Should Business Have Human Rights Obligations?

Nien-he  Hsieh

Article | Journal of Human Rights

Should Business Have Human Rights Obligations?

Abstract

Businesses and their managers are increasingly called upon to take on human rights obligations. Focusing on the case of multinational enterprises (MNEs), the paper argues we have reason to reject assigning human rights obligations to business enterprises and their managers. The paper begins by distinguishing business and human rights from the more general topic of corporate responsibility. Following Buchanan (2013), the paper takes the ideal of status egalitarianism to be central to human rights. Status egalitarianism holds that all members of society stand as moral equals in relation to one another and that the state has a duty to recognize and protect that equal standing both in its dealings with citizens and in their dealings with one another. To assign human rights obligations to MNEs and their managers risks undermining this ideal. The paper situates this argument in relation to the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework by discussing the way in which MNEs can be complicit in state failures to protect citizens. The paper argues that avoiding complicity should be the appropriate focus of managerial responsibility.

Keywords: human rights; Ruggie Principles; corporate responsibility; multinationals; Rights; Multinational Firms and Management; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Hsieh, Nien-he. "Should Business Have Human Rights Obligations?" Special Issue on Business and Human Rights. Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2 (April–June 2015): 218–236.

Case | HBS Case Collection | April 2017 (Revised August 2018)

Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity

Nien-hê Hsieh and Victor Wu

Through the challenges facing Target, the case examines ways in which corporations can become involved in political and legislative debates and processes, ranging from campaign contributions to lobbying to political activism. In 2016, Target CEO Brian Cornell must determine how to respond to the debate over North Carolina's recently signed law, commonly known as "HB2," that invalidated LGBT non-discrimination ordinances at the local level. In contrast to other organizations, Target did not threaten to leave the state. However, its public statement in support of LGBT rights prompted a boycott against its stores. Adding to the difficulty was the fact that Target was caught on the other side of the debate in 2010 in one of the earliest high-profile controversies resulting from the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling. Target had contributed to a super PAC supporting business friendly candidates. As one of the candidate's opposition to same-sex marriage became well publicized, Target faced a consumer boycott as well as a shareholder proposal to change its policies on political contributions. The case covers current campaign finance regulations as they relate to business as well as Target's lobbying activities regarding online sales tax legislation.

Keywords: boycott; corporate accountability; corporate political activity; lobbying; LGBTQ; campaign contributions; campaign finance; retail; shareholder activism; Public Opinion; Social Issues; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Mission and Purpose; Problems and Challenges; Laws and Statutes; Rights; Crisis Management; Risk Management; Media; Political Elections; Taxation; Corporate Accountability; Values and Beliefs; Fairness; Diversity; Customers; Communication; Business and Government Relations; Retail Industry; United States;

Citation:

Hsieh, Nien-hê, and Victor Wu. "Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity." Harvard Business School Case 317-113, April 2017. (Revised August 2018.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase

In August 2017, Google fired James Damore, a 28-year-old software engineer who had been employed by the company since 2013. The move came after Damore penned an internal company memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” which posited that innate biological differences between men and women—as opposed to hiring biases, gender discrimination, or a hostile workforce—were at least partially responsible for the low numbers of women in tech. At the time, 20% of Google’s tech workforce, and 31% of its overall staff, was female. Damore also admonished Google for silencing opinions that challenged what he viewed as the company’s politically liberal belief system. Reactions to both the memo’s content and Google’s decision to fire Damore were swift and varied. Some praised the company for signaling intolerance of any marginalization of women. Others criticized Google for terminating an employee for a seemingly innocuous act of expression. Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, hired just a few weeks before the memo was leaked to the public, must now advise Google’s top leadership team on dealing with the fallout.

This case supplements “Apple: Privacy vs. Safety (A), covering select events in 2017, including 1) a mass shooting in which U.S. law enforcement was not able to access the shooter’s encrypted iPhone and 2) Apple’s compliance with the Chinese government’s request to make it more difficult for iPhone users to download “Virtual Private Network” apps.

Faculty & Research

Should Business Have Human Rights Obligations?

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author