Skip to main content
Log in

Re-thinking ‘Spheres of Responsibility’: Business Responsibility for Indirect Harm

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article considers two prominent, competing approaches to defining the scope of business responsibility for human rights. The first approach advocates extension of business responsibility beyond the boundaries of the enterprise to encompass broader ‘spheres of influence’. The second approach advocates a business ‘responsibility to respect’ human rights (but not a ‘positive’ duty to protect, promote or fulfil rights). Building on a critical evaluation of these competing accounts of business responsibility, this article outlines a modified account, referred to as a framework of ‘spheres of responsibility’. On such an account, business responsibility for human rights outcomes is conceptualised not only in relation to direct ‘harms’ imposed by business, but also in relation to corporate influence over broader relationships and institutions that shape and constrain the substantive realisation of human rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahdieh, R.: 2009 unpublished, ‘The New Regulation: From Command to Coordination in the Modern Administrative State’ (Georgetown University Law Centre), http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=robert_ahdieh.

  • Armstrong, Chris. 2009. “Global Egalitarianism.” Philosophy Compass 4(1):155-117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Christian. 2005. “Applying the Contribution Principle.” In Global Responsibilities: Who must deliver on human rights?, ed. Andrew Kuper. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T.: 2006, Legitimating Corporate Social Responsibility, Paper Presented to CAPPE Seminar: Unpublished.

  • Clapham, A and S Jerby. 2001. “Categories of Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Abuses “International and Comparative Law Journal 24:339-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Coalition for Corporate Justice. 2008. “Fair Law: Legal Proposals to Improve Corporate Accountability for Environmental and Human Rights Abuses.” Brussels: European Coalition for Corporate Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter, R. and R. Kaplinsky: 2001, ‘Who Gains from Product Rents When the Coffee Market Becomes More Differentiated? A Value Chain Analysis’, IDS Bulletin 32(3):69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasser, U.: 2007, ‘Responsibility for Human Rights Violations, Acts or Omissions, Within the “Sphere of Influence” of Companies’, in Research Publication No. 2007-12 (Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard).

  • Gereffi, G.: 1999, ‘A Commodity Chains Framework for Analyzing Global Industries’, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/valchn.html.

  • Gibbon, P. 2001, ‘Agro-Commodity Chains: An Introduction’, IDS Bulletin 32:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbon, P.: 2003, ‘Power in the GVC Framework’, 26 March: Unpublished.

  • Goodin, R.: 1987, ‘Apportioning Responsibilities’, Law and Philosophy 6:167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosselin, Abigail. (2006)“Global Poverty and Responsibility: Identifying the Duty-Bearers of Human Rights. Human Rights Review 8:35-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haydar, B. 2005. “Extreme Poverty and Global Responsibility.” Metaphilosophy 36(1/2):240–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Council: 2008a, ‘Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development; Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights’, in Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie (Human Rights Council).

  • Human Rights Council: 2008b, ‘Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development; Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights; Companion Report: Clarifying the Concepts of “Sphere of Influence” and “Complicity”’, in Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie (Human Rights Council).

  • Jungk, M. 1999. “A Practical Guide to Addressing Human Rights Concerns for Companies Operating Abroad.” In Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations, ed. M. K. Addo. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris: 2000, ‘A Handbook for Value Chain Research’, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/valchn.html.

  • Koenig-Archibugi, M.: 2004, Transnational Corporations and Public Accountability. Government and Opposition 39(2):234–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutz, Christopher. 2002. “Responsibility.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, eds. Jules Coleman and Scott Shapiro. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehr, A. and B. Jenkins: 2007, ‘Beyond Corporate Spheres of Influence’, Ethical Corporation, November 2007.

  • Macdonald, K.: 2007a, ‘Globalising Justice Within Coffee Supply Chains? Fair Trade, Starbucks and the Transformation of Supply Chain Governance’, Third World Quarterly: Special Issue on ‘Beyond CSR? Business, Poverty and Social Justice’ 25(7), 793–812.

  • Macdonald, K.: 2007b, ‘Public Accountability Within Transnational Supply Chains: A Global Agenda for Empowering Southern Workers?, in A. Ebrahim and E. Weisband (eds.), Forging Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and Public Ethics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

  • Macdonald, Kate. 2009. “The reality of rights: Barriers to accessing remedies when business operates beyond borders.” London: London School of Economics and Political Science and CORE Coalition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffettone, P.: 2009, ‘Global Distributive Justice: A Relational View’, unpublished document (London School of Economics and Political Science).

  • Marion Young, I.: 2004, ‘Responsibility and Global Labor Justice’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4):365-388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski, Peter T. 2001. “Human Rights and Multinationals: Is there a Problem?” International Affairs 77(1):31-47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, A.: 2009. “Addressing Economic and Social Rights Violations by Non-state Actors through the Role of the State: A Comparison of Regional Approaches to the ‘Obligation to Protect’.” Human Rights Law Review 9(2):225–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C.: 2007, ‘Meta-Regulation: Legal Accountability for Corporate Social Responsibility’, in D. McBarnet, A. Voiculescu and T. Campbell (eds.), The New Corporate Accountability (CUP, New York)

  • Patten, A.: 2005, ‘Should We Stop Thinking About Poverty in Terms of Helping the Poor?’, Ethics and International Affairs 19(1):19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, Philip. 2007. “Responsibility Incorporated.” Ethics 117:171-201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas W. and Barbara Bleisch. 2002. “World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6(4):455-458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, S. 2001. “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility.” The Yale Law Journal 111(3):443–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripstein, Arthur. 2004. “Justice and Responsibility.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 17(2):361-386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangiovanni, Andrea. 2008. “Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 16(2):137-164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, Samuel. 2001. Boundaries and Allegiances; Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, S.: 2003, ‘Boundaries and Allegiances. Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought: A Book Symposium’, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-0149.00291_5.

  • Scherer, A. G., G. Palazzo and D. Baumann: 2005, Global Rules and Private Actors: Towards a New Role of the TNC in the Global Governance, in Paper Submitted for the 2005 AoM Conference.

  • Shue, Henry. 1988. “Mediating Duties.” Ethics 98(4):687-704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, Gunther. 2000. “Hybrid Laws: Constitutionalising Private Governance Networks.” In Legality and Community, eds. Robert Kagan and Kenneth Winston: California University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kate Macdonald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macdonald, K. Re-thinking ‘Spheres of Responsibility’: Business Responsibility for Indirect Harm. J Bus Ethics 99, 549–563 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0668-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0668-x

Keywords

Navigation