Introduction
A work environment culture that is respectful, reasonable, and that values individual’s differences is a center part of building a positive working environment culture. Promoting respect is a key segment of management that oversees workers as it builds a respectful and positive work place serene hence more employee productivity. Respect in work places embraces respectful relationships among all the parties involved, courtesy and decent manners, being updated of the workplace information, valuing, as well as considering other individual’s positions. Additionally, a broad approach of respect focuses on the fair treatment of employees and other stakeholders, fair valuation of contributions and consistency in the management decisions introduced. However, respect is viewed broadly, under the cultural values that every society or business platform foresees. Accordingly, cultural respect has gone further to embrace the protection of human rights, the core driver of the corporates’ social responsibilities, transparency initiatives in different business operations and the engagement of the community in any business operations.
The above aspects find their rationale in the fact that diverse business cultures appreciate and recognize other cultures for effective business transactions; a key aspect of what respect accords them. As a mutual value, it is the cornerstone of all the business relationships as it ignites thriving of such relationships. In the manner like, the core relations that demand respect include the business and its customers, contractors and networking agents. Consequently, business cultural respect influences customer loyalty, employee satisfaction and referrals. Such ideas bring the core function of respect in cementing businesses as it signals ethical intent, creates transparency, gives credibility in delivering brand, and demonstrates desire in sharing knowledge. The paper gives a robust literature review that unearths the position of cultural respect in global business operations as depicted in the developing communities, especially in the extractive industries.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Human Rights as guiding principles for corporates
Human rights are rights innate to every individual, whatever the nationality, sex, place of residence, national or ethnic source, religion, color, dialect, or some other status. Human beings are all just as qualified for our human rights without segregation. These rights are all interrelated, unbreakable and interdependent. All inclusive human rights are frequently communicated and ensured by law, in the types of settlements, customary law, general standards and different wellsprings of global law. International human rights law sets down commitments of Governments to act in particular ways or to cease from specific acts, with a specific end goal to advance and ensure human rights and essential opportunities of individuals.
The United Nations (UN has defined human rights in a more universal way. Accordingly, Human rights standards hold up the vision of a free, peaceful and just world and set minimum principles for how organizations and people have to treat their subjects. Human rights additionally enable individuals with a structure for action when those norms are not met, for individuals still have human rights regardless of the fact that the laws or people with significant influence don’t perceive or secure them. According to the UN, the execution of universal rights has been facilitated by the introduction of the bill of rights to individual countries where the elected governments and the common law play a vital role. However, with the growing nations and the OECD countries, the bill of rights has been challenged by different obstacles that emerge from constitutional conflicts.
For instance, there are numerous countries with an intrinsically entrenched bill of rights that have not the core desired impact of ensuring the protection of its individuals’ freedoms. Some late countries would be the situation in Malawi where its government endeavored to convict two individuals for infringing upon laws against gay person conduct after they experienced an engagement function which is a barefaced infringement of essential opportunities with respect to sexual introductions. Likewise, the recent arrest of two nationals of Venezuela for publically criticizing the legislature is in inconsistency with the freedom of expression in Venezuela.
Another such case is the arrest of, Owen Maseko, in the wake of taking an interest in a show at a national workmanship exhibition, which delineated the outrages that occurred in western Zimbabwe amid the 1980s where a huge number of individuals were slaughtered, primarily by state security operators. The litigant has been detained on various charges, all of which are an immediate infringement of human rights, which is truth be told settled in Zimbabwe’s bill of rights, among others. It is in this way doubtful that a few nations that have their bill of rights actuality more awful off than the developed countries (Law Teacher, 2015). These examples shed light to the challenges that the developing communities face in the realm of protecting the core human rights despite their stipulation in the common law. Such an aspect has been translated to the business operations in organizations in these developing countries.
“Respect, Protect and Remedy” framework overview
Different debates concerning the obligations of business in connection to human rights was brought to light in the 1990s, as gas, oil, and mining firms ventured into progressively troublesome territories, and as the act of seaward production in garments and footwear attracted consideration regarding poor working conditions in worldwide supply chains. In 2004, the UN Commission on Human Rights delivered a set of “Draft standards on the obligations of different businesses and the Transnational corporations Partnerships with regard to the Human Rights” (UN, 2010). The Standards basically looked to force as tying commitments on organizations specifically under universal human rights law the same scope of obligations that states have acknowledged for themselves: in particular, “to secure and promote the fulfillment of respect, guarantee appreciation of, and ensure human rights,” with the main refinements being that nations would have “essential” obligations and organizations would have “auxiliary” obligations, and that the obligations of organizations would be effective within their spheres of influence.
