Application of a growing jurisprudential body of human rights law applicable to business represents a new dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility. Coupled with the increasing presence of alternative business entities (such as B. Corporations and L3Cs) the general trend is towards not only responsible business, but accountability to such claims (i.e. WALK THE TALK). However, this presents many interesting questions regarding the primary purpose UNDER THE LAW of FOR-PROFIT entities and draws important distinctions between the often conflated concepts of human rights (viewed as things that are justiciable) and social justice (politically oriented activism that is not often justiciable nor formulated with extensive jurisprudence).
This and next week’s discussion posts we will unpack some of these concepts. Starting with this week, where you will examine the current US legal landscape for corporate accountability for violations of otherwise actionable human rights law.
For this week’s post, please consider the following:
- Read the following and note the distinctions in each ruling when you are reading them:
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC-
- Jam. v. IFC-
- Doe I v. Nestle, S.A.-
What are the distinctions made about business responsibility UNDER THE LAW in each of these three cases? In your reasoned opinion, does this show THE LAW supporting the general trendiness of responsible business or does business have a long way to go still? (i.e. put another way- what do you think the relationship between voluntary and involuntary compliance mechanisms with business behavioral trends in a responsible business context are?)
- Now read Part II The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights within the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [GPBHR] (aka the protect, respect, remedy framework)-
Apply these to the three cases above, and assuming the GPBHR was binding international law (it is currently NOT LAW BUT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE), what would your reasoned opinion say the outcomes of the above cases should be?
