Abstract
The prolonged attempt to create a global code for TNCs was ultimately unsuccessful, yet the simultaneous rise of global frameworks and guidelines by various private bodies highlight the need for monitoring of the performance of TNCs in addition to evaluation of their accountability practice. But none of the current frameworks and guidelines has been successful in laying down a clear way forward for the creation of an accepted global code of conduct for TNCs. The corporate social responsibility movement is a reaction to this need; it assists the shift of the market centred focus of global regulatory framework initiatives to ‘people centred’ (as opposed to country-centred) concerns. Accordingly, the core CSR principles urge that TNCs must not only be compliant but also responsible to their wider stakeholders and the environment. This chapter presents how the implementation of CSR principles in corporations can be an alternative to a global code of conduct for socialising TNCs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The definition offered by the European Commission mentioned in the text was made in 2001. However, the later definition made in 2002 speaks broadly of CSR, stating: ‘Corporate responsibility is about companies having responsibilities and taking actions beyond their legal obligations and economic/business aims. These wider responsibilities cover a range of areas but as frequently summed up as social and environmental—where social means society broadly defined, rather than simply social policy issues. This can be summed up as the triple bottom line approach, that is, economic, social and environmental.’
- 2.
For details of this report, check this link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/corporate_responsibility/report/index.
- 3.
While other scholars have studied CSR, to respect space constraints and retain the focus on the main theme of this chapter, only the works of these three recent and well-cited scholars are mentioned here. Some other prominent works are: Buhmann (2006), Carroll (1991, 1999), Conley and Williams (2005), Fox (2004), Lockett et al. (2006).
- 4.
Nevertheless, the framework also received formidable opposition based upon evidence that the concept is not sufficiently firm to address the majority of the conflicts arising due to trade related issues among TNCs and developing countries. Some critics believe that CSR adds social and environmental clauses resulting in protectionism through the back door, and fosters disproportionate cultural standards and arbitrary bureaucratic monitoring demands on business corporations. Nonetheless, CSR movement has largely been successful in establishing that business corporations need to be socially responsible. The debate on the validity of CSR principles is therefore no longer at the centre of CSR discussion; instead, the debate is focused on how to incorporate these principles at the core of corporate self-regulation strategies. For details see Bakan (2012) and Peattie et al. (2002).
- 5.
For a discussion on the implementation of these precepts in corporations, see Thompson (2005).
- 6.
In many strong economies, for instance, many corporations have appropriate measures to internalise the costs externalised to the environment for their business operations. Their initiatives are not driven mainly by laws; rather, they are driven by the corporate conscience (along with business opportunities) to minimise costs as well as to contribute to environmental development. For some real-world instances, see Esty and Winston (2009), Pflum (2007), and Schmit (2010).
- 7.
Corporate citizenship is a contentious, but prominent idea in corporate management. The World Economic Forum in 2003 defined this citizenship as ‘the contribution a corporation makes to society through its core business activities, its social investment and philanthropy programmes, and its engagement in public policy.’ Many scholars argue that it is one of the outcomes of the impact of globalisation. Matten and Crane (2005) opine that ‘globalisation has helped to shift some of the responsibility for protecting citizenship rights away from governments’ and corporations have increasingly taken these responsibilities. They differentiate between the citizenship of a person in a country and corporate citizenship, as they describe this citizenship as ‘the role of the corporations in administering citizenship rights for individuals’. In the same vein, Gardberg and Fombrun (2006) claim that programs for corporate citizenship ‘are strategic investments comparable to R&D and advertising. The can create intangible assets that help corporations overcome nationalistic barriers, facilitate globalization, and outcompete local rivals….citizenship profiles therefore enable the sociocognitive integration that global corporations require to operate effectively across diverse local markets.’ I find this idea dominated by the notion of corporate social responsibility; it holds the broader objectives of the CSR movement. As such I find the discussion on the implementation of the CSR principles more plausible than evaluating the contentions around this idea.
- 8.
Black’s US Law Dictionary defines due diligence as follows: ‘the diligence, [that is such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is] reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or discharge an obligation’ (8th edition, 2006). John Ruggie’s definition of this concept is based on this definition; he denotes due diligence as ‘a process whereby corporations not only ensure compliance with national laws but also manage the risk of human rights harm with a view to avoiding it’ (para 55, UNHRC GA, Report of 7 April 2008; UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5).