Business was intensely restricted to the Draft Standards, some human rights promotion groups emphatically in support. The Commission on Human Rights declined to embrace the archive, yet asked for the UN Secretary-General to choose an Uncommon Delegate with the objective of moving past the stalemate and clearing up the parts and obligations of states, organizations and other social performing units in the business and human rights circle. In 2005, then UN Secretary-General delegated Harvard delegate John Ruggie to the post; Secretary-General Boycott Ki-Moon has proceeded with the task. In 2006, the Commission was supplanted by the UN Human Rights Chamber, to which the Special Representative reports every year.
The UN framework rests in three pillars including the state obligation to secure against human rights mishandle by a third party, including business, via suitable strategies, regulation, and settling. The second pillar entails the corporate obligation to regard human rights, which intends to act with due constancy and diligence to abstain from encroaching on the rights of others, as well as, addressing antagonistic effects that happen; and more noteworthy access by casualties to viable remedy, both legal and non-legal. The Human Rights Board consistently invited what is presently alluded to as the UN System or framework, denoting the first occasion when a UN intergovernmental body paid substantive attention on this issue. The Committee likewise augmented the Extraordinary Delegate’s order until 2011 with the errand of “operationalizing” and “promotion” of this UN framework.
The fundamental sponsor of the determination approving the delegate representative, 2010 mandate, is Norway, with Argentina, India, Nigeria and Russia as co-patrons—one nation from each UN territorial region. With the assertion of the Chamber, in June 2011 the Exceptional Delegate presented an arrangement of Controlling Standards for the execution of the UN System, along with a report delineating alternatives for how the Board may advance the business and human rights plan after the UN mandate (UN, 2010). The UN framework has been generally welcomed by key partner bunches: various individual governments have used it in leading their own particular strategy evaluations and policy assessments; a few noteworthy global companies are realigning their due constancy procedures taking into account it; civil society legal units have utilized it in their investigative and promotion work; and several global associations have attracted on it, adjusting and adapting their own human rights and business approaches, as well as, standards.
State and the mandate to protect and respect human rights
The principal mainstay of the UN framework is the state obligation to secure against human rights misuse committed by any third party, including businesses, through effective approaches, adjudication and regulation. Accordingly, states have their critical part as the addressing and prevention of corporate-related human rights manhandle. Apparently, the special representative archived the obligation’s legitimate foundations, scope and policy rationale in the 2008 and 2009 reports to the UN Council. In spite of the fact that businesses interact with states from multiple points of view, numerous states sufficient approaches and administrative plans for viably dealing with the perplexing business and human rights motivation. While a few states are adopt the right direction, general state practice displays considerable lawful and strategy incongruity and crevices, which frequently involve huge results for casualties, organizations and states, themselves. The most widely recognized gap is the inability to implement and enforce existing laws. Policy incoherence and legal failures emerge on the grounds that the departments and agencies which specifically shape business policies and practices; including corporate securities regulation, corporate law, ventures, trade, insurance and credit activities, typically work in disengagement from, and ignorant by, their administration’s own human rights commitments (UN, 2010).
However, five priority areas have been suggested through which the states can work to promote organizational respect when observing the human rights for all third parties involved in their business operations, as well as, protecting corporate related abuses. Accordingly, one of the principal areas to address includes the strive to achieve greater effectiveness and policy coherence across all business departments, in addition to safeguarding of the nation’s own ability in protecting human rights especially when signing economic agreements. Apparently, another key area to address embraces the promoting the respect for human rights when states work with business, whether as proprietors, speculators, guarantors, procurers or basically promoters. On the other hand, cultivating corporate society’s conscious and respect of human rights at home and abroad has been acknowledged for its fruitful outcome in the developing communities since it formulates the grounds of devising inventive policies that guide organizations working in remote and conflict affected areas such as Southern Sudan. Lastly, business respects in diversified regions have more to do with examining and inspecting all the cross-cutting issues of extraterritoriality.
Corporate responsibility to respect
Corporates have the responsibility to regard and respect human rights which denotes acting with due diligence to abstain from encroaching on individual rights, as well as, addressing the harms that occur. Responsibility in this case indicates that the respect to these rights is not an obligation that the international law or states impose on corporates; rather it recognizes all the domestic laws that may not be documented. Therefore, it is a global expectation of acknowledgeable conduct in virtually every voluntary and delicate instrument related to the corporate responsibility which is affirmed by the human rights committee of the United Nations. The responsibility of businesses to respect human rights over their business exercises and through their associations with third parties associated with those exercises, for example, business accomplices, elements in its value chain, and other non-State business units, as well as state agents. In addition, companies need to consider the nation and the different local contexts for any emerging challenges inflicting human rights’ impact to the corporate activities. Organizations can influence essentially the whole range of globally recognized rights. Apparently, the organization responsibility to regard applies to every such right (albeit a few rights regularly will be more at a risk than others under particular settings).
