Who Cares Whose Cars? A Philosophical Analysis of Business and Human Rights

  • Ana-Maria PascalEmail author
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 51)


This chapter is about a concept that everyone takes for granted, both in socio-etic and legal contexts, but which, at closer scrutiny, is very problematic both in theory and in practice – the concept of human rights. In theory, this is problematic because of the relativists’ challenge; in practice – because of laws that are either non-existent, or unenforceable. The two sides of the argument, therefore, are – a philosophical analysis of the concept of human rights, and an investigation of their impractical nature, using a legal case – the Khulumani litigation. The third section of the paper is dedicated to finding a middle ground between the two, which can also provide a solution to the dilemma of having to choose between human rights’ universality and their practical feasibility – namely, the area of non-legal remedies and ‘sentimental’ (i.e. relativistic) rather than ‘rational’ (i.e. universal) grounds for human rights. As long as general opinion on whether we care about whose cars and computers an abusive regime uses, while engaging in human rights abuses, is that we do, it is important to try and find such grounds to bridge theory and practice. (This paper was prepared for and presented at the EBEN Research Conference on Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, in Copenhagen, October 2015, and it benefited a lot from the discussions we had there. I would like to thank the conference organisers, the members of my workshop team, and in particular Kristian Hoyer-Toft and Jane Ellis, for their valuable comments.)


Human rights Justice Universal principles Khulumani litigation Kiobel v. Shell Alien Tort Statute (ATS)/Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) UN global compact Non legal remedies Sentimental education Social connection model 


  1. Alien Tort Claims Act. Accessed 30 Oct 2015.
  2. Berlin, I. 2002. The power of ideas. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berlin, I., and R. Jahanbegloo. 2000. Conversations with Isaiah Berlin. London: Phoenix Press.Google Scholar
  4. Business & Human Rights Centre. 2013, December 27. U.S. judge dismisses apartheid claims against 2 German companies. Accessed 30 Oct 2015.
  5. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. 2015. Apartheid Reparations Lawsuits (re. So. Africa). Accessed 30 Sept 2015.
  6. Corporate Responsibility Network. Accessed 20 May 2016.
  7. Habermas, J. 2001. The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  9. Ishay, M.R. 1997. The human rights reader: Major political essays, speeches, and documents from the bible to the present. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Marullo, M.C., and F.J. Zamora Cabot. 2016. Transnational human rights litigations: Kiobel’s touch and concern: A test under construction. HURI-AGE, vol. 1. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  11. Pogge, T. 2008. World poverty and human rights, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Sen, A. 2001. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. The Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. 2011. United Nations. New York and Geneva. Accessed 25 September 2015.
  14. The Human Rights and Business Dilemmas Forum. 2015. Cumulative human rights impacts. Accessed 30 Oct 2015.
  15. The UN Global Compact. 2000. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.
  16. The UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights. 2015. Accessed 30 Oct 2015.
  17. Wells, C. 1993. Corporations and criminal liability. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  18. Wolf, S. 1985. The legal and moral responsibility of organizations. Nomos 27: 267–286.Google Scholar
  19. Working Group and Transnational Corporations and Other Business. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  20. Young, I.M. 2005. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Anales de la Catedra Francisco Suarez 39(2005): 709–726.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and ManagementRegent’s University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations