Mnis Should not Cnsidr umn Rights Imt Outside Their Orgnistinl Bundris - Case Study Example

mраniеs should not соnsidеr Нumаn Rights’ Imрасt outside their оrgаnisаtiоnаl bоundаriеs when making their business dесisiоns Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Student Number: Word count: 2446 Words Introduction With the aspect of globalization, it can be observed that companies tend to have a big impact on the people well being all over the globe. In respect to this, human rights play an essential role when it comes to the understanding of the impacts and it offers guidance on how sustainable markets and society’s needs to be build. Human rights outlines that equal rights as well as freedom should be given to everyone regardless of their sex, color, religion, language or their political affiliations. The UN declaration in relation to human rights states that every human being is born free and should be equal in terms of rights and dignity. This means that all human are gifted with a conscience and a reason and therefore they need to cat towards each other with a spirit of unity. Human rights have for a long period of time being violated and that is the reasons why some people and companies feel that companies should not in any way consider the human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions. In this spirit, the great numbers of concerns that have been raised concerning human rights abuses are immeasurable. This assumption and argument seems to be wrong and companies need to consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries and more so when it comes to making their business decisions. This essay therefore sets out to dispute and argue against the argument that companies feel that companies should not in any way consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions. Discussion In history the protection and adherence to human rights was considered a responsibility that the government had to fulfill as opposed to the businesses (Business & Human Rights Initiative 2010). This was based on the notion that the international law rarely imposed human rights obligations on the companies. Irrespective of this, the UDHR states that every individual and organs of the society shall always strive to teach and educate with the aim of protecting an individual’s freedoms and rights. In this respect, companies are viewed as essential organs in the society and thus they have a role to play in relation to human rights (CGMA 2016). Human rights agenda has been incorporated in the business through frameworks and concepts such as the triple P (profit, planet and people), CSR (Corporate social responsibility) and sustainability. Based on the social aspect the issues considered under it are related to the employee engagements, labor rights and the charitable contributions. For those organizations that operates on a global sphere, human rights is over time becoming a concept that companies are expected to address at all means and against which they are measured against when it comes to investors indices as well as in the civil society reports. Therefore, organizations and their stakeholders are therefore using human rights as a normative framework for the social aspects of sustainability (Jackson 2006). This further shows a major reason as to why consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions. The companies that are committed to the running of their organizations in the most responsible manner and also those that are greatly interested in finding ways in which their value chains can be made more inclusive tend to have a greater interest in ensuring that human rights are protected at all times. The embedding of human rights considerations in a business and more so in the complex organizations is viewed as being an incremental process. However, it would be best of the journey started earlier and through this progress will be made into realizing the benefits and opportunities related to human rights considerations (CGMA 2016). Some of the benefits can be sales of their products while the opposite can lead to anti-consumption strategies by the society (Lee & Youn Ahn 2016). A key aspect in making such progress is ensuring that relevant information is incorporated in an organizations reporting, analysis as well as in the decision-making. Companies have over time become increasingly aware of the notion that human rights problem are bad for their business and more so in the ever changing business world and with the increase in laws in the countries that they conduct their businesses in. Human rights issues have a major and noteworthy impact on the manner in which organizations are conducting their businesses. Some of the major companies have gone ahead and even done away certain investment opportunities and even other have closed shop in certain countries and places as a results in human rights concerns (Business & Human Rights Initiative 2010).Some companies have gone a step further and implemented measures that are aimed at moving beyond the concept of voluntary CSR standards (Jackson 2006). This is because some companies seem to be reluctant in taking up voluntary CSR. Companies leading in CSR are also very concerned about human rights and thus they work and make efforts towards reflecting human rights commitments in their corporate practices. In some of the industries such as the clothing industry, companies have made commitments to their codes of conduct and they usually engage in the independent monitoring with the aim of increasing the odds that they and suppliers keep live their word. To a certain degree, it would be best for business to appreciate the fact that there are some enforceable regulations that are emerging but their reach seems to be minimal. This is evident in that some companies and institutions require the qualifying companies to be complaint with certain ethical standards. In respect to this, certain institutions such as the international financial organization make a number of demands for those who will benefit from their loans. The international Finance corporations require that companies should comply with the voluntary principles related to human rights and security, which offers a number of human rights protection. It would also be crucial to note that those companies that are tangled up in a number of human rights abuses usually risks in that they may be faced with a number of legal battles. Furthermore, it could also be noted that to some extent, the corporate executives may also face prosecution by their individual’s governments and sometimes they may even be prompted by certain trade agreements and the increasing demand by their trade partners to regulate their corporate conduct (Heineman 2008). This further supports the argument that businesses should consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions. In addition, with time the public expectations on companies are also constraining the behavior of corporations. This seems to be the case with major companies that have based their operations in countries that have very active and vibrant civil society and vigorous new media. Companies in such countries have to always adhere to the set rules of conducting business and they have to always adhere to human rights aspects since a very simple mistake from them would mean losses for the company or at times, they may even be forced to close shop in such countries (Sherman & Amy 2010). In such countries, the political leaders usually respond to the demand for corporate responsibility and thus they endorse the standards for business conduct. Such measures offer a yardstick upon which the watchdog groups in the country uses to judge the behaviors of the companies operating in the country. At the same time, it also to be noted that the constraints in the corporate behavior tend to limited to that companies that fall under the public eye and this at time leaves other businesses free to break the rules since they are under less scrutiny (Heineman 2008). Therefore, a need for global rules that can offer a level playing ground for all parties involved. Currently though it would be best for companies to uphold human