Business Responsibilities for Human Rights: A Commentary on Arnold

Nien-hê  Hsieh

Article | Business and Human Rights Journal | July 2017

Business Responsibilities for Human Rights: A Commentary on Arnold

Abstract

Human rights have come to play a prominent role in debates about the responsibilities of business. In the business ethics literature, there are two approaches to the question of whether businesses have human rights obligations. The “moral” approach conceives of human rights as antecedently existing basic moral rights. The “institutional” approach starts with contemporary human rights practice in which human rights refer to rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent international documents, and in which states are the primary duty bearers of human rights. This commentary argues that the implications of adopting one or the other approach are much greater than most scholars recognize, and that we have reason to reject the moral approach and to adopt the institutional approach instead. The commentary highlights key questions that need to be addressed if human rights are to play a central role in framing the responsibilities of business and helping managers meet their responsibilities.

Keywords: Rights; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Moral Sensibility; Society;

Format: Print

Read Now Purchase

Citation:

Hsieh, Nien-hê. "Business Responsibilities for Human Rights: A Commentary on Arnold." Business and Human Rights Journal 2, no. 2 (July 2017): 297–309.

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

Business Responsibilities for Human Rights: A Commentary on Arnold

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author