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
For a detailed discussion, see Peters and Turner (2004).
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
Generally a balanced economy denotes a condition of finances in a country in which both its imports and its exports are of an equal proportion. It also denotes the equal proportion of business activities in rural and urban areas, equal gross ability of income and expenditure in all areas of a country, and minimum differences amongst the health and education services within all sectors of a country. An imbalanced economy is the opposite of a balanced economy.
- 16.
For some studies on Foucauldian theory pertinent to an analysis of law, see Baxter (1996), Litowitz (1995), and Wickham and Pavlich (2001). A comment by Joseph Stiglitz is worth mentioning here: ‘there is a need to learn from theory and history, from best practices, and from what has worked. But care must be taken in extracting the appropriate lessons’ (Stiglitz 2001).
- 17.
The concept of Joseph Stiglitz’s ‘New Perspective’ is also close to my concept of the converged approach. The New Perspective considers government and market as complements rather than substitutes. In this perspective, the role of government is to create the institutional infrastructure that the market requires; its role is to create laws to define property rights, to enforce contracts, to ensure effective competition, and to minimize fraud. This perspective allows regulatory intervention into the market to implement these laws to check market failure. It is more related with economic issues and advocates co-operation between the government and private ordering to develop the market. The third-perspective is more related with regulatory strategies to help the convergence of the public and private policy goals. For details of the New Perspective, see Stiglitz (2001).
- 18.
- 19.
Arestis and Sawyer (2001: 3–5) postulate that the economic notion in the Third Way should be based on seven principles.
- 20.
According to Giddens (1998, 2000), globalization is an umbrella term that has different meanings to different subjects. In general, it refers to the increasing unification of the world's economic order through reduction of the possible barriers to increase material wealth, goods, and services; it describes the process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures could be integrated through communication, transportation, and trade. Hence, it could also be referred to as a process driven by a combination of economic, technological, socio-cultural, political, and biological factors. Giddens does not define globalization differently; he emphasises the effect of globalization on a nation’s socio-economic policy perspective. For a robust discussion of globalisation, see Bhagwati (2007) and Croucher (2004: 10).
- 21.
Speech by Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the New Ways to Work Conference on 9 May 2000, mentioned in Wheeler (2002: 27).
- 22.
There are differences and similarities between the notions of the Third Way advanced by Giddens and Blair. However, they are not identical. For details, see Driver and Martell (2000: 156–157).
- 23.
Amongst the regulatory reformers, there is a growing trend of stepping outside of a litigation and rule enforcement regulatory focus to explore an alternative conception of law and law-making scholarship. Lobel (2004: 262–390) has attempted to draw together such scholarship under an umbrella that she labels the ‘Renew Deal’. Many scholars who are active in a wide variety of fields are considered as Renew Deal Scholars, including Dorf and Sabel (1998), Freeman (1997), Karkkainen (2003: 943), and Sturm (2001:458).
- 24.
New governance comes from a conceptual background which examines how decision-making and people-friendly strategies have begun to converge. The core of this governance is the convergence of the rulemaking power of the government and the strength of stakeholders as well as the private ordering system. Rubin (2005) finds the NG approach preferable where the regulator ‘knows the result it is trying to achieve but does not know the means for achieving it, when circumstances are likely to change in ways that the [regulator] cannot predict, or when the [regulator] does not even know the precise result that she desires’ (p. 2131).
- 25.
- 26.
Corporate Governance Systems and Processes: The Key for Uncompromising Growth and Development http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2009/07/corporate-governance-systems-and-processes.html (Accessed 22 November 2010).
- 27.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development (COM 2002: 347 in Conzelmann 2008: 136).
- 28.
A comprehensive discussion can be found in Papadakis K, Participatory governance and discourses of socially sustainable development: Lessons from south Africa and European Union, international Labour Studies, September 2005, 38.
- 29.
- 30.
This concept may be described by a number of terms, such as ‘corporate citizenship’, ‘The Ethical Corporation’, ‘corporate governance’, ‘corporate sustainability’, ‘social responsible investment’, and ‘corporate accountability’ etc. Regardless of the terminology, the core principles remain the same. In this chapter, the term ‘CSR’ is used not because it carries any special meaning, but simply to be consistent.