Therefore, organizations have to look to the universal Statement of Human Rights, the Universal Contracts on Common and Political Rights and on Social, economic and cultural Rights, as well as, the basic values of the of the International Labour Organization (ILO) (UN, 2010). The standards those instruments exemplify are universally agreed up on, internationally, and they involve the human rights benchmarks by which different social actors judge organizations. Numerous organizations say that they regard human rights. With a specific end goal to “know and demonstrate” that they are meeting this obligation, firms require a human rights due constancy (diligence) process, whereby they get to be mindful of, counteract, and address the antagonistic human rights sways. Drawing on efficient due diligence values and practices and consolidating them with what is interesting to human rights, the UN framework depicts the core components of human rights due constancy. Moreover, these rights should be integrated with an evaluation of the human rights’ impacts across the relevant internal business processes, functions, tracking in addition to communicating its performance.
Abreu and Cameron (2014) argued that the concept of CSR has been generally understood to indicate that corporations have the degree for being responsible not only for its economic consequences of their business operations but also for the environmental and social implications. According to these authors, such an idea presents the “triple bottom line” approach which considers the environmental and social effects of corporate activities. Accordingly, the human rights are essential component to this approach as they scale and gauge the corporates cultural value. Meanwhile, labor rights and wage consideration affect the economic part of the business while their adverse moderations affect the cultural value of the firm as the company is considered not respectful to such aspects. Neglect to observe environmental impact of the business activities is considered to affect the firm’s reputation while, keenly, it has influence to denying the right to clean water and air to the people (human rights). Therefore, it deteriorates the firm’s CSR. Abreu and Cameron (2014) focus on how discrimination has prevailed within the Latin American society (immigrants to US).
The study uses secondary techniques to evaluate how disrespect of the human rights has affected this minority groups and the effect to the businesses involved. Discrimination of this minority group’s rights to labor opportunities and better wages in America has pulled back different businesses back to match global standards. Additionally, it has subjected part of these immigrants to racist and social prejudices that hinder their integration into the hosting States (Abreu and Cameron, 2014). Such prejudices on the business world have led to the establishment of ILO to enforce labour standards which work on the basic principle of respect to human rights. Apparently, following these prejudices ILO, enforced various standards that ensure corporate’s respect to the human rights. Accordingly, it has devised four fundamental principles that formulate the workplace rights for individuals; which are believed to have changed corporate’s culture, tremendously. The four dimensions by ILO include the freedom of association, effective recognition of human right to collective bargaining and elimination of compulsory labor (as seen in Cotton Plantations in America). Additionally, ILO makes it clear that corporates have to ensure abolition of child labor and eliminate any prejudice in the light of employment.
A study by Helga, (2015) focused on the implications that prevailed with corporates’ respect to the human rights. The study argues that involvements of different global firms associated with human rights abuses receive a global attention. Apparently, such firms take advantage of their competitive advantage and the weak legal systems which addresses the lack of effective international remedies within a given nation to address such malicious issues such as child labor, poor working conditions, employee compensations and poor wages schemes. Apparently, the study made use of Bhopal case (Indian Gas Tragedy) as a backbone of the review. According to this case, an American gas plant based in Bhopal city, India, released 27 tons of methyl-isocyanate spirit throughout the Bhopal City leading to a death toll of 5,200 people and more than 200,000 injuries. The environmental outcomes endured throughout the years after the Union Carbide carelessness, keeping bringing on respiratory issues, unfortunate living conditions and disabilities for the populace.
The case predated the Guideline Principles, yet it is of incredible huge as it highlights both the issues in surveying the reasons/obligations of such fiasco and the procedural issues that happened amid the prosecution. The reason for the calamity stays under verbal confrontation; therefore the responsibility has changed throughout the years. On one side the Indian Local activists and the government contend that an absence of sufficient administration and conceded upkeep brought about a reverse of water into a methyl isocyanate tank bringing about the catastrophe. On the other side, the Union Carbide Company expresses that this was a demonstration of treachery, and not at all identified with its awful administration. In building up the blame in, for example, corporate murder case further troubles were developed (Union Carbide, 2014). The study by Carbide Union and Helga, have a common conclusion that the Company involved in such a case never respected the rights of the individuals.
Respect and effective remedy
Indeed, even where businesses work ideally, unfavorable human rights effects may at present result from an organization’s activities and casualties must have the capacity to look for redress. Compelling grievance mechanisms assume an essential part in both the state obligation to secure and the corporate obligation to regard. As a component of their obligation to secure against corporate-related human rights misuse, states must make effective steps within their distinct regions to guarantee that when such misuse happen, those influenced have admittance to sufficient and effective via legal, administrative or judicial or other proper means. As of now, access to legal instruments for corporate-related human rights cases is regularly most troublesome where the need is significantly adversely influenced by both practical and legal deterrents. Apparently, there is presently an uneven execution and functioning of non-legal mechanisms even at the organization level and national level, (for example, national human rights institutions which have signed the OECD Rules on Multinational Undertakings) and at the global level, (for example, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, ideally, for the Global Finance Corporation). Non-legal mechanisms, whether independent or state-based, need to conform to with standards of authenticity, accessibility, consistency, equality and transparency. Organization-level mechanisms have to operate via dialogue and engagement as opposed to the organization itself going about as adjudicator its of its actions.
Benefits of cultural value of respect in CRS
Clapham, (2006), argued that firms that integrate respect in their culture tend to be more productive as opposed to the firms with little or no respect to human rights. Therefore, he examines this cultural value as an investment wherein firms that exercise the norm, tend to attract more investments. In the manner like, organizations perceive the significance and the role of the rule of law in the setting of their ventures and operations around the globe. The significance of a transparent, well-working and a just legal framework has been taken in thought for drawing in investments. The directing standards (Guiding Principle) are surely an essential legitimate asset in the international law situation. States and organizations are approached to operationalize their obligation regarding human rights. Nevertheless, the absence of direct enforceability in addition to the wide decision self-governance left to the states raise questions on their adequacy.
For instance, some provisions of the Constitution of India are horizontally adaptable and applicable against organizations, for prevention of human right abuses by the corporates. In any case, the level of deficiency needed for a corporation’s obligation could simply be a strict liability standard or carelessness. Contrast with that, the due perseverance needed by the Controlling Rule is still an obscure idea. Positively, it would not be sufficient to alter corporates’ malicious acts. On the other hand, the ‘due diligence’ from the point of view of human rights could turned into a parameter for attracting consumers and investors towards more dependable realities of corporate management, rooted in the business culture (Clapham, 2006). CSR is embraced as the “Corporates behaviors and choices beyond its economic focus and benefits” (Berry, 2010). Therefore, improving corporates decision making, reframing all the moral, political and social stakeholder concerns will highly rely on the respect that is rooted in the firm’s culture which helps in regarding human rights.
Documentation by Geneva Conventions (2000) supported the necessity of observing the respect to human rights by the corporates. Accordingly, CSR depends highly on the corporate’s social returns to the society. Therefore, respect to the human rights allows easy compliance with both international and local laws as human rights principles are contained in these laws hence a rationale to ensure that businesses have their operations consistent with them. On the safe side, such an aspect eliminates any challenges that may be encountered with the global business operations such as penalties, quotas, taxation and rationing of imports or exports among others. A large portion of the standards articulated in the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights include the creation of a steady, a rule-based society that is crucial to the smooth working of business. Applying the human rights standards effectively and impartially in the corporates global operations can enhance the improvement of legal frameworks in which contracts are upheld fairly, bribery and debasement are less common and all business units have equivalent access to legal processes, as well as, equally protected by the law (Geneva, 2010).
Related work community business engagement
Extractive industries transparency initiative
Case study of Ghana
References
Abreu, J. & Cameron, B. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Rigts and Discrimination. International Journal of Good Conscience. 9(3)205-211
Berry, G. R. (2010). Improving organisational decision-making: Reframing social, moral and political stakeholder concerns. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 38, 33–48.
Clapham, A. (2006). Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Helga, H. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility & Human Right. A critical Review of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for implementing the UN “Protect, Respct and Remedy” Framework. International Law Blog. Accessed from https://aninternationallawblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/corporate-social-responsibility- human-rights-a-critical-review-of-the-guiding-principles-on-business-and-human-rights- for-implementing-the-un-protect-respect-and-remedy-frame/
Law Teacher, (2015). Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Law. Accessed from http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/human-rights/human-rights-and-anti- discrimination-law.php
United Nations. (2010). The UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework for Business and Human Rights. Accessed 2 September 2015 from http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-protect- respect-remedy-framework.pdf
Union Carbide. (2014). Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information . Union Carbide Corporation, Accessed from http://www.bhopal.com/
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more