rights aspects the more responsible company’s tend to lose economically from doing what is right and at times they face competitive disadvantages as a result of the standards that are applicable in their home countries. Companies with global presence also face many difficulties as they operate in different and volatile environment with no clear rules. Additionally, companies that are eager to be ahead can sign up to a number of codes of conduct, CSR guidelines and certain voluntary commitments. Despite the adherence of these initiatives in global arena, being costly and time consuming and more so when reporting and monitoring mechanism are in place companies need to adhere to them to benefit from them in the end. As opposed to having to work through a number of divergent codes and taking into consideration the emerging liabilities, companies and their executives needs to operate under enforceable and simpler rules with the aim of eliminating ambiguity. Though the current patchwork fails in creating a fair and competitive environment since it seems to be a piecemeal in the manner in which it covers the issues and it is also unpredictable in terms of its enforcement but despite this organizations needs to know they have a role to play in regard to human rights issues. The wide range of initiatives usually identifies and interprets human rights standards in different manner and this has eventually led to the emergence of divergent expectations (Ruggie 2009). A major compelling reason as to why the far-sighted and the prominent businesses needs to adhere and uphold human rights standards is derived from the fact that public pressures tend to focus more on those companies are highly visible and more so the ones that have an image or a brand to maintain and protect. Companies despite their business and area their area operations need to be aware that their behaviors are under scrutiny from the public, activist and the press. Thus, companies and their executives needs to be more worried of the harm that their misconduct could cause them and more so in terms of their reputation. Thus, they at all times need to ensure that they assume the costs related to meeting and recognizing the standards of corporate conduct (Sherman & Amy 2010). A good example of this is that company’s needs to accept and feel comfortable with the paying for higher wages to their adult employees as opposed to employing children and at the same time the company may need to allow the trade unions in their factories to operate freely without any form of interference and victimization. Companies should consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions since it acts as a good way of protecting the company values (Williamson 2009). Over some period, companies are recognizing that they have a moral responsibility when it comes to the respecting of human rights. The respect for individuals and the communities that a company operates in is the right and most respectable thing that need to be done. It can be noted that even companies that fails to have an explicit mention of human rights in their company policies tend to recognize though indirectly that when they act with respect to human rights they are likely to benefit more. Companies should consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions since it acts as a good way to manage risk. Besides the moral aspect, other legal, financial and other considerations affect a company’s bottom line that offers incentives for them to take note and always adhere to human rights aspects. When viewed form a cost perspective, the abuse of human rights is likely to lead to a number of expenses for companies. Thus, the aspects of human rights due diligence ensures that such risks are mitigated and that the associated costs are lowered to a certain degree. The notion of adequately addressing human rights issues in an organization is the right thing that needs to be done and in the same light it shields companies against the value erosion, which may occur because of the legal, operational, reputational and personnel costs. Likewise, it would act as a way of protecting the directors and the company management from the various mismanagement claims that may stem from losses that may be incurred through the perceived or real cooperate related abuse of human rights (Zandvliet & Mary 2009). Companies should consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions since it creates business opportunities (Kasser & Ahuvia 2002). Sustainability and CSR plays an essential role in that they help the companies in the creation of value (Jackson 2006). The environmental responsible business opportunities have in a way demonstrated the best way in which this can be done or achieved. For example, the hybrid cars, energy saving light bulbs and the carbon off set markets. In this respect, though the socially responsible businesses have not entered the main stream but they have been a number of ideas, which have been applied successfully. A good example of this is the empowerment of women and this has been done through selling of products in smaller quantities and mostly through the informal networks. Another example is that there have been development of investment opportunities for those individuals with no access to the capital markets and this has been through the microfinance facilities (Zandvliet & Mary 2009). Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it is very clear that businesses in the modern world have no option and they need to consider human rights impacts outside their organizational boundaries when they are making their business decisions is they are to succeed in the different markets. Based on the momentum of the CSR movement, coupled with the continued proliferation of the various standards as well as the problem of unequal playing field, business seems to have a vital interest when it comes to the determination and definition of human rights norms that should be followed. This will go a long way in helping to ensure that the requirements are practicable, clear and fair to all. Therefore, organizations need to ensure that human rights aspects are adhered to irrespective of the position and location. Thus, human rights rules ought to be universal and mandatory for all businesses. Businesses that are likely to adapt these rights are likely to benefit from such initiatives and thus businesses need to make the smart move and face up human rights standards and ensure that they work to the best of their advantage. References Business & Human Rights Initiative 2010, How to Do Business with Respect for Human Rights: A Guidance Tool for Companies, The Hague, Global Compact Network Netherlands. Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) 2016, Business and Human Rights: Evolution and Acceptance, viewed 24 March 2017, https://www.cgma.org/Resources/Reports/DownloadableDocuments/Business-and-human-rights-Evolution-and-acceptance.pdf Heineman, B 2008, ‘High Performance with High Integrity, Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Jackson, T 2006, Beyond the ‘Wellbeing Paradox’:-wellbeing, consumption growth and sustainability, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford (Surrey) GU2 7XH, United Kingdom. Kasser, T & Ahuvia, A 2002, ‘Materialistic values and well-being in business students’, European journal of Social psychology, vol. 32, pp. 137-146. Lee, M & Youn Ahn, C 2016, ‘Anti-consumption, Materialism and Consumer well-being’, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 18-47. Ruggie, J 2009, “Business and human rights: Towards operationalzing the “protect, respect and remedy” framework” Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, UN Document: A/HRC/11/13. Sherman, J & Amy, L 2010, Human Rights Due Diligence: Too Risky? Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 55, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Williamson, H 2009, ‘Time to redraw the battle lines,’ Financial Times, 31 December, viewed 24 March 29017, www.ft.com Zandvliet, L & Mary, A 2009, Getting it Right: Making Corporate-Community Relations Work, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield. Read More