企业犯罪的审前转处协议研究

美国针对企业犯罪建立了特殊的审前转处程序,办案检察官可以与涉罪企业签署暂缓起诉协议和不起诉协议,如果企业能够在考察期限内完成协议下的义务,则不会被审判和定罪。在美国经济危机时期,该制度较好地为企业的生存和社会公共利益的维护提供了保障。该制度以美国司法部内部的政策性文件为依据,赋予了办案检察官较大的自由裁量权,法院基本无权干预。美国理论界的争论主要围绕三对冲突关系:社会公共利益维护与企业“大到不用判刑”特权的冲突、检察官的转处裁量权与程序正义的冲突、司法部内部行为与立法/司法管辖权的冲突。在我国面临企业犯罪处理困境的当下,该制度及其相关理论能够为我国“司法行政部门帮扶企业”政策的践行提供经验借鉴。     

虚假陈述中董事对股东责任研究

现代公司对社会生活的影响巨大 ,作为管理者的董事其权力也日益扩张。根据权利义务相一致的原则 ,董事应当承担更多的责任。董事对包括股东在内的第三人的法律责任就是近年来各国公司立法十分关注的问题。其中 ,虚假陈述中的董事对股东责任具有典型意义。只有加强董事对股东责任的研究 ,才能使我国的公司法制臻于完善