References
Arestis, P., & Sawyer, M. (2001). Economics of the ‘Third Way’: Introduction. Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Arora, S., & Cason, T. N. (1995). An experiment in voluntary environmental regulation: Participation in EPA’s 33/50 Program. Journal of Economics and Management, 28, 271–286.
Bagi, A., Krabalo, M., & Narani, L. (2004). An overview of corporate social responsibility in Croatia. Zagreb: AED.
Bakan, J. (2012). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Hachette UK.
Ballebye, M. (2008). CSR as a tool to reduce CO2- Is intervention necessary? (Masters), Aalborg University.
Bank, T. W. (1997). World development report 1997—The state in a changing world. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5980.
Baxter, H. (1996). Bringing Foucault into law and law into Foucault. Stanford Law Review, 449–479.
Bhagwati, J. (2007). In defense of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.
Bianchi, R., & Noci, G. (1998). Greening’ SMEs’ competitiveness. Small Business Economics, 11, 269–281.
Bizer, K., & Julich, R. (1999). Voluntary agreements-trick or treat? European Environment, 9(2), 59–67.
Blair, T., & Schroder, G. (1999). Europe: The third way/Die Neue Mitte.
Bradgon, J. H., & Marlin, J. (1972). Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19(4), 9–18.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.
Brau, R., & Carraro, C. (1999). Voluntary approaches, market structure and competition. Retrieved from http://www.ensmp.fr/Fr/CERNA/CERNA/Progeuropeens/CAVA/index.html.
Buhmann, K. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: What role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR. Corporate Governance, 6(2), 188–202.
Burchill, S. (2001). Realism and neo-realism. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Carraro, C., & Siniscalco, D. (1996). Voluntary agreements in environmental policy: A theoretical appraisal. In A. Xepapadeas (Ed.), Economic policy for the environment and natural resources. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 497–505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(3), 268.
Carty, A., & Mair, J. (1990). Some post-modern perspectives on law and society. Journal of Law and Society, 17(4), 395–410.
Cavaliere, A. (1998). Voluntary agreements, over-compliance and environmental reputation. Milan: FEEM Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
Cavaliere, A. (2000). Over-compliance and voluntary agreements: A note about environmental reputation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 17(2), 195–202.
Chang, H.-J. (2003). Globalisation, economic development, and the role of the state. London: Zed Books.
Charnovitz, S. (1996). Two centuries of participation: NGOs and international governance. Michigan Journal of International Law, 18(1).
Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 863–878.
Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3(October), 1–44.
Conley, J. M., & Williams, C. A. (2005). Engage, embed, and embellish: Theory versus practice in the corporate social responsibility movement. Journal of Corporation Law, 31, 1.
Conzelmann, T. (2008). A new public-private divide? Co-and self-regulation in the EU. In F. Larat (Ed.), Efficient and democratic governance in the european union. Connex: European Union.
Croucher, S. L. (2004). Globalization and belonging: The politics of identity in a changing world. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008) How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1).
De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & society, 44(3), 283–317.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Dorf, M. C., & Sabel, C. F. (1998). A constitution of democratic experimentalism. Colombia Law Review, 98(2), 267–473.
Driver, S., & Martell, L. (2000). Left, right and the third way. Policy & Politics, 28(2), 147–161.
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.
Elkington, J. (2001). The triple bottom line for 21 st-century business. London: Sterling.
Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2009). Green-to-gold-plays. Retrieved from http://www.positivearticles.com/Article/Green-to-Gold–Plays/47943.
European Commission. (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility: Green paper. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-9_en.pdf
Foucault, M. (1998). The will to knowledge. Penguin Books: London.
Forum, W. E. (2002). Global corporate citizen: The leadership challenge for CEOs and boards. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCCI/GCC_CEOstatement.pdf
Fox, T. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and development. Quest of an Agenda. Development, 47(3), 29–36.
Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach (Vol. 1). Pitman.
Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law. Review, 45.
Freeman, E. R., & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. The Blackwell handbook of strategic management, pp. 189–207.
Freeman, R. E., Velamuri, S. R., & Moriarty, B. (2006). Company stakeholder responsibility: A new approach to CSR. Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, 19.
Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 33.
Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, 173–178.
Garth, B., & Sterling, J. (1998). From legal realism to law and society: reshaping law for the last stages of the social activist state. Law and Society Review, 409–472.
Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1996). Beyond the left and right. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Oxford: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2000). The third way and its critics. Oxford: Polity Press.
