( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 117    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

HUMAN RIGHT LAWS AND CSR

    2 Author(s):  INDERJIT KAUR , RAJENDER KUMAR

Vol -  6, Issue- 6 ,         Page(s) : 109 - 115  (2015 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

Recent years have heralded increasing awareness to the role of multinational corporations in regards to human rights violations. The concept of connivance has been of particular interest in this regard. This article explores the conceptual differences between silent connivance in particular and other, more “conventional” forms of connivance. Despite their far-reaching normative implications, these differences are often overlooked. Rather than being connected to specific actions as is the case for others forms of connivance, the concepts of silent connivance is tied to the identity, or the moral stature of the accomplice. More specifically is tied to the identity, or the moral stature of the accomplice. More specifically, it helps us expose multinational corporations in position of political authority.

1. Arnold, S. J., J. M. Handelman and D. J. Tigert: 1996, ‘Organizational Legitimacy and Retail Store Patronage’, Journal of Business Research 35(3), 229–239.
2. Bae, J. and G. T. Cameron: 2006, ‘Conditioning Effect of Prior Reputation on Perception of Corporate Giving’, Public Relations Review 32(2), 144–150.
3. Bethoux, E., C. Didry and A. Mias: 2007, ‘What Codes of Conduct Tell Us: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Nature of the Multinational Corporation’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 15(1), 77–90.

4. Brønn, P. S. and D. Vidaver-Cohen: 2009, ‘Corporate Motives for Social Initiative: Legitimacy, Sustainability, or the Bottom Line?’, Journal of Business Ethics 87(Suppl. 1), 91–109.
5. Campbell, T.: 2006, ‘A Human Rights Approach to Developing Voluntary Codes of Conduct for Multinational Corporations’, Business Ethics Quarterly 16(2), 255–269.
6. Dream for Darfur: 2007, And Now … Not a Word from Our Sponsors. A Report Card Grading Corporate Sponsors of the 2008 Beijing Olympics on Their Response to the Genocide in Darfur, November 2007, http://www. dreamfordarfur.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/ Corporate%20Sponsor%20Report%20Card.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2009.
7. Ellen, P. S., D. J. Webb and L. A. Mohr: 2006, ‘Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34(2), 147–157.
8. Frederick, W. C.: 1991, ‘The Moral Authority of Transnational Corporate Codes’, Journal of Business Ethics 10(3), 165–177.

9. Frankental, P. and F. House: 2000, Human Rights – Is It Any of Your Business? (Amnesty International UK and The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, London).
10. Hsieh, N.: 2009, ‘Does Global Business Have a Responsibility to Promote Just Institutions?’, Business Ethics Quarterly 19(2), 251–273.
11. Jones, M., S. Marshall and R. Mitchell: 2007, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and the Management of Labour in Two Australian Mining Industry Companies’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 15(1), 57–67.
12. Lauer, T., B. Rockenbach and P. Walgenbach: 2008, ‘Not Just Hot Air: Normative Codes of Conduct Induce Cooperative Behavior’, Review of Management Science 2(3), 183–197.
13. Prieto-Carron, M.: 2008, ‘Women Workers, Industrialization, Global Supply Chains and Corporate Codes of Conduct’, Journal of Business Ethics 83(1), 5–17.
14. Roth, P. L.: 1994, ‘Missing Data: A Conceptual Review for Applied Psychologists’, Personnel Psychology 47(3), 537–560.
15. McCorquodale, R. and P. Simons: 2007, ‘Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law’, Modern Law Review 70, 598–625.
16. Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, ‘Toward a Political Conception of Corporate  esponsibility: Business and Society Seen form a Habermasian Perspective’, The Academy of Management Review 32(4), 1096–1120.
17. Sen, S., C. B. Bhattacharya and D. Korschun: 2006, ‘The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34(2), 158–166.
18. Sethi, S. P.: 2005, ‘The Effectiveness of Industry-Based Codes in Serving Public Interest: The Case of the International Council on Mining and Metals’, Transnational Corporations 14(3), 55–99.  
19. Wagner-Tsukamoto, S.: 2007, ‘Moral Agency, Profits and the Firm: Economic Revisions to the Friedman Theorem’, Journal of Business Ethics 70(2), 209–220.
20. Woolfson, C. and M. Beck: 2003, ‘The Right to Strike, Labor Market Liberalization and the New Labor Code in Pre-Accession Lithuania’, Review of Central and East European Law 28(1), 77–102.
21. Yu, X.: 2008, ‘From Passive Beneficiary to Active Stakeholder: Workers’ Participation in CSR Movement against Labor Abuses’, Journal of Business Ethics 87(1), 233–249.
 

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details