Gilad, S. (2010). It runs in the family: Meta regulation and its siblings. Regulation & Governance, 4(4), 485–506.
Gill, A. (2008). Corporate governance as social responsibility: A research Agenda. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26, 452–462.
Gilpin, R. (2018). The challenge of global capitalism: The world economy in the 21st century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
González, M. d. l., & Martinez, C. V. (2004). Fostering corporate social responsibility through public initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 277.
Gray, R., Owen, D., & Carol, A. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
Greenfield, K. (2000). Corporate social responsibility: There’s a forest in those trees: Teaching about corporate social responsibility. Georgia Law Review, 34, 1011.
Hanrahan, P., Ramsay, I., & Stapledon, G. (2002). Commercial applications of company law. Melbourne: CCH Australia.
Harlow, C. (2016). Law and public administration: Convergence and symbiosis. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71 (2), 279–294.
Hobson, J. M. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hombach, B. (2000). The politics of the new centre. Oxford: Polity Press.
Hopkins, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: An issue paper. Working Paper No. 27, Policy Integration Department, World Commission on Social Dimension of Globalisation.
Hunt, A. (1992). Foucault’s expulsion of law: Toward a retrieval. Law & Social Inquiry, 17(1), 1–38.
Hunt, A., & Wickham, G. (1994). Foucault and law: Towards a sociology of law as governance. Pluto Press.
Hutter, B. M. (2006). The role of non-state actors in regulation. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/36118/1/Disspaper37.pdf
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.
Jamali, D., Mezher, T., & Bitar, H. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and the challenge of triple bottom line integration: Insights from the Lebanese context. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(4), 395–414.
James, N. (2008). Distracting the message: Corporate convictions and the legitimation of neo-liberalism. Macquarie Law Journal, 8, 179.
Jänicke, M., & Weidner, H. (1997). Summary: Global environmental policy learning. National environmental policies: A comparative study of capacity-building. Berlin: Springer.
Juholin, E. (2004). For business or the good of all? A Finnish approach to corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 4(3), 20–31.
Kakabadse, N. K., Rozuel, C., & Lee-Davies, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder approach: A conceptual review. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 277–302.
Karkkainen, B. C. (2003). Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: Toward a bounded pragmatism. Minosota Law Review, 87.
Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R., & Welters, C. (1999). International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: Can transnational corporations regulate themselves? Avril, 8, 143–180.
Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., & Martinuzzi, A. (2006). Empirical findings on business–society relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(1), 89–105.
Levi-Faur, D. (2006). Regulatory capitalism: The dynamics of change beyond telecoms and electricity. Governance, 19(3).
Litowitz, D. (1995). Foucault on law: Modernity as negative Utopia. Queen’s Law Journal, 21, 1.
Lobel, O. (2004). The renew deal: The fall of regulation and the rise of governance in contemporary legal thought. Minnesota Law Review, 89.
Lobel, O. (2005). Interlocking regulatory and industrial relations: The governance of workplace safety. Administrative Law Review, 57, 1071.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, alliance and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115.
Mankiw, N. G. (2004). Principles of economics. Thomson.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 71–89.
Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
Marrewijk, M. V. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.
Marsden C. (2001). The role of public authorities in corporate social responsibility. http://www.alter.be/socialresponsibility/people/marchri/en/displayPerson [23 June 2003].
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2007). Pan-European approach. A conceptual framework for understanding CSR. Corporate ethics and corporate governance, pp. 179–199.
Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2004). Behind the mask: The real face of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 109–120.
McAdam, R., & Leonard, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in a total quality management context: Opportunities for sustainable growth. Corporate Governance, 3(4), 36–45.
Midttun, A. (2008). Partnered governance: Aligning corporate responsibility and public policy in the global economy. Corporate Governance, 8(4), 406–418.
Mitchell, L. E. (2001). Corporate irresponsibility: America’s newest export. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Monbiot, G. (2013). Captive state: The corporate takeover of Britain. Pan Macmillan.
OECD. (1997). Reforming environmental regulation in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2003). Voluntary approaches for environmental policy: Effectiveness, efficiency and usage in policy mixes. Paris: OECD.
O’Rourke, D. (2003) Outsourcing regulation: Analyzing nongovernmental systems of labor standards and monitoring. Policy Studies Journal 31(1):1–29
Parker, C. (2006). The” compliance” trap: The moral message in responsive regulatory enforcement. Law & Society Review, 40(3), 591–622.
Peattie, K. J., Solomon, J., Hunt, J., & Solomon, A. (2002). Research insights into corporate social responsibility. New Academy Review, 1(3), 39–54.
Peters, M., & Turner, R. K. (2004). SME environmental attitudes and participation in local-scale voluntary initiatives: Some practical applications. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(3), 449–473.
Pflum, M. (2007). Wal-Mart commits to going green. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TenWays/story?id=3602643&page=1.
Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.
Rahim, M. M. (2011). Meta-regulation approach of law: A potential legal strategy to develop socially responsible business selfregulation in least developed common law countries. Common Law World Review, 42(2), 174.
Rasche, A., Waddock, S., & McIntosh, M. (2013) The united nations global compact: Retrospect and prospect. Business & Society, 52(1), 6–30.
Rowe, J. K. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as business strategy. In: Globalization, governmentality and global politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Runhaar, H., & Lafferty, H. (2009). Governing corporate social responsibility: An assessment of the contribution of the UN Global Compact to CSR strategies in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 479–495.
Russell, C. S., & Powell, P. T. (1999). Practical considerations and comparison of instruments of environmental policy. In J. v. d. Bergh (Ed.), Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sairinen, R., & Teittinen, O. (1999). Voluntary agreements as an environmental policy instrument in Finland. European Environment, March-April, 67–75.
Sayer, A. R. (2000). Realism and social science. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Schembera, S. (2018). Implementing corporate social responsibility: Empirical insights on the impact of the UN Global Compact on its business participants. Business and Society, 57(5), 783–825.
Schmit, J. (2010). Going greener: Wal-Mart plans new solar power initiative. USA Today.
Schrage, E. (2004). Promoting international worker rights through private voluntary initiatives: Public relations or public policy. Report presented to the US Department of State by the University of Iowa Centre for Human Rights.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.
Shearing, C., & Wood, J. (2003). Nodal governance, democracy, and the new ‘Denizens’. Journal of Law and Society, 30(3).
Slote, M. (1997). From morality to virtue. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sternberg, E. (1997). Stakeholder theory: The defective state it’s in. London: IEA.
Stewart, R. B. (1986). Reconstitutive law. Maryland Law Review, 46.
Stiglitz, J. (1991). The economic role of the state: Efficiency and effectiveness in the public domain. In T. P. Hardiman & M. Mulreany (Eds.), Efficiency and effectiveness in the public domain. Dublin: IPA.
Stiglitz, J. (1996). Some lessons from the East Asian miracle (Vol. 11). Washington: World Bank.
Stiglitz, J. (2001). An agenda for development for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2003). Globalization and the economic role of the state in the new millennium. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1), 3.
Sturm, S. (2001). Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review, 101.
Sturm, S. (2006). The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29.
Testy, Y. K. (2004). Capitalism and freedom: For whom? Feminist legal theory and progressive corporate law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67(4), 87–108.
Teubner, G. (1986). After legal instrumentalism? Strategic models of post-regulatory law. Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State, 299.
Teubner, G. (1988). Introduction to autopoietic law. Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society, 1(3).
Thompson, G. (2005). Global corporate citizenship: What does it mean? Competition and Change, 9(2), 131–152.
UNEP. (1998). Voluntary initiatives, Industry and Environment, 21(1–2): UNEP.
Vance, S. (1975). Are socially responsible firms good investment risk? Management Review, 64, 18–24.
Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (1999). International relations theory: Realism, pluralism globalism and beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 87–108.
Watts, P., & Holme, R. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Wheeler, S. (2002). Corporations and the third way. Portland: Hart Publishing.
White, A. (2005). Fade, integrate or transform? The future of CSR. Business for social responsibility, issue paper, www. bsr. org.
White, A. L. (2006). Business brief: Intangibles and CSR. Business for social responsibility, 6.
Wickham, G., & Pavlich, G. (2001). Rethinking law, society and governance: Foucault’s bequest. Oregon: Hart Publishing.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). Revisiting legal realism: The law, economics, and organization perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 383–420.
Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225–256.
Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.
Zarsky, L. (2002). Beyond good deeds: For multinational corporations to adopt socially responsible practices, voluntary measures are not enough.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rahim, M.M. (2019). Converged Approach in Regulation for Socializing Transnational Corporations. In: Rahim, M. (eds) Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10816-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10816-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10815-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10816-8
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)